BCC Minutes 01/10/2006 R
January 10, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, January 10, 2006
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred W. Coyle/Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ii"'"
':::::
,/
''''''''-'. . <'-
:" "","<,..,,<,v~.,~,...::::;::::t:;~:
AGENDA
January 10, 2006
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle, Chairman, District 4
Frank Halas, Vice-Chairman, District 2
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF
THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THA T ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS
DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT
ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH
EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR
TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC
PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
Page 1
J an nary 10, 2006
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Associate Pastor Reverend Dean Dalrymple, United Church of Marco Island
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. October 14, 2005 - BCC/Va1ue Adjustment Board Meeting
C. November 29,2005 - BCC/Regu1ar Meeting
D. December 5, 2005 - BCC/Va1ue Adjustment Board Meeting
E. December 6,2005 - BCC/SheriffWorkshop
F. December 9, 2005 - BCC/Gap Housing Workshop
G. December 13, 2005 - BCC/Regu1ar Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
Page 2
January 10,2006
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating January 27, 2006, as International Holocaust
Remembrance Day. To be accepted by Murray Hendel and Jack Nortman,
Co- Presidents of the Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida.
B. Proclamation designating January 15 through 21, 2006, as Purple Martin
Week. To be accepted by Jerry Glasson, President of the Purple Martin
Society of Collier County.
C. Proclamation designating January 21 - June 25, 2006, as Wyeth, Wright &
Bravo Season. To be accepted by Jackie Lane, Creative Director,
Philharmonic Center for the Arts and Myra Janco Daniels, chairman and
CEO, Philharmonic Center for the Arts.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN
B. Presentation to members of various agencies recognizing the Emergency
Medical Services Paramedics, Firefighters and Law Enforcement personnel
who, through their skills and knowledge, have successfully brought back to
life individuals who had died. The "Phoenix" is a mythological bird that died
and rose renewed from its ashes.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by the Jerusalem Haitian Community Center, Inc. to
discuss operation of the CAT bus service on Sundays.
B. Public Petition request by Mr. Stephen Widzicki regarding paving
residential streets.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1 :00 f).m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This petition requires that participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-03-AR-4647:
Mitchell D. House, represented by Donald J. Murray, AICP, and Coastal
Page 3
January 10,2006
Engineering Consultants, Inc., is requesting a Conditional Use to allow for
the establishment of an eco-tourist facility in the Rural Agricultural-Area of
Critical State Concern/Special Treatment Overlay (A-ACSC/ST) zoning
district pursuant to Section 2.04.03, Table 2, of the Collier County Land
Development Code. The subject property is located approximately of a mile
west ofS.R. 29, on the north side of U.S. 4l, in Section 25, Township 52
South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the County Government Productivity
Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Collier County Planning Commission.
C. Appointment of members to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
D. Appointment of members to the Development Services Advisory
Committee.
E. Appointment of member to the Collier County Citizens Corps.
F. Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory
Committee.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Report to the Board of County Commissioners the efforts of the Contractor
Licensing Office and the Code Enforcement Department regarding the
regulation of contractors found in violation of applicable laws and
ordinances. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development &
Environmental Services Division)
B. Recommendation to award Bid No. 06-3904 - Purchase of asphalt and
related items for the estimated annual amount of $2.3 million to Better
Roads Inc., as primary and Bonness Inc., as secondary. (Norman Feder,
Page 4
January 10,2006
Administrator, Transportation Services)
C. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
request for dedication of right of way within the Livingston Village PUD to
accommodate the potential future extension of Green Boulevard. (Norman
Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
D. Recommendation to approve award of bid 06-3922 in the Amount of
$1,237,040 for Pump Stations 109 and 113 Improvements to Douglas N
Higgins Inc. Project 73945. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities
for Blue Heron, Phase 1-A.
2) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Ve1ma R. Graham as Trustee of the Velma R. Graham
Declaration of Trust dated the 21 st day of June, 1995 for 10.26 acres
under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost
not to exceed $373,500.
Page 5
January 10,2006
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Laurel Lakes, Phase 1.
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Heritage Greens, Phase IB and II.
5) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Fiddlers
Creek Phase 3, Unit Three, approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
6) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Valencia
Golf and Country Club Clubhouse.
7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Briarwood, Unit 5.
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities
for Lalique at the Vineyards.
9) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Orange
Blossom Ranch Phase 1B, approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
10) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Huntington Lakes Unit One.
11) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities
for Coventry Square.
12) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Camelot Park at the Vineyards.
13) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of sewer utility facilities
for Sanctuary Pointe at Sterling Oaks.
14) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for Tiburon Golf Club Clubhouse.
Page 6
January 10, 2006
15) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of sewer utility facilities
for Grey Oaks, Unit 15.
16) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of sewer utility facilities
for Isla Vista at Grey Oaks.
17) CARNY-05-AR-8426, Vonda Welky, Fair Manager, Collier County
Fair and Exposition, requesting a permit to conduct the annual Collier
County Fair on February 3 through February 12, 2006, at the Collier
County Fair Grounds located on SR- 846, North Golden Gate.
18) Recommendation to direct the County Manager or his designee to
prepare and submit an application for purchase by the Conservation
Collier Program of specific parcel(s) associated with the Countys
purchase of Fleischmann-Caribbean Gardens properties.
19) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Fiddlers
Creek Phase Four, Unit Three, approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
20) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Marbella
Lakes, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
21) Recommendation to approve an Interim Management Plan for the
Malt property under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program.
22) Recommendation to approve an Interim Management Plan for the
W atkins/1 ones property under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve an Easement Agreement and accept a
Drainage Easement for the purpose of installing a pipe to connect new
and existing underground culverts to alleviate the storm water
flooding which occurs in the Twin Lakes subdivision along Granada
Boulevard. (FY 2006 Proj ect 510058) (Fiscal Impact $21,000. plus
Page 7
January 10, 2006
recording fees)
2) Recommendation to approve a change order in the amount of
$296,500.00 to CH2M Hill, Inc. amending contract #05-3774 Gordon
River Water Quality Park (project No. 510185) Engineering Design
contract.
3) Recommendation to approve an Alternative Access and Relocation
Agreement associated with the six-laning of Collier Boulevard (CR
951) from Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road. (Project No.
65061, Capital Improvement Element No. 37). Fiscal Impact:
$92,000.00
4) Recommendation to award annual contract 06-3900 to Big Cypress
Mitigation Bank, Little Pine Island Wetland Mitigation, and Panther
Island Mitigation Bank/Southwest Florida Wetlands Joint Venture for
Wetlands Mitigation Credits, Bid No. 06-3900.
5) Recommendation to approve the Governmental Facilities Relocation
Agreement with the Florida Power & Light Company in the estimated
amount of $551 ,626.67 for replacement of transmission poles and
holding of guy poles in connection with the Good1ette-Frank Road
expansion project from Golden Gate Parkway to Pompei Lane, Project
No. 60005.
6) Recommendation that the Board Authorize the Transportation
Division Administrator or His Designee to Execute a License
Agreement Between Collier County and Individuals or Businesses
Licensed to Practice Surveying and Mapping in the State of Florida to
Allow Access to the County's Global Positioning System (GPS)
Network for the Purpose of Surveying and Mapping.
7) Recommendation to approve expenses for McDonald Transit that
were incurred in Fiscal Year 04/05 under contract 00-3146 that
expired on September 30, 2005 in the amount of $42,000.
8) Recommendation to approve and execute a contract amendment
between Collier County and the Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged for funding in the amount of $235,466 for the
Page 8
January 10,2006
provision of transportation for qualified Medicaid recipients.
9) Recommendation to approve the Park-n-Ride Site Identification Study
FY 2006.
10) Recommendation to approve the use of Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) FY 05/065307 grant funds for the purchase of
three transit buses under Florida Public Transportation
Association/Hartline contract #2003-07-01, trolley decal wraps, and
necessary equipment (in the estimated amount of$ 880,971) and to
recognize additional FTA FY 05/065307 grant funds.
c. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve a $4,500,000 increase to Purchase Order
Number 4500055195, issued to Solid Resources, Inc., for hurricane
debris removal monitoring work, from an initial emergency estimate
of $500,000 to the budgeted amount of $5,000,000.
2) Recommendation to authorize conveyance of an Easement to Florida
Power & Light Company (FPL) for the installation of underground
electric facilities to provide electric service to the North County
Regional Water Treatment Plant Reverse Osmosis Well field
(NCRWTP RO Wellfield), at a cost not to exceed $27.00, Project
Number 710061.
3) Recommendation to reject the two bids received for Bid No. 05-3897
and to authorize the staff to re-advertise for the Golden Gate Well field
Reliability Improvements Well No. 34; Project 70158.
4) Recommendation to approve Work Order RKS-FT-3681-06-01 for
professional engineering services from RKS Consulting Engineers,
Inc. for the Water and Wastewater Energy Efficiency Enhancements
in the amount of$121,000, Project Numbers 71007 and 73071.
5) Recommendation that the Board approve payment of $82,339 to
Douglas N. Higgins, contractor for the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection Agency (FDEP) Division of Recreation and
Parks towards In-Kind services in accordance with FDEP Consent
Page 9
January 10,2006
Order OGC-552-11-DW Project 73161.
6) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3884 Furnish and Deliver Sodium
Chlorite to International Dioxide as the primary contractor and Altivia
as the secondary contractor in the estimated amount of $68,988 per
year.
7) Recommendation to approve the South Florida Water Management
District Local Governmental Agreement Amendment No. DG040617-
A02 extending the original agreement to partially fund the Manatee
Road Four New Potable Water Aquifer Storage and Recover (ASR)
Wells System, Project 70157.
8) Recommendation to rescind the bid award 05-3894 in the Amount of
$3,171,636 to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc., for the construction of the
Potable Water Main and Landscaping Improvements along U.S. 41
Project 71059.
9) Recommendation to approve a modification to Purchase Order
4500041201 in the amount of$4,146,000.00 for professional services
being performed under Contract 04-3673 with Carollo Engineers for
design of the Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant and Water
Reclamation Facility, Project Numbers 70902 and 73156.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a Resolution Designating the Month of
February as Domestic Animal Services Senior Appreciation Month
and Providing for a Fee Reduction to Senior Citizens in the Amount
of $10 for the Adoption of Dogs and Cats During that Month.
2) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the after-the-
fact submittal of a Community Development Block Grant for
expansion of the Physician Led Access Network of Collier County
Project in the amount of $85,000.
3) Report expenditure of Direct Material Purchase program funds to
purchase Communications Services for North Collier Regional Park in
the amount of $107,796.44 from Aztek Communications.
Page 10
January 10, 2006
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment for $74,098.05 to
recognize carry-forward for new air conditioners (Project 52162).
2) Recommendation to waive formal competition and approve the
purchase of annual software maintenance for the electronic document
management systems (EDMS) for five years. ($48,000)
3) Recommendation to approve and execute the attached License
Agreement with Mayflower Congregational United Church of Christ,
Inc., for temporary employee parking during construction of new
County Fleet, Collier Area Transit, and Sheriffs Office Fleet facilities
at an annual rental not to exceed $14,400, Project 520093.
4) Recommendation to approve and execute the attached Lease
Agreement with Roger Carvallo for temporary office space to house
the Guardian Ad Litem office during construction for the new
Courthouse Annex building at a first years annual cost not to exceed
$24,744, Project 52533.
5) Recommendation to approve an expenditure of $ 26,825 for
emergency radio tower repairs following Hurricane Wilma.
6) Report and Ratify S taff- Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
7) Recommendation to approve change order number two Exhibit E in
the amount of$232,608.59 under contract number 04-3709,
construction of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Facility 19 with
Brooks and Freund, LCC. Recommendation to approve an amendment
to the Collier County Driver Education Grant Program.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommend Approval to authorize payment of funds to Coastal
Planning and Engineering for work performed prior to the issuance of
a Purchase Order and Notice to Proceed for the reevaluation of Clam
Pass Inlet Management Plan. ($34,462)
Page 11
January 10, 2006
2) Recommendation to approve ZOLL Medical Corporation as the sole
source provider of various proprietary, noninvasive resuscitation
devices and disposable electrodes and accompanying accessories.
($24,000)
3) Recommend approval by the Board of County Commissioners for
Change Order No.2 to Work Order #HM-FT-05-02, under Contract
01-3271 for $45,250 to Humiston and Moore to extend construction
phase services through December, 2005 and provide laboratory
analysis of sand samples as required by FDEP permit on the
Hideaway Beach Project No. 90502.
4) Recommend Approval to authorize payment of funds to Coastal
Planning and Engineering for work performed prior to the issuance of
a Purchase Order and Notice to Proceed for the preparation ofFEMA
funding packages for beach damages from Hurricanes Katrina and
Wilma. ($86,265)
5) Recommendation to approve a $60,000 Budget Amendment to fund
legal fees incurred in the law suit Dwight E. Brock v. Board of
County Commissioners, Linda T. Swisher and Paul W. Wilson, Case
No. 04-941-CA, Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County.
6) To establish supplemental budget appropriations in a centralized cost
center within the General Fund for Hurricane Wilma recovery efforts.
($125,000)
7) Recommend approval of Change Order #4 with Marine Contracting
Group for additional expenditure of $210,000 under contract 05-3744,
Project No. 905021.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
to attend a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner to
attend the Economic Development Council of Collier County's Pre-
Legislative Luncheon at The Strand Country Club on Wednesday,
Page 12
January 10,2006
December 14,2005. $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner's travel
budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta request approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid to attend the Gala Celebrating the 5th Anniversary of Jerusalem
Haitian Community Center, Inc. on December 10, 2005 and is
requesting reimbursement in the amount of$20.00, to be paid from
his travel budget.
3) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
Economic Development Council Pre-Legislative Luncheon on
December 14,2005 at The Strand Country Club; $20.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Halas travel budget.
4) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
Issues '06 Southwest Regional Delegation Forum on December 16,
2005 at FGCU; $40.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas travel
budget.
5) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. The event was the
Marco Island Chamber of Commerce Christmas Island Style Gala on
December 7,2005. $60.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's
travel fund.
6) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
prepayment to attend a function serving a valid public purpose.
Commissioner prepaid to attend the ULI Southwest Florida 9th
Annual Winter Institute Conference on February 3, 2006, and is
requesting reimbursement in the amount of $25.00 to be paid from his
travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous correspondence to file for record with action as
directed.
Page 13
January 10, 2006
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Authorize the Supervisor of Elections to accept voter education funds
with a 150/0 matching contribution. ($49,121.91)
2) Recommendation to create a Criminal Case Management System,
including the creation of a Case Management Coordinator position, to
expedite cases through criminal court system (FY06 costs of
$38,100).
3) Approve the Interlocal Agreement for Election Services which leases
the County owned voting machines to the City of Naples for use in the
City's February 7, 2006 election, and to authorize the execution of this
agreement by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Authorize
the County Attorney's Office to Make a Business Damage Offer to
Settle a Claim for Business Damages by Work-A-Ho1ics Landscape
Management, Inc. resulting from the Acquisition of Parcels 103A,
103B, 103C, 103D, 103E and 703 in the Case Styled Collier County
v. Cullen Z. Walker, et aI., Case No. 05-0728-CA (Logan Boulevard
Project #60166) (Fiscal Impact, if accepted, is $550,000).
2) Recommendation to approve the Offer of Judgment in the amount of
$53,130.00 as to Parcels 115 & 715 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Rafael Liy, et aI., Case No. 05-752-CA (Collier Blvd.
Project No. 65061). (Fiscal Impact $13,970.55, if offer accepted)
3) Recommendation to approve the Offer of Judgment in the amount of
$37,605.00 as to Parcels 122 & 722 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Gulfstream Homes, Inc., et aI., Case No. 05-758-CA
(Collier Blvd. Project No. 65061). (Fiscal Impact $7,827.15, if offer
accepted)
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
Page 14
January 10,2006
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. CU-2005-AR-7749:
Living Word Family Church, represented by Laura Spurgeon, AICP, of
Johnson Engineering is requesting a Conditional Use pursuant to Section
2.04.03 (Table 2) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) for
the property to be used for a Church Facility in the Rural Agricultural (A)
zoning district. The subject property, consisting of 18.1 acres, is located on
the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately 2 1/2 miles east ofCR
951 in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-
5431: C & R Realty of Richmond, Inc, represented by Robert L. Duane of
Hole Montes, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel & Andress is
requesting a rezone from Estates E and Planned Unit Development PUD
zoning districts to the Commercial Planned Unit Development "CPUD"
zoning district to be known as Cambridge Square CPUD, an office and retail
development consisting of a maximum of 80,000 square feet of commercial
development and 35,000 square feet of office uses located on approximately
16.1 acres, on the northeast corner of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road
(CR 896) and Livingston Road, in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26
East Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 15
January 10,2006
January 10,2006
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is now in session, and we're going to
have the invocation delivered by Associate Pastor Reverend Dean
Dairymple from the United Church of Marco Island.
Would you all please stand.
REVEREND DAlRYMPLE: Let us pray. Oh, God. Help our
County Board of Commissioners to feel your presence and your will
with the issues before us on the agenda this day. Help us to respond to
your goodness with your love and concern for our county.
This elected body has need of your guidance and your
affirmation. Might we realize your greater good in all that is done
here this morning. Help us to realize that peace of yours that passes
all understanding, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please join us in the pledge of
allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Okay. County Manager, do you have any changes to the agenda
for us?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners meeting,
January 10, 2006.
Item 16B6, index title should read, recommendations that the
board authorize the county manager as designee, rather than the
transportation division administrator. All backup material is correct.
Page 2
January 10, 2006
That change was at staffs request.
The next item is item 16E1. The word revenue was omitted from
the index title and should read, recommendation to approve a budget
amendment of $74,098.05 to recognize carry-forward revenue, and
that's at staffs request.
Item 16E4, the project number for this item should be 525331
rather than what's on the piece of paper, which is 52533, and forgot
the one at the end. There's six digits to that number. All backup
material is correct. That change was at staff s request.
Item 16E6, fiscal impact on the executive summary should read,
there is a fiscal impact resulting from this action. That's at staffs
request.
And for the next time that shows on the board meeting, we'll
summarize all those changes in a dollar amount, and that will be in the
-- on the executive summary in the title.
Next item is 16K1. It should be noted for the record that the
proposed offer to business damages will be inclusive of costs to cure
the existing improvements as well as damages to improvements, and
that change is at staffs request.
That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: I believe the county attorney has some things.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: I have a speaker for consent agenda item 16C 1.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In regard to item 16B5, under transportation, which is a
recommendation to approve the governmental facilities relocation
agreement with the Florida Power and Light Company in the
estimated amount of$551,000 and change for replacement of
Page 3
January 10, 2006
transmission poles and holding of any guy poles in connection with
the Goodlette-Frank Road expansion project, I would note that if the
board approves this on the consent agenda, that they include in their
approval that such approval is subj ect to approval by the county
attorney of the indemnification language in the ultimate agreement.
We have an issue with the indemnification language that's being
proposed by FP &L right now, and we want to protect the board and
the taxpayers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're suggesting that ifit is
approved, it be approved subject to the changes in the ultimate
agreement.
MR. WEIGEL: Exactly right, relating to the indemnification
clause.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well, thank you.
N ow we have a speaker for an item on the consent agenda, I'm
sorry, the summary agenda.
Ms. Filson?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe that was 16C1, she indicated, of the
consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, 16Cl.
MR. WEIGEL: On the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: On the consent agenda.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who is that speaker?
MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. My name
is Bob Krasowski. I'm with the Zero Waste, Collier County Group. I
would like to respectfully request that consent agenda item 16C 1 be
pulled and put on the regular agenda.
This item deals with the transfer of funds to the tune of $4 and a
Page 4
January 10, 2006
half million for the payment of monitoring of the horticulture waste
collection after Hurricane Wilma, and I have some questions and
comments about that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. As we normally do when
most public comments come forward asking for an item to be pulled, I
will be asking for that item to be pulled at that time; 16C 1, is it? I'm
sorry?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, 16Cl.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas, do you
have any changes to the agenda or any ex parte disclosures for the
summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Chairman.
I do not have any changes to the agenda nor do I have any ex
parte on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like -- I have no
disclosures to make on the summary agenda. I would like to pull
16C1, as I mentioned a few moments ago.
And in addition to that, I'd also like to see that -- if any of my
fellow commissioners have any concern about 1 7B about the
interconnectivity that's going to be lacking if we approve it as is from
the summary agenda. I have concerns, but I don't want to bring them
forward and belabor the situation if none of my fellow commissioners
also share that concern.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think the best way to deal with it is to
pull it if you're concerned with it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'll pull it. 17B and
16C1.
Page 5
January 10, 2006
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: 17B would become 8A, and 16C1 will become
10E.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's it. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have no further changes to
the agenda, and I do not have any ex parte disclosures.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Although it's probably not an
ex parte on 1 7 A, my son goes to that church and I knew that they were
moving. And although I haven't really talked to anybody about it, I
thought I'd just put that on the record anyway, that he goes to that
church and I knew they were moving.
And the second -- other than that I have nothing else to -- but I do
want to ask our county chairman (sic), when is a good time to read this
proclamation from Marco Island?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, you can -- I would say that during
communication when you talk to the board about what you've
received and let them know that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The 17B, as far as
Commissioner Coletta's concerns, it complies to the growth
management plan, and particularly language of the Golden Gate
Estates Master Plan.
I'm going to give disclosures in case he wants to keep it on the
summary agenda. I have talked to planning commission members,
residents of the area, I also received correspondence from staff.
The things they would like to pull from the summary -- or
consent agenda is 16E7.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 16B, bravo, 7?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 16 Edward 7.
Page 6
January 10, 2006
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Edward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And 16 Edward 6.
MR. MUDD: Okay. 16E -- let's do it in order. 16E6 would be
10F, and 16E7 would be lOG.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Now, is there a motion for approval of today's agenda --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the regular, consent and summary
agenda as modified?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Halas, second
by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. Aye. So it
passes 4-1, with me dissenting.
I see puzzled looks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let me tell you. I think when
something is pulled from the agenda it should be pulled for a good
reason, and the reason should be stated very clearly. I do not think
such was done with 16C 1. And for that reason, I voted against it.
So we can proceed.
Page 7
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Januarv 10. 2006
Item 16B6: Index title should read: "Recommendation that the Board authorize the County
Manager or his designee. . ." (rather than Transportation Division Administrator). All backup
material is correct. (Staff's request.)
Item 16E1: The word "revenue" was omitted from the index title and should read:
"Recommendation to approve a budget amendment for $74,098.05 to recognize carry-forward
revenue. . .." (Staff's request.)
Item 16E4: The project number for this item should be 525331 (rather than 52533). All backup
material is correct. (Staff's request.)
Item 16E6: Fiscal Impact on the Executive Summary should read: "There is a fiscal impact
resulting from this action." (Staff's request.)
Item 16K1: It should be noted for the record that the proposed offer for business damages will be
inclusive of costs to cure the existing improvements, as well as damages to improvements.
(Staff's request.)
January 10,2006
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F, & #2G
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2005 BCC/V ALUE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD; NOVEMBER 29, 2005 BCC REGULAR MEETING;
DECEMBER 5, 2005 BCC/V ALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD;
DECEMBER 6, 2005 BCC/SHERIFF WORKSHOP; DECEMBER 9,
2005 BCC/GAP HOUSING WORKSHOP; AND DECEMBER 13,
2005 BCC REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
that we approve October 4th, '05, BCC/Value Adjustment Board;
November 29th, '05, Regular meeting; November (sic) 5th, '05,
BCC/Value Adjustment Board; December 6, '05, BCC/Sheriffs
Workshop; November (sic) 9th, '05, BCC/GAP Workshop; and
December 13th, Regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala -- I'm sorry -- Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the approval of those minutes, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then it passes unanimously.
That brings us to service awards. County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Sir, we don't have any service awards.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 8
January 10, 2006
MR. MUDD: That brings us --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why is it on the agenda?
MR. MUDD: Sir, because that's a category that you have. You'll
notice that it's got a blank space underneath.
That brings us to four, proclamations.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE JANUARY 27,2006 AS
INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY-
ADOPTED
Four A is a proclamation designating January 25, 2006, as
International Holocaust Remembrance Day to be accepted by Murray
Hendel and Jack N ortman, co-presidents of the Holocaust Museum of
Southwest Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Murray and Jack, would you please
come forward? And anyone else. Of course. Stand here, face the
audience, and I'll read the proclamation.
Whereas, in a resolution co-sponsored by 104 member states, the
United Nations General Assembly has designated January 27th as
International Holocaust Remembrance Day in an effort to keep the
memory of the Holocaust alive and to reaffirm unfaltering resolve to
prevent the recurrence of such crimes and future of acts of genocide;
and,
Whereas January the 27th, 1945, is currently recognized as the
official day of remembrance for Holocaust victims in many countries
and marks the day when an advancing Soviet army liberated the
largest Nazi death camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland; and,
Whereas, Collier County encourages all its citizens to recognize
the grievous crimes committed during the Holocaust and to remember
the suffering of the 11 million humans who perished; and,
Page 9
January 10, 2006
Whereas, the Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida promotes
tolerance and understanding by teaching the history and lessons of the
Holocaust through its educational programs.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January 27, 2006, be
designated as International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Done and ordered this 10th day of January, 2006, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred Coyle,
Chairman.
Commissioners, I make a motion that we accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you very
much for your good work. Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hi, Murray. Nice to see you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Stay here for a picture, please.
And would any of you like to make a brief comment? No, at the
podium. We'll get you on the mike so we can hear you.
MR. HENDEL: I would like to thank the Board of County
Commissioners for this wonderful honor. I would also like to note that
Fred Coyle serves on the Holocaust Advisory Committee. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Page 10
January 10, 2006
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE JANUARY 15 THROUGH 21,
2006 AS PURPLE MARTIN WEEK - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is under 4,
proclamations, it's 4B. It's a proclamation designating January 15th
through the 21st, 2006, as Purple Martin Week. To be accepted by
Jerry Glasson, president of Purple Martin Society of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it will be presented by
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whereas, in a very short time,
thousands of our very beautiful feathered friends, the Purple Martins
will return from their winter home in Brazil; and,
Whereas, these birds will be searching for suitable housing to
enable them to nest and rear their young; and,
Whereas, the Florida legislature has designated Collier County
the Purple Martin Capital of Florida. Wow.
Whereas, the Purple Martin Society of Collier County is desirous
of urging the public to erect proper housing for these very valuable
winged creatures by placing said houses on their property; and,
Whereas, during the period of January 15th through the 21st, the
Purple Martin Society of Collier County will endeavor to alert the
public to how valuable these birds are in helping to diminish the insect
and mosquito population.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January 15th through
the 21 st be designated Purple Martin Week.
Done and ordered this 10th day of January, Board of County
Commissioners, Fred Coyle, Chairman.
I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I second.
Page 11
January 10, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm amazed. I didn't realize we were
Purple Martin County of Florida. I think that is so cool. Do you --
where can we get these Purple Martin houses?
MR. GLASSON: Oh, you can order them from -- one source is
dried up. But you can order them over the Internet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. GLASSON: And we have a place out at the Extension
Center.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I've asked Mr. Glasson, is
that --
MR. GLASSON: Glasson.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Glasson -- where we can get Purple
Martin houses for those who would like to put them in their yards, and
he said out at the Extension Services and -- or you can order them
over the Internet.
Well, thank you very much for being here today, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Let's get a
picture.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, wait a minute. We need to present
that. Let's present it to him.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's cool.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Pass the word.
Page 12
January 10, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I will.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your dedication.
I think this is your fifth year I can remember.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations. Keep up the great
work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you like to say a few words?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That mike I don't think is turned on.
Let's try this one over here.
MR. GLASSON: First of all, I'd like to thank the commission for
designating the 15th of January as Purple Martin Week.
I'm happy to report that most of our, as we call ourselves,
landlords survived the little thing that passed through here, and we
have spotted some birds that have returned. They haven't started
nesting yet, but they will. So -- but we came out in pretty good shape
because we took most of the houses down, so I thank you again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE JANUARY 21 - JUNE 25,
2006 AS WYETH~ WRIGHT & BRAVO SEASON - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is 4C. It's a
proclamation designating January 21 st through June 25, 2006, as
Wyeth, Wright & Bravo Season. To be accepted by Jackie Lane,
creative director of the Philharmonic Center for the Arts, and Myra
Janco Daniels, Chairman and CEO of the Philharmonic Center for the
Arts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this proclamation will be presented
by the commissioner from -- whose district -- or in whose direct the
Philharmonic is located, and that would be Commissioner Halas.
Page 13
January 10, 2006
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Come forward, Ms. Daniels. And
it gives me great pleasure to read this proclamation in regards to the
upcoming art exhibit.
Whereas, the Philharmonic Center for the Arts cultural complex
is the leading arts center in Southwest Florida, encompassing both
world-class visual and performing arts, along with arts education; and,
Whereas, the Naples Museum of Art and the Philharmonic
Center for the Arts are dedicated to enlightening, educating, and
entertaining citizens of all ages in Collier County and the surrounding
area; and,
Whereas, the Naples Museum of Art's exhibition Andrew Wyeth
& Family is expected to be the last time Andrew Wyeth's famous
Helga paintings, which were recently sold to a private collector, will
be seen in the exhibition; and,
Whereas, the exhibition of Andrew Wyeth & Family will be the
first exhibition ever in which the Helga paintings are displayed along
with the works of Andrew Wyeth's son Jamie and his father, N.C.,
and'
,
Whereas, the Naples Museum of Art will also be presenting the
Blockbuster exhibitions of Frank Lloyd Wright and the House
Beautiful and Claudio Bravo featuring works never before seen in
Southwest Florida; and,
Whereas, Claudio Bravo will travel to Southwest Florida from
his home in Morocco to participate in the opening of the exhibition,
Claudio Bravo; and,
Whereas, visitors and media will come to Naples Museum of Art
from around the state and other parts of the country to experience
these rare and exciting exhibitions.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January 21 st through
June 26, 2006, be designated as Wyeth, Wright and Bravo Season.
Done and ordered this 10th day of January, 2006. Board of
Page 14
January 10, 2006
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred W. Coyle,
Chair. I move that we approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Halas, second
by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exciting things this year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you so much for all your
hard work. Appreciate it.
MS. LANE: Thank you. I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, did you -- would you like to say
something to us, Myra?
MS. DANIELS: Well, we just appreciate very much this vote of
applause for what we have done. And now we have to keep it up.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're doing a great job, too. Thank
you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
COMMISSIONER HALAS SELECTED AS CHAIRMAN AND
Page 15
January 10, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA AS VICE CHAIRMAN -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And now ladies and gentlemen, this
brings us to the most important part of this entire meeting today.
Today is my last day -- oh, I'm sorry, Myra. That was the most
important part of this whole meeting. You know, I knew if I didn't say
that I'd never get out of here alive.
MS. DANIELS: You may not get into the Phil.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry.
But today is my last day as chair, and we're going to elect a new
chairperson today. And I would like to thank all those people who
have helped me over the past 12 months to chair the county
commission, and that includes the county manager and his staff,
without whom it would not have been possible, obviously, the county
attorney, Ms. Filson and the wonderful aides that we have to help all
of us, and to the members of the county commission, without whom
nothing would get done. We always need three votes. Nobody does
anything here single-handedly.
So whatever we have done that is good is the result of majority
vote of this entire commission, and whatever we have done wrong is
the fault of Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was glad to be of service to
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I don't know who pressed their button
first, but -- Commissioner Henning did. I will now take nominations
for the new chair and vice-chair. We may as well get it out of the way
at the same time. Would that be suitable to you, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. I'll throw one out
there. I make a motion that we appoint Commissioner Halas as chair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 16
January 10, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And appoint Commissioner
Coletta as vice-chair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's where I was going, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm glad -- we usually agree
anyways.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are there any other nominations? The
nominations are then closed.
I will now entertain votes on the -- Commissioner Halas to
become the chair and Commissioner Coletta to become the vice-chair.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. And
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know before you leave, I'd just
like to say -- I mean, it looks like you're escaping to the door, but I
really --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, he can't escape to a door. I
have a little presentation I'd like to give him.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd just like to say what ajoy it's
been working with you this year. You've done an outstanding job as
our chairman, you've kept the meetings in order. And I just --
personally I want to say that I'm really proud of all the work you've
Page 1 7
January 10, 2006
done. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, and I'm proud of
this commission, so thank you.
And I'm going to switch places with Commissioner Halas now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Switch chairs?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we're going to switch chairs.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've been told to tag
Commissioner Halas' spot here so he knows where to sit. When you
come back from the break that will help you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's not on the computer now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll remind you this is where you
sit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At this time, before we take a
five-minute break, I just would like to say that on behalf of the Board
of County Commissioners, I feel that Fred Coy Ie did an outstanding
job.
We had a lot of issues that came before us this year, some of
them were very, very tough decisions, some of them, of course, are
easy. And of course, we don't -- we're here as a body of four
legislatures that are voted by the citizens here in Collier County, and
at no time can we make everybody happy.
What we try to do is come to a general consensus in which, that
hopefully we're doing the right things and the right choices to make
sure that we plan for the future of Collier County and the citizens that
are going to be moving here, the citizens that presently live here.
And on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, Fred,
thank you so much for your dedicated service, working not only
locally, but with state representatives in addressing issues that dearly
concern all of us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At that, we'll take a five-minute recess,
Page 18
January 10,2006
and then we'll reconvene. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Commissioner, that-
Item #5B
A PRESENTATION TO MEMBERS OF VARIOUS AGENCIES
RECOGNIZING THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
PARAMEDICS, FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
PERSONNEL WHO, THROUGH THEIR SKILLS AND
KNOWLEDGE, HAVE SUCCESSFULLY BROUGHT BACK TO
LIFE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD DIED - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, County Manager. I believe
we're starting off with 5B. That's the presentation of various agencies,
recognizing the Emergency Medical Services, paramedics,
firefighters, law enforcement personnel, who through their skillful
knowledge -- skills and knowledge have successfully brought back to
life individuals who have died. The Phoenix is a mythological, yeah,
bird that died and rose and renewed from the ashes. And I think
presenting is Dan Summers.
MR. SUMMERS: Chairman and Commissioners, good morning.
It's nice to be in front of this podium for a change with some
really good news. It seems like I've kind of been up here lately and it's
been driven by Mother Nature, so I'm glad to be in front of you. And
this is an exciting day for me and the Bureau of Emergency Services.
Sir, as you mentioned, the Phoenix is a mythological bird, sacred
bird, that died and rose and renewed from its ashes and has hence
become sort of a trademark, if you will, for our successful
out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitations.
And Collier County continues to be a national leader in its
Page 19
January 10, 2006
cardiac arrest survival rates here for a number of reasons. One, your
early institution of the automatic external defibrillator and one of the
pioneer ordinances in the country related to that particular program,
our opportunity and our partnering with our first responders from law
enforcement, our fire departments, our advanced life support engine
response program, and most importantly bystander assisted CPR and
the implementation of automatic external defibrillators around the
county. So we, again, have a large number of awards to make for this
successful cardiac arrest endeavor.
There's a neat little sidebar associated with today's story,
however, and that is that I'd like to ask Mr. Steve Lund and Rich
DeGelan -- if Rich is here. I'd like for you two gentlemen to come
forward and let me tell you just a little story about these civilians in
terms of their responsibility for life-saving efforts.
On May 13th, a visitor at the Golden Gate Aquatics and Fitness
complex went into cardiac arrest while exercising on a leg press
machine.
Fitness attendant, Steve Lund, recognized the victim was in
distress, and with the help of others, lowered him to the floor, checked
for breathing and a pulse while 911 was called.
Meanwhile, Rich DeGelan, program supervisor in the Parks and
Recs. department, arrived on the scene, began alternating CPR with
Steve Lund, while an off-duty Marco Island police officer retrieved an
automatic external defibrillator on site.
The AED was used along with CPR until emergency medical
services personnel could arrive, and hence, a successful cardiac arrest
resuscitation. And Steve tells me he still sees his client at the gym
from time to time.
So from the civilian side of the house and partnering with us
under the Phoenix opportunities, I would like to present these
certificates or these plaques of appreciation for their lifesaving efforts
to both of these gentlemen.
Page 20
January 10,2006
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd love to shake your hand.
MR. LUND: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Congratulations. Thank you for
what you do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good job. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great job.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you, guys, very, very much.
Nice to know these guys are around at the gym if we need some
help. And I understand that Steve's wife is a registered nurse and
teaches CPR and basic life support, so he has to be on his game, or I
understand his instructor may not recertify him, so better behave there
just a little bit.
From Collier County EMS, I'm going to ask the following
paramedics and staff to come forward, if you will. Valerie Thornsen;
Lieutenant -- I'm sorry, Paramedic Diane Smith; Lieutenant Eric
Havens; Eric Clere; Captain Les Williams; Lieutenant Leonard Pohl;
Paramedic Antonio Navarro, and Antonio has his parents here as well;
Battalion Chief Martha Ginter; Battalion Chief Steve Rockey; and
Lieutenant Valeri Ouillette.
Now, from our partner departments, we'll ask from--
representing East Naples Fire Department, Engineer Grant Danskine.
I hope I'm pronouncing these names correctly. Firefighter Kevin Bee.
And I believe Deputy Chief Doug Dyer is here. Doug, if you
want to come forward and represent a couple of other folks that are on
shift today.
I believe that's William Packard, also from East Naples;
Lieutenant Chris Ogden and Michael Reeves.
Representing the North Naples Fire Department, James
Pinkerton. Representing Golden Gate, I have Firefighter Kevin
Schoch and Lieutenant Matthew Zaleznik.
Page 21
January 10, 2006
And, again, to illustrate the partnership from the law
enforcement, from the Collier County Sheriffs Office, John Borchers
and Scott Peterson.
These are the folks, again, in the last few months, who have been
responsible both for an incredible number of out-of-hospital cardiac
arrest saves and resuscitations. Again, Collier County setting a
national trend, but I think most importantly, Commissioners, realize
that this comes with hard work, it comes from the excellent direction
of Dr. Bob Tober. Dr. Tober, if you'd like to join us and come up
front. Dr. Tober's medical leadership keeping the Collier County
emergency medical hospital system and its partners current on the
latest technology and the skills training, we couldn't have that without
Dr. Tober's oversight. And Commissioners, I present you with these
candidates for the Phoenix award for this year.
(Applause.)
MR. SUMMERS: Sandra is going to arrange a few pictures if
you could. White shirts in the back.
MS. ARNOLD: If you're not in that color, on the end.
MR. SUMMERS: And, Commissioners, we're going to take
these folks downstairs and actually provide their ribbon, their service
ribbon to them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: On behalf of the Board of County
Commissioners, I just would want to say, we want to thank very much
the dedication of the people before us today in regards to helping save
lives here in Collier County. Thank you so much from the bottoms of
our hearts.
MR. SUMMERS: We're all done, Commissioners. Thank you.
And to our paramedics and system providers, congratulations.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you so much for your service.
Page 22
January 10, 2006
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY THE JERUSALEM HAITIAN
COMMUNITY CENTER, INC. TO DISCUSS OPERATION OF
THE CAT BUS SERVICE ON SUNDAYS - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, the next item on our agenda is item
6A, and we're under public petitions. It's a public petition request by
the Jerusalem Haitian Community Center, Inc., to discuss operations
of the CAT bus service on Sunday.
MR. SINJUSTE: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
MR. MUDD: State your name for the record, sir.
MR. SINJUSTE: My name is Jacques Sinjuste. I am the
president of the Jerusalem Haitian Community Center, and I would
like to thank the Board of Commissioners to allow me to present the
concern of the community.
I am not by myself. I have with me Mr. Jean Clinton, member of
my office, and Mr. Adrien Alpendre, which is the counsel of the
Jerusalem Haitian Community Center. And I would allow him to
present our concern. Thank you.
MR. ALPENDRE: Good morning, Commissioners. Good
mornIng, everyone.
First of all, it is my duty to -- thank you again, Commissioner
Coletta, for the eloquent, moving and inspiring keynote address that
you delivered at our fifth anniversary. Your phrase, "I am proud to be
the friend" should belong in the Oxford quotation books, and I mean
it.
It is the concern of Jerusalem Haitian Community Center and it is
the concern of literally hundreds of residents in Collier County to find
transportation on Sunday to perform their many duties and chores.
Page 23
January 10,2006
Because of different reasons, religious or whatever, some of them
have to abstain from working on Saturday and they work on Sunday.
That is the case of many Haitian Americans living in Golden Gate
who are members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church.
I have tried to understand this in a more personal and immediate
way by relinquishing my Boudreau and using public transportation
myself to go every morning to the headquarters of Jerusalem Haitian
Community Center, and I have been able to talk with lots of people
that are facing that need.
Having relatives in Oceola County, I have also been aware of
how they were able to introduce Sunday service on a trial basis. Later
on it became permanent, and on those routes that would be more
productive and beneficial to the community, and at the same time
taking into consideration the financial aspects they have, which we
cannot ignore.
Our petition to the Collier County Board of Commissioners
would be to introduce on a trial basis, after the necessary preliminary
studies, some bus services, CAT bus services, on Sunday, particularly
to serve those people that live in areas like Naples Manor, Golden
Gate, and we have to remember always Immokalee, people that have
expressed their willingness to use public service and their need to have
better transportation.
We have also interviewed some businessmen and businesswomen
in the area, people who employ these potential users of the service,
and they have expressed their desire that this service would be
extended if it were possible to do so.
That's, in a nutshell, what our petition is to the honorable Board
of Commissioners, and we would like it to be considered.
Thank you very much. Mr. Sinjuste.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MR. SINJUSTE: I thank Mr. Adrien for the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Excuse me. I believe that we only allow
Page 24
January 10, 2006
one speaker in regards to the public comment, so I believe that the
gentleman that was just up prior has basically expressed your desires
and comments.
MR. SINJUSTE: Yes; yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So that's where we are at this
point in time, okay? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I was
wondering if I might be able to get a report from our CAT system to
find out where we are. By the way, I just want to mention how proud
I am of what we've been able to do with the busses. It's really
remarkable in the past five years where we have come from and where
we're going to.
And what the greatest thing is is that there's a need out there that
far exceeds what we're able to provide and there probably always will
be.
As you remember when this first started out five years ago, many
of our residents throughout the community said this was going to be a
total failure and that nobody would ride the bus and that eventually it
would just go away and we were fools to be supporting it. Well, here
we are today and we're moving forward.
Could you give me an idea of where we are as far as services on
Sunday?
MS. FLAGG: Currently, their -- CAT provides services Monday
through Saturday. There is no Sunday service. The hours run from
seven in the morning until seven in the evening, give or take, because
the routes are different.
What we're doing and what we have been doing is focusing on
the frequency, because that's the greatest request of the community
members, rather than having to wait an hour for the next bus to come
by, they want busses more frequent.
And then the next request is the expanded hours and days. So at
Page 25
January 10, 2006
this point in this year's budget, we have no funds budgeted for
providing service on Sunday.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mrs. Flagg, if I may, what
would the cost be to provide a service on Sunday? Just so we can start
to have some idea and start to assimilate this as time goes along with
the right directions.
MS. FLAGG: And I apologize, it's Diane Flagg, director of
alternative transportation modes.
The cost to provide service on Sunday through the system is
$515,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a lot of money.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that one more time, please.
MS. FLAGG: Five hundred fifteen thousand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may ask another
question, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The long-range transportation
study that's taking place right now, is there an opportunity for people
there to be able to voice their opinion as far as the CAT service goes?
MS. FLAGG: Yes. Each of the public workshops for the
long-range transportation plan has had a transit component, and people
are voicing their desire to expand the service, not only the hours and
the days, but also the routes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you make the petitioner
available to that particular study that's under way and -- so that they
can enter their comments.
MS. FLAGG: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we'll be able to take this to
the next level? It's not something that's going to happen overnight,
obviously, but this is the first step.
MS. FLAGG: And Commissioner, just your initial comments,
last fiscal year, which ended September 30 of last year, CAT had
Page 26
January 10,2006
951,000 boardings, so we're approaching a million boardings in a year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, that's absolutely wonderful.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question. At present time I
believe we only have 17 busses and four in reserve. Your projection
for long-range -- I don't want to carry this on. But your projection for
long-range as far as what you've project is the growth of the CAT
system in the next, let's say, next year?
MS. FLAGG: Next year we would be looking at expanding the
hours because we have many folks that work in the evening that are
requesting service. And then we would also be looking potentially at
Sunday service.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I think at this point in time, we'll
probable cover this. It will probably be coming up in the near future,
maybe in the next budget hearing. So I believe that we'll take care of
those concerns.
If there's no further issues from -- or concerns from our fellow
commissioners, we'll just let this pass, and I think we're going to be
addressing this in the future.
MS. FLAGG: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, thank you.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. STEPHEN WIDZICKl
REGARDING PAVING RESIDENTIAL STREETS - WILL
DISCUSS DURING BUDGET HEARINGS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next public petition is 6B. It's
a public petition request by Mr. Stephen Widzicki regarding paving
residential streets.
MR. WIDZICKI: Good afternoon, members of the board. Have
to forgive ifmy eloquence is missing. This is my first public speaking
Page 27
January 10, 2006
attempt here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mine, too.
MR. MUDD: State your name for the record.
MR. WIDZICKI: My name is Stephen Widzicki. I'm a resident
of Golden Gate Estates. My family has owned property basically
there since about 40 years ago. My wife and I purchased our property
in 1988. And it was kind of a long, hard road getting to live in our
house, the way we acquired it.
I guess you are aware of the letter I wrote to the County
Manager's Office to petition to come to speak with you today. If you
have any questions about what I had written there, I'd be happy to
answer.
I wrote myself some notes so I could just state my point for being
here today.
I'd like to start off by saying thank you, James Mudd, of the
Collier County Manager's Office, David Weigel, county attorney,
Norm Feder, administrator of transportation services, for permitting
me to speak today to you. I'd like to thank Commissioner Jim Coletta
for his efforts in achieving this goal.
I'm sorry. I need these nowadays. I also would like to thank you
fellow commissioners for your full support in completing this task at
hand.
My wife and I are vehicle owners, as are most of you.
Approximately 30 percent of our annual income goes toward
vehicle-related expenses. We are homeowners who do pay property
taxes as well. A large number of us have some form of respiratory
problems.
As health conscious people, my wife and I have found it virtually
important to our survival that we take daily walks for a good
old- fashioned cardio workout and help clear the mind.
Bottom line is this: The property owners of lime rock streets of
Golden Gate, as well as numerous other Collier County maintained
Page 28
January 10, 2006
roads, have an unfair disadvantage over the residential areas with
paved streets.
Number one, we are wearing out and depreciating expensive
vehicles prematurely. We have to deal with dust clouds generated by
every passing vehicle both outside and inside of our homes, often
adding to respiratory distress.
Number three, if any of you were to take a brisk walk down one
of our streets, you would have to really concentrate on where you
were stepping. We who live on lime rock roads pay a much higher
price than those who don't with our cars, our homes, and our very
lives.
So I submit to you members of the board, this is completely
doable. We already pay tax -- I'm sorry. That word wasn't written in
there. That was faux pas.
We already pay in excess to do without paved streets, when just
paving our roads and paying our share through tax deductible funding
seems like a win-win situation for all of us. As property owner, our
land values increase, not to mention our quality of life.
The county wins by getting a monkey off its back, bringing
resolution to an age-old problem. To top it off, generation of higher
revenues.
As I see it, this is already a done deal but it's going to take all of
us to pull together as a team and get it done with a get-it-done attitude.
Ifwe don't, this problem will remain in the weeds of bureaucracy.
I've learned a list of new terms that's still new to me. There is
where you come in. Special taxing district, assessment district,
municipal service taxing district or MSTD. To me that sounds like a
disease. I don't understand these terms that well. Municipal service
unit, taxing unit, or MSTU. That's part A of my new terms I have
learned.
Part B is terms like budget transfer, budget amendments,
administrative costs, and costs and costs.
Page 29
January 10, 2006
Our sincere hope, members of the board -- and I'm speaking for
all the people who live on lime rock roads in Collier County, not just
myself -- is that you will utilize your experience and resources and all
those terms in list A and save the day for thousands of Collier County
residents and help to ensure that all this gets done without resorting to
the B list.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Commissioner Coletta
was first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, thank you. Steve, if I may.
I appreciate first that you would be willing to take this on as one of the
leaders for this particular effort for all the people that live on lime
rock, county-owned maintained lime rock roads that are scheduled to
be paved sometime in the future.
I've been trying for some time to galvanize this effort. There's
been a lot of people that have been calling my office complaining
about the conditions of the roads. They're very concerned about the
emergency vehicles trying to get across them. The county
transportation department spends a small fortune trying to keep these
roads maintained. Alas, lime rock roads are not something that hold
up well. Just as soon as you re-grade them, it's just a matter of days
before they fall back in disrepairs.
I want you to know that my sympathy is with you. And we are
going to bring an effort together to try to see what we can do, not just
as a small group of people, but as a community.
At this time I'd like to ask Mr. Feder to come up, if I may, and
give us a brief history on lime -- the county-owned maintained lime
rock roads and what we're up against.
MR. FEDER: Okay. For the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator.
Page 30
January 10, 2006
What I'd like to do is just give you a very, very quick
background, more for, I think, our listening audience than necessarily
for this board. But essentially when Golden Gate Estates, before we
took off the southern blocks, the largest platted subdivision in the
world, was established GAC and Avatar.
Once they had completed a certain portion of pretty much sold
out the lots, they hadn't completed some of the work. There was
agreements with the county for some pennies on the dollar as they
pulled out of the scene on that proj ect.
In the area of transportation, there were a number of roads that
were slated to be paved that had never been paved, were accepted by
the county because people had bought the lots and in that agreement
and, therefore, became county roads without meeting any of the
county standards even back then, obviously an unpaved road.
And over time, when we had those dollars from the agreement,
there were very few, as I said, pennies on the dollar to meet the needs.
The decision at that time was to take those funds and use them on the
most needed roads out in the Estates, and essentially that was decided
at that time by a provision of 10 homes per mile or equivalent. What I
mean by equivalent, if you had a half-mile-long segment, if you had
five homes, that was the equivalent of 10 homes on a mile-long
segment. So basically 10 homes or equivalent per mile.
That was used as the litmus test, if you will, or the prioritization
of the available funds. Those available funds, based on that effort,
were used up fairly quickly.
The idea of 10 homes per mile lived on. And many people, as
they went out there, heard the battle cry that there's nine homes within
the mile now, as soon as the 10th home comes, the road will somehow
be paved all by itself. And obviously the funding was not there to do
it.
Within our budget, what we have done is taken 400,000 a year
out of our resurfacing program. And understand our first commitment
Page 31
January 10, 2006
has to be to maintaining the investment in what we have. The paved
roads have to be maintained. If you don't, then you lose the base and
you lose that investment you made in making them a paved road. But
we also recognized that we had a significant need to resolve and get
paved these unpaved roads.
With that in mind, about 400,000 a year, as you'll see, was
getting us, even in those costs, barely about two miles a year. We've
done about 94 segments, not all of them a mile long -- I mean, excuse
me, 52 segments, not all of them a mile long, over the years, but that
has still left us now with 97 miles of unpaved lime rock roads just in
the Estates and others around the county.
In that effort, the board took very aggressive action last budget
session to provide us 1.366 million additional dollars, bringing our
total, essentially, up to 1.8 million to go after the lime rock issue.
What you have on the board up here -- I know it's a little bit hard
to see -- but is essentially a cost itemization of what it costs us to pave
the roads.
You've got per survey about 7,000. You've got the preparation of
the lime rock, actually setting up the bed, getting all the grades and
elevations based on the survey; 94,215 per mile.
You've got the driveway and culvert replacements. And
basically over the years, some not permitted, but even those permitted,
weren't to the right size pipe, weren't to the right elevations to create a
positive grade and flow for drainage, so we would say that as we pave
the streets, we need to make sure at least all the driveways out there,
in fact, are brought up to that standards.
And for this purpose, you've got an estimate of about 10
driveways we'd have to address. Obviously some of the older roads we
would have more culverts to be addressed, some of the new ones less.
You've got the paving cost at 87,765.
And right now, we're not talking about addressing the swales and
their restructure, because it's a very expensive component, about
Page 32
January 10, 2006
260,000 a mile. You've got two sides, 520,000.
So just addressing the actual survey, the roadbed work, the
paving, and the culverts, estimated at lOa mile, you're at 270,000
almost, and then with a 10 percent contingency with the way things
are going, 300,000.
So we're using 300,000 as our figure. Based on that, you've got
an overall cost for the 97 miles of just under $29 million. So it's a
very daunting task in front of us.
With the 1.8 million that is currently budgeted, that will get us
about six miles a year, take about 16 years to complete.
Obviously that is not to anybody's real desire, but that is based on
the additional funding that we just received to allow us to move
forward obviously much more aggressively by six miles rather than
two miles -- or less actually, with the cost today -- per year.
We do have the option to look at, if you put additional dollars to
it, every million obviously gets you another three miles, and that
would reduce the time frame. The other option is to do it in a cost
share. And if we went 50/50, just as a point of reference in a cost
share through an MSTU and all those other alphabet soup items that
are being introduced into the equation, obviously that would make 1.8,
make it 3.6 million, allow you, in effect, to double that six miles a
year or 12 miles a year, putting that 16 years almost down to eight
years. So there's a lot of options.
But what I want to assure is, we are using that 10 homes per mile
to get people on the list for qualifying. About 39 miles in various
segments qualify already today out of 97 out in the Estates. And as
we have the funding in this case, 1.8 million, they'll get six miles a
year. We'll address it and try to move as quickly as we can.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there's no question there's
an issue out in Golden Gate Estates with unpaved roads. But we all
Page 33
January 10,2006
have unpaved roads in our districts.
And I must bring light to the fact that most of the residents in
Collier County has paid for the roads in front of their house and their
community. Okay.
And, you know, if we want to set up another taxing unit, I think
Commissioner Coletta knows the best about that. But what I don't
want to see is coming with a -- come back with a low assessed value
for this special need and then come to the troth again to where we all
pay for it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chair, we're not -- I'm not
going to discuss or debate this issue now. This is just a decision as to
whether or not we bring it back for discussion or debate later on.
But I would like to point out a couple of things in making that
decision. First is with respect to the guideline of 10 homes per street, I
think that's a very dangerous thing to do is to set that as a guideline
and raise people's hopes that that's going to happen.
This is a budgeting issue. It should come up whenever we're
considering the budget, because there's a lot of money associated with
this, and we cannot deal with this on the fly. What we need to do is
take it in consideration in the overall budgeting scheme.
Secondly, we have to take a look at what is the tax revenue that
we're gathering from the 10 homes on the street. First of all, 10 homes
on the street won't pave 20 feet of pavement on those roads, the taxes
we get from most of those residents.
So it's -- it's not a situation where residents are paying sufficient
taxes to pave those roads. So we need to solve the problem, but we
need to do it during budget negotiations and set this as a priority in our
budget negotiations and see where we are with respect to funds.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with the
commissioner. I do want to point out though, the 10 homes per mile is
not being used as a statement that we will do your road, rather noting
Page 34
January 10, 2006
that our funds probably will continue but definitely now are not
enough to be able to address all the roads, and going to that budget.
This provides an opportunity to explain to people -- because we
had a lot of issues about why isn't my road done, why are you doing
that road? This way we have a process that once a certain threshold is
met -- it's been 10 homes. We can change that at the board's direction
-- at least then there's a date at which you went on the list, so as funds
become available, we do that on a priority basis. So that's the reason
for it, is not to promise them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just think that's a very arbitrary
and irrelevant guideline. I think it gets us into trouble because it raises
the hopes of people. Our job is to use the money where it gets the
most bang for the buck, and that might be in a place where there are
100 homes on the road. And so, we -- I think we need to be careful
about those kinds of guidelines.
I'm finished, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to wrap this up, but
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I do appreciate the
commissioners' indulgence. And, of course, we should always be
concerned about the budget and where the money's coming from. And
I think you are deserving of answers of what the tax base is for these
roads to be able to support it.
The average cost per home is going to be somewheres between
$5,000 and $6,000 per home judging by two and a half acre lots is the
average, and how many of them would be on a mile road on both
sides. But this is -- this was more of an introduction. I'm not asking
for it to be brought back.
I'm going to be holding a community meeting to deal with
county-owned lime rock roads in the Estates on March 1st at seven
Page 35
January 10, 2006
p.m. at the Cooperative Extension Building off of Immokalee Road,
by the fairgrounds, and I'm going to be inviting the public to come to
it.
And we're going to throw a bunch of different alternatives to
them, and when we get back some feedback from the public, then I'll
report back to you and we can decide where we're going to go in
future budget hearings as far as what can be allowed, what can't be
allowed. But it's an issue that's been brewing for a long time, and it's
throughout the county, you're right. And we have to come up with a
standard that applies not only for Golden Gate Estates, but applies for
East Naples and District 3, and wherever we've still got lime rock
roads so that they're done in a fair manner that is also cost feasible and
just -- and makes the budget balanced in the end.
I thank you for that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, we'll wrap it up
with you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Well, we could
have, instead of discussing it on our agenda, possibly bring that to
your meeting to one of the dozens of public information officers for a
public announcement. That might have been another way to handle
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I do have a public meeting
coming up on the 1 st that I think we can get some tremendous public
input on. But I'm kind of leery to come back and suggest to this
commission in a regular BCC meeting that we do something with cost
sharing and whatever. I have absolutely no idea at this point in time
what the sentiments of the people that live on those streets are and
what kind of priority they put on the timeline that's going to take
place. I'll know after March 1 st.
And this was an introduction to the problem, and also to be able
to get the word out to that part of the public that still lives on lime rock
roads that is county maintained.
Page 36
January 10,2006
And I think it's very important to mention also that the roads that
we're talking about today are not private roads. And that meeting that
will take place on March 1st is not to deal with private roads. Private
roads, such as rock road and a bunch of other roads through the
Estates that are private roads are the sole responsibility of the people
that live on those roads, and we may approach that sometime in the
future with some sort of taxing district for them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Okay. I think we'll move
on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that -- items -- just as a reminder,
items 7 A and 8A will be heard at 1 :00 p.m. after the lunch break.
Item #9 A
RESOLUTION 2006-04: RE-APPOINTING JANET VASEY AND
STEVEN HARRISON AND APPOINTING ROBERT DICTOR,
GLEN D. HARRELL, BRADLEY A. BOAZ AND COLLEEN M.
KVETKO TO THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
That brings us to item 9A. It's appointment of members to the
Collier Government Productivity Committee.
MS. FILSON: And Commissioners, if I may, I just want to -- I
have on executive summary that Charles E. Carr withdrew his
application, and I have an additional withdrawal, and that's from E.
Michael Brown.
And just to remind you that if Joseph Swaja and Janet Vasey are
reappointed, that will have to be waived, 7B of ordinance 2001-55, by
unanimous vote for those two.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: We've got six appointments.
Page 37
January 10, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe the way we'll handle this is
we'll go through each of the different categories. We have six
categories, and for each of the categories, we have no less than -- with
a couple that are -- one person, I think, withdrew, so I think we have
no less than two people per category. But I'd like to start off and see if
there's any public comment.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I do have one speaker for this item.
Mike Reagan.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you step forward, Mike, please?
MR. REAGAN: Members of the commission, good morning.
F or the record, my name is Mike Reagan. I'm with the Greater Naples
Chamber of Commerce.
You have before you appointments to a very important
committee, among the many important committees you have.
And in all due respect, I would just ask you, on behalf of the
chamber, if you would take into account the following people very
quickly for your consideration: Robert Dictor, former general
manager of the Marriott at Marco Island and a very important civil
leader there; Mr. Glen Harrell, who is the general manager of the
Coastland Mall; Colleen K vetko, well known throughout the
community, formerly associated with Fifth-Third Bank; Mr. Brad
Boaz, who was the CEO of -- pardon me, the CFO of the Barron
Collier companies; Mr. James Warnken, who is the CFO of the NCH
system. All of these good people, among others, have indicated that
they'd love to serve the county by being on this committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
At this time we'll open up the nominations for program manager
and planning. Are there any nominations?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Do we have to push a button
Page 38
January 10, 2006
or do we just nominate?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I didn't see Mr. Chairman (sic)
Henning's.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm past chairman. You
know, the executive summary says appoint members to the
productivity committee. I don't see where it says, appoint members to
categories of the productivity committee.
MS. FILSON: And that is correct, sir. These are the categories
that the productivity committee suggested, but it's merely directory
and not mandatory.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if I would have known that
you wanted categories, I would have taken further time to make
recommendations as categories, but I haven't done that because it's
saying, appointing members to Collier County Productivity
Committee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, maybe I can add -- shed a little
light to this, being that I was liaison to -- from the Board of
Commissioners to the productivity committee.
When we -- when the discussion was presented, we felt that the
productivity committee, looking through all the applications, basically
could make a summation through the applications of where each of the
people were -- that had applied, where they best fit into the matrix of
the productivity committee.
And I felt that in order for us to address this issue and to get on
with the program here, that the input that they could give us as a
Board of County Commissioners so that we wouldn't be completely
overwhelmed by going through each and every application and
figuring out where that person would fit, I felt that the productivity
committee could do this well.
And I think they did a very good job in regards to where they felt
that certain people would fit the category.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, you didn't hear
Page 39
January 10,2006
what I said. You didn't give me time to make recommendations or
make a motion for individual categories because the executive
summary says, appoint members of the government productivity
committee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- and now you're wanting
individual categories? I mean --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got six categories, we've got
people in each of the categories. And I feel that's probably the better
-- the best way to handle it, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you want to continue
this?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, I do. No. Continue this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because what we're asking to
do, again, is appoint members, not members to categories. See--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, I think --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's on the blue sheet here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I understand what you're saying.
I got one of these too, and I got the executive summary. I sat there
and I read it just like you did. And I feel that you've got three people
for each of the categories. What's -- I guess my understanding -- my
concern is, where do you -- where do you feel that there's -- I feel that
you think there's some injustice here, and I'm trying to figure out and
I'm trying to figure out what --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'm just saying I want to
appoint members to the productivity committee and not categories of
the productivity committee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the general consensus?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'd be honest with you, I'd
like to see each one of us file a sheet with six names on it, and then if
Page 40
January 10, 2006
we tab them up, one through six by first choice through six.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And then we can do it. Rather
than spout off one name and then we get into a long discussion of the
merits of who it is and what it is.
I don't think -- I'm not concerned with the categories so much as I
am with the individuals.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Any maybe we could take a break,
and maybe we could submit those names. And we're coming close to a
break for our court reporter anyway, and then they can tabulate them
while we're on this break and come back and present them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We can do that then. For each -- now,
how do you -- do you want to do this per category, or did you want to
do this for just in general, just names?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I would like to offer an
opinion, if you don't mind?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are good reasons to appoint
people with different disciplines, because the productivity committee
needs specific skills ranging from human resources to operations
research. And in order to get them, the right balance of skills, you
pretty much have to decide what category you want to appoint people.
I mean, let's suppose we appointed people and we've got five
people from -- with human resources experience on the productivity
committee. That doesn't serve our interests.
I think it's a wise thing to consider the category of expertise of
each of these applicants. And I believe that strengthens our
productivity committee. And I think it would be weakened if we just
appoint individuals with no concern given to the balance of skills and
expertise that they bring to the productivity committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if we put it off, that will
Page 41
January 10,2006
give me time to do it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm -- you know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know, I've marked some
off in each one. A couple categories I didn't have anybody in. But if
__ depending on how you want to do this. I'd be happy to submit six
names. All of us could submit six names, go on a break, come back
and tabulate them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's a great idea. Why don't we
-- why don't we go ahead --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's just do that. I have little pieces
of paper here if anybody wants them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Tell me which ones you're
nominating and I'll --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are we going to do this by category or
are we just going to do this by --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, just six names.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just by name.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to do mine by category.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That's fair.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we ought to do it by category
because I think that best fits the forte of what the productivity
committee is trying to work with here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we could put it to a
motion and find out which way we want to go, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion that we do it
by names rather than categories.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 42
January 10, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed? Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just to move it forward, because
I didn't want it to drag out forever.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. And what we'll do is we'll take a
10-minute break.
MS. FILSON: And may I make one comment before we take a
break, sir?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
MS. FILSON: Also I just want to make sure the County
Attorney's Office realizes that the member representing the Board of
County Commissioners today on the productivity committee is the
vice-chairman so they can add Commissioner Coletta's name to the
resolution.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry?
MS. FILSON: You're now a member of the productivity
committee as vice-chairman.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So that means I get a little more
respect around here?
MS. FILSON: No. I just want the County Attorney's Office --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it doesn't mean that.
MS. FILSON: -- to add it to the reso.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. And I would note for the record, Mr.
Chair and Commissioners, that with a vote just taken by a majority,
3-2, the record reflect that the commissioners will submit names.
This is a process that will occur, therefore, in the sunshine in the
sense that each commissioner's sheet will identify by name the
commissioner so that when it comes and is reviewed and brought to
the record by the county manager or the county attorney, whatever
Page 43
January 10,2006
combination, that there's no question in regard to the decision making
and how it comes forward for sunshine law purposes. Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we just hand them in and go on a
break then?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we go on a break now, Chair?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure, we could. We're dismissed for five
minutes, 10 minutes.
MR. MUDD: Reassemble at 10:35 then.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The Board of County
Commissioners will reconvene.
County Manager, have we got the --
MR. MUDD: Leo's passing them out.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
We're readjourning and we are basically still working on item
9 A, which are appointment of members of the Collier (sic)
Government Productivity Committee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. On this list--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, for the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. MUDD: For the record, Commissioners, I'm going to read
each individual commissioner's vote so -- just not the totals. I've been
instructed by the County Attorney's Office that we need to do that.
So we're going to the column. And I'd ask the commissioners
that gave me the sheets -- now hopefully Mr. Ochs has given you your
sheets back, your tally sheets.
MR. OCHS: David has them all.
MR. MUDD: David has them. And so you can go down that
Page 44
January 10, 2006
list, David, and make sure we haven't missed any for each
commissioner, okay?
I'll start with Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Fiala voted for
Mr. Joe Swaja, she voted for Robert Dictor, she voted for Colleen--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Kvetko.
MR. MUDD: -- Kvetko, she voted for Janet Vasey, she voted for
Stephen Spencer and Bradley Boaz.
Commissioner Henning voted for Robert Dictor, Glen Harrell,
Robert DiBenedetto, Janet Vasey, James Warnken, and Bradley Boaz.
Commissioner Coyle voted for Joseph Swaja, for Robert Dictor,
for Steve Harrison, for Janet Vasey, for Joseph Donahue and for
Bradley Boaz.
Commissioner Halas voted for Joseph Swaja, for Glen Harrell,
for Steve Harrison, for Janet Vasey, for Joseph Donahue and for
Bradley Boaz.
Commissioner Coletta voted for William Stiess, he voted for
Robert Dictor, he voted for Colleen Kvetko, he voted for Janet Vasey,
he voted for Stephen Spencer, and voted for Bradley Boaz.
Now, on your -- try to get it all to focus on here a little bit. On
your sheet over at the totals column, over on your right-hand side --
and each commissioner has a sheet -- there is a series of the majority
votes, and I will mark anything that's over three on this particular
sheet.
And I've so marked those votes that are over three on your
particular sheet. I will mention to you that Mr. Joseph Swaja received
three votes. I believe that reappointment takes a unanimous vote of
the Board of County Commissioners.
MS. FILSON: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: And Ms. Janet Vasey has five votes, and she
would require a unanimous vote, and I believe she received a
unanimous vote on that particular item.
That's the compilation of the votes that I have, Mr Chairman, and
Page 45
January 10,2006
I think you still need to find two votes with a majority to fill the six
slots.
Is that correct, Ms. --
MS. FILSON: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: And you have to still decide about the Joseph
Swaja vote.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think at this time what we'll do
is I'll go down the list here with -- starting off with Joseph Swaja. Do
I have enough votes here for Joseph Swaja?
All those in favor of Mr. Swaja.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. It passes -- it fails 3-2, and he
needed a majority anyway, a supermajority.
MR. MUDD: He needed a unanimous --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Unanimous, excuse me.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The next one down the list is
Robert Dictor. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed? Aye.
Robert Dictor, looks like he's been appointed to the productivity
committee.
The next one on the list is Janet Vasey, and it looks like we don't
have to take a vote on that because she's already unanimous; is that
Page 46
January 10, 2006
correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: Why don't you do that anyway since you started
doing that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those in favor of Janet Vasey.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That passes unanimous.
Then we go down the list, Brad Boaz. He's already got a -- all
those in favor of Brad Boaz.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We've got those seats filled.
Now we have to go back and -- why don't we go back and see, with
the votes with two. We'll start off with Glen Harrell.
All those in favor of Glen Harrell.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 47
January 10, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did that carry 3-2?
MR. MUDD: Take the vote again, sir.
MS. FILSON: I only heard two for.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pardon?
MS. FILSON: I only heard two yes votes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know, I said yes on that,
so that would have been a third.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think we have -- okay. Let's vote
over agaIn.
Those in favor of Glen Harrell?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That carries 3-2.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I just would like to say that
I'm not opposed to the gentleman, it is that we already have Robert
Richard Dictor with a general management background, a selected,
and Mr. Harrell is in the same discipline, and I am still looking for a
really good financial person. And I still don't believe there's anybody
better than Steve Harrison, who's on the committee now and who's
done a wonderful job doing that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, let the -- I understand where you're
coming from, Commissioner, but what we decided to do was put down
a list of names and to vote on the names, and that's what we're
presently doing and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But he didn't make it anyway, Glen
Harrell, because it was a 3-2, not unanimous, right?
MR. MUDD: No.
Page 48
January 10,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, he made it.
MR. MUDD: He made it, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He made it.
MR. MUDD: The only two people on this thing, on this
particular item of candidates that needed to be unanimous votes were
two reappointments that had over two terms, so they've served their
term limits. They have term limits, and you had to extend them. And
because you had to extend their term limits based on the ordinance,
you must have a unanimous vote to extend a term.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we didn't get Joe Swaja because
it wasn't unanimous; is that it?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: When we voted on it --
MS. FILSON: It's two terms or more.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- we didn't get a unanimous vote
because he has two terms, okay. And this is what the board decided
prior to break how they wanted to go through it. I felt that going
through by committees -- or categories was probably the better way to
handle this.
Okay. The next person -- we need one more spot; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Two more, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Two more? Okay. How are we going to
be fair about this? Is there any nominations from the -- from the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to nominate
Colleen Kvetko.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Colleen Kvetko.
Is there another nomination?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll nominate Steve Harrison.
Page 49
January 10,2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any more nominations?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, the nominations will be closed.
Okay. We'll start off with Steve Harrison.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Excuse me. Just a question. Is
this one that needs --
MS. FILSON: No, sir. He has only served one term. His
application had been received late, but it only takes a 3-0 vote for him.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those in favor of Steve
Harrison?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Unanimous.
And the last one will be Colleen M. Kvetko. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ko-vet-ke-o? Ko-blek-o?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Kvetko.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's so hard to say.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: What was the vote?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's take that vote again, please. For
Colleen, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep.
MR. MUDD: All in favor?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All in favor?
Page 50
January 10,2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay
MR. MUDD: Any opposed?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We now have the productivity
board filled. Robert--
MR. MUDD: And those -- just to make sure I go over it for the
record, they are Mr. Dictor, Ms. Vasey, Mr. Boaz, Mr. Harrell, Mr.
Harrison, and Ms. Kvetko.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
MS. FILSON: And, again, if I could just remind the County
Attorney's Office to put Commissioner Coletta's name on as a member
of the committee as well, as vice-chairman.
MR. WEIGEL: Will be done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2006-05: APPOINTING TOR KOLFLAT TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9B, and that
is appointment of a member to the Collier County Planning
Commission.
MS. FILSON: And for this one I had one applicant that
represents District 4, and it's Tor Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion we accept Mr.
Page 51
January 10,2006
Ko 1 flat.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimous. Okay.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2006-06: RE-APPOINTING JOHN PENNELL
(REPRESENTING PLANTATION ISLAND) TO THE OCHOPEE
FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TO
READVERTISE FOR THE REMAINING POSITION - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item
which is 9C. It's appointment of members to the Ochopee Fire
Control District Advisory Committee.
And before we go and do this particular item, I'd like to make
sure that the board is aware of the fact that Mr. David Loving passed
away last Thursday. He was going to be the City of Everglades
nominee for this particular advisory board.
The city council will have to pick another person, but he also
served on the Everglades City city council, and he has been a
champion of representing the voters in his particular city and has been
Page 52
January 10,2006
a proud member.
And Commissioner Coletta, you know him better than I do, if
you'd like to say a couple words.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so. He was also a
member of our MPO and a member of our --
MS. FILSON: TDC.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- TDC. And if we could, at this
point in time, if we could have just a moment of silence in memory of
David, that would be most appreciated.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: And Commissioners, for your information, I've
already contacted the mayor of Everglades City, and we are working
on getting a new appointment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So at this point in time we'll just
make one vote and that will be for John Pennell.
MS. FILSON: Actually we have two applicants, but the
committee is recommending not appointing one of them due to
attendance records.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make a motion for approval of
John Pennell and readvertise for the balance and to look for the city
council's recommendations for their Everglades City recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion for approval of John Pennell by
Commissioner Coletta, and seconded by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 53
January 10, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries, unanimous.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2006-07: RE-APPOINTING CLAY BROOKER
AND APPOINTING DAVID E. BRYANT, JAMES E. BOUGTON
AND REED JARVI TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9D, which is
appointment of members to the Development Services Advisory
Committee.
MS. FILSON: And Commissioners, I want to -- I have lots to
say today. On this particular committee, the committee's
recommending the reappointment of Charles Morgan. If you
reappoint him, section 7B of 2001-5 will have to be waived; however,
he didn't apply. I called them thinking they would let him know. He
still has not applied.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So obviously he's not interested in the
job. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's Charles Morgan Abbott, not
Charles Morgan.
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry, Charles Morgan Abbott.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any nominations here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The nomin -- I nominate Clay
Brooker, James Brougton, David Bryant, and Reed Jarvi, who are the
recommendations from this committee as well, and all fine gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
Page 54
January 10, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion for James
Brougton, Clay Brooker, Reed Jarvi and David Bryant. Are there any
other nominations?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, we'll close the nominations.
Commissioner Fiala has appointed or named these four
individuals, and I had a second by Commissioner Henning.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those by -- opposing, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The vote is unanimous. Thank you very
much.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2006-08: APPOINTING CAPTAIN ALEJANDRO
CASTILLO TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CITIZENS CORPS. -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to item 9E, which is appointment of
member to the Collier County Citizens Corps.
MS. FILSON: And, Commissioners, on this one, the Salvation
Army makes the recommendation and you confirm it, and one of the
gentlemen has resigned due to relocating and he -- they sent in the
name of Captain whatever.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Alejandro Castillo.
MS. FILSON: Yes.
Page 55
January 10,2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion that we accept the
recommendation of Captain Alejandro Castillo.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor for Captain Alejandro Castillo?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes unanimously.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2006-09: RE-APPOINTING KA YDEE TUFF (WITH
WAIVER OF TERM LIMITS) AND APPOINTING W. JAMES
KLUG, III TO THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9F, which is
appointment of members to the Golden Gate Community Center
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion that we appoint
Kaydee Tuff and James Klug.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And on this one you'll have to waive section 7B
of ordinance 2001-55 for Kaydee Tuff. She has served two terms.
Page 56
January 10,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And who is -- excuse me,
Commissioner. Kaydee Tuff, and what was the other one?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: James Klug.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Klug.
Commissioner Henning made a motion for James W. (sic) Klug
and Kaydee Tuff, and we have a second by Commissioner Fiala.
We'll start off with James Klug. All those in favor?
MS. FILSON: There's two appointments.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I know there's two appointments, but one
has got to be unanimous, isn't that correct? So shouldn't we take them
MS. FILSON : Yes, sir, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- separately, okay.
W . James Klug, all those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: He passes, unanimous.
Kaydee Tuff, all those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed? Aye.
Motion -- on that one I believe the motion fails; is that correct?
MS. FILSON: That's correct.
Page 57
January 10,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I ask why?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just felt that -- I feel that we need to
probably find new people to work in that area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, may I inform you that it's
very hard to get volunteers to apply for this position? You know,
Kaydee Tuff is a long-standing person in the community, very -- a
person that actually is president of Golden Gate Area Civic
Association, and, you know, your vote is -- will not set well with the
community.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe it's not so final, if I may?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to point out to you that
she's probably one of the most civic-minded people I've ever seen.
Two years of perfect attendance. I kind of hope I can sway you to
change your vote. This is a person that I would welcome on any
committee as the first choice that I could make.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I personally know her, and I can
vouch for her.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll switch my vote then.
MS. FILSON: And I'm also advertising for more vacancies at the
current time for this particular committee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I switch my vote on Commissioner
Coletta's advice.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we'll need to follow a little procedure
there, and that's with a reconsideration of the vote that's been taken.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those in favor of Kaydee
Tuff?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, what you'll need to do here--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for reconsideration.
MR. WEIGEL: -- have a motion for reconsideration--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
Page 58
January 10, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: -- by a person who voted with the majority.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. You have a motion and second for
motion to reconsider, and so you'll take a vote on that.
All those in favor, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we have a majority vote at this
time, unanimous vote.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. So by approving the motion to
reconsider, now you can reconsider the vote just had, which was that
4-1 vote. So it's like a new start.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Kaydee Tuff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion for -- to--
reconsideration vote for Kaydee Tuff by Commissioner Coletta,
seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
MR. WEIGEL: And the record will reflect that you're not
actually reconsidering because you've just had the reconsideration
motion. This is the motion to appoint Kaydee Tuff --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And waive the requirements on
Page 59
January 10, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And waive the requirements of the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's part of my motion.
MR. WEIGEL: That requires unanimity. And so your vote was
a 5-0.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Unanimous.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. The record would reflect that.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Item #10A
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THE
EFFORTS OF THE CONTRACTOR LICENSING OFFICE AND
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE
REGULATION OF CONTRACTORS FOUND IN VIOLATION OF
APPLICABLE LAWS AND ORDINANCES; COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO GIVE GUIDANCE TO THE BOARD ON HOW
TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR GOALS REGARDING THE
CONTRACTORS; REPORT TO BE GIVEN AT THE FEBRUARY
28~ 2006 BCC REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to the next item,
which is lOA, and it's a report to the Board of County Commissioners
about the efforts of the contractor licensing office and the code
enforcement department regarding the regulation of contractors found
in violation of applicable laws and ordinances.
And Mr. Joseph Schmitt, your administrator for community
developments and environmental services division, will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good morning. For the record,
I'm Joe Schmitt, your Community Development/Environmental
Services Division Administrator. With me today is Bill Hammond,
my Building Director, or your Building Review and Permitting
Page 60
January 10, 2006
Director, and Ms. Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director.
Basically we're here today at your direction. As you well know,
at the September 13th meeting, you raised an issue in regards to
enforcement, or at least action, on contractors who basically are
pulling permits, or not pulling permits and doing unpermitted work.
We're here today to talk about our successful and aggressive
activities by contractor licensing and the code enforcement board, or
the code enforcement department in regulating contractors operating
in Collier County, also to let you know about the associated efforts
and initiatives regarding continued contributor licensing enforcement,
and, again, the ongoing activities.
As you well know, or at least from a standpoint, this is a joint
effort primarily through the code enforcement staff who are the ones,
in many instances, noting through notices of violation, unpermitted
work, and then, of course, the contractor licensing staff and the
contractor licensing investigators who either being notified or through
their own investigations, conducting background or at least
investigating work being done without a permit.
Your executive summary runs through all the details in regards to
the powers that our contracting licensing staff has in regards to at least
investigating the activities.
But from a -- just as an overview, we do have four investigators
in contractor licensing, but the real underpinnings of the code
enforcement program in Collier County is your contractor licensing
board. And I know you -- it does not receive that much fanfare, but it
is a board that meets monthly. It is composed of nine members who
are appointed by you. They are the ones that basically are empowered
to hear any issues raised through the contractor licensing staff and the
investigators, and certainly they make decisions based on the actions
that are brought before them.
Your executive summary highlights very clearly -- and I don't
have the figures for 2005, but 2004, issued over 511 citations for
Page 61
January 10, 2006
unlicensed and unpermitted work activities in Collier County. They
heard and voted on over 50 -- or 50 contractor licensing issues, made
9,002 citizen contacts, and worked 1,807 cases and recovered
$323,000 in 76 different restitution cases, and actually from '95 to
2005, about $1.8 million.
And based on your initiative, I'm -- I've done two things. One is
-- and I'll hand this out -- we're going to put fliers -- again, this is an
ongoing issue; it has been in Collier County for a number of years.
But we're going to ask that a flier go out in the utilities billing, again
identifying to the public the need to ensure that any contractor they're
working with is, number one, a licensed contractor, but number two,
has pulled the proper permits, and we're also preparing, again, a
campaign in regards to notifying contractors or at least notifying the
public through updating of brochures. And I'm going to just step up
and hand these out, then I will answer your questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Joe, with all due respect, I
think most of this executive summary is irrelevant and completely
misses the point.
We very specifically asked that the staff take a look at ways that
we could hold contractors responsible for problems that were detected
only much later by the owner or through some subsequent kind of
inspection.
Now, we understand that our staff and the licensing board and the
Code Enforcement Board look very rigorously at current permits and
all the phases of construction before it's permitted, but we have had a
series of circumstances where we have found after the fact that
contractors did something wrong, and we hold the residents
responsible for that.
Our objective was to find a way to hold the contractor
responsible for that. I don't find anything in this executive summary
that even addresses that point.
Page 62
January 10, 2006
So I would -- I would not at all be interested in accepting your
recommendation that we withdraw our request to have this item
addressed because it's still there. And as far as I know, we're not
doing anything to solve it.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, I understand your concern. It's really a
three-legged stool in this process; it's government, it government
oversight, it's an aware consumer in regards to the consumer, the
homeowner, in hiring a competent and ethical contractor, and certainly
it's an ethical and competent contractor doing work in Collier County.
Ninety-eight percent -- I mean, I'm just throwing this figure out.
Ninety-eight, 99 percent of the contractors who do work in Collier
County are competent and ethical contractors. The -- there have been
cases that came before you involving variances, and mostly
after-the-fact variances.
Our program for dealing with after-the- fact permits, a contractor
who pulls a permit after the fact is assessed a cost of four times the
permit fee for that -- for that specific job, whether -- the value of that
job, and that's how we basically come up with the permit cost. So we
are going after those contractors when, in fact, we catch them.
The issue I know -- I believe what you're asking is when the
situation comes before you, as in many of the cases, the most recent
one it's a five- or six-year-old case, the statute of limitations, or other
activities where, in the most recent one, had to do with the pool cage
issue. The permit was actually pulled by the pool cage contractor
who's no longer in business. So in those kind of cases, there's nothing
I can do.
In dealing with the situation that brought this up back in
September, our only avenue in regards to a notice of violation, when
we deal with a notice of violation dealing with the infractions in the
land development code, we have to issue the notice to the property
owner. That's the legal point of entry.
And when, in fact, we uncover what's going on behind the case,
Page 63
January 10,2006
we can certainly open an investigation on the contractor.
But in that issue, Commissioner, we were here before you to
address -- or at least that was a public petition. We had -- there was
nothing brought to my staff nor the investigators regarding any -- any
unpermitted -- or at least from irreputable work being done by the
contractor other than what we knew about the case from code
enforcement.
But we deal with that through Code Enforcement Board or
through the contractor licensing board. So I'm really not clear -- are
you looking for us to come to report to you every time we deal with a
-- an issue that comes before this board for, let's say, a variance, that
we also report on any action that was done to the contractor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm asking you to do what we
asked you to do, which was to come to us with some
recommendations about how we can solve this problem where
property owners come to us for an after-the-fact variance approval that
was the result of the failure of a contractor to do their job.
I am getting tired of punishing a homeowner who really was
blameless in some of these cases. In some of these cases, they didn't
even own the property at the time. And we should -- I mean, your
argument is that we can't do anything because our code says such and
such. Well, what I'm asking you to do is tell us how we can change
the code.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, that has nothing to do with the land
development code. That has to do with me opening an investigation
and going after the contractor. And--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, do you file complaints with
the contractor -- state contractor licensing board wherever you find
that someone has done something wrong in the past? It might be two
years, it might be three years or five years. But the point is that a
contractor must understand that if they do something and get away
with it, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have escaped
Page 64
January 10, 2006
punishment for that, and I think that will ease your enforcement
problem substantially if they understand there is an ultimate penalty
for doing something illegal, and there are many instances where that
has happened.
And I just don't find this particular executive summary to be
responsive to our request, and I certainly am not going to vote that we
withdraw our request. I'd like to see some productive
recommendations concerning how we can solve this problem, not
reasons why we can't do it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I feel the same way as Commissioner
Coyle feels. I don't think the severity of the action is sufficient. I
really think that there should be a clause in there that when a -- when
some of these developers, and as you said -- or builders, I won't say
developers -- but builders that get involved in a project or a home, it
ends up that they feel that if -- as long as they go ahead and build
something, they can always come back for forgiveness of a variance,
and sometimes the severity of this is not implied enough because of
the fact that there's a lot of other people out there that try to do the
thing up-front and honest, and they have to jump through a lot of
hoops.
In fact, they'll even come before us asking for a variance before
going ahead with whatever the problem is. And I believe that we need
to address the issue that -- make it very clear that a builder gets
involved in -- on something and pushes the envelope, that he is going
to be held accountable, and not the homeowner.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand exactly what you're saying, but I
think we're kind of mixing apples and oranges. The variance is a land
use issue that is -- strictly involves the property owner. There may
have been a contractor involved, and I think that's where
Commissioner Coyle's coming from, but the land use issue and the
variance process is -- are the apples side of it. They have every right to
come and ask you.
Page 65
January 10,2006
I know where Commissioner Coyle's coming from in saying,
well, let's get that contractor. I think the premise of our executive
summary was predicated on the fact that all the powers that we need
already exist.
It's the enforcement process in regards to going after that
contractor, and we do keep track of these contractors. We do notify.
And it's the local contractor licensing board, it's the county's board,
and also we work through the state.
And Bill -- let me turn and ask Bill so he can just make sure you
understand how we tie in between a county -- the contractor licensing,
the county, and the state in regards to the -- I forgot the state
organization. Go ahead, Bill.
MR. HAMMOND: Good morning, Commissioners. Bill
Hammond, your Director of the Building and Review Department for
the record.
With -- all contractors who choose to operate in Collier County
register with Collier County, and they -- they're either given a
registration number by the county and qualify for a particular type of
license for which they want to perform work, or they hold state
certification and they bring that to us and they show us that all of that
is current, and we'll issue them -- we'll issue them the certification and
the registration information they need to pull permits in Collier
County .
And then when this comes to violations, for county-registered
contractors, those are the individuals for which we have the most
enforcement authority in that we can bring them to -- we can bring
them to the contractor licensing board in exact -- exact certain fines as
applicable.
For the state-certified contractors who register with us and
operate in the county, we're a little more -- the avenue of prosecution
is a little bit more narrow. We have to prove a willful violation of the
Florida Building Code. And once we approve a willful violation of the
Page 66
January 10,2006
Florida Building Code, then we forward that to the Department of
Business and Professional Regulation, and they take the case from that
point.
So we don't really have much prosecutorial authority over the
state-licensed contractors. It's much more -- it's a lot more control over
the county-licensed contractors. But we do operate with DBPR on a
very regular basis.
MR. SCHMITT: I just wanted Bill to cover that because we do
work with the state, and I'm trying to really understand, Commissioner
Coyle. I know what you want, and I believe what we're trying to tell
you is we have the powers to do, I believe, what you're asking for. I--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. That's fine. What
did you do about the contractor, that last -- the after-the-fact variance
that was brought to us, what did you do about that contractor?
MR. SCHMITT: We opened up a case on that contractor once
we were notified of the violation, or at least that the contractor did the
work without the permit, we opened up a case on that, and when you
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you opened up a case. What
does that means? What did you do?
MR. SCHMITT: And we investigate as to why -- or basically
gather the facts. And if we determine that there was actually malice or
for whatever -- they -- for whatever the activity, we'll bring that
contractor before the contractor licensing board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. If it's a state licensed
contractor -- now, this has been at least, what, two months?
MR. SCHMITT: It's September 13th when you heard the--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We heard it?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So from September the 13th to
now, we don't know if this was a real violation?
MR. SCHMITT: I don't have that information. I can certainly
Page 67
January 10,2006
come back to you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You haven't researched it enough
since September to determine --
MR. SCHMITT: I don't have that information.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you can't tell me that
you're taking action if it's been lying there since September and you
don't yet know if there was really a violation or what kind of violation
there was.
So I'm -- I have two problems. Number one, I don't see any
evidence that there's any action to solve these. If there is, you should
be able to present those to us.
Secondly, I'm not too convinced by the argument that says, we
can't do anything about it because our rules won't permit us to do
anything about it unless you've come before us to try to get the rules
changed, and I don't know of anyone who's tried to get the rules
changed so we can do something about it.
What we're hearing is, whoops, we can't do anything. Well, are
there changes in the law that we can get? Are there changes in our
procedures we can make to permit us to do something about it? I don't
know. I'm not hearing any of that.
So let's not debate this much, much further. Just -- I think -- I
don't know if we've got three commissioners here who feel the same
way or not, but it seems to me that we ought to be getting some --
some recommendation to change a procedure or an enforcement action
to get these things dealt with on a timely basis, so --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I -- I don't -- I understand
where you're coming from. Where do we put the responsibility of
these -- what do you want to call it, neglects, these --
MR. SCHMITT: Irreputable contractors. I mean, unethical.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got several problems.
One, what are you going to do when it's like 12 years after the fact?
Page 68
January 10, 2006
There's got to be a statute of limitations someplace. Also, I know our
own records are incomplete.
In many different cases when we get back there 15 years out, it's
very difficult to retrieve records, and we try to make it the
responsibility of the homeowner to come up with those records, and
that's also difficult, because quite often when you buy a home from a
-- the existing homeowner, when they leave, they take the records
with them.
I don't know what the answer is on this. I do agree that there
should be some more responsibility for contractors. I'm not too sure
how we get there.
I do think that our variance process is exactly what it was
intended today. A little bit of a catchall to be able to take a look at
this and allow for the human error that's out there. It's a far from
perfect world that we're dealing with, and at this point in time, it's a
comparison of your variance, that you look at it. And you have to
weigh it within yourself.
Is this person taking advantage of the system or are they a victim
of the system? And the very fact that we charge, what $4,000 far a
variance? I think it's 4,000, isn't it?
MR. SCHMITT: It's $3,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Three thousand. Still, it's no
bargain. It's not something, I'm sure, people take lightly when they
come before this commission.
MR. SCHMITT: It is two, correct. It's 2,000. If it's after the
fact, it's more.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, 2,000. But the ones that
came before us, I think were well after the fact, and they were, I
believe, 4,000. But in any case, 2,000, 4,000, it's a lot of money for
any consumer out there to have to pay.
And when they do pay it, they have to really feel that they have
something that they're looking forward to go -- to go forward that they
Page 69
January 10, 2006
have a reasonable chance of success.
I don't really know what we can do to improve upon the system.
I'd love to see improvements, but right now the system we have, I
wouldn't necessarily say it's broken. I think more enforcement. We
can always make it better. It might be a great idea. I'm at a loss. I'm
looking for suggestions from my fellow commissioners, what they'd
like to see, and I probably could support it if it's something that's
realistic.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My feeling here is, it is realistic. We've
had a case that Commissioner Coyle just referred to. That was back in
September, and we're still trying to figure out who's at fault here. And
obviously it was -- somebody did something and didn't have a permit
for it.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to add, it
certainly isn't fair to punish a homeowner for something that a
contractor did without their knowledge or, perhaps even before they
owned the home. And the current process penalizes those people by
charging them thousands of dollars to come here and ask us to slice
the baby in half.
And what we generally do is we waive the fee, or at least part of
the fee, and what that means is the taxpayers of Collier County are
paying because a contractor did something wrong.
I think we need to hold the people responsible for doing
something wrong, and they should suffer a financial penalty. And if it
-- if it means paying for the after-the- fact variance fee, then that's what
it ought to mean.
And if we need to change our rules, then I'd like to hear some
suggestions how to do it. If we need to change a state law, I think we
ought to at least find out about that and see if we can petition our
legislators to make a change of some kind.
The point is, we need to find the right person responsible for this,
Page 70
January 10,2006
and we cannot keep pushing it off on the taxpayers of Collier County.
And that's my last word on this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Coyle, I need to correct the
record as regards to the fence permit. The investigation was closed
after the board ruled that they would pay that -- if you recall that
incident where they would pay -- come in and apply for the permit,
and as far as the case is concerned, they actually got the permit, they
applied for the permit, and so there's no case against that contractor
now that they got the after-the- fact permit. So that was the ruling of
this board, and that eliminated -- your ruling eliminated both the
notice of violation and any action against that contractor.
I just want to make sure -- I think from a standpoint, I know you
always see the variances, but understand there was about 35,000
permitted activities last year in Collier County . You see the one or
two or three or four in regards that come before you that involve some
kind of an error by the contractor, the homeowner, or staff.
And I just want to make sure you understand where the resources
are applied. I can certainly look at -- if it's your direction, look at
whether we need more investigators in regards to contractor licensing.
And do you want, as part of your variance request, how we --
what we're doing -- and if we deem it to be a contractor who made an
error. But, again, we're mixing apples and oranges, and I'm concerned
about some of that information that you empower both the Code
Enforcement Board and your contractor licensing board to deal with
that coming to your level.
But if that's your direction, we'll certainly -- we'll certainly look
at that, and we'll look at whether or not we need to -- from the
guidance I hear from Commissioner Coyle, whether we need to come
back and amend some of the rules that at least give us more teeth in
regards to enforcement.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's what we really need.
Page 71
January 10,2006
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, how
about if during this variance process is -- we have more information
about the person who actually did the job? Now, Gulf Stream Fence
in the case of September, was the contractor who did it. Certain
agreements between the contractor and the homeowner is really what
caused the problem.
The issue about a screened-in enclosure just at our last variance,
and I hear you loud and clear. I mean, it was an issue of, do we
punish the homeowner.
But doing a little research on that, I found that it was not a
contractor who did it. It was a homebuilder who is buying property
and putting up houses and accessory structures as a homebuilder.
And the issue is, he really needs to get a license because he's
doing several of these items in North Naples in Commissioner Halas's
-- if we have more information, would that suffice, about the
contractor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning, I don't
think so. I think you looked up -- you inquired into some information
about that contractor at the time, and you said he was still in business
and has X number of employees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. What I found out later, it
was the -- either the father or the son who actually did it.
MR. SCHMITT: It's the son. The son is a registered contractor,
not the property owner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But there's a father --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Who built it under his son's license.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was that what it was?
MR. SCHMITT: He built the home as an owner/builder. The
father built the home as an owner/builder, and -- which they legally
can do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But he's done several of
Page 72
January 10,2006
those, Joe, up there.
MR. SCHMITT: If you, in the rule --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this a state rule?
MR. SCHMITT: There's a tax law. So many within two years,
there's a requirement that would make him a -- it would be a business,
and then we would force him to get a license.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's a federal--
MR. SCHMITT: My only other concern with Commissioner
Coy Ie --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're going to debate this until hell
freezes over, and we're not getting anywhere, Joe. It's simple. It
really is very simple. Let's take this one situation. What can you do
to hold that builder responsible for a failure to adhere to our codes
rather than making the new buyer responsible for them?
MR. SCHMITT: There is nothing I can do in this case. That was
an owner/builder.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not the right answer. There
is always something we can do in these cases. Now, what I --
MR. SCHMITT: It's a civil matter, sir. I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ifwe're looking for--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, can you help us out
here?
MR. WEIGEL: A little bit. It's a civil matter, as they indicate in
many parts of the context of this review. What I see from the
discussion here is to efficiently come back to this board with
recommendations of some changes that can be made.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's right.
MR. WEIGEL: And there probably are some changes that can
be made. That's not to say that the contractor's licensing boards and
the Code Enforcement Board do (sic) a tremendous job when the
matters come before them.
Part of the time -- part of the problem Joe is annunciating to you
Page 73
January 10,2006
is the question of time because remedies fall away and are not
available when a lot of time has passed, and the ability to go to court
is lost by statute of limitations, which he mentioned.
What I would suggest at this point is I will utilize the Florida
Association of County Attorneys network to see if, in fact, there are
any counties that have implemented -- well, in their -- in their own
local regulations, have anything we can look at, borrow from, build
on, and try to bring to you as a recommendation.
And if I also learn from the other county attorneys some of the
limitations and issues that create roadblocks for us, I want to bring
those to your attention as well. But we won't give up, county attorney
working with staff, we won't give up in ferreting this out so that we
have given a report to you to your satisfaction so you know that we've
really checked everything out and come to you with a
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we're in the right -- going in the
right direction here. Before we take a vote, is there any public
speakers on this one?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I have one speaker, Carl Suarez.
MR. SUAREZ: Well, I'm glad this committee is addressing this
issue, because I've spent the last year and a half of my life dealing
with this.
I was a victim at Hurricane Charley -- and I'm a long-time
resident of Collier County, by the way.
MR. MUDD: State your name, sir.
MR. SUAREZ: My name's Carl Suarez. And I was a victim of
Hurricane Charley. My pool cage was destroyed, and I went through
enormous efforts to try to get some resolution to that issue. And I can
tell you, I've been through the whole process. There's no
accountability, there's no recordkeeping, there's no measurement.
I formed a citizen's group; I've taken action. I formed a
company, an on-line company for reliable contractors, which I've
Page 74
January 10, 2006
partnered with the Chamber of Commerce to go address these issues,
and there are big issues. There's big problems.
You can't even go in and get your complaint filed anywhere.
Why isn't there a public database that we can have where you can file
your complaints? You can't -- I went and I talked to the city officials.
In my case, mine was linked to both the city and the county because
the county has all the enforcement. They have the contractor licensing
group.
And essentially I go through the city process, and I find out for
my pool cage that all they really did was check to see that it was
attached to the ground and grounded. But they rated it 110 miles an
hour. They said they had complete engineering records.
I'm a structural engineer. They had no engineering records. And
then when I probed them further as to why that was, they said, we're
not accountable for anything because it's written in the codes.
You know, I tried to get them back out to look at my pool cage. I
went and contacted in Punta Gorda up there, Port Charlotte, A.L.
Engineering because supposedly their process was, well, we checked
to see if there was one or two -- of two reliable contracting firms that
designed the pool cage, and then we used to check to see if it was
grounded and attached to the ground, and that was about it, and now
we do different things. But there's no documentation of that.
You can't -- how do you check it? They're supposed to have
engineering records. There's no engineering records. Oh, we don't
have them. No big deal. You know, so there was no accountability.
This is a huge issue, a huge problem. We've got groups -- this
group that I formed, we're dealing with other issues on top of that. For
instance, there's issues with flooding. We've got people in the group
that have been impacted by these things. And everything gets swept
under the carpet. And, you know, it just gets pushed aside, and it's
been happening for years and years and years.
And, you know, you hear about scandals of this and that and the
Page 75
January 10,2006
other. Of course there's going to be scandals because there's no
accountability. There's -- you know, my house is a brand new house.
It was built in the year 2000. And, you know, I found out from
the guy that built my pool cage, these things are going down all the
time. But there's nobody going back -- where is the records that are
saying -- why aren't we checking to see how many of these pool cages
that were supposed to be designed for 110 went down at 50? And why
aren't we sending a team out to find out why they're going down at
50? Nobody even cares.
This is a huge issue that we need to address, and I'm seriously
concerned about it. And, you know, if -- I would be interested in
getting involved in helping. I think putting some sort of public
database together where people like myself can go and at least see
other people who are addressed. Even if you're not going to go
prosecute them, they say, well, we only do it -- they'll only even take
your complaint if you go hire an engineer. So here you are --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you wrap it up?
MR. SUAREZ: -- without a pool cage, and then you've --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you wrap it up?
MR. SUAREZ: -- got to hire an engineer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you wrap it up, thank you.
MR. SUAREZ: Yeah, so anyway. There you go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to know more
about, sir, what you're doing. If you can set up an appointment with
me.
MR. SUAREZ: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think the information that the county
attorney gave us, I think that's a way of the course that I think we need
to go. Ifwe can give the county attorney direction on this through a
vote here, hopefully we can come to some fruition in regards to what's
happening and what other counties are doing in regards to addressing
Page 76
January 10, 2006
this issue.
So if I have a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got a nod. Oh, okay. Then
we're going to give -- I'll make a motion to give guidance to the
county attorney to provide us with an in-depth report about our
alternatives and how we can get our goals accomplished.
MR. SCHMITT: And I accept responsibility for that as well.
We will jointly work on that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And then, of course, you
welcome the j oint working?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, of course. I don't see that you
can do it separately from the staff. But I want to emphasize, you're
being tasked to tell us how we can get our goals accomplished.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And what need -- if there's any laws that
need to be changed, how we go about getting this completed.
And do you have an idea, County Attorney, when -- that you
would have this information to bring it back to the board?
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, I'd say with a lead time needed for executive
summary, I'd want at least February 14th or maybe the meeting
beyond.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Last meeting in February, how's
that?
MR. WEIGEL: That would be great, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those in favor of giving
direction to the county staff here, both the county attorney and
building department; all those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 77
January 10,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10B
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID NO. 06-3904 -
PURCHASE OF ASPHALT AND RELATED ITEMS FOR THE
ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $2.3 MILLION TO
BETTER ROADS INC., AS PRIMARY AND BONNESS INC. AS
SECONDARY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item lOB, which
is a recommendation to award bid number 06-3904, purchase of
asphalt and related items for the estimated annual amount of $2.3
million to Better Roads, Inc., as primary, and Bonness, Inc., as
secondary .
And Mr. Norman Feder, your Administrator for Transportation
Services, will present.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, for the record, Norman Feder.
This is an effort to establish a contract for paving for asphalt.
Essentially you've got a primary and a secondary. We will be
utilizing, based on the different bids, based on the nature of job, the
lower cost as we can go forward with it.
We also have this set on a renewable up to four years each year
with a one-year renewable on the bid.
Any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer. I have John Vliet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Mr. Feder, do you have
that chart I seen earlier that showed the cost of asphalt? I want my
fellow commissioners to realize in the last three years what the cost
Page 78
January 10,2006
increase has been for asphalt.
MR. MUDD: Cost of asphalt two years -- and I've got it, John --
$38 -- two years ago, $38 a ton, last year it was $45 a ton, and this
year it's pricing at $68 a ton.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: By that analysis, would you say
that it's going to cost us more to build roads next year?
MR. FEDER: Very definitely, sir. That is not only the item that
has been going up. Other items as well, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What kind of an increase would
you say we're seeing overall yearly for construction of road?
MR. FEDER: Well, basically, as Jim just pointed out, just on the
asphalt, from two years ago, 38 to 45 is about 20 percent increase.
That is something that's already in your budget as we presented our
work program to you.
What we're starting to experience though, we thought, was that
rather large increase. But going from 45 to 68 here seeing prices
increase dramatically for PVC piping, for fill material, for other
issues, we're exploring a number of different approaches that we'll be
sharing with the board as we started to get more of those refined,
because we're seeing costs escalate very rapidly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you think if we stop building
roads that the cost would come down?
MR. FEDER: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. The only other cost
I've got is, I'm very curious to why AP AC was twice the price of
everyone else for asphalt.
MR. FEDER: Basically because they didn't want the job.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My question to you, Norm Feder, is, is
there any type of a way that maybe we can join forces with Lee
County and come up with an asphalt plant?
MR. FEDER: We're talking to them. Whether it's asphalt plant,
which is rather labor intensive, whether it's land to allow for portable
Page 79
January 10,2006
plants to be brought in by other contractors, whether it's the
opportunity for us to find some areas for fill or rock mining that are
done by the county or leased out with definitive prices to us, whether
it be buying some of the supplies and start stockpiling, if you can find
some land to do that. There's an awful lot of things we're looking at,
and that coordination with Lee County on all of the above that I just
mentioned are all things that we're exploring right now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because it would be nice if we could
have a coalition between Lee County and Collier County, since they
have a huge amount of rock, it seems, where the counties could buy a
large pit, put up an asphalt plant there that would be located
someplace in the central part of, let's say, Lee County, so that the
transportation costs wouldn't be so -- wouldn't be as great, and it
would seem to me that there's a possibility that once the Lee County
and Collier County took care of their requirements, that they could, in
turn, turn around and sell this asphalt and hopefully we'd recoup a lot
of our costs. Maybe --
MR. FEDER: If I could simply find the ability to meet our own
needs, I'd be very happy if we're able to expand beyond that. But for
right now we're trying to explore, how do we bring down what is
extremely rapidly escalating costs for our needs.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have the staff to do a -- kind of a
research project to find out if it is cost feasible?
MR. FEDER: We're already doing that. We're also working
with the industry. We're talking to people in the private sector trying
to understand whether or not we're unusual in these cost increases that
we're experiencing on different components of cost, and we're getting
the feel that we're not, but we want to verify that.
We're trying to find out what the industry is looking at, do they
have some solutions to this? Because the rejection of the bid 951,
which we'll probably be bringing to you -- because after trying to
work with the sole bidder, we weren't able to bring down the cost.
Page 80
January 10, 2006
Interestingly enough, that cost on 951 from Immokalee down to
Golden Gate Boulevard, which came in 70 percent over our engineer's
estimate, we found some areas where issues had gone up in price and
the like, but nonetheless, nothing like 70 percent.
Initial discussions gave us an indication there was ability to pull
down a little bit of that cost, but not much. And in particular what was
interesting is the contractor's inability to work with us very much in
those negotiations was because over 30 percent of their bid was to a
subcontractor who they had to encourage to come with them on this
one job because they could not find a sub for all the utility work and
the subground, subsurface work, and so that one sub was, like you
asked me the question on AP AC, wasn't really looking for the job and,
therefore, gave a bid that, if I get that price, I'll do it, but otherwise,
I've got other things I'm intending to do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions from the
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
MS. FILSON: No speakers, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No speakers, okay.
Motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle and seconded by
Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor of this contract for Better Roads, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by same sign?
(N 0 response.)
Page 81
January 10, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It passes unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Sir, the next --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, just a clarification. You
said Better Roads. I think it's a combination of Better Roads and --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And Bonness, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Bonness.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry, clarification. Please correct the
record. It's Better Roads and Bonness, I'm sorry. Thank you,
Commissioner, for bringing that to my attention.
Item #10C
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVE A REQUEST FOR DEDICATION
OF RIGHT OF WAY WITHIN THE LIVINGSTON VILLAGE PUD
TO ACCOMMODATE THE POTENTIAL FUTURE EXTENSION
OF GREEN BOULEVARD - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 10C, and that is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approve a request for a dedication of right-of-way
within the Livingston Village PUD to accommodate the potential
future extension of Green Boulevard, and the transportation division
will present. And your name escapes me, so I'm very sorry.
MR. QUINTY: That's all right. For the record, Joe Quinty,
Principal Planner with the Transportation Planning Department and
also the Project Manager for the Green Boulevard extension study.
We figured you hear enough from Mr. Feder, so I'd present this
directly and have these fellows here for backup.
Basically this item stems from a rezoning petition in 2003 that
was approved. There are a number of transportation stipulations for
the Livingston Village PUD. Primary for us, there's a strip at the
Page 82
January 10, 2006
northern edge of it that was reserved with a time frame that expires at
the end of this week, and because of that time frame, we reshuffled
our priorities and conducted a Green Boulevard extension study,
which even though it's really for long-range planning purposes, we did
it -- we started it in 2004. We're hoping to conclude it this spring.
I think we're far enough along and confident enough to address
this issue though, that on the western edge of the corridor, west of
1-75, within -- with the Livingston Village PUD there are two different
sections. There's one to the west that could accommodate either
Green Boulevard extension or just a Whippoorwill Lane extension
down to connect over to Livingston, kind of a backwards L, or to
utilize the eastern half of Livingston Village corridor as well and
utilize it for a future Green Boulevard extension.
Basically what we've done is found -- a lot of traffic analysis
found that for long-range purposes, it does provide significant relief to
Pine Ridge Road especially, as well as Golden Gate Parkway.
Santa Barbara, see some relief as well. There's some additional
traffic on Livingston. But for the most part, we see significant traffic
benefits from this.
There are cost estimates tied to that project itself, which are
pretty expensive which raise a lot of eyebrows in the $50 million
range for the Green Boulevard extension if it goes across.
You know, in response to that, we've also done further analysis to
looking at what could be done to Pine Ridge and Golden Gate
Parkway in the future to provide similar benefits, and I have some of
that analysis to share today if that's an issue as well.
Basically we see that -- you know, we've done enough analysis
that we believe that this is a tremendous cost savings to us. This
would be an impact fee credit at 2003 dollars compared to current
values, which, talking to some of our right-of-way folks, would be at
least a 65 percent savings, and it keeps the option open.
I'm not sure that this is something we definitely want to do in the
Page 83
January 10,2006
future, but it's something that I don't want to repeat some mistakes of
some of my predecessors and some of your predecessors and, you
know, cutting something off. We want to make sure to keep this
option open for my successors and yours.
So with that, I turn it over to any questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we've got two public speakers on
this.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Marcy Wagner. She'll be followed by Bill
Confoy.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ma'am, I'll give you three minutes. Is
that sufficient time for you?
MS. WAGNER: It might not be. I'm allowed five, correct?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, three minutes.
MS. WAGNER: Well, let me readjust this a little bit. I just want
to go back to reiterate how much -- how long this road is, where it
goes, and how much it's going to cost. I won't go into -- I live on
Green. It will devastate my neighborhood, okay? Just, period.
What you've got is a 2.02 mile roadway. You go to the -- if you
go to the documentation here, it's 10,000, at the longest, 679 feet long;
2.02 miles.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ma'am, if you'd like, you could go over
here, and then we could put that chart --
MS. WAGNER: Oh, you want?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. If you walk over here--
MS. WAGNER: Cool.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- and we have a light table here we can
put this on.
MS. WAGNER: You've got a 2.02 mile roadway, and at the
present time it's estimated at $53 million. After we did the corridor
Page 84
January 10,2006
study, we came up with some alternates. Green Boulevard residents
would really like to put it behind them. We all have long, deep lots.
We suggested going behind us.
The price tag for that -- we don't know what it might incur, but
that would be where we would want the road, and that's who it
impacts is the Green Boulevard residents. So to go behind us would
be an alternate.
But you also have the situation where the right-of way that you're
buying now is not all the right-of-way. Down the road, whether it's 20
years from now, you're going to be buying up seven to 10 lots at
Green Boulevard. They're worth quite a bit of money . You also have
to buy up all the other right-of-way.
So the money that is posted on this -- posted for right-of-way
development is not -- is not realistic for down the road when you buy
that.
Plus with the -- Sunday's paper, when you came out with the fact
that all the roads are now costing so much more money, at the tune of
70 percent, this road could cost $90,000 (sic) for 2.02 miles.
Now, the road doesn't go anywhere. It'd be different if once you
got down Green Boulevard, you launched across the interstate, you
went behind Wyndemere and you landed on Livingston, you could go
through Grey Oaks. But the past commissioners did not allow any
corridors to get through that property.
So the only way to get through is to go back to Pine Ridge and
back to Golden Gate Parkway. Back on the same roads that you're
supposedly alleviating traffic, but you're only alleviating traffic on a
certain section of that road.
So you're going to devastate our neighborhood, spend over 70 --
probably $90,000 -- $90 million to put a 2.0 (sic) mile road in.
Now, you also asked us for our information -- I mean our input
on where we should -- you know, some studies and stuff like that.
You're going to wipe out about six lots down there. We said put it
Page 85
January 10,2006
behind us. We don't know what the money for that will spend (sic).
We'd like the intersection up there where the two lakes are. You
already own all the property there. So we really don't know how
much this road's going to spend.
The problem is, I don't think you can buy right-of-way on
speculation that you might or might not be able to do this road. If you
buy that right-of-way, you're almost committed to throwing money
down later on to put this money (sic) in.
As residents there, we need to know where this road's going to
go, how much it's going to cost, because we have property there, and
when we go to sell, we have to disclose if you're going to put a
four-lane highway down the front of our property.
So when this is over, you decide to buy the right-of-way. This
will continue. We will need to know, we will have to study putting it
behind. We will have to know because we own property there. I've
been there 20 years. I'm a 35-year resident.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please wrap it up, ma'am.
MS. WAGNER: I don't want to be -- I don't want to have Green
Boulevard be responsible for taking the brunt of bad planning so you
guys can get through to Livingston Road.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. WAGNER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: You final speaker is Bill Confoy.
MR. CONFOY: Yes. I'm Bill Confoy. I live at Wyndemere,
and we have about five other people who I asked not to speak today to
shorten this thing up, but if I could just have them stand up to say that
they reviewed these comments and agreed with them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. CONFOY: I believe the FY-'06 cost is closer to 75 million,
and I don't think I have to talk too much on that, because I think
you've heard your costs yourself, and 50 million is probably well
Page 86
January 10, 2006
understated in FY -'06 costs with what's happening.
I also believe that the 3- to $5 million the county will incur in lost
revenue from Livingston Village along with this 75 million for the
road cost would be better utilized for east to west alternatives, such as
widening Pine Ridge Road from 951 to Livingston Road, widening
Golden Gate Parkway to -- from 951, if it's feasible, to Livingston
Road or the Park -- or the 1-75, and widening Radio Road to take it all
the way to Central Avenue.
The above, I believe, are more effective spending of road dollars,
as it takes the traffic all the way to the city and not leave it at
Livingston Road, where it must go to north or south.
The Green Boulevard extension is a one-way mile, two -- she
mentioned two-mile run, costing 75 million. It just cannot be a benefit
to justify this kind of cost.
Even if the county numbers and traffic -- say even the county
numbers and traffic. Now, Joe Quinty just mentioned that it was a
tremendous boost to traffic easement, but his own numbers show that
on Pine Ridge Road west of Livingston, which is where this Green
Boulevard would terminate, if they don't build, it's 69,000 cars, if they
do build, it's 61,000 cars. That's not a huge difference.
And on Livingston Road at Green, if they don't build, it's 52,900,
if they do build, it's 55,7-. It's 3,000 cars difference. That is not a
huge difference to justify a $75 million cost.
Lastly, I believe, that you've heard from Marcy about her area,
and I think it would be -- do irreparable damage to a cul-de-sac
community whose inhabitants, certainly before 1995, had no warning
of this proposal.
Approval, I don't believe, is tolerable to them, the inhabitants
along the way and to the Livingston Road people, or living in this
residential community. And I would like to see it die. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir. Just so that there's an
understanding here, all we're going to do is to continue preserving this
Page 87
January 10,2006
in case that we decide to build the road. If we decide not to, then we'll
obviously release this right-of-way. That's all that's before us.
MR. CONFOY: There's no money committed by the county?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't believe there's any money
committed by the county. Excuse me. Go ahead.
MR. QUINTY: Correct. It would be -- at this -- we're not asking
for any funds at this time. It would be for impact fee credits when the
planning of development comes to fruition.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right.
MR. CONFOY: Well, that's lost income, it's the same as --lost
income to me is the same as paying money.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chairman Halas, we had two
speakers on this issue and you allowed them three minutes. Now, are
you going to do the same on every issue coming forward?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, I plan to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- just so that we set the
game straight.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The game is straight.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do have some questions on the
numbers that was just pointed out. First of all, I've asked for -- Green
Boulevard, approximately 50 homes, 800 trips. Do you agree with
that?
MR. QUINTY: I think that's probably high.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. QUINTY: Probably -- typically on a dead-end street, in
Estates-type dead-end streets, in the 5- to 600 range.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. QUINTY: I wasn't shocked by the 800 number being that -_
because there's a signal there. But in thinking more closely, it
Page 88
..--.,,,____"~_.._~___. _. 0 ~~__~~____",___._
January 10, 2006
probably should be closer in the 600 range.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now 19,000 trips, if we
do build it -- and I'm adding up between Whippoorwill and
Livingston, and I come up with 5,700. Somewhere they're
disappearing. Where are they going?
MR. QUINTY: Well, they're going throughout the system.
You've got --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Here's the system. It
goes over 1-75; assuming that it has a connection with Whippoorwill,
you lose some there. It dead ends at Livingston, and people are turning
right and left. My addition is 5,700, but yet we have 19,500 using this
new collector. So where is the rest? Where's the 1,300 and some odd
-- 13,000 some odd trips going?
MR. QUINTY: Basically that's just looking at, assuming that the
current traffic --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Mudd, do you see this item?
MR. QUINTY: Well, basically what I'd like to add is that
currently you've got Pine -- everyone using Livingston because there
is no other alternative. So basically you've got more people avoiding
Livingston to the south because there is another option.
So it kind of mixes together. You know, the traffic model is not
a perfect tool, but for this case, looking long-term, it's a very useful
one.
And, you know, one of the reasons why we're not finished with
the study right now and still at the stage is waited until Living -- the
final stretch of Livingston opened so we weren't making projections
for that too. We wanted to do a full-year analysis of the Livingston
corridor.
In a perfect world, I would have liked to have this provision in
the PUD two years further out so we could also have done it looking
at real numbers with the Golden Gate intersection as well. But, you
know, we're doing -- you know, using those projections.
Page 89
January 10,2006
I don't see anything on here that's truly concerning. You have a
movement in the morning, northeast to southwest, a number of
different ways people are trying to make that movement. You know,
Livingston is much more equipped to handle a little bit of additional
traffic; whereas, Pine Ridge, will all its signals, with all the median
openings, with all the driveways, you know, I think it's a tradeoff
we're willing to take.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, I understand that. But
I'm just concerned about the numbers, and somewhere some 13,000
cars flew off somewhere, and I just haven't figured that out. And--
did we produce this or did we hire somebody?
MR. QUINTY: We hired somebody to produce this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we going to pay this
person?
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning.
It's not just what's going north and south on Livingston. It's also
what's going to -- you look at numbers coming from down
Whippoorwill, anything that's in the Pine Ridge area, you run the
model, you put a link, you distribute the traffic, you take the link out,
you distribute the traffic. It's not just in one location. It's not going
one direction. It's all directions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's going east and
west, that 19,000?
MR. SCOTT: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got you. So that's where my
flying cars went.
MR. SCOTT: And it's not only just Livingston. You're going to
see more -- as you see on the numbers, there will be more people
going on Whippoorwill. Let's say you wanted to go to Pine Ridge or
whatever.
And, you know, as Joe says, is a model a perfect tool? No. But
we've always projected, if I go back in the past and say, I'm going to
Page 90
January 10, 2006
compare what happened for the traffic, our only problem is we've been
about seven, eight years ahead of time. If I take 2010, it's really 2002
that those numbers happened.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, where I missed it, I failed
to recognize, is the trips going east, okay.
MR. SCOTT: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So my mistake; I apologize.
The -- I've asked to do a comparative if you improve Pine Ridge
or other improvements to capture that 19,000.
MR. SCOTT: We looked at -- if I was taking money and said,
okay, what if I want to do -- try to do the same capacity, which Joe
just pulled up. If I did eight lanes on Pine Ridge and I did eight lanes
on Golden Gate Parkway, how much would that cost and what kind of
capacity would that add? Both of them together does not add the same
capacity as Green Boulevard itself.
And one other problem to that is that if you look at the master
plan for 1-75, Pine Ridge under the interstate is assumed to be eight
lanes. So even beyond that, that intersection, to make that work, they
assumed eight lanes and actually triple right southbound, which is
another interesting addition to what's out there right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: But -- so I don't believe you'd even experience the
same capacity increases.
Now, the other problem is, those are conservative numbers for
right-of-way. Ifwe added 24,25 feet whatever on Pine Ridge, I
believe you would get into the Chevron station, the Shell station,
probably the Mobil station on the north side.
It was never set up to be eight lanes, and because of that, the
expense to do that would be, I think, a lot more than what you proj ect
in here.
Conversely though, I think Golden Gate Parkway might be easier
to do eight lanes, and we've actually talked about doing a balance
Page 91
January 10, 2006
circumstance for the on -- the loop on where you might have four
lanes going out and three lanes coming in on Golden Gate Parkway to
take advantage of the loop when it's done, but that's future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for providing that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry. You finished, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. One more time. Let's talk
about a timeline. I realize that what we're doing is we have an
opportunity to be able to get this right-of-way and hold it in perpetuity
for a use sometime in the future. When would be that time in the
future?
MR. SCOTT: You know, based on the work program, you look
out -- we have 10 to 12 years of need or of identified going through
right-of-way design, future projects out in the Estates, particularly,
that we have 12 years wrapped up in the program right now, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be after that?
MR. SCOTT: It'd be after that. I'd say --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it could be how many
years?
MR. SCOTT: I would guess more like 20 years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And so what we're doing
is -- what we're doing is we're leaving this for some future
commission, rather than taking away a tool for them to be able to
understand what's possible.
This is one of the difficulties I know we run into continuously
where adequate right-of-way wasn't put aside for a lot of our main
thoroughfares many times, that roads began and ended, and then we
allowed developers to go in and reconfigure their end of the road -- St.
Andrews a good example -- in such a way that it was impossible to
Page 92
January 10,2006
continue. Piper Boulevard another one.
This I see as -- this is a decision for people that are going to be
made way past us, and I'm not about to tie their hands behind their
back, like the previous commissions going way back have done to this
commission. And then we become more of a fall guy -- they'll
become more of a fall guy at that time if we do not have this
right-of-way set into reserve.
MR. SCOTT: I don't -- I mean, even the side of not building it, I
don't believe we'd lose on it in the future. I mean, none of this
right-of-way's getting any cheaper. So even if you don't use it and you
put well sites in it in the future or something, you know --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. But we're not granting
you the right to be able to build this road now?
MR. SCOTT: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, right?
MR. SCOTT: I mean, we would come back with -- at whatever
time we're even deciding we're going to do it. I believe a connection
from Whippoorwill over to Livingston might be something that would
come in sooner than that, you know, 10 to 12 years out, but --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I can expect that when I'm
here at 83 years old, this will come back to me to make a decision on?
MR. SCOTT: I hope you're still here at 83 years old.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hope I'm just alive at 83.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. By accepting this
right-of-way, will it -- one of the -- the first speaker said something
about back yards. Would -- and I realize we're not even planning a
road now. We're talking about maybe 20 years out here. But would
that be able to connect to the back of their properties rather than the
front?
MR. SCOTT: We looked at the -- what was raised was, could
you put it along the FP &L corridor on the -- essentially the eastern
Page 93
January 10, 2006
side. Obviously if I do it on the western side, I'm splitting the
neighborhood that's already out there.
We looked at some possibilities. It would be a very weird
crossing of the interstate to get down to this right-of-way, but we have
looked at the possibility that you could go on the back side and go
come down like near -- almost like a frontage road along 1-75 to hook
up to this same location, so that is possible. More expensive, but
possible.
MR. QUINTY: It's something that FP&L's in the process of
looking into for us right now. We'll probably come back to you in the
springtime with a final report for the study. Again, not making any --
not asking you to make any judgment on -- to adopt this for the future,
but to at least present the final findings and to consider at least, you
know, approving the corridor concept to keep alive for -- so it's
something we'll be -- you know, Marcy and the Green Boulevard
residents have been, you know, very active participants and actually
really good partners in some small group meetings about -- with some
creative ideas along this corridor.
You know, from some of our previous issues along FPL
corridors, I was a little hesitant at first to approach that, but it's
something that, at their direction, we're looking at again, and it's
something that we're going to be talking to them about further in the
spring and then hopefully bring back to you for a final report.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion, if I
may, at this time, to approve staff recommendations for the set aside
of this right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I second it then. Motion to approve the
right-of-way on this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the staff recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The staffs recommendation to preserve
Page 94
January 10, 2006
the right-of-way on this by Commissioner Coletta, seconded by
Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion passes unanimously. Thank you
very much for your presentation.
I think at this time we'll take a break for lunch, and we'll be back
at one o'clock. Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have a hot mike?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you do now.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Board of County Commissioners are
back in session.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2006-10: CU-03-AR-4647, MITCHELL D. HOUSE,
REPRESENTED BY DONALD J. MURRAY, AICP, AND
COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., IS
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ECO- TOURIST FACILITY IN THE
RURAL AGRICULTURAL-AREA OF CRITICAL STATE
CONCERN/SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY (A-ACSC/ST)
ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.04.03, TABLE 2,
Page 95
January 10, 2006
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY OF
A MILE WEST OF S.R. 29, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF U.S. 41, IN
SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED W/STIPULA TIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is -- this is one
o'clock, and we start our zoning appeals and our land use items -- 7 A.
This petition requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's continual use 03-AR-4647, Mitchell D. House represented by
Donald 1. Murray, AICP, and Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., is
requesting a conditional use to allow for the establishment of an
eco-tourist facility in the rural agricultural area of critical state
concern/special treatment overlay, which is A-ACSC/ST, zoning
district, pursuant to section 2.04.03, Table 2 of the Collier County
Land Development Code.
The subject property is located approximately a mile west of
State Road 29 on the north side of U.S. 41 in Section 25, Township 52
south, Range 29 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At this time I'll ask the commissioners in
regards to ex parte and disclosures of this, starting with Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I seen it on the planning
commission, parts of it, and I talked to the county attorney on it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've spoken to our staff, I've
spoken to our county attorney, as well as to Joe Schmitt, and I've
asked Joe actually to get a bit of information for me, and I have a
couple e-mailshere.andthey.rein my folder.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The only ex parte I have is I've talked to
staff on this, and that's been the gist of it.
Page 96
-'.'--,;.----.--.-..--...,....-- --'""-
January 10,2006
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Obviously I came in late,
which one are we on?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're on 7A, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 7A?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I had meetings,
correspondence, e-mails, and phone calls.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have had meetings,
correspondence, telephone calls. This item actually first came before
the commission well over a year ago, if I remember correctly, so there
is -- there's substantial correspondence in my file.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would the applicant like to give us a
presentation.
MR. MUDD: You have to swear people in, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh. Anybody that's speaking on behalf
of this, please stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. ANDREA: Good afternoon. I'm Robert Andrea with
Coastal Engineering, representing Mitch House of Jan's Trams.
I'm glad to be here today. We did start this a while ago, about in
2002. We're requesting a conditional use for an eco-tourist facility in
lands designated as agricultural, rural mixed use, and conservation.
It's also within the area of critical state concern with a special
treatment overlay.
Much of the area that you see here is conservation land, and we
feel the conditional use we're petitioning for is -- goes along nicely
with this area, is very low impact, passive recreational use.
We believe the proposed use is consistent with Collier County
Growth Management Plan because it promotes such things as the
passive recreational type uses that we're proposing here.
Page 97
January 10,2006
The subject property zoning designation is agricultural rural
mixed use and conservation. And since a large portion of this is
already conservation, which is basically designed to conserve and
maintain the natural resources of Collier County, we feel this proposed
use is consistent with this as well.
Our proposed use will educate people on the conservation land
and let them know why that's important to our area. We'll provide a
close-up look on our tours of the natural resource area. We'll be
traveling over existing lands, existing trails, existing canals, be very
low impact. We won't create any new areas. We feel this would be a
very good tourism draw for the area, as well as educating the people
about the history of the area.
During this process, we've been able to address a lot of the
concerns posed by staff. We've submitted the protected plant species
report, we've increased some parking areas.
We did have, with the Collier County Planning Commission
meeting, some stipulations, and I'd like to address those, if I could.
On the list, Exhibit D, conditions of approval, number four, motor
vehicles shall be equipped with engines which include spark arresters
and mufflers designed to reduce noise.
The petitioner will provide a statement and/or repair bill from a
licensed auto mechanic certifying that the vehicles in use comply with
defined criteria within 30 days of approval.
If you look down at number eight, it also says, the vehicles shall
comply with the state and U.S. Coast Guard regulations. We'd like to
ask that number four be eliminated since it's a little redundant, and the
fact that if we -- if we have off-road vehicle -- or off-road tires on this
vehicle to be able to transverse over the lands here to protect it, we
won't be able to drive on the road to go into Naples to get a certified
mechanic. But they will be -- they will be certified as according to
state regulations.
Also stipulation number 13, any pruning of mangroves on site
Page 98
_~,^__."".~..O".~W"""__,_,_,,,,~,_.,m'.,~,..~,_.___,_........ _ ,." """""_._~.,~
.'" '-~---",~~"'- -,~.~-,-,._--- - - -~.._...._--
January 10,2006
shall comply with the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection's requirements.
Number 19 also states, the owner shall use a licensed mangrove
trimmer for any necessary trimming. I believe the DEP has a
regulation where you can trim back branches through the waterway up
to one inch in diameter to be able to pass through. We propose that
we eliminate number 19, the owner shall use a licensed mangrove
trimmer for any necessary trimming and that we will comply with all
DEP regulations for mangrove trimming.
Stipulation number 22 states, vending machines are restricted
from being located where they would be -- where they would not be
visible from vehicles traveling along U.S. 41.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Where they would be visible?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MR. ANDREA: It says where they would be visible.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are restricted from.
MR. ANDREA: Right, restricted from being located.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So you can't see them from U.S. 41.
MR. ANDREA: Right. We feel this is kind of an unprecedented
stipulation. We'd like to remove it altogether, or maybe change the
wording where all vending machines just be located just inside the
building.
Then the last one here, number 23, the applicant shall seek FDOT
approval of a right-in deceleration turn lane from the east and a left
turn lane from the west.
We have already had previous discussions with FDOT, and we
don't feel there's enough right-of-way to comply with this particular
stipulation here. We would like to reword that to, the applicant shall
seek FDOT approval so that they can -- they can look at the
right-of-way that is available there and let us know if turn lanes are
even possible there.
And I believe the last remaining issue that has yet to be solved is
Page 99
January 10,2006
the issue of the conservation easement. We're acutely aware of this
easement requirement. It's not that we have an unwillingness to grant
the county a conservation easement. It's more like we have the
inability to. This is leased land. Our client does not own the land. He
leases it, and we'd like to propose that the conservation easement run
with the lease.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. Do we
have a report from staff?
MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. For the record, Heidi
Williams with zoning and land development review.
The project has been fully reviewed by staff. It has gone to the
Environmental Advisory Council and to the planning commission.
Getting to the heart of the matter, this is a project that we feel is a
reasonable use of this site. It is environmentally sensitive land, that is
the reason there are so many stipulations of -- for conditions of
approval.
The main issue that staff has is that the growth management plan
requires a permanent conservation easement for impact to this
particular type of land. The applicant is a leaseholder and is unwilling
or unable to provide that easement.
Based on that inconsistency, staffs recommendation is for denial;
however, should that issue be able to be resolved, the 24 stipulations
are recommended.
Staff does note that number 19, that the applicant requested, is
redundant and is acceptable to be removed.
I should note that of the 24 conditions, one through eight are land
development code requirements, nine through 14 were added by
environmental staff, 15 through 21 were stipulations for
recommendation of approval by the Environmental Advisory Council,
and 22 and 23 were added by the planning commission, and 24 was
also a staff stipulation.
Page 100
January 10, 2006
So 19, we have been discussing that that is redundant and we'd be
okay with removing that.
The vending being inside, that was a planning commission
stipulation. I believe it was something, they just wanted to remove
any type of unnatural setting from something that is supposed to be a
very natural area, and could certainly work out the wording of that.
The number -- stipulation number 23, we feel that the wording
proposed by the applicant is actually what is written there, that the
applicant shall seek FDOT approval.
And with that, I believe that I could answer any questions or we
could discuss the permanent conservation easement, the growth
management plan requirement.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A question for the applicant,
please. Can you -- it took me a while to get through the stips. on what
page it is. Can you tell me which one you raised the red flag again?
MR. ANDREA: Yes, absolutely. Number four.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Four, okay.
MR. ANDREA: Number eight.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. ANDREA: Number 13.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. ANDREA: Number 19.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 19.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. ANDREA: Number 22.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. ANDREA: And number 23.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Twenty-three, okay.
Now, show me -- obviously, this is ecotourism, correct?
MR. ANDREA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you show me where the
Page 101
January 10,2006
motorized vehicles will be traveling on the map? Actually I guess it's
up on the viewer.
MR. ANDREA: Yeah, I can give you a --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Oh, I see from the
purple, okay.
MR. ANDREA: Yes, the purple line there, that's an existing tram
trail that has been there, and we'll travel over that road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. Now, I need to
know on these stipulations, the conditionals from our staff, obviously
they go above and beyond our law, but it -- maybe it's because it's a
conditional use that we can ask so many things.
MS. WILLIAMS: It is a process that has grown. Numbers,
again, one through eight are in the land development codes as
requirements.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. WILLIAMS: So the request that number eight be removed
is something that is not consistent with the land development code and
something that was not reviewed by staff since we've not had that
request in front of us prior to today.
The environmental staff added stipulations based on the
sensitivity of this area, and each of our review boards also added
things that they thought would make it a reasonable -- a more
reasonable use at the site.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Am I correct in my assumption,
because it's conditional uses, you can go above and beyond what's
called for under our codes and laws?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, number nine, or number
eight, my perspective, if it's an off-road vehicle, you don't want it to be
state certified or have to comply to state laws, because a vehicle --
vehicle could mean, you know, so many things. So maybe you would
change that to off-road vehicle if there's any stipulations on that?
Page 102
January 10,2006
MS. WILLIAMS: I would probably have to defer to our county
attorney, because that's language I took directly out of the land
development code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But this is -- all right. It's -- I'm
not sure -- I think the -- these vehicles are going to be modified for the
use of this trail over there, not made to run up and down 1-75. So can
we do some modifications with that?
Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I believe that ifit were not going to
meet the intent of what is in the land development code, that we could,
and the land development code does provide that we can put
reasonable stipulations and safeguards on the approval of a conditional
use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question on number eight. It's
my understanding that we're going to have vessels traversing
waterways here. And I believe the gentleman said that he wanted to
eliminate number eight. To me, that's the most important one,
especially with Coast Guard regulations in regards to life jackets and
the sort and meeting those Coast Guard regulations.
MS. WILLIAMS: I could have the--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Especially when these are going to be
for rent.
MS. WILLIAMS : Well, my understanding is that the -- it will be
more of a tour than a rental, but I could have the agent for the
applicant speak to that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, whether -- it's a tour boat and you
want to make sure that the people onboard the tour boat are considered
as far as the safety, and I hate -- the welfare, safety of the people on
the -- that are going to be using these boats.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. I do think that is the intention of this
prOVISIon.
Page 103
January 10,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So I kind of stick, that we should
keep number eight there.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: First I'd like to know, do you
have any signed-up speakers on this?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Obviously, the -- did the
environmental community have any comments at any of the meetings
that you had? I'm very curious about that.
MS. WILLIAMS: There was significant discussion at the
Environmental Advisory Council meeting. If you'd like to hear from
our environmental review staff, she is here and could answer
particular questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I know the environmental
committee passed it, but I'm talking -- I'm sorry . Was there any outcry
from our -- such as the Audubon or the Wildlife Federation?
MS. WILLIAMS: No, there was not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That's what I wanted to
know. So obviously this does not present a threat to the environment?
It probably serves as useful purpose in equating people to the
amenities that are out there, the wildlife that's there. I think it's a good
project, but I want to hear some more from my fellow commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had two questions. I asked
staff this, but I'd like it -- to research both of these. I got an answer
back on one of them, but I wanted to state on the record there was no
mention of bathrooms on here, yet we're talking about a very
environmentally sensitive area. Would you please tell me how they're
going to handle the bathroom situation?
MS. WILLIAMS: Sure. I was provided an explanation verbally
from the agent for the applicant, so he could fully explain it to you
now.
Page 104
January 10,2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ANDREA: Weare using actually environmental toilets in
this area. They're self-incinerating toilets that will burn the waste
right inside a self-contained unit. They're actually -- the name of them
is a Store Borne Toilet, and they're environmentally sensitive toilets.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. I have another
question also. This one is very important to me actually, and I have
not received an answer.
They were -- you were talking about, during the Environmental
Advisory Council meeting, they said any listed plant species will be
relocated out of harm's way.
From my very basic knowledge, you take a plant that is in a
specific area, especially if it's a listed species or an endangered
species, and you move it and you kill it. Now, I got very nervous
about that one, and I want to know what is going to happen with any
listed plants.
MR. ANDREA: If it's okay, I'd like for our environmentalist to
answer that.
MS. LIDA Y: For the record, my name is Tammy Liday
(phonetic) with Earth Balance. We have been the environmental
consultant since the beginning of the project.
And we did do a listed plant species with a recommendation from
the environmental committee, and we did find a number of air plants
that were located within the canals that the boat would be running on,
and these are air plants that can be easily transplanted to higher
locations on a mangrove that will not be, you know, trimmed back or
anything.
So there may have been just a few hanging over the canals that
would be removed and relocated. And it's easy to physically, you
know, take that plant and relocate it up with some wiring.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But nothing rare? Like some of
these rare orchids that they're finding now that we didn't even know
Page 105
January 10, 2006
existed before, nothing that is endangered as far as the plant life goes;
is that correct?
MS. LIDA Y: Right. It was your typical air plants, which are
called Tillandsias, that were located in the canals, that -- there was
four species of Tillandsia.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to follow up on with that
question. Is it your understanding that paragraph 1 7 applies only to
listed plant species?
MS. KEMP: Yes. It's only to plants as in -- stated in item 17.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It doesn't -- it doesn't say plants in
17. It says, any listed species. And I was wondering how you're
going to catch those Red-cockaded Woodpeckers and relocate them.
MS. LIDA Y: Right. None of the wildlife species. You know,
they were wading birds observed in the area; that would be a listed
species. Obviously they don't need to be relocated physically. I'm
sure they will do so themselves. Other species that were found were
the common snook, which is a listed species in the canals. Obviously
they can move out of the way also.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's the problem with the
imprecise language. Number 17 says that you shall relocate any listed
species in impacted portions of the canal area, not really just the canal,
but the canal area. So it's very imprecise language. And I think we
have to have a meeting of the minds here before we can go any
further. So how do we do that?
MS. MASON: Good afternoon. Susan Mason, environmental
services staff, for the record.
It does -- it does -- this discussion in the stipulation was added in
regards to plants, but there is also the possibility, whether or not this
condition was placed in there, I couldn't see it happening, but say a
gopher tortoise moved into the parking lot area. That burrow would
Page 106
January 10, 2006
need to be excavated and that tortoise relocated prior to site
development plan.
Any of those mobile foraging type of animals that may
temporarily come onto a site, that's not what relocation is about. It
would be something, if a rookery was found on site or if a burrow for
an animal, that type of relocation, but it would not ever address
anything like panthers that cross through this area or bear or anything
like that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or snook?
MS. MASON: Or snook, no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do you -- how do you make
sure that the petitioner understands clearly what their responsibilities
are under this particular stipulation?
MS. MASON: Well, the stipulation in the LDC and the growth
management plan, it's listed species in general are protected. It's not
differentiated between the plants and the animals. So if they're listed,
they're protected, but this relocation would -- at this site in particular,
all that this would apply to are plants because that's the only listed
species that's located there that is --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then don't you think it would be
better if we were to say, the applicant shall relocate any listed plant
species?
MS. MASON: You could put that on there, however, it wouldn't
relieve them of the obligation if a listed animal species showed up on
site and chose to create a burrow there, that they would still have to
obtain the permits, whether or not the stipulation or condition was
there.
It was really the clarification in regards to the air plants because a
lot of times historically some of these plants have not been handled.
The animals have been looked at more carefully.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you understand my problem?
It really isn't clear. It doesn't say anything about air plants. It doesn't
Page 107
January 10, 2006
say anything about plants at all. It just says listed species.
MS. MASON: Right. And I think it may have been done on
purpose to cover any possibility of something -- if we limited it to air
plants and then in the course of another survey they discovered an
orchid that they didn't observe the first time that needed to be
removed, that that would also cover an orchid or another species that
maybe should be relocated.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That puts the petitioner a
very precarious position. But nevertheless, as long as they understand
the intent, I'm sort of happy with it.
And Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to go ahead and make a
motion for approval recognizing that the petitioner has asked for some
elimination of certain of these stipulations. I would not suggest
approval of any of those modifications with the exception of the
elimination of number 19, which the staff is in agreement with, and to
further qualify the stipulation in number 24 to state that the permanent
conservation easement dedicated to Collier County would run with the
terms of the lease. And with that, I would make a recommendation for
approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excellent. I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just so I have an understanding,
Commissioner Coyle, you're saying to include all of the
before-mentioned items that the petitioner was trying to exclude; you
want those back in except for number 19; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that 24, you're saying that the
applicant, even though he doesn't own this land, he is leasing this land,
that he still has to retain a permanent conservation easement on this
property, or a conservation easement on this property while he's under
the lease?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For the term of the lease.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: For the term of the lease?
Page 108
January 10,2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And we have a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
And Commissioner Coyle -- Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm just curious why the
vending machines were not something that would be considered as far
as putting them in the building. They'd be still out of view, probably
make the operation run smoother.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't think there's anything
to prohibit that. I think it just says that they should not be seen from
the roadway; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that correct?
MS. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So that shouldn't be a concern.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you put them in the building or
put them behind a barricade or put them behind the building, either
way.
MS. WILLIAMS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So it gives them more
flexibility actually.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
MR. SCHMITT: And that was -- for the record, that was only
done to prevent people from stopping as they go down 41 to stop at a
vending machine, so that's the reason why that was there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: God forbid.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the -- I mean, should we
be doing this? If we do this with a vending machine on this particular
application, shouldn't we consider it on all commercial property or all
places that have vending machines? Shouldn't we put it in our land
development code, we don't want to see vending machines?
Page 109
January 10, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is on conditional use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know it, but I'm saying, to be
fair, we do it for one, shouldn't we do it for all?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, that was the planning
commission only because they thought it would create a traffic issue,
because of the difficulty in the right-in and right-out and left turn, and
they felt along U.S. 41, that that created more ofa problem for this
petitioner than they needed to deal with, and that was the only reason
for that. It was nothing to prevent anybody from stopping. It was
meant more as a -- from the planning perspective, as a safety issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: God forbid. I hope none of
those vending machines jump out and create an accident or anything.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there anything -- any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir. There's no public speakers, so you can
close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Close the public hearing.
Is there any further discussion? If not -- yes, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just -- I'm sorry. Just one more.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hold on. I want to get it from the county
attorney. Yes?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. For clarification in regard to
discussion of the conservation easement and the motion and
discussion on the floor relating to, that the easement should run for the
time of the lease, we have -- the legal review has indicated that a
leaseholder, in this case the applicant, can, in fact, convey an easement
no greater than the rights that he or she has with the lease, so I don't
think that's a disputed item in regard to the motion that was made.
I do want for clarification to understand though that since it is a
lease and there is the potential, although we don't know right now,
when that lease may end, is the conditional use to continue for this site
after the lease ends, notwithstanding that we have a conservation
easement only for the duration of the lease? And you may want to
Page 110
January 10, 2006
factor that into your consideration and motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that was made in the motion
itself.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It would be my expectation
that the lease of the property and the continuation of the conditional
easement would be -- would expire at the same time.
MR. WEIGEL: The conservation easement?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm talking a little further in regard to the
conditional use, which is the land use that you're actually making a
motion to approve today, will it continue beyond the end of the lease
or not?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, again, I had -- I had intended
to include in my answer that it would cease at that time. In other
words, my assumption is that they are leasing this property,
particularly this portion of the property, specifically for the purpose of
having this eco-tour.
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If they stop leasing the property, it
would be my presumption they would no longer have the eco-tour,
and they would no longer have the continual use.
MR. WEIGEL: And that's very clear on the record. I appreciate
that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that way it would protect our
rights with respect to the conservation easement.
MR. WEIGEL: You've answered my every question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that for the second also?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's no further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Just, if I may. Number
eight, vehicles shall comply with state and U.S. Coast Guard
Page 111
January 10, 2006
regulations. Didn't we -- we were discussing that, and I thought that
was -- that was a little bit too much, wasn't it? We're talking about
vehicles that would meet -- be roadworthy?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, we're talking about boats also.
They've got boats and -- they've got also land vehicles and boats, and
so, therefore, the stipulation that when you load people on boats to
take them on a tour --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So in other words, the
laws that are already in place regarding these type of things for
eco-tours has to apply?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got no problem with that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's no further discussion?
Yes.
Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we want to further clarify
that to make it off-road vehicles, it has to comply to state law in regard
to off-road vehicles.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There may be some laws in regards to
off-road vehicles, when you -- when you have them as a way of taking
people on tours, so there may be some -- there may be some laws in
regards to what needs to be -- what safety issues or safety factors they
need to have incorporated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. The only thing is --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's all this was saying, if there's
any state laws in regards to off-road vehicles for hire where you take
passengers, they have to meet that criteria.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, thank -- so that's the
clarification number eight?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. If there's no further discussion, all
Page 112
January 10,2006
those in favor of this conditional use approval, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, same like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The motion approves -- is approved
unanimously, 5-0.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2006-01: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5431, C & R REALTY
OF RICHMOND, INC., REPRESENTED BY ROBERT L. DUANE
OF HOLE MONTES, INC., AND R. BRUCE ANDERSON OF
ROETZEL & ANDRESS IS REQUESTING A REZONE FROM
ESTATES E AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD
ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT "CPUD" ZONING DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN
AS CAMBRIDGE SQUARE CPUD, AND OFFICE AND RETAIL
DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF A MAXIMUM OF 80,000
SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND 35,000
SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USES LOCATED ON
APPROXIMATELY 16.1 ACRES, ON THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PINE RIDGE ROAD (CR
896) AND LIVINGSTON ROAD, IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 8A. That
used to be 17B. And that item reads, this item also requires that all
Page 113
January 10, 2006
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's PUDZ-AR-5431, C&R Realty of Richmond, Inc., represented
by Robert L. Duane of Hole Montes, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson of
Roetzel and Andress is requesting a rezone from estates liE" and
planned unit development PUD zoning districts to the commercial
planned unit development, CPUD zoning district to be known as
Cambridge Square, CPUD, an office and retail development
consisting of a maximum of 80,000 square feet of commercial
development and 35,000 square feet of office uses located on
approximately 16.1 acres on the northeast comer of the intersection of
Pine Ridge Road, which is County Road 896, and Livingston Road, in
Section 7, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we get that overhead off so
we don't confuse the public?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We need disclosures from the
county commissioners, starting with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I talked to staff about this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I don't have any disclosures to
make on this -- or ex parte on this particular item, 17B. Commissioner
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to commissioner -- or
I'm sorry --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Anderson?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Bruce Anderson and some
Page 114
January 10, 2006
residents in Livingston Woods and the planning commission.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those that are going to be
giving testimony in this, would you please rise to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Would the petitioner please state
his case here?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if I may, maybe, to be
able to help move this along just a little bit because I'm the one that
pulled it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You brought all these people in over
lunch.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know, but they're getting paid
by the hour so they can thank us later.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The reason I pulled it is because
my concern with the connectivity, the lack of it. The fact that, once
again, we eliminated something that serves a public benefit based
upon what someone wants at this point in time.
I tried to come to some sort of understanding at the beginning of
the meeting, but someone suggested that I pull it to get a discussion
going, and I'm more than willing to sit through the whole presentation.
I've read it with great detail.
If no other commissioners have any concern over the
connectivity, I'm more than willing to let this pass, but I do have
concerns, and I didn't want this to become something where someone
would use it for a benchmark in the future saying, well, why should
we have connectivity when this particular PUD was approved without
it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, my question is, I would think that
this would have been addressed in planning commission. Did this
come up in the planning commission as a question? And, Bruce,
maybe you can give us a quick answer on this.
Page 115
January 10,2006
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it did come up. A bit of history on
interconnection here.
The comprehensive plan states with regard to this property that
there shall be no access onto Livingston Woods Lane. And when this
PUD application was filed, my recollection is that the applicant was
asked by the transportation division to consider an interconnect that
would allow people to drive into this commercial property from
Livingston Woods Lane, but not to exit back out to Livingston Woods
Lane.
When we brought that up at the neighborhood information
meeting, that was not well received, that's putting it mildly. And so
we told them at the neighborhood meeting that the applicant would not
request that. We can't do anything to stop county transportation.
They have a mind of their own. And if they wanted to pursue that,
that was certainly their right, but the applicant was not going to ask for
it, so we took that off.
Then at the planning commission, we were asked to consider
about a pedestrian interconnect. And based on the reaction that we had
received at the neighborhood meeting and my prior history in dealing
with rezone projects along this corridor, I offered up that I did not
think that the residents would want a pedestrian interconnect either,
because I remembered very vividly from the Racetrac rezone hearings
that there was concern about transients from the interstate getting onto
Livingston Woods Lane and facilitating that with any kind of an
openIng.
And so I simply responded to the planning commission that I
didn't think the residents favored a pedestrian interconnect either, and
that's the whole story on the interconnection issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, do you have a
question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to go to the viewer
to show the board something out of our growth management plan.
Page 116
January 10,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This Board of Commissioners
adopted this language during the Golden Gate Area Master Plan
restudy that we appointed citizens to it. It wasn't a previous board.
This board did it. So, you know, why are we visiting this issue? It
clearly states, no interconnectivity.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. Yes, two questions.
First one, is this what, at one time, where we were going to put that
park?
MR. ANDERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine.
Say, for instance, it's built and it has some stores in there that --
sayan ice cream store for instance, and the neighborhood would really
like to take a walk over there, is there a way in the future of maybe
just giving a pedestrian access to it, you know, like with a little gate or
something like that that -- just for the Livingston Woods people? I
mean, even though right now we're not doing it and the land
development code says no, if they felt that they wanted to have access
to it rather than getting out in the street, especially if they're taking a
family walk or something, would that be possible?
MR. GATES: For the record, Todd Gates, I'm the developer and
contractor. And I apologize. I didn't bring any pretty pictures with
me because we were on the consent agenda this morning. So I get a
call from Bruce and say, you may want to come down here, so I
cancelled my afternoon and came down here.
Just a little history. I wish I had all the pictures and the site
plans. But we originally had planned on having access to the
community because we thought it was a good thing to ride bicycles to
get ice cream, to buy yogurt, to go to the dry cleaners, to whatever
neighborhood centers are there for.
We also showed egress in, not egress going out, for the very
Page 11 7
January 10, 2006
reason to keep the traffic out of the neighborhood. So from a pure
planning standpoint, it made sense for it to be there. From a --
probably a practical standpoint, it made sense to be there, and we're
more than willing to put it there.
My problem is that every time we made a presentation, we about
got lynched from the neighborhood, and I'm not exaggerating. And so
basically what I said was, if the neighborhood -- if it's the will of the
neighborhood -- and I'm talking, the entire neighborhood does not
want any traffic there coming in, going out. And we even went to
plan B, well, what about if someone wants to ride a bicycle and just a
little connection. They said, no, absolutely not. And we about got
thrown out of the room on that, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But my question was -- I'm sorry to
interrupt you.
MR. GATES: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But just to move this along. In two
years when the neighborhood -- if the neighborhood ever said, gee,
you know what, I wish we had a way to walk in there, is there a way
to have some kind of an opening that they could if the -- the
opportunity -- say, for instance, the neighborhood took up a bunch of
petitions and said, now we'd like to get in there, there is a way to get
in there if -- you could make one?
MR. GATES: We could easily put a gate in to be--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. GATES: From a practical point, we could easily put a gate
in with a lock on it. I don't know who would control that because it's a
-- I guess the civic association could control it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. GATES: But again, we are more than willing -- in fact, we
had wanted to do that because we thought it was the right thing to do.
But, again, I guess the technical aspect of it got set aside when the
lynching started.
Page 118
January 10,2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sometimes people, you know, ask
for something, and then later on they find out that maybe they didn't
want it after all --
MR. GATES: One of the things--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and what I want to do is just make
some kind of provision knowing -- you know, we do want to bow to
the neighborhood's will, but--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, I would think that
that would be an option for the neighborhood. And I would think that
they could go to the developer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make sure it could
be done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well--
MR. GATES: Yes, ma'am, it can be done. And just for the
public record, I made a promise on two separate occasions that I
would not push the egress, both pedestrian as well as automotive. So
for the public record, the developer is not pushing this issue. If you
want something done, and we certainly would be glad to do that. But
this neighborhood's pretty vocal.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I was going to ask Ms.
Student if she would -- the document that Henning, Commissioner
Henning, put up, is that limiting us by what we can do as far as our
action goes? I would like your--
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay, thank you. The language
that was placed on the visualizer for the Pine Ridge Road mixed sub --
use district where this property's located is that there shall be no
access onto Livingston Woods Lane. Now, it says, no access. It
doesn't say no vehicular access or no pedestrian access. So there's
ambiguity there.
Page 119
January 10, 2006
When we construe statutes under the case law, we try to look to
the plain meaning of the law. But where there's an ambiguity, then the
law tells us that we have to look to what the legislative intent is.
So it would be up to you as a board to make the determination as
to whether it was your intent to limit it to pedestrian and vehicular
access or to just limit it to no vehicular access. And so it goes back to
the intent.
MR. GATES: But, Commissioners, may I say a quick comment?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
MR. GATES: There was a gentleman here representing the
neighborhood at the planning commission, and I believe Chairman
Strain offered that same mediation, if you will. And his name was Mr.
Morgan, Reed Morgan was here and lives in the neighborhood. And
he represented that he was representing the neighborhood and said he
would not even agree to that, so, just, I mean --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just think that it's an
opportunity where we could have had some, not only interconnect
here, but it's going to be extremely difficult --
MR. GATES: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the next one that comes down
through here and they say, we don't want an interconnect. And pretty
soon we're going to be boxing everybody in to the point where we
don't have that grid, we don't have any ability for people to have
user-friendly streets. It becomes more and more difficult.
I mean, to get to this particular plaza, it's going to require them to
exit all the way out, around, drive around, go into it and come back
out again.
What about the young people that might like to get to it on a
bicycle to take advantage of what's there? I'm -- just a real concern. I
just wanted to share it with my fellow commissioners.
MR. GATES: I 100 percent agree. From a development
standpoint, we thought it needed to be there. Staff had very good
Page 120
January 10, 2006
reasons for it to be there. DOT had very good reasons it needed to be
there, but the, again, the neighborhood did not want it there, so --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's an option that the
neighborhood, if they find out, that I believe that Mr. McVey (sic)
there would probably work with the -- with the neighborhood if they
decided that they would like to have an ingress and egress out of there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I understand where you're coming from.
We're only dealing with this particular one. But what you're trying to
convey is, what about other things? And I think that's for another
time, another discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but the other things aren't in
the LDC where it says no access.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine. I do appreciate the
time of this commission.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any public speakers on
this?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I just want to correct the
misunderstanding. There is pedestrian access to this piece of property.
And, you know, this property borders Livingston Woods
highway, Livingston Road and Pine Ridge. There's a sidewalk on
both sides, and that sidewalk is access to the community.
So I don't believe that statement is true. If people want to get
there by bicycle or foot, they can.
MR. GATES: But one clarification, Heidi just reminded me.
Mr. Morgan did not say he was representing the neighborhood. He
said that -- what did he say, Heidi? It's in public record.
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe essentially -- Heidi Williams, for the
record -- his comment was that he personally was okay with the
pedestrian interconnection, but that he could not speak for the entire
Page 121
January 10, 2006
neighborhood, but he personally found that to be acceptable.
MR. GATES: And what he was alluding to basically -- and I
know Mr. Morgan very well -- is that he had been at all the other
meetings and knew what the comments were going to be from the
neighborhood, so --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time I'll close the public
hearing.
Is there any further discussion by the board on this matter?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I need a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got a motion and a second
by Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we? Okay. I'm sorry.
Do we have clarification on the motion? If not, could someone
read it back to us?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was a motion to approve.
MR. WEIGEL: The motion was a motion to approve with a
second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As written.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- same sign, okay. Passes 4-1 with
Commissioner Coletta not in favor of the motion.
Item #10D
Page 122
January 10, 2006
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AWARD OF BID 06-3922
IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,237,040 FOR PUMP STATIONS 109
AND 113 IMPROVEMENTS TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS INC.
PROJECT 73945 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item on
the agenda, and that's number 10D, and that is a recommendation to
approve an award of a bid, 06-3922, in the amount of $1,237,040, for
pump stations 109 and 113 improvements, to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc.
project 73945.
And Ms. Sandy Sridhar will present. She's a senior project
manager over at public utilities.
MS. SRIDHAR: For the record, I'm Sandy Sridhar, a project
manager -- project manager, public utilities engineering. This project
is about the replacing higher capacity pumps and electrical panels. I
have a slide presentation for you, to make, if you have any questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously.
MS. SRIDHAR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great presentation, Sandy.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Item #10E
Page 123
January 10,2006
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A $4,500,000 INCREASE
TO PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER 4500055195, ISSUED TO
SOLID RESOURCES, INC., FOR HURRICANE DEBRIS
REMOV AL MONITORING WORK, FROM AN INITIAL
EMERGENCY ESTIMATE OF $500,000. - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is number 10E, and
that's old 16C1, and that was moved at Commissioner Coletta's
request.
That is a recommendation to approve a $4,500,000 increase to
purchase order number 4500055195, issued to Solid Resources, Inc.,
for hurricane debris removal monitoring work from an initial
emergency estimate of $500,000 to the budgeted amount of $5
million.
And Mr. Tom Wides, your Director of Public Utilities
Operations, will present.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Tom, before you go, maybe Mr. Coletta
here, Commissioner Coletta can ask the question that he's concerned
about.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, to be honest with you, I
had no concerns. I thought it was well written, but a member of the
public has raised concerns, and I wanted to give him that opportunity
to be able to ask the questions and you could answer them. And if you
would be so kind to call up the public speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would the speaker please -- public
speaker please come forward there.
Thank you, Robert.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank
you very much, Commissioner Coletta, for respecting my request that
this be moved off the consent agenda.
I appreciate your -- this from you, and I think you're developing a
Page 124
January 10, 2006
political persona that is indicating you to be a wise man. And you are
the personification of the reason that term limits are a very bad idea.
You're just starting to get to know what you're doing, and term limits
would limit you, but you can go on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want you to know I didn't pay
this man a nickel to say what he just said.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't believe you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it's worth a fortune.
MR. KRASOWSKI: But now, wait, you're cutting into my time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Three minutes.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Oh, three. Well, look, here. Let me get
right to the point then. We -- I, Bob Krasowski, with the Zero Waste,
Collier County Group, have been following this issue as a peripheral
issue to reasonable expenditures on waste management on its resource
material management, and I see here that this total amount of $5
million has been -- is going to be moved into a certain account to pay
off solid resources.
Now, I think it's incredibly amazing that the estimate of $5
million was made for the monitoring of the removal of these
horticultural materials, and we've come back to actually hit $5 million
on the head. Like it's not $4,999,994.50, but exactly $5 million. So
with this nice executive summary, I'd like to see the exact amount,
whether we went under a little bit or over a little bit or if we're just
giving him five million.
MR. MUDD: Bob?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes.
MR. MUDD: This was for clarification for the clerk's purposes
because --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- because the original item, when we said we
needed $31 million, five for the monitoring, 25 for the pickup, and
there was one million that had a series of different categories to it,
Page 125
January 10, 2006
they needed some defined, because at that time they only talked about
needing $500,000 of that 5 million. So they needed some specificity
from the board, some clarification to get it to $5 million. I believe the
monitoring bill is going to be over $7 million from the figures that I've
seen already, okay, and we're not done tallying it yet.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, that's great, and that does answer one
of my questions. And as an interested citizen and on behalf of the
other people in this community that are interested in this issue, I'd like
to see this, as you have put it, on the regular agenda so we can know
that the $5 million is not the total actually, which often happens,
where you get more amount factored in later on, and I'm very
interested to know that amount, because as I've mentioned before,
we're interested to analyze and -- whether or not -- what number
expenditures in purchasing land to where this horticultural waste could
have been diverted for a period prior to being moved out of town
would have been a better way to go.
Years ago the Zero Waste, Collier County Group, and the county
performed -- watched the county do a program -- and if I could go on
just a little bit to make up for the time that was involved by Mr.
Mudd's comments -- where we evaluated horticultural composting
operation with R&D Soil Builders. If we would have pre -- this has
been preplanned to some degree, and I respect that, but if we had done
more preplanning, maybe we could have gotten this job done for less
than 40 -- 31 million, but it's expected to go on to $40 million.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bob, I appreciate your time. I thank you
very much.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. I'm not done, but that's fine.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Your time is up though, sir.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes, it is, and thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
Page 126
January 10, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries 4-0, with Commissioner Coyle
out of the room at the present time.
Item #10F
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS-APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to item 10F, and
that is -- was old 16E6. That item was asked to be moved to the
regular agenda by Commissioner Henning.
And that is the report and ratify staff approved change orders and
changes to work orders to board-approved contracts, and I believe Mr.
Steve Carnell is in charge of putting that report together, and he's here
to answer any questions that Commissioner Henning has.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, do you have --
did you have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this is -- this is an item to
where there are many change orders on here. And looking at them,
you know, over a period of time, there's been numerous change orders,
two particular -- and I'm going to approve it, I'm going to make a
motion to approve.
Two particular change orders was initiated because it didn't fit
Page 127
January 10, 2006
somebody's needs. And that's well and good except for there's -- there
is a process to where any construction of facilities, the user has the
ability to have input.
Now, the one on here is like a quarter of a million dollars. Now,
my belief is, we need to tighten up these change orders and say, you
know, enough is enough. You had your input.
The other one is actually doubling the contract of what we
understood these -- on the Copeland restudy. I would just like to see
these -- these issues tighten up on more so they can't be any change
orders, less change orders.
I think everybody needs to understand there are certain
circumstances, unforeseen circumstances, but, you know, when you
get somebody's input on a project, the user, and then he changes his
mind, oh, I made a mistake, well, that costs the taxpayers, and we've
got to stop this. And I don't know if anybody else has a concern other
than myself.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a concern on our cost overruns,
but sometimes -- what I would like is that when we have large cost
overruns that they are brought before the board prior to maybe
approving so we have an idea of what's really happening, and I don't
think that would be that difficult.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, right now they have an
opportunity of 10 percent or -- 10 percent of the total contract that
could be changed or up to 25,000, am I correct?
MR. CARNELL: For the record, Steve Carnell, Purchasing
Director.
Your change order policy is 10 percent at this point of the current
board approved amount. And of course, we report all the interim
changes to you in this report each month. So we have a combination
of oversight and authority.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just 10 percent?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir.
Page 128
January 10, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there's some are on here
that's more than 10 percent. The Copeland one. It doubled, right?
MR. CARNELL: Oh, yes, and that's because that is under the
board approved threshold for that work order category. Those are
$90,000 work orders.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And the threshold is
25,000.
MR. CARNELL: No, no. No, sir. For those particular types of
work orders, the board gives staff authority to approve the work orders
up to $90,000. These are contracts the board has already approved in
general.
In this particular instance, I believe you're referring to work order
that went from $20,000 roughly to about $44,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. CARNELL: And that particular item was discussed with
the board on November the 15th as a separate agenda item by your
community development staff, and there was some discussion.
I believe the estimate of the total work -- we're talking -- for the
public's sake, we're talking about a work order regarding rezoning
work in the Copeland area.
And the original intent of that -- and, again, Mr. Giblin or Mr.
Schmitt can give you more detail if you need it. But in general, the
task there was to look at making some zoning changes in the Copeland
area to allow the residents some more flexibility to develop and use
their property.
It started out as a smaller scope, being the southern portion of
that area. And in discussions with the citizens down there, the scope
expanded. It determined the whole Copeland area needed to be dealt
with, and it requires an environmental study, a physical review of the
inventory area, in other words, if you will, as part of making that
rezone effort.
So the expansion of the area had a direct dollar impact on the
Page 129
January 10, 2006
work the consultant was doing, and that's why it grew. I believe the
staff gave you an estimate on November the 15th of $68,000 for the
work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if I missed that, I
apologize. But just overall, I think that these change orders needs to
be tightened up a bit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think what we did is -- originally,
I believe I was sitting on the dais up here at that time, and every
change order that was coming forward, we were going to have to
approve, and I felt that -- I think all of us felt that we needed to give
that responsibility back to the group.
And I -- now I remember where that particular item that you're
talking about, where the change order came back twice the amount. I
remember us discussing that particular item.
So I believe there is due diligence on the part of staff, and I don't
believe that they're out of bounds at this point in time.
And I feel that we should empower staff to continue at the 10
percent and whatever else that we put forward on that. I don't think
there's any -- I know that the Clerk of Courts had a particular concern,
but I think that was addressed. And I believe that the county manager
has also taken the initiative to have other areas of concerns tightened
up.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just a question. So say, for
instance, you have contract A, and then you found that some things
have changed and you needed a change order but it was under 10
percent and you approved it, and then about two months later, another
thing came through and you needed another change order, but it still
was under 10 percent. So can you approve that, and then the next one
and the next one? If each one is under the 10 percent, even if you
have seven change orders, can you do that?
MR. CARNELL: Yes and no, depending on the numbers. The
Page 130
January 10, 2006
simple answer is, you operate within 10 percent of the board-approved
amount with staff discretion. When you exceed that 10 percent
cumulatively, then you need to come back to the board on a separate
executive summary. Everything that's within that cumulative range is
reported on this report, so the board sees everything one way or the
other.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. CARNELL: But as the chairman pointed out, you are
empowering the staff to act on the things that fall within that 10
percent cumulative range to enable work to move forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, great. That's a good question.
MR. MUDD: And ma'am, just so you know, in the one item that
Commissioner Henning brought up --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't have to mention any
names.
MR. MUDD: I won't mention any names either. I will-- I will
get with staff and all concerned parties to make sure that when we
have a building that's designated, that's the government building, the
north government building that's going to have offices for not only
county staff, but constitutional officers and things like that, I will get
with them when we go through -- if we do another one, and I know we
will do another one in the future -- to make sure that they know
exactly what functions they're going to perform in that particular
government center, okay, and I will get them to also give me that in
writing, okay, so that I have it down pat exactly what they wanted to
do.
And if they decide they want to change that, they will take it out
of their budgets instead of the facilities side, because we've already
designed the building in order to do that.
I believe that the change that was asked for was one that was
unanticipated at the time that we had the conceptual idea of the north
government center. We never knew how successful, for instance,
Page 131
January 10,2006
drivers -- driver's license issuing was going to be in Collier County
because we hadn't taken that over as a function, and it has turned out
to be a booming success.
And so to make sure that we had that opportunity in the north
government building in order to do that particular function, we had to
adjust the utilization of the ground floor in order to make that happen,
and that's basically the process. And we'll work through that and we'll
be more diligent with that in the future.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's reassuring. One last question.
So if the project is $85 million, and 10 percent of that would be
$8.5 million, so in other words, staff could approve anything under 8
million -- $8.5 million, right?
Maybe -- you know, Commissioner Henning has a good point
and maybe there's a certain price limitation or amount limitation that
should be -- should be determined and then, you know, if it's over that,
even though it is within the 10 percent, maybe just bring it back to us
just so that we know that there's a huge amount being approved.
Would that be something that you feel would be okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I totally agree -- agree with that.
I mean, the 10 percent on millions of dollars can be a heck of a lot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I think the board -- I'm
going to ask the Clerk of Court to provide us the amount of money of
change orders going up. Now there's -- some are going down. There
are some are, to be fair, like the North Naples Regional Park, $10
million have -- coming down from the original estimate.
And -- but, you know, the up ones, the ones that keep on creeping
up is what I'm concerned about. So let me do that. But I totally agree
with you, there should be some kind of a threshold of a project that is
within a certain parameter, needs to come back to the board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval.
Page 132
January 10,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry. I'll second the
motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Thank you.
Motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta, seconded by
Commissioner Henning.
All those in favor, please signify by aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, like sign? Motion
carrIes.
Item #10G
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER
NUMBER TWO EXHIBIT E IN THE AMOUNT OF $232,608.59
UNDER CONTRACT NUMBER 04-3709, CONSTRUCTION OF
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) FACILITY 19 WITH
BROOKS AND FREUND, LLC - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is item number lOG, and that used
to be item 16E7. That was asked to be brought to the regular agenda
by Commissioner Henning.
And that item reads, a recommendation to approve a change
order number 2, Exhibit E, in the amount of $232,608.59 under
contract number 04-3709, construction of the Emergency Medical
Services facility, number 19, with Brooks and Freund, LCC.
And Mr. Peter Hayden, project manager from your facilities
director, will present.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, would you like
Page 133
January 10,2006
to state what your concerns are?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Before we go into this, so that maybe we
can expedite this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The changes, it was said,
because the material prices and labor prices increased, and further
states that the building permits were submitted in January of'05 and
wasn't approved until October 17th, and in the meantime, those prices
have gone up. And that's the justification for it?
MR. HAYDEN: Peter Hayden, Senior Project Manager,
Facilities Management, for the record.
Yeah. This project was -- initially the SD approved was back in
May of '04, and by the time it was bid out, a contract was awarded to
Brooks and Freund in December of '04, and we immediately went into
the building permit process.
Initially, the building -- yeah, the building permit was submitted
initially on January 25th, '05. And if you notice, it wasn't resubmitted
again until about four and a half months later.
And what happened over that time period, out of the first review
it was noticed that -- actually the fire code officials reviewed the
plans, and in their opinion, deemed that the building needed a fire
sprinkler system. So during that four-and-a-half-month period, we
looked at other alternatives to -- whether or not we were going to -- we
priced out a fire sprinkler system and also we priced out additional
egress and looked at both options.
It took us months to go through the different pricing. We came
to the conclusion that the sprinkler system was the way to go, so we
had to reprice it with Brooks and Freund. And also there was a
change order in process in May, and by the time we got everything
back together, we went into permitting back in July, and after July,
you know, it moved right along back and forth every couple of weeks,
and then we ultimately got the final approval in October.
Page 134
January 10, 2006
And the project was originally bid out with Brooks and Freund
August of '04. So it just -- that time, from August of '04 till the final
permit, you know, prices had gone up tremendously.
And we worked with purchasing just to try to save money,
because ultimately we didn't want to have to rebid the project. The
contractor was having difficulty with some of his subcontractors
wanting to do the job. So we worked with them and their
subcontractors from September up until now basically . We've been
working on this for months trying to get back and forth negotiating
just to get this back to the commissioners to get the project going and
get it built.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the contract states that
they're responsible for getting the permits, right?
MR. HAYDEN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So--
MR. HAYDEN: But the way the permitting process is, even
though they're the avenue of where the permitting goes through, the
design, the architect of records, if there is a change to those plans, the
architect has to come back with whatever changes, has to come back
with the design, that takes time, and then it's funneled back through
the building contractor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I reviewed the permitting
thing, and there were several issues on there.
MR. HAYDEN: If I could go --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bottom line is, it's kind of
saying that the building department was holding up the project.
MR. HAYDEN: I didn't say the building permit process, I didn't
necessarily say the building, you know, department themselves.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Permitting process.
MR. HAYDEN: Permitting process. It's a difficult one. And,
you know, we're challenged with that, and--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This was a fire code issue, wasn't it?
Page 135
January 10, 2006
MR. HAYDEN: Well, initially it started --
MR. MUDD: Peter, let me add another thing. You know, this
also is the Bembridge PUD --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: -- which this board helped us with for about three
to four months with community input, okay, on where you're going to
put the emergency services center, and is it going to be in the back, is
it going to be in the front, where does that fit with an EMS station
that's going on in that particular juncture.
So part of staffs dilemma at the time that the board was bantering
about with this PUD is, how heavy do you want us to go into locking
this thing down in a particular location when people are talking about
it moving up, moving down, spreading out, pushing it in the back --
the back of the platted area that we had. So you add that to it, and if
you --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we were our own worst enemy?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not true.
MR. MUDD: I'm not blaming it all on everybody. I believe
there's a series of ingredients in this particular area that added to the
delay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, that is not a true
statement. They submitted the permits, and I have it right in front of
me, 1/25/05. It was rejected, okay? They resubmitted to 7/12. Let me
tell you the time line of the Cambridge -- Bembridge PUD. We first
heard it on May 24th, okay? The final action was on July 27th. They
resubmitted before we made a final determination, so that wasn't a
factor.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, with staff, as we sat through that
particular issue, I was asked lots of times by staff how far we wanted
to push this time line because of the concerns that we had with the
Bembridge PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, do you have -- do
Page 136
January 10, 2006
you have the timeline? And--
MR. MUDD: Well, I have it right here, sir. First review was
1/25/05, reviews completed, rejection notice out, 2/25/05, one month.
Second review submitted on 7/12/05, reviews completed, rejection
notice out on 7/28/05.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When is 7/12? That's July 12th,
right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We took final action on July
26th. We took final action on that EMS and that EOC on July 27th.
So it didn't slow them down, they just kept on moving on. The
second -- when is a contract a contract?
MR. HAYDEN: Commissioner, just one correction, just -- that
July meeting we talked about the EOC moving to another site, but we
came back to the board in September for our final approval to go to
that site. So didn't get final approval to go to the stock Lely site until
September 13th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It came back in July. It's on the
minutes.
MR. HAYDEN: Right. And we had a motion to continue to go
back and get our agreements in place, Woodstock agreement, before
we could officially have the approval on September --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Even the permit timeline, you
kept on moving forward. So I can't see where that's an issue. But it
says in the contract, the county is not responsible for any interruption
whatsoever. So when's a contract a contract? When is an agreement
an agreement?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, can -- where's the
county attorney at? Can you assist us here? Obviously you're
involved in these contracts, so maybe we can get some clarification on
this.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Could you repeat the question,
Page 137
January 10, 2006
please?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, go ahead. You
repeat your concerns here so that we can --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's actually to the Board
of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. But I think we need --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We all have these contracts --
and I'll give it to the county attorney.
But David, it says in several places, the county shall not -- in no
way be liable for interruption or delay of project for defects or
problems within the project, any additional cost increase related to
delays, defects and county furnished materials, except where the
county is grossly negligent.
But it also states, no interruption or interference of inefficiency,
suspension, or delay of commencement of the progression of the work
from any cause whatsoever, included those from which owner may be
responsible, in whole or in part, shall relieve the contractor from the
duty to perform or giving rise to any rights of damage and additional
compensation from the owner.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So Commissioner, are you saying that
we sign a contract, and for some unforeseen reasons, the cost for doing
business for the contractor goes up, that the contractor doesn't have the
vehicle in which to address this concern to address his costs increase;
is that what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. There is a vehicle. It's
right on our consent agenda, and that's why I pulled it off, because the
agreement says, we're not liable for any of that. So I'm saying, you
know -- I mean, it's -- it's going from less than a million dollars, and
adding on more than a quarter of a million dollars, and we're not
responsible for that. So when is an agreement an agreement?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that give you some idea which way
Page 138
January 10, 2006
we're going here, County Attorney, so we can get some clarification
on this?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir, it does. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
And as you can see, these contracts are prepared and worded to
protect the county from inadvertence, from chicanery or other issues
that may enter into the contract process and try to give the board, the
taxpayers, the staff that administers these, a security that the bid given
and awarded and the operational measures of the contract are firm and
in place and clearly understandable.
Essentially changes in the appropriateness of payment to be paid
by the county to contractors is to be based upon, as we noted, either a
gross -- grossly negligent action by the county, which is a very high
standard, or a very low standard, if you want to call it, of operation, to
create that kind of potential liability .
And additionally, if there is a scope change, that which has not
been previously included in the concept and the bidding and the
response of the contract in the first place. And that's typically the
parameters that lend themselves to limit and also allow for a potential
change in the original contract award price, is if there's been a change
in scope and it's not mere negligence or sloppiness on behalf of the
contractor in their bidding, inadvertence, omission, but based upon
material differences that were not conceived by either party.
Sometimes that -- sometimes that occurs in the specifications that
are prepared in the first place upon which a bid is created and
submitted. Sometimes it's based upon site conditions, which are
extraordinarily different than what exists -- was thought to exist
initially.
More often than not we found that to be in the areas of utility
issues. Notwithstanding what I just said though, we typically have
language in our agreements relating to site conditions to put the
contractor, the potential contractors, on notice that these are their
responsibilities. Occasionally we do find things that are so
Page 139
January 10, 2006
extraordinary that fairness would dictate something different.
I hope I've answered some of your question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I can't consciously -- as a
steward of the taxpayers' money, I can't consciously vote in favor of
this change order because the scope hasn't changed, there was not the
-- nothing underground, hidden away in vaults or anything. I think we
progressed fine. So if somebody wants to make a motion to approve, I
can't support it, and I apologize.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries, 4-1, with Commissioner
Henning --
MR. HAYDEN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- not approving it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is our next-
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: This item is public comments on general topics.
We've finished the regular agenda.
Mrs. Filson, do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: We do. We have two public speakers -- two
speakers under public comment. The first being Bob Krasowski. He'll
Page 140
January 10, 2006
be followed by Kenneth Thompson.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello, Commissioners. Bob Krasowski,
again, with the Zero Waste, Collier County Group. There's another
issue of operation in government, local government, that has piqued
my interest and been a point of discussion amongst our group, and that
is the way the bid process is operated on many of these jobs and
contracts -- contracts.
I'd like to mention that the third place -- the people who tied for
third place in response to the RFP for the monitoring horticultural
waste, which was solid resources, were the ones that actually got this
bid that's going to be $7 and a half million or so, whatever.
And you might remember solid resources. We -- the Zero Waste,
Collier County Group, brought them here as part of the Zero Waste
workshop design charette in 2002. We invited them because they
were affiliated with Gary Liss, who is the person in California that we
thought was a real good lead for Zero Waste strategies in Collier
County. Well, that was 2003.
In looking over the documentation provided by Solid Resources,
we see that in 2004, they partnered with Malcolm Pirnie, so that's the
end of their independence of -- as far as providing Zero Waste
strategies for Collier County as far as we're concerned, because we
were looking for an outside perspective not involving Malcolm Pirnie,
you know, a different point of view and stuff. So I just want to bring
this forward. It's of interest to us. I think other people in the
community should know about this.
And then the -- another thing I want to say is that we've been at
this for many, many years, and I want to say to Colonel Coyle,
Colonel Mudd, and Colonel DeLony, well, we are not the enemy. We
are citizens in this community that share a different point of view,
have different priorities and different values when it comes to
approaching solutions or situations that develop, and we don't see
things the same way a lot, although we interact and talk. And I'm not
Page 141
January 10,2006
saying what they do totally is entirely bad or wrong.
But we do benefit, and I believe we all benefit when there is
transparency and notification and an ongoing dialogue, and nothing
kind of off to the side or hidden or out of the way, intentionally or
otherwise. I think we have to make an effort, both -- all of us, to
exchange ideas and know what -- know what's happening and going
on. So I just want to bring that stuff up.
And I also, in closing, would like to thank Commissioner Coyle
for his service as chairman, past year, even though I don't agree with
him on a lot of things. He certainly articulates his position, expands
the discussion, and provides good things as well as maybe not so good
things for the community. So he's not here, but I wanted to pass that
along. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Kenneth Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Halas, I'm so grateful to see you where
you are. You were the man sitting over here one day telling
everybody you didn't want the garbage trucks in your -- around your
house at five o'clock in the morning. Well, I've got them. And, boy,
you should see the mess they make.
I've had for the second time -- I'm willing to recycle, but I won't
do nothing for them. They came out there two times. They take that
recycle can, they squeeze it in a damn knot and put it under his wheels
and run over it, and then put it under my mailbox. I come home three
times -- two times I found this out.
So -- and I have been having so much trouble with their
boathouse and this clown that's in it. He's a cutting everything he can
get his hands on. You was talking about mangroves a while ago. I
have never seen a man cut mangrove trees this big on somebody else's
property. This big. Go look at it. It's a disaster.
I've tried to get it stopped. I called DEP, and they're working
with code enforcement. I got -- I think his name is Calvin. And this
right here -- I've got this from a man in this room right here. I'm not
Page 142
January 10, 2006
going to call no names. He give me this, and I called the Corps of
Army Engineers in Jacksonville, worked my way all the way back to
Fort Myers.
They told me that he didn't give a darn if the county give him a
permit, that the thing was over the water and it had to come down.
Well, I had it going until somebody called from this court -- from this
department over here and told Skip of Fort Myers not to do it, that it
was all right.
But that boathouse had put my mother and father-in-law into the
ground, and it's about to put me there, and I don't even know how I'm
standing here. I'm headed for -- my hand's got to be operated on, the
nerves has gone bad. My whole arm has gone bad, and now they got
to cut me from the neck down 15 inches down my back. I ain't going
no more to no doctor because I think he's running wild. He'd make a
good butcher, I tell you that. And every damn thing he's done has
gone wrong. I'm telling ya.
But something -- I've got nothing against Waste Management,
but the garbage has to be picked up. But it seems like they're leaving
more than they're picking up. Go follow behind them on a Monday.
I bought me a minicamera, DVD, and so help me God I'm going
to bring the tapes and I'm going to give them to somebody over here.
Maybe you can help somebody in this room back there to help me,
because when you call them, they don't want you to -- they want you
to leave it on the recorder. I've asked Mrs. Arnold.
And you just had one of the hurricanes in history blow through
here, Wilma. No wonder Fred acts so stupid to have Wilma pushing
behind him.
But I have begged and pleaded with Ms. Arnold to stop these
scabs in the neighborhood. I got -- the second door down from me,
there's two of them. They're putting on roofs, the guy across the street
got Minnesota tags on everything he's got. I mean, on everything he's
got, and he will not stop it.
Page 143
January 10, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Appreciate
your comments there.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay. I appreciate it. And stop the garbage
trucks at six -- eight o'clock at night.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll look into that for you,
Kenny.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At this time we'll open --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this goes to -- goes all the way to
staff and commission general communications.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. And County Manager Mudd, do
you have any correspondence?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. One point of clarification, and I didn't
want it to go on a bad point, and it had to do with item lOG. And I
know you voted on it, but just as a point of clarification.
When the particular item was going through the permitting
process, they can do site work and get those particular items done, and
I delayed that for a series of months because of the differences with
the planning commission and the board on just exactly what we were
going to do with the Bembridge PUD. And I believe that's where I
was interj ecting, and the commissioner was saying something from a
permit aspect strictly for the vertical construction. And I think we
were both saying --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we take it out of your pay?
MR. MUDD: We were both saying the same thing.
Commissioner, I've -- some folks from Goodland would like to
Page 144
January 10,2006
start talking about having a golf cart community, and I just need to get
some of your direction if you'd like to put staff time on that.
Part of that's going to have to do with the sheriffs office and how
those things are going to be licensed because they're going to be used
on public roads. It's not necessarily a closed community, so there are
some things that they're going to have to do to those particular carts.
But I believe we can -- we can take a look at that and figure out what
those requirements are and then get back with the Goodland folks to
determine if that's exactly where they want to go, and I just need to get
some direction from you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that have to meet -- do those golf
carts, when they start putting them on a road, do they have to meet
FDOT requirements, like lights and --
MR. MUDD: I believe they have to have turn signals and stop
lights and things like that. And then if they don't -- if they don't have
lights in the front, then they can't be operated in the dark and things
like that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: So there's going -- they're going to have to do a
little bit of policing and -- there are more requirements than just
getting a golf cart and then driving it around the neighborhood, so.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, I think you had
your light on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Actually, rather than use cars
in the community, because the roads are so narrow and most people
are just walking or riding their bikes there, a lot of them use their
carts.
And I guess to me, anyway, it's part of the charm of being a little
tiny fishing village. They've been using them for years, they always
use the golf carts.
The reason this came to light is because the sheriffs office gave
two guys a ticket just recently to different guys, and one of them --
Page 145
January 10,2006
one of them, I believe, was -- he didn't have one leg, and so he
couldn't drive, but he got around on his golf cart.
And I can't remember -- the other one was also handicapped in
some way where he couldn't actually drive a car. That was the only
means that they have to get around. And they both got a ticket.
And so I got a call from Stan down in Goodland. And Stan said,
gee, you know, we ride our golf carts down here, been doing that for
30 years, you know, why is somebody stopping us? And so -- and I
think they talked with you then, Jim?
And then what Jim said is, well, then we have to put something in
effect so that legally they can do that. So that's what this conversation
is all about really.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not asking -- did you ask
a question, we're not going to ban vehicles, motor vehicles?
MR. MUDD: No. That's not -- that's not in any direction from
the board. That just -- just do you want me to use the staff time and
get with the sheriff and work through the process in order to legalize
golf carts per se in Goodland along with privately-owned vehicles?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we ever make a stipulation
maybe to add to their overlay that -- which would make it possibly a
lot easier on staff and sheriff and everything, where we just add that as
part of the overlay, being that they do it now?
MR. MUDD: That's one of the things I have to take a look at.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Yeah, because we want to
make it as simple as possible. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other comments?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other -- any more information you
had for us?
MR. MUDD: Oh, yeah. I'm taking it the board wants us to go
take a look at that, correct?
Page 146
January 10,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think we ought to attach it to the
overlay . We got three nods here?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got a -- I've got a question.
Now, we're going to make a change in a zoning overlay which would
permit people to drive golf carts on public streets. What do you do
about the traffic that is visiting Goodland and they're driving real cars?
Are we creating a safety problem here?
MR. MUDD: We could be, sir, and that's--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And are we going to have a
liability associated with doing that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my concern.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, these are all the questions that I've
got to get staff to address in order to get it. This is not -- if this was a
gated community, I think we'd be a whole lot better, okay, on private
roads, whatnot, and then they could limit how they're going to do their
POVs and things like that.
This is not the case with this particular community, okay, so
we're going to have to take a look and see what we can and cannot do,
and then come back to the board and say, okay, here it is. If you want
us to go do this, then we have to do something special or we can't go
any farther with this.
I just wanted to get some board direction with this particular
item. I agree, there hasn't been one idea that was -- that's been put on
the dais that isn't of concern so far on this particular item, because you
have a public road, you have privately-owned automobiles and trucks
and things like that, and then you have golf carts.
And you've got to figure out how all that meshes together and
what kind of liability it brings on the board or the county if they so
change, whatever. I believe this is going to really get into a licensing
issue, and it's going to be more a Florida Department of
Transportation issue than it is going to be anything that we're going to
Page 147
January 10, 2006
be able to do as a board, but we're going to keep an open mind and
we're going to see what we can do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I believe also the sheriffs going to
playa big factor in this also, because, as you said, where you've got an
intermix of all different size vehicles here, then it becomes a real
problem.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, last item that I'd like to bring up is,
I received a letter from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida from
their new president and CEO, Andrew McElwain.
Just so the board knows, when we all had our conversations
about -- oh, yeah, by the way, we did purchase the zoo, and all of
those things have been consummated -- but you had directed the
manager to come back working with the Conservancy and all parties,
interested parties, to come back with some kind of a conservation
arrangement with the five acres or so that they purchased.
And at first that was going to be a several-year loan, I think
anywhere from two to four years with the Trust for Public Lands. The
Conservancy decided that they wanted to borrow the money from a
traditional lender bank in order to do that.
Weare in the process of drafting some restrictions upon that
particular property, but it isn't as clean as you'd like it to be, at least
what we were told it was going to be. It was going to be something
that could be done instantaneously.
If you borrow money to purchase a particular property, you
borrow it based on the zoning of that property, okay, and then to down
zone it while you have that marker out, so to speak, the lending
institutions frown on that.
So we're going to have to draft the language with the help of the
County Attorney's Office to make sure that we get at your intent so
that we capture what was discussed in this -- in this boardroom in
order to do it.
I just wanted to let you know that we haven't forgot about it. It's
Page 148
January 10, 2006
just not as simple as it was portrayed the day that we were having that
discussion with everybody and the room was full with folks. But we
haven't forgot it, and the Conservancy's working with us very amiably,
by the way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who's our contact at the
Conservancy now?
MR. MUDD: Who is it right now?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Nicole Ryan.
MR. MUDD: It's Mr. McElwain, okay, who wrote me the letter.
He hasn't forgotten. He attached all the other letters that I had,
and he's very consistent with it. And we're working with the County
Attorney's Office right now with them in order to get those documents
so that we can bring those back to the Board of County
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Anything else from the county?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, do you have anything
to bring forward to us?
Item #12
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thank you. Our office was contacted
yesterday afternoon and again today during the course of this meeting
from code enforcement staff, and I just had an opportunity to speak
with Joe Schmitt, division administrator.
And there apparently -- staff has very grave concerns about the
potential loss of a bald eagle nest on a subdivision property under
which there is a county bald eagle management plan approved this
past year. And the request to the County Attorney Office is to do all
Page 149
January 10, 2006
things necessary, including go forward, file a lawsuit, to obtain a
temporary restraining order, if necessary.
Well, we're in a board meeting right now, and the next board
meeting isn't for two weeks. So I bring this to your attention right now
to see if, in fact, you would authorize the county attorney working
with county manager and Joe Schmitt and his staff particularly, to do
all things necessary, short of litigation, and including litigation if
necessary to achieve the saving of what has been described as the
potential immediate irreparable loss of a bald eagle's nest on -- within
a subdivision that the county has an interest in and significant legal
controls through our zoning and bald eagle management plans.
So if you would give us that authorization. I don't look to rush
into litigation. It's a last resort, but at the same time, if there is another
agency or someone else that can assist in achieving the saving of a
nest, based upon the information that we'll obtain very quickly, we'll
go every route short of the litigation, but would initiate that as well,
and it may be a very short time required to do that if the damage,
potential damage, is imminent as being described to my staff right
now. So if have you any questions, I'd respond to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where is this place?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where are we talking about?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Where are we talking about?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm told it's the Audubon Country Club.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's up in District 2.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They do a lot of bad things up
there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've got to stop it.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we would look into it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have three nods from the
commissioners here?
Page 150
January 10,2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I assure you, we'll quickly look to
do everything we can to achieve a positive result using the least means
necessary, but with your approval, that may, in fact, include filing a
lawsuit to get a temporary restraining order or something of that
nature.
Just for your information, a temporary restraining order, of
course, isn't the end of a court action, but it is an emergency action
special request of a court, of a judge, prior to a second hearing that is
had on the matter in chief, the case in chief.
So we will look to see if there is a case and then do all things
appropriately that way. And I thank you for your authorization.
Additionally, I'd just say that I'm looking forward to traveling to
Tallahassee next week in regard to the litigation discussions we'll be
having. Litigation -- legislation discussions that we'll be having up in
Tallahassee, and then the following day also looking forward to the
Canvassing Board tutorial in Orlando and working with the
commissioners at both of those events.
So other than that, we're looking forward. Thank you.
And I appreciated working with Mr. Coyle and as chairman and
look forward to work with Mr. Halas as the new chairman. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CONTINUED
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Back in the good old days when I
Page 151
January 10,2006
was chairman, the board directed me to send a letter to Governor Bush
about Senate Bill 360, or the growth management act. I did that, of
course, and all of you were copied on it.
And the governor was kind enough to have his secretary of the
Department of Community Affairs come down and meet with me and
the staff concerning our comments about the bill. And I think it's fair
there were -- well, certainly the county manager was there and other
people were present.
And Jim, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think generally what we
did was we had an exchange of ideas and positions on this legislation,
and -- but we had little agreement at all.
MR. MUDD: True.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that the Department of
Community Affairs essentially told us that we could not have a policy
of concurrency that was stricter than what was prescribed in the
existing growth management legislation, and they also said to us that
the proportionate fair share mitigation process is mandatory. It is not
in any way permissive. It is mandatory. We must develop a
procedure for administering a proportionate fair share program, and,
third, they said, if we don't -- if we don't like development occurring
so quickly, then don't rezone the property. Right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, those are the three --
MR. MUDD: They specifically said the latter in just about those
-- about those terms.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. And so I believe that
any position -- and we've heard them expressed -- that says that this
legislation provides us flexibility in these areas is clearly incorrect.
And so I'm telling you this why? And it is because I raised the
issue of restricting permissions on zoning a couple of months ago, and
it was initially considered to be a favorable kind of thing until
Commissioner Henning pointed out that we would have a problemt
Page 152
January 10,2006
with doing things -- the county doing things, because if we couldn't
get rezones, we couldn't do a lot of things we have to do, and that was
-- that was a fair observation, and so we just dropped it at that point in
time.
So what I would suggest is that we very seriously consider a
policy -- and we need the legal input and the staff input on the
operational side -- to deal with that, but we really need to consider a
policy which says that there won't be any more rezones unless there's
a clear public purpose.
So if there's a clear public purpose, then we can make sure it -- it
benefits the people of Collier County, but where we have a problem
with concurrency that we are not able to address under the current
growth management law, then we need to take those -- or grasp those
tools that we have available in order to permit us to achieve
concurrency.
And by the way, this suggestion of mine will not do it
immediately. It will take a long time for us to catch up.
And in that respect, it was very clear during our discussion that it
was the intent of the legislation that the local governments assume all
of the risk of infrastructure delays and funding, and the developers
should assume none of that risk.
And by that, if you put it -- if you put it in your five-year plan
and you get a bid for constructing a road that is 70 percent higher than
you anticipated and you don't want to award that contract and it
consequently turns out to take longer to provide that infrastructure,
we're out of luck because the developer does not have to slow down.
The developer merely walks in, pays the proportionate fair share and
starts building. There is nothing we can do about it.
So the key is, we have to be very, very careful what we put into
five-year plans. And that's -- you know, that's what we really have to
start working on, because we don't have any other alternatives.
And I would expect they'll start trying to slip -- strip those
Page 153
January 10, 2006
alternatives away from us, too, pretty soon. So that's just a brief
update. We had a good exchange. I enjoyed the discussion and the
sharing of ideas. But I would say that we essentially accomplished
nothing. Is that fair, Jim?
MR. MUDD: Sir, there were no agreements or compromises that
were made. Everybody stated their position. And I believe the only
thing that they really took back from that conversation was, wait a
minute, we have a five-year plan, it has the Davis expansion on it, and
the state just pulled $33 million off the plate. Now what the heck do
we do, okay, with our five-year plan that everybody's been doing
pay-as-you go on.
So I took them through an illustrative example. Said, it's there,
you just pulled the money out, I have no control over your state
agency, and now it's gone. But we've had five years worth of people
paying pay-as-you-go for that particular item, and now it's not going
to happen for another five years, so what does that do to our
concurrency issue?
And they did not have an answer for that, but they did take notes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, do you think it would
help if I, being the new chair, wrote a letter to the Florida Association
of Counties to -- and find out what else -- whether -- other information
we can find here or to get -- to build a coalition? Because I think this
is very revealing, the information you just brought forth. I know all of
us have had concerns on this particular item, and basically what it's
doing is it's taking away home rule essentially.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Exactly, exactly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think this is one of the things that
the Florida Association of Counties has been diligently working at is
to make sure that home rule was not -- was not taken away from us.
And I think that -- or compromised, and I think that that's where we're
at at this point in time.
So I could probably write a letter to Chris Holly and alert him to
Page 154
January 10, 2006
this. And if he needs any additional information, possibly to contact
you, since you've been in direct contact with his secretary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, to answer your question --
Commissioner Henning wants to make a comment, but let me --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- answer his question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, don't answer it yet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, our legislation
delegation members feel that we have latitude in Bill 360 and we do
have home rule and we can be stricter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They are wrong.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's their understanding
from the same people who you had a meeting from. So if there's any
correspondence, it should be to the lawmakers in Tallahassee, and
especially our delegation members of, this is what we -- we had a
meeting with the second DCA, and this is what our understanding, that
we can't do or can do, to let them make changes, allow them the
opportunity to make changes. Because, you know, their
understanding, that the bill is to make sure there is growth
management instead of a growth bill, what Commissioner Coyle is
explaining.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think maybe what we need to do
is send a letter in all areas so that we alert people to the fact that there
is that potential, and we may lose the ability to control our growth
here in Collier County, and especially if we cannot institute
concurrency requirements stronger than the state is mandating. I think
that puts us in a real dilemma here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The -- I think Commissioner
Henning's on the right track. Who's the person that's going to vote on
Page 155
January 10, 2006
this or actually be able to change it? It's not going to be the Florida
Association of Counties. It's going to be the state legislative body.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's true.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the only ones in the state
legislative body that we have real access to and have a little bit of pull
over is the ones that we work with, our own delegation.
My suggestion is that we write the letter to the legislative body
with all these concerns that we just mentioned and we copy the
Florida Association of Counties on it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that's kind of what my intent was.
I mean, I wanted to alert all parties involved in this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me provide another
slightly different approach. We have written letters to our legislators.
And just recently during the prelegislation workshop, I stood at that
podium and said just exactly what I said.
But I said one other thing. I said, it would seem only appropriate
that a member of this delegation would sponsor legislation to correct
these problems in the growth management bill, and we would like to
participate with you to do that. We would like to be involved in
helping you draft this bill, just as the lobbyists for the building
industry helped you draft the act that you passed. We want to be
involved in helping you draft this bill. That's been three weeks at least
since we made that request.
Now, we're fast approaching the time when the legislature will be
in session, March the 2nd or 3rd, I think, is the date. But what I'd like
to see us do is send a letter to the legislator -- legislators saying, when
can we sit down with you to review your recommended glitch bill for
the growth management bill?
I don't want to see this bill after we're in session, and it's flying
through committees faster than we can follow it. I'd like to see it
before it gets to committee, just like the building industry gets to see it
before it gets to committee.
Page 156
January 10, 2006
And I don't have a good comfortable feeling that they're going to
let us do that, but I think that's the letter we ought to write, is we ought
to write a letter saying, get us involved, let us participate with you in
drafting this language, because we're the ones who understand how it
will affect our county.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think also we need --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could just interject real quick.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
MR. MUDD: Based on Commissioner Coyle's statements in
front of the Southwest Florida delegation in December, those -- his
comments did not go unnoticed from the delegation. Representative
Davis has talked to me in the last week or so and basically said, okay,
I'm carrying it forward for you because I told Commissioner Coyle
that I would do that when he gave his testimony, and he made that
promise while he was sitting up on the dais where you sit today.
We have all interested parties meeting around the 19th of January
with Keith Arnold, our lobbyist, and we're sitting down to work out
the specific language changes that we need to make that basically
make Senate Bill 360 digestible for Collier County. In other words,
we can have a stricter concurrency law than what's laid out there and
things like that, and we're going through that process.
Representative Davis asked if we could get that specific language
done and to him before the end of January so that he could have time
to get it done. Now, I don't know what it's going to look like when it
gets pieced together with the other stuff, okay, Commissioner? That I
don't know.
All I can say is, he has made a promise that he would shepherd
our particular changes to Senate Bill 360 into Tallahassee.
Now, what happens when it gets there and after it works through,
I don't know, and I'm not too sure he's even the master of his own
destiny when everybody else puts their hands on it, but at least we've
got a start, and he's trying to keep that promise that he made to you,
Page 157
January 10,2006
Commissioner Coyle,
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I sure would like to be
involved and kept in the loop on that. I didn't know that he had done
that. I had not been informed in any way.
MR. MUDD: No. He came up and he basically said he needed
to change this for us because he wanted to keep that promise that he
made to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's very encouraging,
and I'm happy that's happening. But remember also that this board has
to review this before it goes anywhere, so we really have to be kept in
the loop about these changes. So if anybody's having any meetings,
we need to be involved.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I have to get that resolved on the 19th,
get something turned around quickly so I can get it back to you on the
24th of January --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- for approval before we can give it to our
representative and he can take it forward.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, that's fair enough. That
sounds very encouraging. Then you think we should just proceed with
that rather than writing a letter?
MR. MUDD: No. I think, Commissioner, you're all on the --
you're all pretty much saying the same thing. We have to make sure
that we keep a heightened interest in this particular issue for Collier
County.
And you know, in that letter we can say, we're drafting the
language for the changes in the bill. We highly encourage your
support for those changes as it goes forward into Tallahassee and
works through this legislative session. And I think we can really get at
that, and we'll have those changes to Representative Davis by the last
day of January so that they all know it's there, and they know we
haven't lost -- we haven't lost our intense desire to see that change.
Page 158
January 10, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we can copy that to the FAC
and to all of the other members of our delegation, legislative
delegation.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Now, what I saw today was either in the
House or the Senate -- and this was over lunch -- but I did see an
initial layout where they talked about those things that could really be
a glitch, okay, in the bill.
And they basically said, the staff -- and I guess there's a paid staff
up there that looks at these bills up there for the legislative body. From
the glitch side of the house there were a couple of references that they
used incorrectly, so they could change those as far as the glitch bill is
concerned.
There is -- there is a great deal of literary license that was used
when people talked about proportionate fair share. They talked about
proportionate share, proportionate fair share. They used about five
different terms to talk about that same thing, but they all mean a little
bit different.
So they went down in all of the different pages where that was
mentioned in the bill for cleanup. That was it for the glitch side for
what they really could do for a glitch. And then a question from staff
to their bosses, and may that be the Senate, President, or the Speaker
of the House, is, how do you want us to get all the other concerns that
were made.
And, oh, by the way, Collier's concerns were mentioned. We
were one of the only counties that had concerns that were laid on.
And I guess I was the only manager that wrote them a letter and--
because everybody else was some legislative person.
But Collier County's desire to have a more stringent concurrency
system than what's there is specific, and it's laid on, and it says, a more
stringent concurrency system, Collier County, okay? And that was
the only item, catch thing, of all the things that we talked about in
Senate Bill 360 that got some attention.
Page 159
January 10,2006
And I believe that key ingredient will help us get the other piece,
the other tentacles in that bill in order to make that happen. But that
was the only thing that was talked about. And they were talking about
those desires as being almost an amendment to the bill, not a glitch
bill, but something more to that particular item that had to be
legislatively done.
So -- and I just saw that over lunch as it came out. It was only
about five pages. I was really surprised that the glitch pieces almost
were scrivener's errors, so to speak, and they weren't really getting
into the meat of the issues, and then it later was the comments and
says, do you really want us to start fleshing out new language for the
comments that were made in the particular item?
So I believe that our language that we need to write is very, very
important based on that document that I saw over lunch today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's it for me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have two things, if you
would please bear with me for just a moment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We should be finishing up real shortly
here. I just want to let our court reporter know that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This will only take 20, 30
minutes. No.
May I call Tammie Nemecek up? I have a situation going on
with the Immokalee Airport that it's -- some time ago this commission
revised the lease policy for the airport to a limit of five years, and it's
raised considerable difficulty, and we're in danger of losing some of
our potential tenants.
Tammie, would you brief us on that?
MS. NEMECEK: Yes, sir. Thank you very much,
Commissioners. Tammie Nemecek, Economic Development Council
of Collier County.
A couple years back we went through some reorganization with
Page 160
January 10, 2006
the Airport Authority and changing of the ordinance. The ordinance,
as it reads today, allows for the Airport Authority to approve leases up
to five years. Beyond that, each lease needs to come before the Board
of County Commissioners for approval.
The unintended consequence of that change in the ordinance has
been that with regards to the laws that oversee the leasing of property,
whether or not it's under the authority of whether or not it's under the
county.
Because the ultimate authority does not lie in the Airport
Authority and with the county commissioners and the county, each
one of those leases on the land side have to go out to bid, which means
that when companies come forward, they choose a parcel that they'd
like to have their business located on.
Instead of just being able to lease that parcel of land, that parcel
needs to go out to a formal bid process. The person who's interested
in that parcel of land can submit a proposal, in addition to anybody
else can submit a proposal for that parcel of land as well.
And when you're talking about trying to recruit businesses, it
becomes a very difficult situation to be in in order to not know that
you actually have the ability to lease that property, but you may be
outbid, and then you have to go through the bidding process again on
maybe a different parcel.
And so it does create some situations in being able to have some
certainty for those businesses that we're working with.
So in some conversations with some existing businesses in
Collier County that we're talking with and going out there, Salazar and
Siena Marble, that are interested in leasing parcels of land out at the
airport, that this has been a consistent thing with those two companies
that are looking to expand at the airport.
And so we wanted to be able to bring this to you and see if there
was something that we might want to look at in order to make it a
better process.
Page 161
January 10, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. What I'd like to do is, I
already talked to Robert Dole (sic), who's -- I believe he's still the
chair?
MS. NEMECEK: Robin Doyle, uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Chair of the Airport Authority.
And he's totally in agreement with making the change, and he wants to
-- he's going to do it at the next meeting that they have for their end of
it. But I would like to have this on an agenda as soon as possible.
MS. NEMECEK: What would be asked is a change of the
ordinance back to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Back to where--
MS. NEMECEK: -- back to what it was in previous, which there
was a lot of discussion that happened prior to the first change. So, you
know, there may be -- may be some, you know, work that we really
need to do as we're going through the change in this ordinance and
looking at the laws.
A lot of this has just come to light with these tenants that have
come forward that were things that were not known prior to this. For
example, air side land leases, we've just found out that we can only do
30-year land leases on the air side, that with -- the leasing poli -- the
ordinance as it stands now, that we have to go out to bid, and these are
things that are coming up, you know, as we have tenants coming to the
Airport Authority that were unknown prior to this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it makes absolute sense. If
you have to go out for bid and you have a person, a potential tenant,
and you have to put it out to bid, that uncertainty is enough to be able
to discourage them to leave. I never heard of such a situation.
It would be like you going out to bid a business property to open
a business and they're saying to you, okay, put a -- we're going to have
to put this out to bid, and then you can put your price in and we'll see
what it is.
They're just not going to deal at that level. It's just one of those
Page 162
January 10, 2006
things. At the time, remember when we were dealing with the Airport
Authority, there was some doubts whether it was going to be an
effective organization, there was some question whether we were
going to keep them together. As it is, they cleaned their house up.
They've been doing a fairly good job for the last couple -- well, a good
job for the last couple of years. Now is the time to do some
reconsideration. And with your permission, I'd like to see it brought
back to the commission --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- as an agenda item as soon as
possible.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what -- the question I was going
to ask is why we changed the ordinance to start with.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it was because the
Airport Authority -- we were very disappointed in some of the
directions they were going. There was even talk about disbanding the
Airport Authority --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- at that time. This goes back
some time ago.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got a way to solve this problem
right now, if I could get the attention of anybody.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Tammie.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got my attention.
MR. MUDD: I believe -- I believe it's more than just the airport
ordinance, okay? I remember changing that airport ordinance, and I
don't remember any of this being in there, okay? So that's the first
thing, and I've got a pretty good memory, so I'm going to tell you, I
believe it has a lot to do with our purchasing ordinance and how we do
business and what the state statute is and how it lines up to the airport.
I believe there's more to this than meets the eye. And I believe
there's several issues here than just -- I believe it's cumbersome, but
Page 163
January 10, 2006
we've got to be able to figure out how to do it. But if you want --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know how to do it. I've done this
many times before, okay? What you do is you incorporate the lease
into the obligation of the company taking the lease by specifying that
the lease requires that you bring X number of jobs paying X price
range and that you must be a financially stable organization, your
financial records must indicate your ability to do this, and what you're
going to find out is there's only one bidder, and that's the one that is
going to do the things that you want to do.
Now, if by chance there are multiple organizations who can meet
the same goals of bringing business to that airport, then what that will
do is provide the opportunity for both of those businesses to bid, and
I'd be willing to bet you'd find two leases that you could give to those
people.
So there's a way of doing this without changing any law at all.
But I'm not saying I wouldn't want to consider making it simpler for
you, but I wouldn't want to see you get tied up and be stopped by what
is perceived to be a restrictive, competitive procurement process.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it's just a matter of writing the
RFP a little broader and telling what you expect of the organization
that is going to take this lease.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sounds good to me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's one of the reasons why I
think we need to bring this back for -- so we can get a total picture on
this and be able to dispel any kind of possibility that the county isn't
doing what it could do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sounds to me like all we need to do is
just have legal guidance in regards to this, and I think we probably got
it --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just write the lease -- write the RFP
appropriately, and you've got it made. And it just takes a little more
Page 164
January 10, 2006
time, that's all.
MS. NEMECEK: It takes a little bit more time, which is
ultimately the concern at the end of the day. When you're dealing
with timing with businesses, sometimes that will prevent us from
being able to entice a tenant to the site.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
MS. NEMECEK: So that's -- that would be the consequence of
it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What are we talking in timing here, a
day or two?
MS. NEMECEK: Oh, no, no, because you have to go through
the formal bid process.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Writing a lease.
MS. NEMECEK: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: In regards to writing the lease as--
MS. NEMECEK: But you have to go through a formal bid
process, which I'm not quite sure how long that takes with the county.
MR. MUDD: You can do it -- you can do it in 30 days or less.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You have fast track, you could get
it in under two years.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, it's the same item that we had to
deal with, and I know there was some sore feelings. This is the same
particular item that we're talking about that we had to do with the zoo
lease, okay? This board talked about, we should have a workshop on
the zoo lease.
Well, wait a minute. If you have a workshop on the zoo lease,
you've got a Florida statute that says you've got to go out and you've
got to bid that rental property out.
And I remember I caught some of that grief from the dais. There
was a little bit of a sting in my way, and I'm going, I did the best I
could, because I couldn't let you have workshops, because then you
would have had to go out with an RFP, and the Tetzlaffs might not
Page 165
January 10, 2006
have been the zoo proprietors.
I could have got some Ohio firm to come in here with their own
animals, and I don't believe that's what the community wanted.
So the key here was to come up with a lease, okay, under the
Trust for Public Lands, when -- as they owned it, okay, and you then
had to honor that lease. And we tried to come up with the fairest lease
we possibly could. And it's the same Catch 22 thing that Tammie's
trying to tell you right now about. It's an issue, and it has a lot to do
with our statutes, and we've got to be --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't want to drag this out
forever, Mr. Mudd. Ifwe could, could we arrange for a meeting with
you, Tammie Nemecek, maybe the Airport Authority and myself,
where we can just sit down and go over this? If this isn't something
we're going to bring back to the commission, I need a better
understanding, but I don't think that this --
MR. MUDD: Well, we could bring it up. I believe the Airport
Authority should bring it back to this commission, okay? Your
authority. She works for you. And I believe Ms. Cook should come
back and discuss this particular issue so that you've got this thing
resolved for the future, because this won't be your first tenant, and it
normally won't be your last one either.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're still looking for that first
one.
MR. MUDD: You've got to get it resolved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. NEMECEK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have three nods to bring this back,
okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And then the other item
-- and I'll try to make this happen a little quicker. I'm not too sure if I
should ask Joe Schmitt or Cormac Giblin to come up. It has to do
Page 166
January 10,2006
with tomorrow's meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we should take a break
first.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. How long is this going to be?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it depends on how many
more questions everybody's going to ask. But I -- it could take up to
10 minutes. You want to take a quick break?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I want to take a quick break. I
feel the lady here needs a break.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. I believe we, yeah, have
three commissioners in the room at this present time. Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: We're waiting for the commissioner that raised
the issue. He's not back yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd move on and bring it up the
next meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: He's got 30 seconds to get here. Ifhe
doesn't, why --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm here. He's gone. He's already
gone home. He did. I saw him leave. Didn't you see Commissioner
Coletta leave?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I thought he did.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is Commissioner Coletta in the building
here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, he is, but we didn't realize that
it started already.
MS. FILSON: I was told he was on his way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, no.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can I get this issue --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know he's here someplace.
Page 167
January 10, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we could go with somebody
else and let him be last, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know -- okay. I can do
something, if you'd like.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What are you going to do, dance,
tell jokes, or what?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I'm going to just read a
proclamation, or resolution, if I may.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll just take my turn out of order, if
that's okay.
This is a resolution. I was invited to the Marco Island City
Council meeting last week, Monday, and they had nothing but praises
for Collier County, for our EOC, for all of the -- all of our employees
that worked so hard during Hurricane Wilma, and I, in turn, said how
much we enjoyed working with them too, because they worked hand
in glove with us, and they even presented us with a resolution, and I --
shall I read it, if you don't mind.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: State of Florida, Collier County,
City of Marco Island, a resolution to extend gratitude to Collier
County for Hurricane Wilma recovery assistance. I have to put
glasses on though.
Whereas, Hurricane Wilma, a category three storm, struck Marco
Island during the early morning hours of October 24, 2005; and,
Whereas, the hurricane caused extensive damage to much of our
island community; and,
Whereas, the Collier County Commission and its staff
demonstrated exceptional leadership in the planning, operation and
execution of its emergency operations plan; and,
Whereas, Collier County planned and managed countywide
Page 168
January 10, 2006
storm debris removal, including significant storm debris on Marco
Island; and,
Whereas, Collier County Commissioners; County Manager
James Mudd; utilities director, Jim DeLony; and solid waste director,
Dan Rodriguez, understood that Marco Island had extensive damage
and recognized Marco Island as a priority for debris collection; and,
Whereas, Collier County immediately directed equipment and
personnel to Marco Island as soon as it became available and kept
those assets on Marco Island during the cleanup process.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Marco Island City Council,
and council duly assembled, that Collier County be recognized and
thanked for its excellent response to Hurricane Wilma and for their
assistance to the people of Marco Island.
Done and ordered the 3rd day of January 2006, Vicky Calder,
chairman, and attested by Laura Litzan, city clerk.
And this is really nice, and I think it would be nice if we had it
framed and put it in a suitable location.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. And other than that,
Commissioners, that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Back to Commissioner Coletta
here, so we can get --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Yes, and what--
tomorrow we have the LDC meeting -- I should say you have the LDC
meeting. I'll be on a flight back -- going back to N ew York because of
my father-in-Iaw's wake, funeral.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Condolences to you and your family.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. There's one -- there's one
issue there that I talked to Joe Schmitt about that I was concerned
about, and I wanted to be able to play into was the issue of the
affordable housing issue, gap housing, affordable housing. It's an
Page 169
January 10, 2006
issue that's -- we're trying to get through in the fastest time possible,
and I understand that.
But I understand in talking with Joe that staff is looking for some
more time, too, to be able to carry this forward and to be able to put
the polish on it they need. I was wondering if we could give some
consideration to bringing it back at the February 8th meeting.
And, Joe, I think you said there's a way that we'll be able to keep
this thing on track and be able to pick up for any lost time.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community
Development/Environmental Services Division Administrator.
Based on your guidance and based on the guidance you gave us
at the affordable housing workshop, we're bringing back the amended
-- amendment to implement the gap housing and -- program just as
you directed, at least we're bringing back a proposal to amend the
LDC to get us through a period to -- frankly, to allow us to use the
program, at least we thought your guidance that you gave us.
That meeting's tomorrow, the first LDC -- the first meeting for
the LDC hearings are tomorrow, or is tomorrow. The second meeting
is February 8th.
If, in fact -- being that Commissioner Coletta's going to be out
and -- we could still hear that in this cycle, except we would defer the
first hearing of that amendment till the 8th, and we would bring that
back along with another amendment which we're delaying because we
just resolved that issue with the planning commission on there.
There's the two comprehensive overlays for the Bayshore area
and the Gateway and Triangle area. So those -- those two you will not
see tomorrow night. They are being delayed until the 8th, where
you'll see them for the first time, and then we're bringing that LDC
amendment and we're going to ask for your permission to bring that
back at a regular meeting, which we legally can do.
So the request that Commissioner Coletta and I discussed, if --
being that the housing amendment is an issue which he asked -- he
Page 170
January 10, 2006
would certainly like to participate in, I believe your proposal,
Commissioner, is to delay the hearing of that from tomorrow's
meeting until the 8th, which we still will have sufficient time to get it
implemented under your guidance, and that is as soon as we get
through -- as part of this LDC cycle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I weigh in on that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just think that's a great idea. I
would want you to be here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think this is something we both
want to work together on. It's so needed, and I would--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's real close.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: --like to -- if we make a motion or
something if -- you know, to delay it till the 8th, and it will still be in
this LDC cycle, and absolutely we should -- we should delay it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: The definition -- the definition and the
amendment itself is on page 3 of your LDC book for tomorrow, and
page 5, and we have a version that we sent last night, which was the
planning commission's version.
You all should have received that in hard copy today, and we'll
just defer everything based on your proposal until the 8th, and frankly,
that will give Cormac and I some time to take the chart and make sure
that you understand the scenarios and the impacts that each of those
different density bonuses have in regards to the entire program.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So we'll vote on this issue.
All in favor?
Yes, County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, in fact, you can give direction today, and
Page 171
January 10, 2006
then at tomorrow's -- at tomorrow evening's hearing at the beginning
where you adjust the agenda, so to speak, you can carve out these
particular elements and set them for the time that you wish to and use
your motions at that point in time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. SO all we need to do is just give
direction?
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Withdraw your motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't need to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can just -- offer direction to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You withdraw your second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just give direction to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- offer direction to.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: By four nods or five nods, whatever.
MR. MUDD: Okay. I have four or five nods.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, do you have
anything?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whatever happened to
synchronizing the lights in the urban area?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think they're working on it.
MR. MUDD: We're still-- we're still doing that, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're still doing that?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. But I'll let -- Norman's rushing up. But
we're still working on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was there a contract on that?
MR. FEDER: Yes, there is. And for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator.
We have been working on that, but with the hurricanes, we ended
Page 1 72
January 10, 2006
up taking most of our resources to get the signal heads that we have
out there back up and back to existing timing. That did create some
delay.
We're now looking at March of this year to have that completed
along with the Scoot implementation on Pine Ridge Road. And so we
did pull our resources off of those projects and onto, obviously,
addressing issues after the storm.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have one item here that I'd like
to bring forward. It's a good news item. It's both the Collier County
Board of Commissioners along with the Collier County Manager's
Office announce today the community-based organizations serving
Collier County now have access to an Internet based program called
the eCivis Grant Locator free of charge to assist in finding federal,
state and foundation grants.
And the only stipulation is that the community-based
organization must meet all the following requirements to be eligible;
number one, maintain an office within Collier County; number two,
offer services that directly benefit the residents of Collier County;
number three, offer services on a nondiscriminatory basis and comply
with all federal nondiscrimination laws; and four, have active status
under the IRS code section 501-C, or any 501-C designation is
eligible.
I think this is a fantastic deal, and I think it's going to help a lot of
our citizens here in Collier County, especially a lot of the groups that
are volunteer organizations get involved. I want to thank you very
much. I think this is a -- really a great news item.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This is -- this is an item that the board
approved, I believe it was in December 13th, and we're implementing
that. It came across as a three-year contract. It was on the board
Page 1 73
January 10, 2006
agenda.
And it was for eCivis, and one of the things that was specified,
we could, for a very reduced price, we could get it so that we could
take the local charitable organizations and let them be users of the
particular system.
And you voted for that, and I thank you for that. W e'lllet you
know how many people sign up for it, but I believe it's a good news
item and it's a good thing for those folks to have. It will be the first
one that they have that basically -- once you set up your requirements
of what you're looking for, it will e-mail you an alert that says, there's
a grant that came up that fits the description that you're looking for,
and then you can dial right in. It will show you an example of a
successful grant application, give you the current application you need
to do, and it's relatively simple. Everybody I've talked to that does
grants says it's almost a blessing because it really -- it alerts them like
an alarm clock when a new one comes up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have it on-line?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's on-line, yes. I believe it's on-line.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At that, I just want to close by saying,
thank you, fellow commissioners, for having faith in me and voting
me in as the new chair. I will work diligently at this post, and I will
make sure that the -- not only the citizens are taken care of, but also
that the whole county is taken care of. And as everyone knows, we
discussed here earlier, about all the different land issues that are
coming up in the state legislature, I plan to be actively involved in
lobbying up there, so I hope -- probably be spending some time up in
Tallahassee in regards to this.
And once again, Fred, I just want to thank you for your
leadership the past year. You're outstanding. And I've got large shoes
to fill, and I want to thank you for everything you've done for us the
Page 174
January 10, 2006
past year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And at that, we are adjourned.
***** Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted *****
Item #16Al
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
"BLUE HERON, PHASE I-A" - W/RELEASE OF UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH VELMA R.
GRAHAM AS TRUSTEE OF THE VELMA R. GRAHAM
DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED THE 21 ST DAY OF JUNE,
1995 FOR 10.26 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $373~500
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR "LAUREL LAKES, PHASE 1"-
W/REDUCTION OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A4
Page 175
January 10, 2006
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR "HERITAGE GREENS, PHASE IB AND 11"-
W/REDUCTION OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A5
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK
PHASE 3, UNIT THREE", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A6
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "VALENCIA GOLF
AND COUNTRY CLUB CLUBHOUSE" - W/STIPULATIONS
Item#16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR "BRIARWOOD, UNIT 5" - W/REDUCTION OF
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
"LALIQUE AT THE VINEYARDS" - W /REDUCTION OF
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A9
Page 176
January 10, 2006
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "ORANGE BLOSSOM
RANCH PHASE IB", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16AI0
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR "HUNTINGTON LAKES UNIT ONE" -
W/REDUCTION OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16All
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
"COVENTRY SQUARE" - W/REDUCTION OF UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A12
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES
FOR "CAMELOT PARK AT THE VINEYARDS" -
W/REDUCTION OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A13
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
"SANCTUARY POINTE AT STERLING OAKS"-
W/REDUCTION OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A14
Page 1 77
January 10,2006
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR "TIBURON GOLF CLUB CLUBHOUSE"-
W/RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A15
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
"GREY OAKS, UNIT 15" - W/REDUCTION OF UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A16
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
"ISLA VISTA AT GREY OAKS" - W/REDUCTION OF
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A17
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2006-01: PETITION CARNY -05-AR-8426,
VONDA WELKY, FAIR MANAGER, COLLIER COUNTY FAIR
AND EXPOSITION, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT
THE ANNUAL COLLIER COUNTY FAIR ON FEBRUARY 3
THROUGH FEBRUARY 12,2006, AT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FAIR GROUNDS LOCATED ON SR-846, NORTH GOLDEN
GATE - W/WAIVE OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE AND
SURETY BOND
Item #16A18
DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
PREP ARE AND SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR PURCHASE
BY THE CONSERVATION COLLIER PROGRAM OF SPECIFIC
Page 178
January 10, 2006
PARCEL(S) ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTY'S PURCHASE
OF FLEISCHMANN-CARIBBEAN GARDENS PROPERTIES
Item #16A19
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK
PHASE FOUR, UNIT THREE", APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A20
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "MARBELLA LAKES",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROV AL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A21
INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE MALT PROPERTY
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A22
INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE W A TKINS/JONES
PROPERTY UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 179
January 10, 2006
Item #16Bl
EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND ACCEPT A DRAINAGE
EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING A PIPE TO
CONNECT NEW AND EXISTING UNDERGROUND CULVERTS
TO ALLEVIATE THE STORM WATER FLOODING WHICH
OCCURS IN THE TWIN LAKES SUBDIVISION ALONG
GRANADA BOULEVARD. (FY 2006 PROJECT 510058)
Item #16B2
CHANGE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $296,500.00 TO CH2M
HILL, INC. AMENDING CONTRACT #05-3774 GORDON RIVER
WATER QUALITY PARK (PROJECT NO. 510185)
ENGINEERING DESIGN CONTRACT
Item #16B3
ALTERNATIVE ACCESS AND RELOCATION AGREEMENT
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SIX-LANING OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR951) FROM GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
TO IMMOKALEE ROAD (PROJECT NO. 65061, CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT NO. 37). FISCAL IMPACT
$92,000.00 - IN ORDER TO AVOID THE EXPENSE OF
RELOCATING THE EXISTING AT&T FIBER-OPTIC
FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
Item #16B4
ANNUAL CONTRACT 06-3900 TO BIG CYPRESS MITIGATION
BANK, LITTLE PINE ISLAND WETLAND MITIGATION, AND
PANTHER ISLAND MITIGATION BANK/SOUTHWEST
Page 180
January 10, 2006
FLORIDA WETLANDS JOINT VENTURE FOR WETLANDS
MITIGATION CREDITS~ BID NO. 06-3900
Item #16B5
GOVERNMENTAL F ACILITIES RELOCATION AGREEMENT
WITH THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY IN THE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $551,626.67 FOR REPLACEMENT
OF TRANSMISSION POLES AND HOLDING OF GUY POLES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD
EXPANSION PROJECT FROM GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO
POMPEI LANE, PROJECT NO. 60005 - FOR ENGINEERING
AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
Item #16B6
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A
LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
INDIVIDUALS OR BUSINESSES LICENSED TO PRACTICE
SURVEYING AND MAPPING IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO
ALLOW ACCESS TO THE COUNTY'S GLOBAL POSITIONING
SYSTEM (GPS) NETWORK FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SURVEYING AND MAPPING - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B7
EXPENSES FOR MCDONALD TRANSIT THAT WERE
INCURRED IN FISCAL YEAR 04/05 UNDER CONTRACT 00-
3146 THAT EXPIRED ON SEPTEMBER 30,2005 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $42,000. - TO ENSURE MINIMAL SERVICE
DISRUPTIONS TO THE MOST VULNERABLE MEMBERS OF
Page 181
January 10, 2006
OUR COMMUNITY
Item #16B8
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADV ANT AGED FOR FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF
$235,466 FOR THE PROVISION OF TRANSPORTATION FOR
QUALIFIED MEDICAID RECIPIENTS - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B9
APPROVAL OF THE PARK-N-RIDE SITE IDENTIFICATION
STUDY FY 2006 - TO ENSURE THAT THE PROVISION OF
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE TRAVEL NEEDS AND MOBILITY GOALS OF THE
LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Item #16BI0
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) FY 05/065307
GRANT FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF THREE TRANSIT
BUSES UNDER FLORIDA PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
ASSOCIATION/HARTLINE CONTRACT #2003-07-01,
TROLLEY DECAL WRAPS, AND NECESSARY EQUIPMENT
(IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $880,971) AND TO
RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL FTA FY 05/06 5307 GRANT FUNDS
Item #16Cl - Moved to Item #10E
Item # 16C2
Page 182
January 10, 2006
CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY (FPL) FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES TO PROVIDE
ELECTRIC SERVICE TO THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT REVERSE OSMOSIS
WELLFIELD (NCRWTP RO WELLFIELD), AT A COST NOT TO
EXCEED $27.00, PROJECT NUMBER 710061 - TO IMPROVE
SERVICE RELIABILITY
Item # 16C3
REJECTION OF TWO BIDS RECEIVED FOR BID NO. 05-3897
AND TO AUTHORIZE THE STAFF TO RE-ADVERTISE FOR
THE GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD RELIABILITY
IMPROVEMENTS WELL NO. 34; PROJECT 70158
Item #16C4
WORK ORDER RKS-FT-3681-06-01 FOR PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES FROM RKS CONSULTING
ENGINEERS, INC. FOR THE WATER AND WASTEWATER
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ENHANCEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $121,000, PROJECT NUMBERS 71007 AND 73071 - TO
PROVIDE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS STUDIES AND
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY
ENHANCEMENTS AND IMPROVE FACILITY OPERATIONS
AND RELIABILITY
Item #16C5
PAYMENT OF $82,339 TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS,
Page 183
January 10, 2006
CONTRACTOR FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (FDEP) DIVISION
OF RECREATION AND PARKS TOWARDS IN-KIND
SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDEP CONSENT ORDER
OGC-552-11-DW PROJECT 73161 - TO REDUCE POLLUTION
AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS RELATED TO
MAINTAINING A SEPARATE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PACKAGE PLANT
Item # 16C6
BID #05-3884 TO FURNISH AND DELIVER SODIUM
CHLORITE TO INTERNATIONAL DIOXIDE AS THE PRIMARY
CONTRACTOR AND AL TIVIA AS THE SECONDARY
CONTRACTOR IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $68,988 PER
YEAR - USED FOR ODOR CONTROL DURING NCWRF'S
DEWATERING PROCESS
Item #16C7
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO.
DG040617-A02 EXTENDING THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO
PARTIALL Y FUND THE MANATEE ROAD FOUR NEW
POT ABLE WATER AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY
(ASR) WELLS SYSTEM, PROJECT 70157 - TO ENSURE
COLLIER COUNTY MEETS FUTURE PEAK WATER
DEMANDS THROUGH A TIME EXTENSION
Item #16C8
RESCIND THE BID AWARD 05-3894 IN THE AMOUNT OF
Page 184
January 10, 2006
$3,171,636 TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC., FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE POTABLE WATER MAIN AND
LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS ALONG U.S. 41 PROJECT
71059 - (REPLACING THE EXISTING FAILING WATER MAIN
AND TO ENSURE SAFE, RELIABLE POTABLE WATER FOR
THE RESIDENTS) - DUE TO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN
DESIGN
Item # 16C9
PURCHASE ORDER 4500041201 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$4,146,000.00 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BEING
PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 04-3673 WITH CAROLLO
ENGINEERS FOR DESIGN OF THE NORTHEAST REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY, PROJECT NUMBERS 70902 AND 73156 - TO
PROVIDE WATER TREATMENT AND SUPPLY AND
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES TO MEET
DEMAND IN THE NORTHEAST REGION OF THE COUNTY
Item #16Dl
RESOLUTION 2006-01: DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF
FEBRUARY 2006 AS DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES SENIOR
APPRECIATION MONTH AND PROVIDING FOR A FEE
REDUCTION TO SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE AMOUNT OF $10
FOR THE ADOPTION OF DOGS AND CATS DURING THAT
MONTH
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 2006-02: AUTHORIZING THE AFTER- THE-
Page 185
January 10,2006
FACT SUBMITTAL OF A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT FOR EXPANSION OF THE PHYSICIAN LED
ACCESS NETWORK OF COLLIER COUNTY PROJECTION IN
THE AMOUNT OF $85,000 - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D3
EXPENDITURE OF DIRECT MATERIAL PURCHASE
PROGRAM FUNDS TO PURCHASE COMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES FOR NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK IN THE
AMOUNT OF $107,796.44 FROM AZTEK COMMUNICATIONS
- TO OUTFIT NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK WITH
FIBER OPTIC CABLE CONNECTIONS IN AN AMPLE AND
COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER
Item #16E1
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $74,098.05 TO RECOGNIZE
CARRY-FORWARD REVENUE FOR NEW AIR
CONDITIONERS (PROJECT 52162) - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16E2
WAIVE FORMAL COMPETITION AND APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF ANNUAL SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE FOR
THE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
(EDMS) FOR FIVE YEARS. ($48,000) - TO PURCHASE THE
SOFTWARE FROM IMAGE ONE CORPORATION
Item #16E3
Page 186
January 10,2006
LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH MAYFLOWER
CONGREGATIONAL UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, INC., FOR
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE PARKING DURING
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW COUNTY FLEET, COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT, AND SHERIFFS OFFICE FLEET FACILITIES AT AN
ANNUAL RENTAL NOT TO EXCEED $14,400, PROJECT 520093
- LOCATED AT 2900 COUNTY BARN ROAD DIRECTLY
ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE FACILITY
Item #16E4
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH ROGER CARV ALLO FOR
TEMPORARY OFFICE SPACE TO HOUSE THE GUARDIAN AD
LITEM OFFICE DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR THE NEW
COURTHOUSE ANNEX BUILDING AT A FIRST YEAR'S
ANNUAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $24,744, PROJECT 525331 -
LOCATED AT 2671 AIRPORT ROAD~ NAPLES
Item #16E5
EXPENDITURE OF $26,825 FOR EMERGENCY RADIO TOWER
REP AIRS FOLLOWING HURRICANE WILMA - TO THE
ANTENNA SYSTEMS FOR COLLIER COUNTY'S 800 MHZ
RADIO SYSTEM
Item #16E6 - Moved to Item #10F
Item #16E7 - Moved to Item #10G
Item # 16E8
Page 187
January 10, 2006
AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY DRIVER
EDUCATION GRANT PROGRAM - TO FUND DRIVER
EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN PUBLIC AND NON-PUBLIC
HIGH SCHOOLS IN COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16Fl
PAYMENT OF FUNDS TO COASTAL PLANNING AND
ENGINEERING FOR WORK PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE
ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER AND NOTICE TO
PROCEED FOR THE REEVALUATION OF CLAM PASS INLET
MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT 90028 ($34,462) - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F2
ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION AS THE SOLE SOURCE
PROVIDER OF VARIOUS PROPRIETARY, NONINVASIVE
RESUSCITATION DEVICES AND DISPOSABLE ELECTRODES
AND ACCOMPANYING ACCESSORIES AT AN ESTIMATED
COST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 OF $24,000 - TO PROVIDE
RESCUE PERSONNEL STATE OF THE ART PACING AND
DEFIBRILLATION EQUIPMENT FOR THE EMERGENCY
TREATMENT OF CARDIAC ARREST VICTIMS
Item #16F3
CHANGE ORDER NO.2 TO WORK ORDER #HM-FT -05-02,
UNDER CONTRACT 01-3271 FOR $42,250 TO HUMISTON AND
MOORE TO EXTEND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES
THROUGH DECEMBER, 2005 AND PROVIDE LABORATORY
ANALYSIS OF SAND SAMPLES AS REQUIRED BY FDEP
Page 188
January 10,2006
PERMIT ON THE HIDEAWAY BEACH PROJECT NO. 90502
Item #16F4
PAYMENT OF FUNDS TO COASTAL PLANNING AND
ENGINEERING FOR WORK PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE
ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER AND NOTICE TO
PROCEED FOR THE PREPARATION OF FEMA FUNDING
PACKAGES FOR BEACH DAMAGES FROM HURRICANE
KATRINA AND WILMA PROJECT NO. 905271 ($86,265) - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F5
A $60,000 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND LEGAL FEES
INCURRED IN THE LAW SUIT DWIGHT E. BROCK V. BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LINDA T. SWISHER AND PAUL
W WILSON, CASE NO. 04-941-CA, TWENTIETH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16F6
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN A
CENTRALIZED COST CENTER WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND
FOR HURRICANE WILMA RECOVERY EFFORTS ($125,000)-
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F7
CHANGE ORDER #4 WITH MARINE CONTRACTING GROUP
FOR ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE OF $210,000 UNDER
CONTRACT 05-3744, PROJECT NO. 905021 AND APPROVE
Page 189
January 10,2006
ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16H1
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
HENNING TO ATTEND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY'S PRE-LEGISLATIVE
LUNCHEON AT THE STRAND COUNTRY CLUB ON
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14,2005; $20.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET -
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Item #16H2
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
COLETTA TO ATTEND THE GALA CELEBRATING THE 5TH
ANNIVERSARY OF JERUSALEM HAITIAN COMMUNITY
CENTER, INC. ON DECEMBER 10,2005; $20.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET-
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Item #16H3
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
HALAS TO ATTEND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL PRE-LEGISLATIVE LUNCHEON ON DECEMBER 14,
2005 AT THE STRAND COUNTRY CLUB; $20.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET-
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Item #16H4
Page 190
January 10,2006
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
HALAS TO ATTEND THE ISSUES '06 SOUTHWEST
REGIONAL DELEGATION FORUM ON DECEMBER 16,2005
AT FGCU; $40.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HALAS ' TRAVEL BUDGET - SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE
Item #16H5
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
FIALA TO ATTEND THE MARCO ISLAND CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE CHRISTMAS ISLAND STYLE GALA ON
DECEMBER 7,2005; $60.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Item #16H6
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR PREPAYMENT FOR
COMMISSIONER COLETTA TO ATTEND THE ULI
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA 9TH ANNUAL WINTER INSTITUTE
CONFERENCE ON FEBRUARY 3,2006; $25.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET-
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Item #16Il
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED:
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
Page 191
January 10, 2006
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 192
1. FOR BOARD ACTION:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
. January 10, 2006
A. No items for board action.
2. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners
for the period:
(1) November 19, 2005 - November 25,2005.
(2) November 26,2005 - December 2,2005.
B. Districts :
(1) Port of the Islands Community Improvement District: Minutes of
September 23, 2005; Agenda of September 23, 2005.
(2) Heritaoe Greens Community Development District: Minutes of August 8,
2005; Agenda of August 8, 2005.
C. Minutes:
(1) Conservation Collier land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Agenda of
November 14, 2005; Minutes of October 10, 2005.
(2) Collier County library Advisory Board: Agenda of October 26,2005
(cancelled due to the hurricane); Minutes of September 28,2005.
(3) Development Services Advisory Committee: Agenda of October 5, 2005;
Minutes of October 5, 2005.
(4) Parks & Recreation Advisory Board: Agenda of October 19,2005,
Minutes of October 19, 2005. .
(5) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee: Minutes of July 25, 2005.
(6) Collier County HistoricallArchaeolooical Preservation Board: Agenda of
November 16,2005; Minutes of October 19, 2005.
(7) Collier County Plan nino Commission: Agenda of November 17, 2005;
Minutes of September 30, 2005.
H:\DA T A \Melanie\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\ 1.10.06 Misc. Corresp. Memo.doc
(8) Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of October 18,
2005.
(9) Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of December 1,
2005; Minutes of November 3, 2005.
(10) Bavshore/Gatewav Triangle local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Minutes of April 4, 2005; Minutes of April 5, 2005; Agenda of April 26,
2005; Minutes of April 26, 2005; Minutes of May 2, 2005; Minutes of May
3, 2005; Agenda of May 11, 2005; Minutes of May 11, 2005; Minutes of
May 23, 2005; Minutes of May 24, 2005; Agenda of June 7, 2005; Minutes
of June 7,2005; Agenda of July 12,2005; Minutes of July 12, 2005;
Agenda of August 2, 2005; Minutes of August 2, 2005.
D. Other:
(1) Caribbean Gardens Blue Ribbon Committee: Minutes of September 12,
2005; Minutes of September 23, 2005
(2) letter dated November 7,2005, from Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the
County Manager, to Sheriff Don Hunter regarding public records request.
H:\DA T A \Melanie\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\ 1.10.06 Misc. Corresp. Memo.doc
January 10, 2006
Item #16J1
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO ACCEPT VOTER
EDUCATION FUNDS WITH A 15% MATCHING
CONTRIBUTION ($49,121.91) - FOR ADDITIONAL VOTER
EDUCATION TRAINING BEYOND THE CURRENT
PROGRAMS
Item #16J2
CREATION OF A CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM,
INCLUDING THE CREATION OF A CASE MANAGEMENT
COORDINATOR POSITION, TO EXPEDITE CASES THROUGH
CRIMINAL COURT SYSTEM (FY06 COSTS OF $38,100). - TO
MONITOR CASE PROGRESSION, INMATE LENGTH OF STAY
PRIOR TO ADJUDICATION, JAIL POPULATION AND TO
ESTABLISH WORKING POLICIES THAT EXPEDITE CASES
THROUGH THE CRIMINAL COURT SYSTEM
Item # 16J3
INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ELECTION SERVICES
WHICH LEASES THE COUNTY-OWNED VOTING MACHINES
TO THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR USE IN THE CITY'S
FEBRUARY 7, 2006 ELECTION, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS $12,500.00 IS
THE FEE FOR LEASING THE EQUIPMENT AND THE
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS WILL BE REIMBURSED FOR
ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ELECTION
Item #16K1
Page 193
January 10,2006
BUSINESS DAMAGE OFFER TO SETTLE A CLAIM FOR
BUSINESS DAMAGES BY WORK-A-HOLICS LANDSCAPE
MANAGEMENT, INC. RESULTING FROM THE ACQUISITION
OF PARCELS 103A, 103B, 103C, 103D, 103E AND 703 IN THE
CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. CULLEN Z. WALKER, ET
AL., CASE NO. 05-0728-CA (LOGAN BOULEVARD PROJECT
#60166) (FISCAL IMPACT~ IF ACCEPTED IS $550~000).
Item #16K2
OFFER OF JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $53,130.00 AS TO
PARCELS 115 & 715 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. RAFAEL LIY, ET AL., CASE NO. 05-752-CA
(COLLIER BLVD. PROJECT NO. 65061). (FISCAL IMPACT
$13~970.55~ IF OFFER ACCEPTED)
Item #16K3
OFFER OF JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,605.00 AS TO
PARCELS 122 & 722 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. GULFSTREAM HOMES, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 05-
758-CA (COLLIER BLVD. PROJECT NO. 65061). (FISCAL
IMPACT $7~827.15, IF OFFER ACCEPTED)
Item # 1 7 A
RESOLUTION 2006-03: CU-2005-AR-7749; LIVING WORD
FAMILY CHURCH, REPRESENTED BY LAURA SPURGEON,
AICP, OF JOHNSON ENGINEERING, IS REQUESTING A
CONDITIONAL USE PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.04.03 (TABLE
2) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
Page 194
January 10,2006
(LDC) FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR A CHURCH
FACILITY IN THE RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING
DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 18.1
+/- ACRES, IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 2 12 MILES EAST OF
CR 951 IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27
EAST~ COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA
Item #17B - Moved to Item #8A
Page 195
January 10, 2006
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:31 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~>~J'
FRANK HALAS, Chairman
ATTEST: . .'
DWIGl!T:E::Bi{~CK, CLERK
'...,. . t
"
By:
~c
These minutes approved by the Board on:l.th ./4, tRfIJ , as
presented v or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 196