BCC Minutes 02/14/2006 R
February 14,2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 14,2006
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: Frank Halas
Jim Coletta
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
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
fi
"
''', \
'_"", "-N,^,<,
~~..,-,-,
AGENDA
February 14, 2006
9:00 AM
Frank Halas, Chairman, District 2
Jim Coletta, Vice-Chairman, District 5
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4
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
THAT 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
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
Page 1
February 14,2006
_,_'"w___ -"".-.,...----
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 A V AILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
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. January 10,2006 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. January 11,2006 - BCC/LDC meeting
D. January 24, 2006 - BCC/Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation offering our appreciation and thanks to the Veteran's
Transportation Program's volunteer drivers, office staff, and their families.
To be accepted by Jim Elson, President of the Collier County Veterans
Council.
5. PRESENT A TIONS
Page 2
February 14,2006
----
A. Presentation of the Advisory Committee Outstanding member Award to
Herbert Rosser Savage.
B. Presentation by the City of Naples in appreciation for the County's
assistance after Hurricane Wilma. To be presented by City Manager Dr.
Robert Lee and Mayor Bill Barnett.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition CU-2004-AR-
5439, Darryl J. Damico, represented by Beau Keene, P.E., of Keene
Engineering, requesting a Conditional Use of the "E" Estates district for
earth mining per Table 2, Section 2.04.03 ofthe Land Development Code
(LDC). The property is located between 54th Avenue N.E. and 56th Avenue
N.E., Golden Gate Estates Unit 45, in Section 4, Township 48 South, Range
28 East, Collier County, Florida. Companion Item: V A-2004-AR-5438
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition V A-2004-AR-
5438 Darryl J. Damico, represented by Beau Keene, P.E., of Keene
Engineering, requesting an after-the-fact variance from Section 4.02.02C of
the Land Development Code (LDC) of the Estates Zoning District for earth
mining to exceed the maximum site area (20 acres). The property is located
between 54th Avenue N.E. and 56th A venue N.E., in Section 4, Township
48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDEX-2005-AR-
7824 Pawel and Teryl Brzeski, represented by Gary Butler, of Butler
Engineering, Inc., requesting a second two-year extension of the Magnolia
Pond Planned Unit Development (PUD) granted by Ordinance Number 98-
49, and extended until June 9, 2005 by Resolution Number 04-284, pursuant
to LDC Section 1 0.02.13.D. The subject property, consisting of 42.05 acres,
Page 3
February 14,2006
-."--.-
is located on Magnolia Drive, west of Collier Boulevard, between 1-75 and
the Golden Gate Canal, in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2004-AR-6932;
R & S Development Company, LLC, represented by Kelly Michelle Smith,
of Davidson Engineering, Inc., requesting a rezone from the Rural
Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) zoning district for a residential development to allow
a maximum of 60 dwelling units, to be known as Sandalwood RPUD. The
property to be considered for this rezone is located west of Livingston Road,
just south of Mediterra, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, in
Collier County, Florida and consists of20.58 acres.
C. This item was continued from the January 24. 2006 BCC Meetinl!: and is
beinl!: reQuested to be further continued to the February 28. 2006 BCC
Meetinl!:. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDEX-2005-
AR-8478: Rookery Bay Business Park, LLC, represented by Wayne Arnold,
ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and R. Bruce Anderson, ofRoetzel
& Andress, is requesting a 2-year extension to the ASGM Business Center
of Naples PUD. The PUD was originally approved on October 8, 2002 as
Ordinance 02-47, and sunset on October 8, 2005. The subject property,
consisting of 40.88 acres, is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard,
approximately ofa mile south of Manatee Road, in Section 10, Township 51
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
D. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance amending Schedule Seven of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance), to reflect the amended rates set forth
in the impact fee study, providing for the incorporation by reference of the
impact fee study entitled Collier County Emergency Medical Services
Impact Fee Update Study, establishing methodology for the annual indexing
adjustment to the Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Rates, and
providing for a delayed effective date of April 3, 2006.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 4
February 14, 2006
-------_.-- -_._, --.._~-
A. Appointment of members to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
B. Appointment of members to the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee.
C. Appointment of members to the Code Enforcement Board.
D. Appointment of member to the Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals.
E. Discussion regarding the Collier County Ordinance No. 1995-66, as
amended, regarding the Collier County Public Vehicle for Hire Ordinance to
consider providing direction to change the language regarding trade names
for companies. (Commissioner Henning)
F. Discussion to approve a conceptual plan to acquire, in fee-simple or reduced
price, current government-owned lands for earth mining and/or affordable
housing (Commissioner Henning).
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation for the approval of the third Conservation Collier Active
Acquisition List and direction for the County Manager or his designee to
actively pursue projects recommended within the A-Category. (Joseph K.
Schmitt, Community Development and Environmetal Services
Administrator)
B. Request from the Collier County Housing Development Corporation that the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County donate the residential
portion of the Bembridge PUD to be used for Affordable-Workforce
Housing. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator)
C. Recommendation to adopt a superseding resolution authorizing the
condemnation of fee simple interests and/or those perpetual or temporary
easement interests necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and
utility improvements required for the four-lane expansion of County Barn
Road from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Davis Boulevard. (Capital
Improvement Element No. 33, Project No. 60101). Estimated fiscal impact:
$5,809,000.00. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
Page 5
February 14,2006
D. This item to be heard at 11:30 a.m. Request direction to staff to proceed
with its due diligence review and contract preparation of proposed land
exchange between Collier County and City of Marco Island. (Jim DeLony,
Administrator, Public Utilities)
E. Recommendation to approve award of bid 06-3941 in the Amount of
$3,559,343 to Akerman Construction Company Inc. for the construction of
the Potable Water Main along U S 41 from Lely Canal approximately 1600
feet east of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and US 41 Intersection to Barefoot
Williams Road Project 71059. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
F. Recommendation to Approve Selection of Qualified Firm and Award a
Contract Under ITN 05-3583 CEI Services for Collier Boulevard Road
Projects for Project No. 65061 Collier Boulevard, Golden Gate Boulevard to
Immokalee Road in the amount of$I,663,792.80. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
G. This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Presentation of options regarding user
fees for the Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage. (Marla Ramsey,
Administrator, Public Services)
H. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
Resolution calling for a Referendum Election on November 7,2006 to
determine whether voters approve continuing the levy of an ad valorem tax
not exceeding .25 mil through the year 2013 to continue to fund the
Conservation Collier Program's acquisition and management of
environmentally sensitive lands even after the $75 million dollar bond issue
previously authorized by referendum on November 5, 2002 for such
acquisition and management has been spent. (Joseph Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development; Michael Pettit, Assistant County Attorney)
I. Recommendation to approve Collier County's Fiscal Year 2007 Federal
Legislative Agenda. (Debbie Wight, Assistant to the County Manager)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to
Section 286.011(8), Fla. Stat., meet in executive (closed attorney-client)
Page 6
February 14, 2006
--~..,.._.._._.,.,.._. -.-.
session at 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday. February 14. 2006, to discuss
settlement negotiations and/or strategy in the case of Collier County v. North
Naples Fire Control and Rescue District, et. aI., Case No. 02-l702-CA
pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Naples,
Florida. Attending: Board of County Commissioners; County Attorney
David C. Weigel; Assistant County Attorney Ellen T. Chadwell; Craig B.
Willis, Esquire; and County Manager James V. Mudd.
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reject the
settlement offer proposed by John P. Cardillo, Esquire on behalf of the
North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District and give direction to outside
counsel, Craig B. Willis, Esquire, and the Office of the County Attorney
regarding counter-offers and litigation strategy in the case of Collier County
v. North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District, et aI., Case No. 02-1702-
CA (Goodlette-Frank Road Project No. 60134).
C. This item was continued from the January 24. 2006 BCC Meetinl!:.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
Resolution Superseding Resolution No. 94-136, and providing guidelines for
consideration of applicants for appointment to Advisory Boards.
D. Consider Proposed Settlement Agreement in reference to the lawsuit entitled
Gordon Douglas v. Collier County Case no. 2:04-CV-545-FtM-33 DNF,
now pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, and give
direction to County Attorney regarding the litigation.
E. Recommendation To Approve A Resolution To Establish The Habitat
Conservation Plan Advisory Committee As An Ad-Hoc Committee;
Providing For Creation And Purpose; Providing For Terms, Appointment Of
Members, And Failure To Attend Meetings; Providing For Officers,
Quorum, And Compensation; Providing Functions, Powers, And Duties;
Providing For Dissolution Of The Committee; And Superseding Resolution
No. 2005-174 In Its Entirety.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
Page 7
February 14,2006
--.".-"..---." ..__._m..
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 for recording the final plat of Fiddlers
Creek South Commercial Center, approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
2) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Treviso
Bay, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
3) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Forest Glen of Naples.
The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained.
4) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Forest Park. The roadway
and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
5) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Forest Park Phase II. The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
6) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Artesia
Naples, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
7) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Brentwood
Two.
Page 8
February 14,2006
8) Recommendation to approve an Interim Management Plan for the
McIntosh property under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program.
9) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager, or his designee,
to submit a Florida Humanities Council minigrant proposal to fund an
interpretive trail project at the Conservation Collier Otter Mound
Preserve for $5,002 (of which $2,000 will be reimbursable).
10) Recommendation to approve two impact fee Satisfactions of Lien for
two individual properties due to a change in ownership and the
subsequent recording of new deferral agreements in accordance with
the Immokalee Residential Impact Fee Deferral Program, as set forth
by Section 74-201 (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances.
11) Recommendation to approve two impact fee Satisfactions of Lien for
two individual properties due to the deferred impact fees being repaid
in full, in accordance with the Immokalee Residential Impact Fee
Deferral Program, as set forth by Section 74-201 (g) of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
12) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners approve a budget amendment totaling $250,000 from
FY06 Fund 186 reserves to assist with the establishment of a Florida
State University School of Medicine rural health training center in
Immokalee.
13) Recommendation to authorize an additional permanent position of
Supervisor for a new work team being established to provide
improved land use project review and permitting application intake
service within the Community Development and Environmental
Services Division at a total budgeted cost of $58,500 for all salary,
benefits, taxes and operational expenses.
14) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager or his designee to
sign a police affidavit against trespass at the Railhead Scrub Preserve
pursuant to the Railhead Scrub Preserve Interim Management Plan.
Page 9
February 14, 2006
_m~_..._ _ m''___o_
15) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners waive the
formal competition process and solicit quotes to select a consultant to
update the General Government Building Impact Fee due to an
accelerated date of completion required to meet deadlines set forth by
proposed legislation related to statutory guidance on impact fees.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award bid #06-3934 Pine Ridge Road /1-75
Interchange Streetscape Beautification Project landscape and
irrigation installation to Hannula Landscaping, Inc. at a base amount
of$185,416.83 plus a 10% contingency of$18,541.68 for a total of
$203,958.51. (Project #740461)
2) Recommends Board's Approval of Adopt-A-Road Agreement (1) for
the following ASAP Signing Agency of Ana Patino, Inc.
3) Recommendation to approve selection committee ranking of three
firms for negotiations for RFP 06-3931 "Professional Design and
Related Services for Golden Gate Boulevard from Wilson Boulevard
to Desoto Boulevard, Project No. 60040.
4) Recommendation to approve a Sale and Purchase Agreement for the
sale of County owned property located North of Golden Gate Parkway
and East of Goodlette-Frank Road. (Estimate fiscal impact
$465,240.90).
5) Recommendation to approve and execute a Drainage and Pond Usage
Agreement and to accept a Non-exclusive Drainage Easement from
Royal Poinciana Golf Club, Inc., necessary for the construction of
roadway, drainage and utility improvements required for the six-lane
expansion of Goodlette-Frank Road from Golden Gate Parkway to
Pine Ridge Road. (Project No. 60005). (Fiscal Impact: $27.00)
6) Recommendation to award bid #06-3933 Golden Gate Boulevard
Phase II from 29th Street SW to 13th Street SW landscape and
irrigation installation to Hannula Landscaping, Inc. at a base amount
of $622,424.86 plus a 10% contingency of $62,242.48 for a total of
$684,667.34. (Project #600221)
Page 1 0
February 14,2006
_ _a_ _ ---~~
7) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing removal of a
non-warranted traffic signal from the intersection of Radio Road at
Kings Way/Briarwood Boulevard. Removal of the traffic signal poles
and equipment will cost approximately $4,000.
8) Recommendation to approve a Change Order to add $93,740.70 for
waterline inspection and $149,055.07 for sewer inspection to Johnson
Engineering, Inc. under ITQ 04-3583 CEI Services for Collier County
Road Projects for Project No. 60018 "Immokalee Road Project from
Collier Blvd to 43rd Ave NE".
9) Recommendation to accept a funding agreement with the South
Florida Water Management District to share a portion of the
construction cost of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project
Phase I in the amount of $400,000.
10) Recommendation to seek Board approval of a County Incentive Grant
Program (ClOP) Agreement and a Memorandum of Agreement with
the Florida Department of Transportation to fund the Project
Development and Environment (PD&E) study for SR 82 from the Lee
County line to SR 29 with the Countys obligation being $500,000.
11) Recommendation to award bid #06-3935 US 41 Tamiami Trail North
Phase IV from Immokalee Road to Wiggins Pass landscape and
irrigation installation to Vila & Son Landscaping, Corp. with a base
amount of $347,437.76 and 10% contingency of $34,743.77 for a total
of$382,181.53. (Project #600241)
12) Recommendation to approve a Work Order in the amount of$152,486
to PBS&J for design of the North Road Ditch Improvements Project
(Project No. 511381), in accordance with the Transportation Planning
Services Contract No. 02-3371 and to approve a budget amendment in
the amount of$30,000.
13) Recommendation to authorize County Manager or his designee to
enter into a Work Order in the amount of $114,519.50 with Carter &
Burgess Inc. for a Transportation Planning and Preliminary
Engineering Study for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area.
Page 11
February 14,2006
-~-------
14) Approve a Budget Amendment recognizing the Fiscal Year 2005 -
2006 Collier Area Transit (Fund 426) Federal Transportation (FTA)
5307 and State Block Grant 5311 Revenue allocations and establish
corresponding program expense budgets via budget amendment.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve payment of invoices for uniform items in
the total amount of$4,967.50.
2) Recommendation to approve Work Order HS-FT-3785-06-04 with
Hazen & Sawyer, P.C., for professional engineering services for the
South County Regional Water Treatment Plant Reverse Osmosis (RO)
Wellfield Four New Reliability Potable Water Wells in the amount of
$748,432, Project Number 71051.
3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners adopting Collier Countys South
County Regional Water Treatment Plant Reverse Osmosis Well field
Expansion to 20 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) Facilities Plan,
December 2005, allow this Plan to be submitted to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, and authorize the County
Manager or his designee to carry out responsibilities under the FDEP
Low Interest Loan Program.
4) Recommendation to approve a Change Order to Work Order No. AB-
040-06-02 with Angie Brewer and Associates, L.C. in the amount of
$99,634.00 under Sarasota County Contract No. 2003-040 for State
Revolving Funds Loan Procurement Services from The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection for the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant Reverse Osmosis Wellfield
Expansion to 20 Million Gallons per Day (MGD); Project Number
708921.
5) Recommendation to award Work Order CDM-FT-3593-06-03 with
Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., for professional hydrogeologic and
engineering services for well site evaluation and transmission main
study for water supply for the next phase of development for the
NERWTP the amount of$771,302, Project Number 70899.
Page 12
February 14, 2006
6) Recommendation to award Work Order CDM-FT-3593-06-04 with
Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., for professional hydrogeologic and
engineering services related to the reliability water supply wells for
the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant in the amount of
$975,026, Project Numbers 71006 and 71011.
7) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment for $68,420.75 for
South County Water Reclamation Facility Process Control Building
Expansion (Project 72509) to reimburse money that did not roll
forward from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006.
8) Recommendation to award Work Order CHM-FT-3291-06-01 under
Fixed Term Contract 01-3291 to CH2M HILL, Inc. in an amount of
$31,000.00 for Time and Materials to provide Construction
Engineering Inspection services to serve the North County Water
Reclamation Facility (NCWRF), and approve the necessary Budget
Amendment in the amount of$100,121.00 for Project Number 73966,
NCWRF Bleach System.
9) Recommendation to award Work Order MPI-FT-3785-06-06, Landfill
Gas-To-Energy Project Development Assistance for Collier County,
with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Project 59004, in the amount of$215,000
and authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute the
Work Order.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution to Declare a Public Purpose
and Allow Collier County Domestic Animal Services to Create a
Trust Account for the Solicitation, Receipt, and Expenditure of
Donations to Collier County Domestic Animal Services.
2) Recommendation to expand a .8 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position
associated with Services for Seniors program to 1.0 FTE.
3) Report expenditure of Direct Material Purchase program funds
associated with additive Change Order #20 for North Collier Regional
Park.
Page 13
February 14,2006
- -~----
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve and execute a Resolution authorizing the
Commission Chairman to execute Deed Certificates for the sale of
burial plots at Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery during the
2006 calendar year.
2) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman
of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, to
execute Agreements, Deeds, and other documents required for the sale
ofGAC Land Trust property during the 2006 Calendar Year.
3) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
4) Recommendation to Approve Standard Form Design-Build Contract
for Use in the Acquisition of Design and Construction Services From
a Single Firm.
5) Recommendation to approve and execute the attached Lease
Agreement with Horseshoe Drive Development, L.C. for office space
to house the State Attorneys Economic Crime Unit at a first years
annual cost for rent and CAM of$72,018.75, Fund 001, and
communications systems cost of $12,454, Fund 178.
6) Recommendation to approve and execute the attached Lease
Agreement with Horseshoe Drive Development, L.C. for temporary
office space to house the Information Technology Departments Data
Center Operation at a first year annual cost of$125,545.50 and
relocation expenses of $282,745.
7) Recommendation to declare certain county-owned property as surplus,
authorize a sale of the surplus property on March 11, 2006 and
authorize the donation of certain surplus property to the City of
Everglades and the Collier County Sheriffs Office.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommend Approval of Change Order # 1 for Contract # 03-3537
with Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc. for media advertising
Page 14
February 14,2006
---...._-~.,-_.
and production in the amount of $ 148,384.19 and authorizing the
County Manager or his designee to execute Change Order # 1 after
approval by the County Attorneys Office.
2) Recommend Approval of Second Amendment to the Tourism
Agreement For Emergency/Disaster Relief Advertising Plan with
Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc.
3) Recommend Approval to Pay Paradise Advertising & Marketing, Inc.
for Commissions Due on Emergency/Disaster Recovery Advertising
From May 25,2004 to Present in the amount of$27,113.50.
4) Recommend Approval of an Amendment to County Resolution #
2004-370 Covering a Policy for the Approval of Funds for Travel
Expenses for Persons Conducting Official Tourism Business.
5) Recommend approval of a $243,663.86 cost increase in TDC funds to
the City of Naples grant for the dredging of Doctor's Pass, Project No.
905501 and approve all necessary budget amendments. The total
revised cost of the grant will be $842,163.86.
6) Recommendation to award RFP# 05-3875 Hurricane Evacuation
Study in the amount of $39,800 to Dewberry & Davis LLC and
approve a Budget Amendment to fund the study.
7) Recommendation to approve a Fourth Amendment to Lease
Agreement with Gulf Shore Associates, Limited Partnership, for the
continued use of office space by the Pelican Bay Services Division at
a first years annual rent and Common Area Maintenance fees of
$27,353.
8) Recommendation to approve a grant agreement to receive $75,000
from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida
Boating Improvement Program for the Near Shore Reef Mooring
Buoys project and approve all necessary budget amendments.
9) Approve budget amendments.
10) Recommendation to approve Amendment NO.1 to Contract 05-3854
Collier County Beach Re-nourishment (Project 90527) with Great
Page 15
February 14,2006
..--.
Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, LLC which documents contract
negotiations leading up to a final contract and increases the sand
quantity due to post design erosion for an additional $1,035,287.
11) Recommendation to approve a letter to the Florida Department of
Health concerning Naples Community Hospital Healthcare System's
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for non-emergency
ambulance service and authorize signature by the Chairman.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
approve the expenditure of $250,000 from FY06 Fund 186 reserves to
assist with the establishment of a Florida State University School of
Medicine rural health training center in Immokalee. (Companion item
to the Board of County Commissioners budget amendment approval
under 16 A)
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Tom Henning requesting reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
Henning to attend the Economic Development Council's 30th
Anniversary of Economic Development at the Naples Beach Hotel
and Golf Club on January 30, 2006. $60.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Henning's travel account.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the Gulf Citrus Best Management Practices
(BMP)KickoffEvent scheduled on February 1,2006 and is requesting
reimbursement in the amount of $1 0.00, to be paid from his travel
budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
funds paid to attend a function serving a valid public purpose. To
attend the Annual Gulf Citrus Country Gala on Saturday, March 18,
2006 at the LaBelle Civic Center; $50.00 to be paid from
Page 16
February 14,2006
---.-.----.-
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
funds paid to attend a function serving a valid public purpose.
Commissioner will be attending the 2006 Humanitarian Award
Luncheon on February 23,2006 at the Ritz-Carlton Beach Resort;
$125.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
5) To adopt a Resolution in support of the Public Safety Coordinating
Council's Resolution No. 2006-01 for support in attaining additional
Judges, Assistant State Attorneys, Assistant Public Defenders and
supporting personnel for the Judicial System of Collier County.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence to file for record with action as
directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners designate the
Sheriff as the official Fiscal Year 2006 Applicant and Program Point-
of-Contact for the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Assistance, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG) Program, accept the Grant when awarded, and approve
applicable budget amendments.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve the Offer of Judgment in the amount of
$17,365.00 as to Parcel 148 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Regent Park Cluster Homes Association, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-
3452-CA (Immokalee Road Project No. 66042). (Fiscal Impact
$2,265.00)
2) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel No. 167B in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. Andy R. Morgan, et al., Case No. 02-5169-CA
(Immokalee Road Phase Two Project 60018). (Fiscal Impact
Page 1 7
February 14,2006
----.--
$48,431.00)
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Settlement Agreement and Release with Ajax Paving Industries, Inc.
and/or Ajax Paving Industries, Inc. of Florida arising out of the
construction project to widen Goodlette-Frank Road between Pine
Ridge Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road in Collier County (Contract
No. 02-3424).
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the Issuance of Music Festival License for Radio Fiesta Special Event,
pursuant to Ordinance No. 70-11.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept
$250,000.00 to resolve all disagreements between Collier County and
Hansen Information Technologies and deem Contract 03-3500 for
Land Use and Permitting Software Application terminated for
convemence.
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
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. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
ordinance consenting to the exercise by the Board of Supervisors of Tuscany
Reserve Community Development District of certain additional powers
relating to public improvements and community facilities.
Page 18
February 14,2006
_._---~
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 19
February 14,2006
-_."'.,.~_._-- ---_._"~.
February 14,2006
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
The Board of Collier County Commission is now in session.
And at this point in time, if you'd all rise for the invocation by
Jim Mudd, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
MR. MUDD: Heavenly Father, we come to you today as a
community thanking you for the blessings that you have so generously
provided. Today we are especially thankful for the dedicated elected
officials, staff, and members of the public who are here to help lead
this county as it makes the important decisions that will shape our
community's future.
We pray that you will guide, lead and direct the decisions made
here today so that your will for our county will always be done.
These things we pray in your holy name, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. And we'll get
started today with the agenda, starting off with County Manager Jim
Mudd for changes to the agenda.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners' meeting,
February 14,2006.
Continue item 8A to February 28, 2006, BCC meeting. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members. It's PUD-EX-2005-AR-7824,
Page 2
,-----
February 14,2006
Pawel and Teryl Brzeski, represented by Gary Butler of Butler
Engineering, Inc., requesting a two-year extension of the Magnolia
Pond planned unit development granted by ordinance number 98-49,
and to extend it until June 9, 2005, by resolution number 04-284,
pursuant to the Land Development Code section 1O.01.13.D.
The subject property consists of 42.05 acres, is located on
Magnolia Drive, west of Collier Boulevard between I-75 and the
Golden Gate Canal in Section 34, Township 49 south, Range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida, and that continuance is at the petitioner's
request.
And, Commissioner, for any advertised item, like 8A -- and I'm
going to talk about 8D being continued -- the board will vote on those
during the agenda when it comes before you to see if the board wants
to continue it, because they were advertised.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Next item is to continue item 8D to the February
28, 2006, BCC meeting. It's a recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners adopt an ordinance amending schedule 7 of
appendix A of chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance,
to reflect the amended rate set forth in the impact fee study; providing
for the incorporation by reference of the impact fee study entitled,
Collier County Emergency Medical Services impact fee update study;
establishing methodology for the annual indexing adjustment of the
emergency medical services impact fee rates; and providing for a
delayed effective date of April 3, 2006, and the continuance is at
staffs request.
The next item is item 12E. The executive summary should read
under considerations, first sentence, April 26, 2005, rather than April
26,2006, and Commissioner Coyle found that particular error.
Next item is to continue item 17 A 7 to the February 28, 2006,
BCC meeting, and that's a recommendation to approve for recording
Page 3
---------..- --.....--.-
February 14,2006
the final plat of the Brentwood Two subdivision, and that's at staffs
request.
The next item is to move item 17B7 to 10J, and that's a
recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing removal of a
non-warranted traffic signal from the intersection of Radio Road at
Kings Way/Briarwood Boulevard. Removal of the traffic signal's
poles and equipment will cost approximately $4,000, and that move
was at Commissioner Coyle's request.
The next item is a correction to item 16BlO. The title on the
executive summary should read, recommendation to seek board
approval of a resolution authorizing execution of a county incentive
grant program agreement and a memorandum of agreement with the
Florida Department of Transportation to fund the project development
and environmental study for State Road 82 from the Lee County line
to State Road 29 with the county's obligation being $500,000, and that
particular correction is at staffs request.
The next item is to move item 16C3 to 8E. That's a
recommendation to approve a resolution of the Collier County Board
of County Commissioners adopting Collier County South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant reverse osmosis wellfield expansion
to 20 million gallons per day facilities plan, December of 2005, which
-- this allows this plan to be submitted to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and authorize the county manager or his
designee to carry out responsibilities under the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection low interest loan program, and that move is
at staffs request. There are a lot of items that need to be put on the
record. It's a long statement on that particular item, and that's why the
move to 8E.
The next item is a correction to 16E6. The title on the executive
summary should read, a recommendation to approve and execute the
attached lease agreement with Horseshoe Drive Development, LC, for
temporary office space to accommodate the expansion of the
Page 4
--~'"
February 14,2006
information technology department's data center operation at a first
year's annual cost of$125,545.50, and relocation expenses of
$282,745, and that's at staffs request.
The next item is to move item 16F4 to 10K. That is to
recommend approval of an amendment of county resolution number
2004-370, covering a policy for the approval of funds for travel
expenses for persons conducting official tourism business. Also note
that the board's approval of this item will result in a new resolution
superseding resolution 2004-370, and that item is being moved at
Commissioner Coyle's request.
A note, item 16G1 is a companion to item 16A12, and that has to
do with a CRA item. It's in the -- basically 16G1 is the board acting as
the CRA and then 16A 12 is the board acting as the BCC.
Item 16K5, the executive summary should read under
considerations, first paragraph, approximately 123,000, rather than
60,000. Under fiscal impacts, add sentence after the first sentence to
state, staff indicates the business processes/documentation product
retained for use by the county has a substantial value, but dollar
estimates of that value vary.
In man hours it is estimated that several staff were involved full
time in the usable product's initial development over a six-month
period, and that correction is at staffs request.
Next item is a withdrawal. Withdraw item 17 A. Again,
withdraw item 17 A. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt an ordinance consenting to the exercise by the
board of supervisors of Tuscany Reserve community development
district of certain additional powers relating to public improvements
and community facilities, and that withdrawal is at the petitioner's
request.
There are some time certain items today, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. Item 10D will be heard at 11:30 a.m., and that's a--
to request direction to staff to proceed with its due diligence review
Page 5
-. ------
February 14,2006
and contract preparation of proposed land exchange between Collier
County and the City of Marco Island.
The next item to be time certain is item 12A, and that's to be
heard at 12 noon. That is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners, pursuant to section 286.011(8) of the Florida Statutes,
meet in executive closed attorney-client session at 12 p.m. on
Tuesday, February 14,2006, to discuss settlement negotiations and/or
strategy in the case of Collier County versus the North Naples Fire
Control and Rescue district, et ai, case number 02-1702-CA, pending
in the 12th Judicial Circuit, in and for Collier County, Naples, Florida.
Attending, the Board of County Commissioners; the County
Attorney, David C. Weigel; assistant County Attorney, Ellen T.
Chadwell; Craig B. Willis, Esquire; and the county manager.
I will also let you know that item 12B is a companion to item
12A and will be heard in the sunshine at one p.m. right after the closed
session and lunch.
And the last item is lOG to be heard at four p.m., and that's a
presentation of options regarding user fees for the Vanderbilt park --
Beach parking garage. And I say, again, item 12G to be heard at four
p.m. It is a presentation of options regarding user fees for the
Vanderbilt Beach parking garage.
If you're here in the audience and you want to speak about the
Vanderbilt Beach parking garage fee, it won't be heard until four
o'clock this afternoon. So if you're sitting here and you're waiting --
some people have come in this morning, and we've kind of told them
that it was a four o'clock time certain. I don't want you to waste your
whole day as you wait for this item. Again, it will be heard at four
p.m. today.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. County Attorney, do you
have any additions or corrections?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Page 6
.~---_.
February 14,2006
Commissioners.
Just one note for the record. In regard to agenda item 16F2 and
F3 described as follows: 2 is recommend approval of second
amendment to the tourism agreement for emergency/disaster relief
advertising plan with Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc., and 3
is recommend approval of, pay Paradise Advertising and Marketing --
to pay Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc., relating to the
emergency/disaster recovery advertising from a particular day certain,
May 25,2006, to present, in the amount of27,000 and some change.
On those two items, I had worked and spoken with a clerk's
representative relating to the question of compensation and statutory
limitation or bar on extra compensation, and I do opine upon review of
all the facts that this is not extra compensation problematic with the
statute and it's appropriate for the board to approve it either on the
consent or regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now, I will ask for ex parte on today's
regular -- or excuse me -- the consent and summary agenda. I'll start
off with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, with respect to ex
parte disclosure, I have none for the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no disclosures and no
changes to the agenda, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no changes to the
agenda. Items 8A and B, although I think they're being pulled now --
but anyway I had some emails and correspondence and met with staff
on both.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no ex parte
Page 7
,.".~-
February 14,2006
communications on the summary agenda, since there is no summary
agenda today, but I do have a question. I do want to pull one thing off
the agenda.
The question is to the County Attorney, the request to extend 8A
to June 9, 2006. Our executive summary states that this was, this
PUD, was extended to June 9, 2005. Now -- now we're continuing it
to be heard until -- not until June 5, 2006.
I'm not sure if this fits the spirit of the -- our code of law and
ordinances of the sunsetting provisions. It's already quite a few
months late for us to consider extending it, and only to extend it
another year before we even consider it. My feeling, it doesn't fit the
spirit of the law.
MR. WEIGEL: Obviously there's a question there. I would
appreciate, in may, to address that -- well, it's going to be continued.
I'd like the opportunity to check with my staff and come back to you
on that in the course of today, if I may.
Otherwise, if in part of your approval of the agenda and
continuance you don't wish to continue it and would want to hear it at
its appointed time after one o'clock, I think I could address it more
appropriately at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we --
MR. WEIGEL: Or at least hear that aspect of the question. You
can still continue it at that time if you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You would advise us to keep
this on the agenda and then further, when you come back to us with an
answer of whether we hear this item today or continue it to another
date?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I would. And, therefore, you mayor may
not hear the item in regard to the principal element that's before you,
which is a PUD extension. You may act on a continuance at that time,
but I'd be better prepared to respond to you, I think, if you were to
bring it up in the normal context. Your question's duly noted. I look
Page 8
.--- -------
February 14,2006
forward to respond then.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I would like to --
after the County Attorney's comments, I would like to pull 16F3 for
further discussion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 16F3. Where are we going to put that,
County Manager?
MR. MUDD: It would be 10L, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 10L, okay. Any other things,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's my understanding that we will
have to approve any request to have any of these petitions delayed
either by approval of the agenda or approval of the item themselves.
So I want to make sure that we're taking this one out of the deferred
status, that is, the issue that Commissioner Henning raised.
MR. MUDD: 8A is on the regular agenda, and the board will
decide if it wants to continue it when 8A comes up at one p.m.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly right. Okay, good.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: When we go ahead and make a motion,
do we want to just take -- make a motion for the regular -- or excuse
me -- the regular consent agenda and the summary agenda and also
then to say that we have another motion in regards to 8A and 8B?
MR. WEIGEL: If your motion indicates the amendments that
you've referenced in your discussion, that should be sufficient. I think
that your discussion on 8A -- and if you say direction per the
discussion that you've had, you don't have to go through each of these
items. And 8A, it looks like it's, pretty clearly, going to part of your
motion --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: -- as an amendment to the regular agenda. But
Page 9
"--.-_..
February 14,2006
8A is going to be heard, you see, at the normal time. It's just that you
may decide to continue it or not or take another definitive action or not
at that point. So 8A probably just stays without comment on the
agenda right now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, I wonder if you can
either speak a little closer to the mike or --
MR. WEIGEL: I can, certainly
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- or possibly a little more volume.
We've got --
MR. WEIGEL: I can do both. I can do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Entertain a motion for the approval of
today's regular consent agenda and summary agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll second it with the
provision that we will also take up items 8C and D to approve their
continuation. If we're going to do it for A, we have to do it for C and
D, right?
MR. WEIGEL: That's your prerogative. When those items come
up, you can determine whether to continue or not at that point in time
as opposed to making that adjustment to the agenda right now. And
the motion on the floor is to approve the summary and consent
agenda. I think you're including the regular agenda as well with any
amendments that have been made through the panel discussion here,
with the record reflecting that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that's reflecting the idea that we're
going to continue 8A, 8B and --
MR. WEIGEL: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
MR. WEIGEL: No, you're going to actually hear those, and at
that -- or potentially hear them.
Page 10
--,."., ---..
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: You'll determine at the early part of the
discussion of each of those items whether to continue or act upon them
under the agenda item that's being presented.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, if we approve the agenda
as it has been discussed, it includes statements by the county manager
that these things have, in fact, been continued.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we do not want to approve it
under those circumstances.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, got ya. Okay. I have a motion on
the floor and a second for the approval of today's regular and consent
agenda.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 11
---.-- -"-'''''-----
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Februarv 14. 2006
Continue Item 8A to the Februarv 28. 2006 BCC meetina: This item requires that all participants
be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDEX-2005-AR-7824
Pawel and Terly Brzeski, represented by Gary Butler of Butler Engineering, Inc., requesting a
second two-year extension ofthe Magnolia Pond Planned Unity Development (PUD) granted by
Ordinance Number 98-49, and extended until June 9, 2005 by resolution Number 04-284, pursuant
to LDC Section 10.01.13.0. The subject property consisting of 42.05 acres is located on Magnolia
Drive west of Collier Boulevard between 1-75 and the Golden Gate Canal, in Section 34, Township
49 South, RanQe 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's request.)
Continue Item 80 to the Februarv 28. 2006 BCC meetina: Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners adopt an Ordinance amending Schedule Seven of Appendix A of Chapter
74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact
Fee Ordinance), to reflect the amended rates set forth in the impact fee study, providing for the
incorporation by reference of the impact fee study entitled Collier County Emergency Medical
Services Impact Fee Update Study, establishing methodology for the annual indexing adjustment
to the Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Rates, and providing for a delayed effective date
of April 3, 2006. (Staff's request.)
Item 12E: The Executive Summary should read under CONSIDERATIONS, 1st sentence, "April 26,
2005" (rather than April 26, 2006.) (Commissioner Coyle's request.)
Continue Item 16A7 to the Februarv 28.2006 BCC meetina: Recommendation to approve for
recording the final plat of "Brentwood Two". (Staff's request.)
Move Item 16B7 to 10J: Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing removal of a non.
warranted traffic signal from the intersection of Radio Road at Kings Way/Briarwood Boulevard.
Removal of the traffic signal pOles and equipment will cost approximately $4,000. (Commissioner
Coyle's request.)
Correction to Item 16B10: The title on the executive summary should read: Recommendation to
seek Board approval of a resolution authorizina execution of a County Incentive Grant Program
(CIGP) Agreement and a Memorandum of Agreement with the Florida Department of
Transportation to fund the Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study for SR 82 from
the Lee County line to SR 29 with the County's obligation being $500,000. (Staff's request.)
Move Item 16C3 to 8E: Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners adopting Collier County's South County Regional Water Treatment Plant
Reverse Osmosis Wellfield Expansion to 20 million gallons per day (MGD) Facilities Plan,
December 2005, allow this plan to be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, and authorize the County Manager or his designee to carry out responsibilities under
the FDEP Low Interest Loan Program. (Staff's request.)
Correction to 16E6: The title on the executive summary should read: Recommendation to
approve and execute the attached Lease Agreement with Horseshoe Drive Development, L.C. for
temporary office space to accommodate the eXDansion of the Information Technology
Department's Data Center Operation at a first year's annual cost of $125,545.50 and relocation
expenses of $282,745. (Staff's request.)
.~---
..'.---.....-
Move Item 16F4 to 10K: Recommend approval of an amendment to County Resolution #2004-370
covering a policy for the approval of funds for travel expenses for persons conducting official
tourism business. Also, note that the Board's approval of this item will result in a new resolution
superseding resolution 2004-370. (Commissioner Coyle's request.)
Item 16G1 is a companion to Item 16A12.
Item 16K5: The Executive Summary should read: Under CONSIDERATIONS, 1st paragraph,
"approximately $123,000.00" (rather than $60,000.00). Under FISCAL IMPACT, add sentence after
1st sentence to state: "Staff indicates the business processes/documentations product retained
for use by the County has substantial value, but dollar estimates of that value vary. In man hours,
it is estimated that several staff were involved full time in the useable product's initial
development over a six month period." (Staff's request.)
Withdraw Item 17 A: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
ordinance consenting to the exercise by the Board of Supervisors of Tuscany Reserve
Community Development District of certain additional powers relating to public improvements
and community facilities. (Petitioner's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 100 to be heard at 11:30 a.m. Request direction to staff to proceed with its due diligence
review and contract preparation of proposed land exchange between Collier County and City of
Marco Island.
Item 12A to be heard at 12:00 Noon: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners,
pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Fla. Stat., meet in executive (closed attorney-client) session at
12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 14, 2006, to discuss settlement negotiations and/or strategy in
the case of Collier County v. North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District, et. aI., Case No. 02-
1702-CA pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Naples, Florida.
Attending: Board of County Commissioners; County Attorney David C. Weigel; Assistant County
Attorney Ellen T. Chadwell; Craig B. Willis, Esquire; and County Manager James V. Mudd.
Item 12B is a companion to Item 12 A and will be heard in the Sunshine at 1 :00 p.m.
Item 10G to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Presentation of options regarding user fees for the Vanderbilt
Beach Parking Garage.
---
-'.--.--.-" --.----..
February 14,2006
Item #2B, #2C and #2D
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 10,2006 BCC/REGULAR
MEETING; JANUARY 11, 2006 BCC/LDC MEETING AND THE
JANUARY 24, 2006 BCC/REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Okay. We want to approve the January 10,2006, BCC regular
meeting; June 11,2006, BCC/LDC meeting; and the January 24,
2006, BCC regular meeting.
Do I have a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion for approval of those
three items. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those by like -- opposing by like
sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries unanimously.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION OFFERING APPRECIA nON AND THANKS
TO THE VETERAN'S TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM'S
VOLUNTEER DRIVERS, OFFICE STAFF, AND THEIR
FAMILIES - ADOPTED
Page 12
--.." ---....--.-.,-
February 14,2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 4,
proclamations. 4A is a proclamation offering our appreciation and
thanks to the Veterans Transportation Program for volunteer drivers,
office staff, and their families, to be accepted by Jim Elson, president
of the Collier County Veterans Council.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Jim, if you'd please step up to the
podium here.
MR. ELSON: Sure. I'd like to bring up the drivers at the same
time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure, please do. Yep. They're all here.
We'd like to have them up here.
MR. ELSON: Great. Out veteran drivers here, Arlie Cantrell,
Steven Driscoll, William Hauck, Roger Johnson, Richard Kline, Ken
Mabuchi.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please all come up to the front here, if
you would, gentlemen and ladies.
MR. ELSON: Arthur Pope, Paul Seday, Herb Sorin, Ellis Sweat,
John Welch, James Wiley. Along with that, Joanne Dalby, our
coordinator; and Peter Kraley (phonetic), our director of Veteran
Services; and Don Peacock, our treasurer for the Veterans Council.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, everyone.
Whereas, the Veterans Transportation Program is a cooperative
effort between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and
the Collier County Veterans Council; and,
Whereas, the purposes of the transportation program is to provide
free transportation for Collier County veterans to V A healthcare
facilities in Fort Myers, Bay Pines, Tampa, and other facilities in
South Florida; and,
Whereas, the drivers of this program are all volunteers who
donate their time and effort to see that our veterans receive needed
healthcare in a timely manner; and,
Whereas, the families of these veterans -- volunteers also
Page 13
--.----
February 14,2006
contribute to the success of this program by supporting the volunteers
and the goals of the transportation program; and,
Whereas, in 2005, our volunteer drivers logged 57,356
accident-free miles, transported 642 veterans to V A medical facilities,
and contributed 2,015 volunteer hours.
Now, therefore, be proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that we offer our
appreciation and our thanks to the volunteer drivers, office staff, and
their families for their efforts of making the quality of life better for
the veterans in our community.
Done and ordered this 14th day, February, 2006, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Frank Halas, Chair.
And I move for approval of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor of the approval of this
proclamation, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's unanimous.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jim, good to see you again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Come on, guys, listen to the
lady.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Service of love, it's nice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nice of you to do what you're
doing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you for your work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Page 14
--..... --,.._-
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MR. ELSON: In short, a lot of miles, a lot of hours, a lot of
dedication from these people to help their other veterans. Veterans
Serving Veterans, that's the motto of the Collier County Veterans
Council. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OUTSTANDING MEMBER AWARD TO HERBERT ROSSER
SA V AGE - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to presentations.
And the first presentation under 5A is a presentation of the Advisory
Committee Outstanding Member award to Herbert Rosser Savage.
(Applause)
MR. MUDD: Mr. Savage, could please -- ifMr. Savage could
please come up to the podium.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No singing.
MR. SA V AGE: To the podium?
MR. MUDD: No, up to the dais. As a lifetime -- I'm sorry, I
misspoke. As a lifetime resident of Florida, Mr. Savage has been a
very visible and highly active member of the community and has
demonstrated throughout his life exceptional and extraordinary
community service.
In the 1950s, he was appointed to the Dade County Urban
Renewal Agency, served as chairman of the contractor's licensing
board for the City of Miami, president of the Coconut Grove of Miami
Rotary Club, and president of the Florida south chapter of the
American Institute of Architects.
Page 15
..--...- -
February 14,2006
From 1962 through 1969, Mr. Savage was appointed
consecutively by three governors to serve as the commissioner of
Dade County and as a member of the Florida Development
Commission, as such, in the mid 1960s upon his recommendation that
a development plan or building code be developed for the three
existing counties in Florida.
MR. SA V AGE: I did that?
MR. MUDD: He was requested to attend a conference which
resulted in his appointment as treasurer and executive committee
member at large of the National Conference of States on Building
Codes and Standards, which in turn resulted in his involvement in the
establishment of Florida Codes and Standards and numerous speaking
engagements, including the Chamber of Commerce of Naples.
In Miami during the late 1960s Mr. Savage was privileged to
serve as president of the local architectural chapter of the American
Institute of Architects, and in 1968 was elected president of the State
of Florida Association, American Institute of Architects, and
subsequently as a director.
Mr. Savage was also involved with Collier County government in
the 1960s serving on the development commission, which presented
the opportunity to closely observe the state's approval and
development of the Jolly Bridge.
As a resident of Marco Island, he served on numerous
committees for the past 15 years and organized the local chapter of
Reserve Officers Association known as the Marco Island chapter,
which meets in Naples once a month.
While serving as president of the Marco Island Chamber of
Commerce, the first Marco Island tourist bus was purchased and
implemented. In 1997, Mr. Savage was appointed to the Marco Island
City Planning Board serving several years.
He also served as a member of the Civic Association Board of
Beach Committee and the Lutheran Church Board, and of course, the
Page 16
~~~---- ..-.-----" ""-"
February 14,2006
Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee.
And on that note, I need to talk about the Development Services
Advisory Committee. And I gave you that introduction to let us know
-- to let everyone know how lucky we are to have Mr. Savage as a
volunteer on one of your committees, sir.
Through Herb's efforts as a member of the Development Services
Advisory Committee over the past 12 years, the overall effectiveness
of the committee has increased significantly.
His sincere devotion and dedication to representing the interests
of the community and maintaining the integrity of the community
development is evidenced through his active involvement in all
aspects of community service; his outstanding experience and unique
perspective afforded him the ability to address and meet all duties
assigned to the DSAC.
Mr. Savage's unique and keen wit and ability to put things in the
proper perspective have added benefits.
Herb has had a positive impact on this community and has
contributed significantly to our efforts to promote trust and confidence
in local government. His professionalism, patience, competence and
integrity have ensured that government continues to look out for the
citizens of the county and not simply the petitioners' needs and
desires.
His overall performance and effectiveness on the Development
Services Advisory Committee has, in one word, been outstanding. His
actions validate that he is truly deserving of receiving the Advisory
Committee's Outstanding Member for February 2006 for his overall
contributions to the citizens of Collier County.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Herb Savage.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: First of all, here's a nice plaque for you.
And secondly, we have a parking -- assigned parking spot for you for
a month.
Page 17
.- --
February 14,2006
MR. SA V AGE: Awesome. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your dedicated
servIce.
MR. SA V AGE: Does this allow me to come in the exit door?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It sure does. Thank you.
MR. SA V AGE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. SA V AGE: Thank you so much. I offered to sing a song
when Mr. Coyle was chairman. He said no, no, no, no. Usually we
empty the room when we do that.
Thank you very much. And may I also offer this, Mr. Chairman
and members of the council, one of the greatest pleasures I've had
serving on this board was working with Joe Schmitt, the director of
this division, because he's done a fabulous job for the county of
Collier.
Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
(Applause)
Item #5B
PRESENTATION BY THE CITY OF NAPLES IN APPRECIATION
FOR THE COUNTY'S ASSISTANCE AFTER HURRICANE
WILMA - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next
presentation, which is 5B, and that is a presentation by the City of
Naples in appreciation for the county's assistance after Hurricane
Wilma, and that presentation to the board is to be presented by the --
by the City of Naples mayor, Bill Barnett, and the city manager, Dr.
Robert Lee.
DR. LEE: Good morning, Mr. Chair, other distinguished
members of the county commission, and Mr. Mudd, Mr. Ochs.
Page 18
--,...--- -.--".--. --------
February 14,2006
For the record, my name is Dr. Robert E. Lee, and I have the
honor of serving as the city manager in Naples, but today I have the
good pleasure of saying thank you, along with Mayor Barnett, to the
county for their assistance after Hurricane Wilma.
Like other parts of the county, we were without power and cable,
but most notably, we were without water. With the large Banyan trees
that tore up, the roots ripped up our water lines.
We've had a successful working relationship with Collier County
and provided reciprocal assistance whenever there's water pressure
needs, and that was done again in this case.
But most notable was the assistance that you provided from six
experts that came over from your utility department to help us get our
lines back in shape.
So what I'd like to do today, from my portion anyways of this
presentation, is to publicly recognize those employees, and we have
certificates for them.
And if -- Mr. Chair, if it's all right --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
DR. LEE: I'd like to read the names and ask that they come
forward.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please.
DR. LEE: The first employee is Shawn -- Shane Todd. Second
is Luis Perez.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, if you'd walk right up here in the
front, we'll acknowledge all of you when we finish here. Thank you.
DR. LEE: Thomas Robb. Matt Tapley.
MR. TAPLEY: Thank you.
DR. LEE: Mario Aparicio, and Ken Craig.
Thank you.
(Applause)
MA YOR BARNETT: And to finish the presentation, I certainly
echo what the city manager said. I cannot thank you enough for,
Page 19
,.-.-----""' .--
February 14,2006
County Commission, your entire staff, Manager Jim Mudd and his
staff. We wouldn't have been able to do it without you. And it's --
you know, words, even this plaque, don't express the gratitude we feel
for our joint relationship which people say just isn't there. Well, we
know better. It is there.
So I'll read you this plaque presented to Collier County, Florida.
The City of Naples, Florida, would like to say thank you to Collier
County, Florida, and their staff for promptly responding to assist post
Hurricane Wilma with restoration of our pump stations. Your staff,
along with ours, performed exemplary to ensure the citizens of Naples
had safe homes to return to after the storm. Thank you very much. I'd
like to present this to Chairman Halas. Thank you.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It is so nice for you to do this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Mayor. I know
that if we were in dire straits, you would have been there to help us,
assist us. So we're all here as one big happy family, and whenever the
need arises, we're here to help each and every one of us.
MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, Bill, so often these guys
go unnoticed, and so it's really great that you've recognized them.
MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bless your hearts.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you so much for your dedicated
service. Appreciate it.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2006-30: RE-APPOINTING WILLIS P. KRIZ AND
Page 20
-"'-~_.,."_'_'_- - -- ---'--- .._~.~--.. -. ----~
February 14,2006
WAYNE JENKINS TO THE LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE; AND APPOINTING KEVIN G. KACER AND
STAN WEINER TO FILL THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9A, and
that's an appointment of members to the land acquisition advisory
committee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: I need to make one comment on this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was going to say, I'd like to
see Wayne Jenkins reappointed for one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You wanted to make a comment
first?
MS. FILSON: Yes. If I could make one comment first. Just to
let the commission know that Ellin Goetz has withdrawn her
application.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no kidding.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That makes it a little bit easier.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Four remaining. And I
nominate the four remaining, Will Kriz, Kevin Kacer, Wayne Jenkins,
and Stan Weiner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. So we've got a total
of --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Four.
MS. FILSON: Yeah. We have four appointments and four
applicants.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the one -- with Mr.
Page 21
,u__m".'___ . ..... __.__.______.",.
February 14,2006
Jenkins, that makes four?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. What are we going to --
who are we going to appoint to fill the remainder of the vacant seat
since it will not be a full term?
MS. FILSON: Yeah. There are three appointments that will
expire in 2009, and one that will expire in 2008.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, how about Stan Weiner? He
was the only one that the committee didn't recommend. So how about
ifhe fills the remainder of that vacant term?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Remainder.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would that be okay?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm in agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I guess we've got that solved.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The motion's been put on the
floor that -- for the appointment of the members of the Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee, the four people that were nominated
were Kriz, Jenkins, and Kacer, and Mr. Stan Weiner.
So I'll call the question. All those in favor of those four
nominees, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 22
.--_."-~-'-'--'--'-- ,.-".- -'---'-
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It passes unanimously. Thank you very
much.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2006-31: RE-APPOINTING EDWARD V. STAROS;
APPOINTING DAVID 1. BRAMSON AND COLEMAN 1.
CONNELL TO THE PELICAN BAY MSTBU ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9B. It's
appointment of members to the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory
Committee.
MS. FILSON: These are three appointments and three
applicants. I had one withdraw, so that leaves us with three
applicants. And since we only had enough applicants to fill the spots,
the clerk didn't feel like we needed to do the balloting system.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll make a motion that we
appoint David 1. Bramson, Edward V. Staros, he's being reappointed,
and Coleman 1. Connell.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion and second on
-- any discussion on these three applicants?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 23
.._--~,_..- ~...."-- ___.____0_'.
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It passes.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2006-32: APPOINTING mSTIN DEWITTE AS A
REGULAR MEMBER AND DAVID COOK AND KENNETH
KELLY AS AL TERNA TE MEMBERS TO THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9C. It's
appointment of members to the code enforcement board.
MS. FILSON: And this committee, Commissioners, Justin
De Witte certainly -- or serves on this currently and he's asked -- he's
currently serving as an alternate, and he's asked to become a regular
member. So if you appoint him as a regular member, then you'll have
to appoint two additional alternates.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner, was that before or
--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was from before.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In may suggest, I'd like to
recommend that we make DeWitte the regular member, and then Cook
and Kelly as the alternates.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any discussion?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll call the question.
All those in favor of appointing the three members to the Collier
County Code Enforcement Board, is Justin De Witte, who is currently
Page 24
-----.------- -- --"------ --...._,----
February 14,2006
the alternate, will be the full-time; and then David Cook and Kenneth
Kelly, the alternates.
Call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
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: It passes.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2006-33: APPOINTING EDWARD A. WOOD TO
THE BOARD OF BUILDING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 9D, appointment of member to the Board of Building
Adjustments and Appeals.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I nominate Edward Wood,
who was our only applicant.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second that. All right.
Okay. We have a -- we have a motion for appointment of
Edward A. Wood and a second.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 25
. .~.._._-_._- ...... ~._._.-_.~
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
MS. FILSON: Who made the second?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign?
(No response)
MS. FILSON: I didn't hear who made the second, Mr. Chair.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I did.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Chairman Coyle (sic) did.
Item #9E
DISCUSSION REGARDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE
NO. 1995-66, AS AMENDED, REGARDING THE COLLIER
COUNTY PUBLIC VEHICLE FOR HIRE ORDINANCE TO
CONSIDER PROVIDING DIRECTION TO CHANGE THE
LANGUAGE REGARDING TRADE NAMES FOR COMPANIES;
TO AMEND ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE A GRANDFATHER
CLAUSE AND TO ASSIST MAXI TAXI WITH A TEMPORARY
CTO, AND TO FORWARD ON TO THE PV AC ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR RECOMMENDATION - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9E, which is
a discussion regarding the Collier County Ordinance Number
1995-66, as amended, regarding the Collier County public vehicle for
hire ordinance to consider providing direction to change the language
regarding trade names for companies, and this item was asked for by
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, the -- as we
Page 26
.---.--
February 14,2006
approve items or -- on our agenda or ordinances, it's hard to figure all
the effects until after the fact, so I'm bringing this back because one of
our businesses in the community is affected because he has the name
taxi within his name, although he is a limbo company.
And over the weekend, I went through the telephone book -- the
reason this was -- is the perception of possible deception, and the
business owner's here. I'm sure he can address that.
But as I went through the telephone book looking at business
names, I think that there could be deceptions or the perception of
deceptions in many business names, and I feel if we're going to do this
for one aspect of our business community, then we should do it to all.
But I preference -- my preference is not to do it to anybody.
And, Commissioners, I wish you'd take the opportunity for the
business owner to speak before the board and take consideration for
changing of this ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. How many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: We have one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Chuck Eiss.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. EISS: Excuse me. Chuck Eiss. I'm the attorney for the
company Maxi Taxi. Lisa Mastro is also here. I apologize. We were
just trying to sign in when this got called.
Essentially what happened here is an ordinance got created which
basically harmed one company. We were before the committee last
week -- and I forget the precise name.
MS. MASTRO: Code enforcement and the PV AC.
MR. EISS: Okay. And basically one of the gentlemen on that
committee, to test my client, had gone out and used somebody else's
telephone from an anonymous location claiming that he needed a taxi
pick-up from some downtown location. And, of course, my client
refused to give them that because they're not a taxi company.
Page 27
...._._.._.m..... .,._ ._._..__._~_._,._w ------~-
February 14,2006
They are a limbo service, have been a limbo service for
approximately 35 years, and have used the name Maxi Taxi for
approximately 25 years.
Unfortunately, the way this new ordinance is worded, in order for
them to obtain the requisite permits to operate, they have to change
their name, and we don't think that is particularly fair.
They're the only such company, as we are aware, in Collier
County that is so affected by this particular ordinance. I know that the
PV AC, if I've gotten my letters correct, went ahead and
recommended, I believe, in a resolution they be grandfathered in -- or
the grandfather clause that previously existed for them continue to
exist and not be changed.
Basically, as I understand it, there is a 2001 -- and that is in the
year 2001 -- there was a change which had the grandfather clause to
2004, which they got extended to 2006, however, the language was
taken out at the meeting back in, I think, November of 2005, which
would have been effected February 1st of2006.
Like I said, the only company in Collier County as, apparently
the situation affected, is Maxi Taxi, by this.
And while we admittedly filed suit over this, that has been put on
the back burner for the time being in an attempt to resolve this on an
administrative basis.
So we're basically seeking that the ordinance be modified back to
what it was prior to November of2005, which basically allows my
client to be grandfathered in, as they are the only company in this
county so affected. And they are not a taxi service. And as the PV AC
openly debated last week, there is no public confusion on the subject.
Apparently, most people in this county know what Maxi Taxi is, and
more importantly, what they are not.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I got a letter and note from --
could have been the same person. I'm not really sure. But he supports
Page 28
~~.,----_..__.,-- . --"---'
February 14,2006
your efforts entirely. He said he tried to call and tried to call to book it
as a taxi. They wouldn't take the booking. He said, these people are
outstanding and aboveboard, and we should -- we should acknowledge
them and keep the clause, the grandfathered-in clause, because, he
said, they never violated anything. He went on to sing your praises
actually.
And I feel, with a company that's so outstanding -- I'm glad you
brought this to our attention, Commissioner Henning. With a
company so outstanding, why would we ever want to do anything to
hurt them? Maybe there was some kind of underlying thing whenever
they changed this in November of2005. But I'm certainly willing to
go back to the way it was before 2005, if that's your wish.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. And I don't think there's
any deceiving on anybody's part. It clearly was trying to make it so
the public is not deceived, and the problem -- the issue here, nobody is
being deceived. It's really a non-issue.
So I'm going to make a motion to direct our staff to amend -- and
by the way, the Public Vehicle Advisory Board supports this
amendment.
So the motion is, direct staff to bring back an amended ordinance
to have grandfathered companies with taxis in their name, and the
effective date would be 2001.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Discussion? My concern is, why wouldn't you just want to be a
limbo service, if that's what you are? I mean, to me that would be one
notch up from a taxi. Maybe I can -- you can give me some idea.
Since you're not a taxi and you're really a limbo service, maybe you
can enlighten me a little bit here.
MR. EISS: If! may defer to my client to respond to that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure, briefly, yes.
Page 29
-,~"-"",'-'-"-'_,,_, -.----.-- .-,...-.--
February 14,2006
MS. MASTRO: Well, because everyone knows Maxi Taxi, and
what is in a name? It's name recognition, it's the basis of our
company. It is people telling people about our business, word of
mouth advertising, and we've been well established for -- since 1968.
It would be ludicrous at this time for us to change our name. Kind of
like McDonald's.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would support the motion, but I
wonder why this is not going through the PV AC and why they aren't
making the recommendation to us rather than it coming directly to the
board. If PV AC supports it, why don't they send us a recommendation
of approval and get that done? I would hesitate making the change
without having a formal PV AC approval and endorsement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's very fair, and that's
part of my motion --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That would be fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- is ask them for their input.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there anything from staff on this?
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code
Enforcement Director.
This item actually was discussed at the last PV AC meeting on
February 6th. And the PV AC did endorse modifying the ordinance if
that's the direction that the Board of County Commissioners wanted to
take.
I just did want to clarify though for the record that the ordinance
wouldn't necessarily require Maxi Taxi to eliminate their name. What
it would require them to do is provide that service as a part of their
servIce.
So they would still be able to retain their name Maxi Taxi, but
they would have to at least have one taxi service. And there are two
other companies within the county that had similar circumstances, and
Page 30
---...",-.----"..--.-- - .~-"._------ - ----.
February 14,2006
they have complied with that requirement of the ordinance. And I just
wanted to clarity that for the record.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. If! may, Michelle. Have
you had numerous complaints about the name and the confusion that
might have arised (sic) from it?
MS. ARNOLD: No. We didn't have any complaints about the
name. It's something that has been in the ordinance. And the board--
or the committee at a prior meeting asked staff to start enforcing it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I see. So in other words,
the consumer isn't having a problem with it out there as far as we
know. It's just the way the ordinance is written?
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So Commissioner Henning's
suggestion is valid, the motion, I would think.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could ask a question. The
motion is to direct the advisory committee to draft an appropriate
change to this ordinance?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't believe that's the motion that
Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion is, direct staff to
make the change, bring it before the advisory board for an official --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay with me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- recommendation, and bring it
back to the board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So that's going to be the motion
that you want?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My second agrees with that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No further discussion, we'll call the
question. That's on 9E, and that's whereby we're going to direct staff
Page 31
-....--.---..-.- - - ~--~-_._----- ,,--
February 14,2006
to come back -- well, I'll let you go ahead and restate your motion,
make sure that we've got it correctly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion is to direct staff to
change the public vehicle ordinance to have a grandfather clause for
existing transportation companies that have the name taxi in there but
does not provide the service of taxi, to amend it, take it to the advisory
board for the recommendations, and then bring it back to the Board of
Commissioners for final consideration.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine with the second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Yes, David?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Mr. Eiss brings to my attention that
currently, with the ordinance in place, they apparently, the company
Maxi Taxi, has an inability to get certification that is necessary for
their insurance. So if we could, maybe with Michelle and the board's
indication here, see if there's going to be a continuing problem there
until the ordinance is amended.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Issue of liability insurance?
MR. EISS: We need the CTO.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. EISS: We need the CTO.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's aCTO?
MS. MASTRO: Certificate to Operate and applicability permits
that get applied to vehicles.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, yeah. And this is similar
to Land Development Code changes in the process, and so we want to
direct the staff to issue a temporary one for whatever period of time it
takes before the board makes a decision on this item.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. That would be staffs request to have the
board direct staff to go through that process, because currently the
ordinance says what it says, and we aren't able to issue a Certificate to
Operate in violation of that ordinance.
Page 32
- ~._.._--~_.- --..- "-- ------
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second, too.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is the court reporter clear on what was
discussed?
THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I'll call the question. All those in
favor of directing staff as stated by Commissioner Henning's motion,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries, unanimous.
Thank you very much.
Item #9F
DISCUSSION TO APPROVE A CONCEPTUAL PLAN TO
ACQUIRE, IN FEE-SIMPLE OR REDUCED PRICE, CURRENT
GOVERNMENT-OWNED LANDS FOR EARTH MINING
AND/OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING; COUNTY MANAGER TO
DEVELOP CONCEPTUAL PLAN - CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9F, and it's a
discussion to approve a conceptual plan to acquire in fee simple or
reduced price current government owned lands for earth mining and/or
Page 33
"~-'>--"_._"""-'-'--'_.-.-" - -..-.-
February 14,2006
affordable housing.
This item was asked for by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, the -- as -- we
all know the increase of construction of our roadways because of
material costs and the availability of dirt and aggregate, and the
challenges that we have to provide -- or the public sector has to
provide lands that are affordable for affordable housing, or gap
housing.
I believe -- and this is just a conceptual, and it needs to come
back to the board for the final consideration -- is to give my
permission to work with the county manager -- through the county
manager and his staff to seek out such lands for their viability, contact
the agencies to see if there's interest on having said lands in the
county's domain, and then it's just a conceptual plan to try to abate
some of these problems that we have in the community with those two
Issues.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you feel that there's lands already
that the county owns in regards to being able to mine?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know the county manager is
looking at that now and asking his staff to take inventory out there.
And I'm sure if -- that would come back to us for consideration ifhe
found something appropriate for such purposes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are we looking at county lands that are
already in preserves then, too?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no. That wouldn't be
appropriate.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what we're looking to do is --
there's already a movement under -- by the county manager to do this.
So what we're doing is giving him direction and our blessing to go
forward; is that what you're suggesting, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. It's, again, just a
Page 34
._~--"...__.-.-_.~,-,._.._----._._-_._--_.-..._.- __"'_H~
February 14,2006
conceptual plan. I know that I don't want to step out there too far
without the board's blessing on taking a look at -- see what is
available.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can we give the county manager some
additional direction in looking at the southern Golden Gate area where
the roads are already in place and see if we can work with the state in
removing those roads to use that material for our roads, since they're
going to remove the roads anyway?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we can ask Florida
Department of Environmental Protection.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because they're going to remove the
roads and that -- a lot of that's great sub-base that we could use on our
roads.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would be better there than in the
landfill.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think they're already using that
material to plug it -- to plug in their canals in order to -- in order to get
that done. I'll have to ask that question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: But I believe there is a series, especially the
furthest canal out there, which -- whose name escapes me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Prairie.
MR. MUDD: Is it Prairie?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Prairie Canal, the farthest east?
MR. MUDD: And they've filled it in in a series of places, and I
believe they're using the sub-grade material in order to do that, in
order to cut their costs for that Everglades restoration.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But there is an awful lot of roads out
there that -- I'm not sure how many roads they're going to take out
there, but there's miles and miles of roads out there.
MR. MUDD: We can ask that question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's -- I think it ought to be
Page 35
M' .__.___...___ _ u_...._".____ _'_H__"_ --_._--~
February 14,2006
reserved, at least, and see.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I comment?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if! may say, it would
only be fair, because it has not come together, the original agreement
that we had with the Southwest Florida Water Management, has not
come together the way it was originally intended. Not all the fault of
Southwest -- of South Florida Water Management. There's been other
factors in there from budget concerns, environmental concerns and
whatever.
But I think it would only be just if they consider this as partial
payment for not being able to follow through as they promised in the
past, if they could come up with the road material.
My understanding is, is that they'd like to try to avoid putting the
blacktop in the soil, because that can be a carcinogenic, and it might
be detrimental to the environment. So there may be something to be
able to look at.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We can take that blacktop and recycle it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but I -- this should be
something that we receive without paying -- paying for. I think this is
just a, what do you want to call it?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Payback.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Dues. We'll call it an overtime
charge or something.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe Commissioner Henning
-- and I won't put words in his mouth, but we've had talk -- we've
discussed this. But this item goes farther than just the old roads in the
south Golden Gate Estates -- is to take a look at county and state
lands, federal government lands that could be used for mining and/or
affordable housing location.
And we're going to have to coordinate. We're going to have to be
able to talk to the state representatives. And I'm talking about the --
Page 36
. ,__.____ ..__W__" ._.._,__ ,..~~__~"_ __ ----
February 14,2006
from the staff, from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, from the Department of Forestry. We're going to have to
be able to talk to the federal side of the house as far as those agencies
that have ownership or purview over those particular properties to
figure out ifthere's any options that we can go after in order to get
that, and then finally we have to bring it back to you and then take --
maybe have to go on a political aspect in order to try to free up those
particular properties.
Commissioner, did I pretty much hit it on the head?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, except for some of the
order. I think we need to talk to our representatives in Washington or
in the state to see if there's a possibility if these are appropriate and
available, and then come to the board for the final decision, put it on a
regular agenda for the board to make their determination whether they
want to take it to the next level.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think it's an excellent idea.
I'm totally in favor of it. And there could even be a way to combine
them, so once we earth mine it, then we could build affordable
housing around the nice lake and everybody could have a nice lake
view after they're done, and so we could have two of them, you know,
hit both of them. I think it's a wonderful idea.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All you need is just nods from us in
regards to direction on this?
MR. MUDD: (Nods head)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think --
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Excuse me.
MS. FILSON: The first one being Brad Cornell. He'll be
followed by Nicole Ryan.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Mr. Chair, commission
members. I'm Brad Cornell on behalf of Collier County Audubon
Page 37
"__'''n__'_..___''_ -'---------- --"-
February 14,2006
Society and Audubon of Florida.
And I want to say a couple things about this concept. I certainly
understand the urgency and the frustration with the mining and the
affordable housing issues themselves, but I want to raise a really big
red flag about looking at public lands to fulfill the obligations that we
believe planning really has up front.
The vast majority of public lands in Collier County -- the figure
in the executive summary gives 80 percent. I believe that's a little
high right now. But the vast majority of all those public lands are in
that status because of their conservation status. They've been bought
and protected for conservation reasons.
So we believe it's very inappropriate to even consider those for
affordable housing or mining. Those are incompatible uses for those
types of lands. That would also include lands that are not in public
ownership at this time but are under a sending status, which is a local
compo planning status for Collier County, and sending lands have that
status and extra protections for conservation reasons, for habitat, for
wetlands, and those, too, are inappropriate areas to consider for
mmmg.
In fact, our compo plan prohibits mining in those. So if there's
going to be any consideration of those types oflands, you'd have to
change your comprehensive plan. We don't think that's appropriate.
We don't think that's the right place to be looking.
And I would point to, as a solution first, to look at comprehensive
planning for mining throughout Collier County and the mining needs,
the material needs that Collier County has, for road building, for
construction, for whatever other needs there are for those kinds of
materials, we should have a comprehensive plan.
I know we've tried to mount those kinds of studies, those kinds of
efforts, but I think that comes first before we start looking at easy
targets like public lands. And I don't mean to denigrate the idea. You
know, we need to be thinking together on ways to solve these
Page 38
._-
February 14,2006
problems. But we should not be looking at conservation lands to do
that.
You know, for example, we could encourage existing mines to be
mined out before they're closed. You know, I can think of one mine
right now that's being closed to be converted to residential use, and it
was not completed, it was not fully excavated. That shouldn't be
happening if we've got a shortage.
And you know, there should be some policies that encourage or
direct or incentivize miners not to be closing their mines early just
because the land value has gone up and they want to put houses
around their lake that they've got. So you understand the
circumstance.
I think there's a lot of planning that could and should take place
first before we look at easy targets.
Finally, I would mention to you that in addition to mining and
affordable housing, if we're looking at public lands, we also need to be
looking at mitigation needs. If we're going to be building roads, we've
got a big mitigation bill to pay, and so that's another important
consideration in looking at the landscape in the planning perspective.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: You next speaker's Nicole Ryan.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think you made it pretty clear we
weren't going to go into conservation lands.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you -- the question was
Collier County conservation lands that the taxpayers bought up. I
thought that was the question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here
on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and I also echo
Brad's sentiments that this could be a good exercise, but it does need
to be done in conjunction with planning and with following the
Page 39
-"--.-.-.''--'. - --_.._---~ -. -----
February 14,2006
comprehensive plan.
And I do want to address specifically the issue of those lands,
county, state, federal, that were purchased for conservation with tax
dollars for conservation through programs such as CARL/Florida
Forever, and that are being held for conservation purposes.
The Conservancy believes that the use of these lands for
non-conservation simply would not be feasible, would not be
appropriate.
Many of our state owned conservation lands were actually
purchased under the requirements of the Florida Statutes, chapter 259.
And under these statutes, it clearly states that the tax dollars, our tax
dollars, were spent for land for conservation purposes, for the
protection of air, water, land, for natural resource-based recreation,
and also for the preservation of unique plant and animal species, and it
also states that the management and use of those lands must be
consistent with the requirements in the Florida Statutes.
So I'm not sure that some of these state lands could actually be
purchased for non-conservation uses. But regardless, we really should
not be even contemplating using our state, federal or county
conservation lands for these other uses.
So the Conservancy would ask that as you -- if you do decide to
move forward in this process, first of all, make sure all the agencies
that own the land are involved and that the purposes for looking at
mining and affordable housing would be consistent with the agencies'
purposes and the management requirements with that agency. And
then to reiterated, if land is purchased with public dollars for
conservation and are behind held in conservation, it would be
inappropriate for non-conservation uses.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can I ask you a question?
MS. RYAN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Like the suggestion that I brought up,
since we're going to remove the roads from the South Golden Gate
Page 40
.-.'-'~_._'-"'-'--'---"--_.~_._- .---
February 14,2006
Estates, and Commissioner Coletta brought up the fact that they'd like
to get rid of the blacktop, do you think that if we had a partnership like
that, do you feel that there would be any problem there?
MS. RYAN: I don't know the actual issues that would be
involved in removing the roadbeds and taking it out and what the
impacts would be. It's my understanding that the side roads, which are
mainly just the lime rock and gravel, would be spread back into the
ditches and canals. But I am not aware of the specifics on that plan, so
I would like to hear from someone with forestry or with the state to
comment on that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But if we came up with a partnership
where they wanted to get rid of those roads, which they obviously are
because they want to have a sheet flow -- so we're saying if we can
come up with a partnership whereby we can go in there, remove that
for them, take it off their hands, and if they're worried about the old
asphalt, we can sure reprocess that for new asphalt as you -- you don't
foresee a problem that way, do you?
MS. RYAN: No. Ifwe can be part of the restoration process.
But I would really want to hear what the impacts would be if they're
not planning to pull the roads out and then they decided to go ahead
and pull them out for county use. It's always a little tricky when you
go and do things like that. But if we can restore it that way, then --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. RYAN: -- that's certainly something to explore.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I agree with what Ms.
Ryan said about having -- we should contact the agencies before we
kicked it too far down the road, identify and contact those agencies.
And, Commissioners, we're going to see petitions in the future
for excavation pits in the eastern lands of Collier County where
predominantly panthers traverse across the roadways, and I think we --
the environmentalists should try to support keeping those trucks closer
Page 41
------..- ---._---
February 14,2006
to the urban area or -- so --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The area that's going to be developed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I mean -- because they --
those farmlands, I mean, they have rights. They have rights to ask,
and it is an appropriate use in the agricultural district.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we still have some nods here
to give the county manager some direction on this? I think we got the
nods to do it. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one further note. And of
course it would be meaningless to bring back suggestions for
something in the far reaches of Collier County if there isn't a road
planned in the near future to it.
So if we're looking at something that's going to be miles and
miles over some private dirt roads to be able to gain this particular
land, it might be suitable for dump trucks, but I doubt if it would be
suitable for housing of any kind. So, you know, I'd like to know that
equation also when you come forward.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think the eastern lands are also
protected right now. So I mean, there's a whole -- a lot of
consideration that's going to have to be looked at in regards to this
whole thing, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- I don't think we're advocating this. I
think we're just looking at the opportunities, if there are any
opportunities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Item #lOA
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE THIRD
CONSERVATION COLLIER ACTIVE ACQUISITION LIST AND
Page 42
_._.,---------..~-_..,.,. -- - ----
February 14,2006
DIRECTION FOR THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE
TO ACTIVELY PURSUE PROJECTS RECOMMENDED WITHIN
THE A-CATEGORY; BROCHU - TO REMAIN IN CATEGORY A
- APPROVED; CARIBBEAN GARDENS (FLEISCHMANN
PARCEL #2) MOVE TO CATEGORY B - APPROVED;
MILANO - TO REMAIN IN CATEGORY A - APPROVED;
PETERS - TO REMAIN IN CATEGORY A - FAILED; MOVE TO
CATEGORY B - APPROVED; SCHUTT - TO REMAIN IN
CATEGORY A - APPROVED; WINCHESTER HEAD - MOVE
TO CATEGORY B - APPROVED; TALON - MOVE TO
CATEGORY C - APPROVED; A FINAL MOTION WAS MADE
TO APPROVE THE LIST AS AMENDED - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that finishes paragraph 9, and
we're going to paragraph 10. First item is lOA. It's a recommendation
for the approval of the third Conservation Collier Active Acquisition
List and direction for the county manager or his designee to actively
pursue projects recommended within the A category, and Ms. Alex
Sulecki -- Alexandra Sulecki will present.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. Happy Valentine's Day.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MS. SULECKI: I'm here this morning to seek your approval for
the third Conservation Collier Active Acquisition List and to answer
any questions that you might have.
First I'll direct your attention to the map on the screen here. And
this map shows some of the current, or all of the currently acquired
and approved parcels in Conservation Collier. We have 12 projects.
The red projects have been acquired fully, and the ones in black
have been either partially or not acquired yet, in the process.
And here's some points just to give you a general status update.
Page 43
------.. ~-- ...--
February 14,2006
We have a total of 75 million for land purchases, and we've spent 37.2
million to date. We've committed a little bit more, but that's what
we've spent. As of today, we've had 835 acres authorized for purchase
and 400, approximately, acres acquired in these first and second
cycles.
And we have six interim management plans that have been
developed and currently approved, one of them is on your agenda
today for the McIntosh parcel.
As you may recall the active acquisition list is separated into A,
Band C categories. A being those properties that the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee recommends acquiring,
and including prioritization, all of which in this cycle are prioritized as
ones, as they were in the last cycle.
B properties are those that there are some interest in, but while
they may not be actively pursued in this cycle, the recommendation is
to rerank them next year in the next cycle.
C properties are those with which the committee does not
recommend pursuing. But the owner in the next cycle, if they choose
to resubmit them, may do so.
We've completed the third evaluation ranking cycle, and today
are requesting that you approve the additional purchase of either 129
acres, if you include the Fleischmann/Caribbean Gardens parcel
number two, for a total purchase value of $11 ,055,500, or if you
choose to not purchase that property, because it is a conditional
recommendation, 61 acres, for a total value $6,355,500.
And on the map, it's a little busy. But what we wanted to do was
give you an idea of the spatial arrangement of these properties. So
you can see the black -- ones in black are the ones that we have
acquired already. The ones in yellow are approved or -- excuse me.
They're acquired or approved, so they're all black.
And the ones in green are the ones that are on the recommended
A category list. The ones in yellow are those on the B
Page 44
. -.---,--.--.-.--.. ---------
February 14,2006
recommendation list, and in red on the C recommendation list. And
note that we have included the Fleischmann/Caribbean Gardens parcel
two in the A category color, but that's certainly up to you and there's a
conditional attached to that.
So just to give you some information on property costs at this
point so far. We have spent $37.2 million in the first and second
cycles. We have another 26.1 million that is for those properties that
have not yet been acquired, and the bulk of this is for the multi-parcel
projects.
If you add that amount to the 37.2 million that we've already
spent, you come up with a total committed of $63.3 million.
In cycle three, if we include the Fleischmann parcel, we're
looking at another 11 million, approximately, dollars, and that brings
us up to 74.3, or very close to what you've authorized for us to spend.
If -- so what you approve, if you approve the A list that we have
recommended to you, it's either an additional $700,000 without the
Fleischmann parcel, or 5.4 million -- or excuse me, what remains is
700,000 or 5.4 million, if you choose not to go with the Fleischmann
parcel.
MR. MUDD: I want to just interject one thing real quick just to
-- and Alex is saying -- is saying, with or without. I just want to
remind the board, when we had this discussion on 1/24 -- on the 24th
of January, 2006, when we talked about having -- the staff asked if
you wanted to do a unified plan or not with the developer, and we got
some -- we got some direction, we also talked about Conservation
Collier.
And three commissioners said they didn't want to have this parcel
in the Conservation Collier program. And I got no votes from
Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Halas.
And I just wanted to let you know that. So Alex is hedging her
presentation today because the staff got some direction on that, and we
just want to make that an official recommendation from the board as
Page 45
"--------- -.._----
February 14,2006
she gets her recommendation from you on this particular item.
Go ahead, Alex.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you for clarifying.
These are the recommended A list properties, and the following
slides are of the A list recommendations, considering your wishes last
year, just to go through those and focus on them. I'm also prepared to
discuss any of the properties on the list, if you'd like.
As you'll note, the Fleischmann/Caribbean Gardens parcel two is
a conditional recommendation. The Conservation Collier committee
felt that if this parcel were to be used for a water quality project or
ASR wells, that they would recommend it be placed on the C category
list and not purchased with Conservation Collier dollars. If it were not
to be used for those purposes, they recommended it be placed in the A
category .
And I'll just note that on the Peters property -- and I'll show you,
it's an easement, not a fee-simple sale. And on the Schutt property,
there is a potential for state partnership.
At first -- first we'll look at the Brochu property. It's located
along Immokalee Road in the rural fringe mixed-use district. It
consists of two parcels, 9.26 acres. It's just east of Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary. It met four out of our six initial screening criteria, and its
zoning is agricultural with no TDRs associated.
Its access is directly from either Immokalee Road, but it's over a
drainage canal, or Limpkin (phonetic) Road on the top here.
The proposed greenway path for Collier County is coming along
lmmokalee Road here, and this should have been in your summary but
it was omitted, I'm sorry. And that runs along the north side of
Immokalee Road.
Now, I've been told by transportation that Immokalee Road will
be widened in the future, but the widening is more likely to occur on
the south side because of the canal on the north side so that this
property would likely be left unimpacted by that.
Page 46
-..-------.---.. ----.,---
February 14,2006
Acquisition of this parcel would support recovery of and
permanently preserve priority two panther habitat. It contains pine
flatwood and fresh water marsh, which is used by listed wading birds.
It recharges the surficial aquifer, and it doesn't appear to have
been historically cleared, like many of the properties in this area.
Management issues would include removal of exotics and some
minimal dumping, and future public use could include trails and a
picnic area along the green way corridor.
Its estimated fair market value is $204,000. And the Conservation
Collier Committee recommends this as an A category property.
Any questions on this one?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Commissioner Henning, we'll start
with you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I have a lot of questions
on the list in general.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have one on this property.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will that limit, in any way, the
greenway?
MS. SULECKI: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would it limit the greenway that's
supposed to be running along Immokalee Road, being that it -- will the
greenway be on that side, and so then they would not be able to extend
the greenway because of the acquisition?
MS. SULECKI: No. The greenway use is compatible with
Conservation Collier uses, so there would be no problem with that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, actually I want to go back
to the Fleischmann property, but would you like to wait on that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Okay. Commissioner Coyle,
Page 47
. -_.__._~-_......~-...,.__.-.- ._-- ~,."--
February 14,2006
do you have anything or did you want to wait?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'll wait till Alex finishes the
presentation, and then I'd like to ask some questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you going to go through all -- every
one of these presentations in this manner, or can you just --
MS. SULECKI: I was going to go through the top, the A
category ones. If you'd like, we can have questions when it's up, or I
can come back to questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. What I was trying to do is speed
up the process, if we could, just a little bit.
MS. SULECKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. SULECKI: So I'll go through these, and then we'll have
questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MS. SULECKI: I'll go through them quickly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MS. SULECKI: All right. The next one is the
Fleischmann/Caribbean Gardens, parcel number two. Of course, it's
located -- recently sold to the county, located east of the Caribbean
Gardens Zoo on the east side of the Gordon River.
Zoning is agriculture. It has an ST overlay over the northern
wetlands and the mangrove portions. Its access is from Golden Gate
Parkway up here, but I understand from recent meetings with
transportation that an access point directly along here would be
problematic.
Its habitat is pine flatwood in the uplands, mixed wetland forest
up in the northern section, and mangrove swamp. It has potential
listed species there.
I did receive yesterday a copy of a 2004 Gopher Tortoise survey
done on the uplands by the Fleischmann's, and this survey identified
approximately 90 burrows in that upland area, right through there.
Page 48
.. .---.----
February 14,2006
Acquisition of the parcel for conservation would protect surface
and groundwater resources as it buffers the Gordon River and the
uplands, provide surficial aquifer recharge, protect listed species and
wetland dependent species.
One of the main management issues here is the removal of a
significant exotics plant infestation. We estimated during our site visit
that exotic plants constitute approximately 60 percent of the vegetative
cover. Its estimated market value is 4,700,000.
The Milano property is a 19.46-acre parcel located along
Immokalee Road, across from Gulf Coast High and Laurel Oak
Elementary Schools in the urban target protection area.
This met five out of six of our initial screening criteria. It's zoned
agricultural, has no TDRs associated. It was a wetlands and wildlife
assessment done in 2004 that identified this parcel as important for
foraging for wood storks.
It also identified that, just immediately adjacent to the north in
the Old Cypress Preserve, there had been documented a population of
Big Cypress fox squirrels, threatened on the state list, and it contains
in its northern wetlands habitat for listed wading birds. Listed plant
species were also observed. And the greenway, again, goes along the
south side of this property.
Now, currently there's no vehicle access to this property, and that
was one of the big issues that was debated at the committee level. I
did contact the commercial part owners here to the left, and they
indicated some willingness to work with us to provide some kind of
shared parking.
Management needs include removal of exotics. There's some
dumping on there, and then managing existing trails. The wetlands at
the north side are in very good condition. Its estimated market value
is close to five million dollars.
And acquisition of this parcel would permanently preserve
habitat known to be used by several listed species, it would protect
Page 49
----., ~---
February 14,2006
groundwater resources.
And the Big Cypress Basin has also indicated that they would
allow a berm along the southern side here to be removed to assist in
any kind of outward flow or overland flow of water that might be
necessary from the wetlands to the north, depending on how the
Mirasol project works out, because it's directly adjacent to that on the
north, and so then is contiguous with approximately 800 acres of
future -- current and future conservation lands.
The Peters property is an easement, as I told you. It's located in
the rural fringe mixed-use district, neutral lands, west of Immokalee
Road, next to Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, which you see is right
here. There's only a road, sanctuary road, separating it.
It met five out of six of our initial screening criteria. The entire
parcel owned by the owners is about seven and a half acres. They
wanted to sell us the five acres but found they could not do so because
then they would become non-conforming in that zoning district, so
they offered to sell us a conservation easement over the property.
The habitat is pine flatwood in the north, and there's a very nice
cypress head and marsh system on the south side. Listed and
non-listed wildlife species have been observed here.
Management issues include removal of exotics, primarily up here
in the northern section, but there's a potential to partner with the
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary for that. The estimated fair market
value of the easement is $82,000.
Acquisition of this area would support protection of wetland
resources, assist with surficial aquifer recharge, and allow us a
conservation easement to work with.
Finally, there is the Schutt property, and this is located adjacent
to County Road 951, just north of the Malt property, and within the
Rookery Bay acquisition project boundary.
This project met six out of six of our initial screening criteria. It's
28 little -- almost 29 acres, and it's within the urban target protection
Page 50
.._._._~-_._.._-_.-._-_..- --
February 14,2006
area. Its zoning is agricultural, and there are no TDRs associated with
it.
It's entirely wetlands, a mixture of saltwater and freshwater
wetlands. Listed species have been routinely sighted there, alligators,
wading birds, and there may be crocodiles, as they've been located on
properties just to the north.
The state division of lands has recently indicated a potential to
partner on this property. We've had some issues with partnering in the
past, one of them being that the state wants to maintain the whole
entire title if they partner.
But on this property, they've indicated willingness to do what
they did with the Boomer property in Lee County, which is to split it
in half and us each pay 50 percent for us to retain title of our 50
percent. Rookery Bay, National Estuarine Research Reserve has
advised they are willing to manage it.
Minimal exotics appear to be in the main management issue, and
the estimate value of this entire parcel has been -- is 1,100,000, but a
split would bring that down to 550,000.
So acquisition of this area would support recovery of and
permanently preserve habitat known to be used by several listed
species, would help recharge the surficial aquifer, and would provide a
buffer to current conservation lands, and would assist in protecting
surrounding developed properties from storm surge flooding.
So today we would like you to approve the active acquisition list
determining whether the Fleischmann/Caribbean Gardens parcel
number two will be include on the A or the C category list, is the
recommendation.
We would like you to direct staff to actively pursue acquisition of
cycle three properties within the A category.
And just to break the cost down for you again, the property cost
with the Caribbean Gardens property, $11,055,000, or without it,
$6,355,500.
Page 51
------_.__..~-_.,.__..._--_.- --
February 14,2006
And just to note that there are an additional estimated costs of
acquisition, including title searches, title commitments and so forth for
these properties. If you do not include the Fleischmann parcel,
120,000; if you do, 169,000.
So we'd ask you today for your comments and approval,
whatever you'd like to do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm going to thank you very much for
your presentation.
MS. SULECKI: My pleasure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And it's pretty close to 10:28. I'd like to
give the court reporter a break. So we'll take a 10-minute break. Be
back at 10:39, and we'll start off with the questions from the
commISSIOners.
MS. SULECKI: Very good. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Board of County Commissioners are
back from recess, and we're going to go with some questions here by
the commissioners, and we'll start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Sulecki, these properties on
this list, any of these properties that the county staff has seeked out to
see if they're available for purchase for Conservation Collier?
MS. SULECKI: I'm sorry, I'm not understanding the question.
On what list?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Table one.
MS. SULECKI: Okay. Have we sought them out, is that what
you were asking?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
MS. SULECKI: Well, some of them were applications by the
owners and some of them sent letters if they were in our target
protection areas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Camp Keais Strand?
MS. SULECKI: Yes. That's in our -- one of our target
Page 52
--------
February 14,2006
protection areas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, do you know, by the
stewardship area, that's going to be protected anyways?
MS. SULECKI: Yes, and I think that's one of the reasons why it
wasn't selected as an A category property, even though it has some
very outstanding qualities because it's within that program. It's also
within acquisition boundary of state agencies, and they didn't want to
partner with us. So while it's great -- and we'd like to sort of see what
happens.
In fact, what happened with that was that I was working with a
private consultant who was interested in, perhaps, gathering these
properties and buying them from the owners for private interests, and
then stripping off the credits and donating them to the state, so we're
kind of waiting to see if that will occur as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Yes or no would be --
MS. SULECKI: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The point is, in the stewardship
area, it was set up to protect like Camp Keais Strand, the
Okaloacoochee slough way, and I would think, my opinion, that
taxpayers would be outraged if we was to purchase them when we
already have our program to protect them.
Same thing with the Talon property; that land was, by the
property owner, converted from receiving lands into sending lands.
They will never be built on. Why is it still on the acquisition list?
MS. SULECKI: Well, I'll take Camp Keais first. And the Camp
Keais Stand parcels were within one of our target protection areas.
And your comments --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they are protected. They
always will be protected.
MS. SULECKI: But they don't have public access. They will
not, under the current program, have public access, so that was why
the committee felt that they might be on the B list as well.
Page 53
.,-... ...--.--.-.'.--.-,.----.---.--.- --,~,,-_.
February 14,2006
And as far as the Talon Land Group parcel goes, we are still
waiting and still hopeful of a donation of that parcel. We have not
purchased it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know we haven't purchased it.
But why would it be on the acquisition list? It almost seems -- it
appears that we want to keep it there to keep moneys in the fund.
MS. SULECKI: Well, the monies were estimated before it was
changed into a sending lands. It was neutral before. And the monies
are essentially a placeholder.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask the board, board
members. Is the board members willing to take this offthe list
knowing that it will never be built on?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think the discussion today are the
items that are in, you know, green, I guess it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Sulecki said that we can
discuss anything on the list.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, can I give you an answer
from my standpoint?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't find anything in the Band C
categories that's acceptable to me. Not one single parcel do I think is
acceptable in Band C categories, for a number of reasons, and so I
wouldn't -- I wouldn't vote for any continuation of an effort to proceed
with --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the Talon property?
That's sending lands. It was converted from receiving lands to
sending lands.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where are you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's in --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You said Talon?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Talon.
Page 54
-----------... -.-- ----
February 14,2006
MS. SULECKI: Talon is on the A.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's on the A.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's already on the A list.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's the -- where we ought to
stand right now is just look at the A list and see if we're in agreement
with the A list and discuss those, and then what we can do is give
direction to staff after we make a determination, the A list, because
that's the one that we're discussing today, and then when we take that
vote, then we can give the direction to staff in regards to the Band C
list. Does that sound fair enough?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's okay with me. I just thought
that the ones in cycle one and two in category A had already been
approved by the board.
MS. SULECKI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's the only reason I'm
hesitating on the Talon. I thought we'd already approved it.
MS. SULECKI: You did. And they are just there to give you a
bigger picture view, yes. But you could choose to remove that. That
is up to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I still have some more
questions, since nobody's going to answer my question about the
Talon property.
Collier Development property, I'm requesting that you do some
more research on that. I've been told that that property was part of a
seller agreement with -- it's either Hamilton Harbor or --
MS. SULECKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is?
MS. SULECKI: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is -- which one?
MS. SULECKI: The agreement required the owner to offer it to
Conservation Collier.
Page 55
__~"'_'"'_'_'''_''U'_'''''__ __._._.____ --~--
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that what it is?
MS. SULECKI: Yes, it did, and they did that, and it went
through our approval process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You answered that
question. I, like Commissioner Coyle, the only parcel on -- can we
move to the cycle three now?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I'd like to answer all the questions
in cycle -- in the first cycle, if we could, in regards to the Peters and
the Schutt property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's do that first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the third cycle,
Commissioner.
MS. SULECKI: That's our current cycle we're asking for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do you want me to do,
because it -- because I have questions about these ones that are on the
list that I understood I can ask.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Go ahead and continue your
questioning. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Winchester Head, didn't
you come to the Board of Commissioners and say that it's too
expensive to purchase this property at this time?
MS. SULECKI: We asked you if you would recommend that we
stop buying for several months to see what was going on with that,
and we did that. We stopped buying.
We went to the Conservation Collier committee at the end of that
period, and they recommended we continued to buy. And since it was
already an approved property on the list, we have continued with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we approved not purchasing
it, so you're going to come --
MS. SULECKI: For three months.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- back --
Page 56
--,.__.__.._..__."-~-""'--
February 14,2006
MS. SULECKI: Just for three months.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're going to come back to
the board and ask to continue that?
MS. SULECKI: My understanding was it was an approved
property, and we only asked to stop for three months.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. On the present cycle on
-- I do not like the Milano property. I think it's overpriced. The
Schutt property, Commissioners, I believe protecting that around
Rookery Bay is a -- is a wise investment. And if you take a look at
that versus the Milano property -- and both of them are in the urban
area, the Milano property is 269,000 an acre, and the Schutt property
is 38,000 an acre. So I think the Schutt property is a -- should be
purchased by the county.
Now, as far as buying an easement, I don't think that was a part
of the ordinance.
MS. SULECKI: Yes, sir, it was.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And from -- my aspect is the
committee's recommendations about the Caribbean
Gardens/Fleischmann property is a good recommendation, and I hope
that we keep that on the list. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one
is that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Caribbean Gardens
property .
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's providing it doesn't get torn up. If
. ,
It s --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If it remains in the state it is, I'm for it. I
made that pretty clear early on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And my last comment, we're not
doing the taxpayers justice. If properties are already going to be not
built and saved by the public sector, we should not be seeking out
those properties. We need to take a look at the rules in our growth
management plan and our Land Development Code so we don't waste
Page 57
~_._^_'__"__"__~__'___.m..___.___ ---.-
February 14,2006
staffs time or our advisory boards.
That's all I have to say.
MS. SULECKI: May I comment to that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
MS. SULECKI: We are getting ready to bring a land -- or an
amendment to our ordinance for Conservation Collier that would
remove some of those lands from our target protection area that are
already protected.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, you're next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: First I'd like to tell you how
much I appreciate all the hard work that you have done, and our
committee.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On the Fleischmann property,
the recommendations we got from the committee was, is that we don't
use the funds from Collier 2000 for it; is that correct?
MS. SULECKI: Ifthere are to be the projects, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Ifwe didn't use the funds
from Collier 2000, where would it come from?
MS. SULECKI: I don't know. My understanding is the county
currently owns that parcel, so I'm not sure where those funds --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We purchased it, we were
looking for the financing to follow, and as always, we had promises
from a lot of people that we were going to have everyone else kicking
in something towards it.
But going back to it, if there's a shortcoming that -- as far as
dollars go, that money's going to come from the general fund; is it
not?
MS. SULECKI: Well, I believe that there is an application in
process for the Florida Communities Trust for monies to reimburse for
Page 58
._~,.-
February 14,2006
that parcel as well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But that hasn't happened yet.
MS. SULECKI: No.
MR. MUDD: It won't happen until -- it won't happen until the
first of May. One of the things you have to do for your Florida
Communities Trust is you have to have a site -- a concept plan for
what you're going to do with the particular area before you can submit
it for an application, and that's what staffs trying to do, and that's why
I asked the question on the 24th of January about a unified
development plan, and this board was quite clear, do not include the
developer in the conceptual plans that you have.
And at that time we had -- we had offered a plan that looked
something like this -- and they're working on it still -- where that
property was going to be used, or could be used for some stormwater
purification from -- from the -- above the weir on the Gordon River,
which is located just north of Golden Gate Parkway up here, and it
would take waters -- instead of having it overflow, without being
treated, directly into the Gordon River, there would be a series of
purification ponds, and then the natural sheet flow through the wetland
and the mangroves to the Gordon River.
In addition, there would be a series of pathways that people could
use and trails that they could use to enjoy and hook in with the rest of
the attractions, i.e., the zoo, the kayaking deck that's planned over on
this thing where folks can put in their canoes and whatnot in the
Gordon River, and just add a park to our system.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But this is on the land that
would be owned by the developer, right?
MR. MUDD: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No.
MR. MUDD: This is the 68 acres in question--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- that you're looking at today for purchase with
Page 59
"-_."--- ....-------
February 14,2006
Conservation Collier. And if you purchase that land with
Conservation Collier, you will not have the stormwater issues on that
particular property, nor can you put anything in there with an ASR
well to take the overflow that you get from the water and store it for
later use when it's the dry season, and you will be precluded from a lot
of things that are on that particular slide.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we're still eligible for that
grant from the state?
MR. MUDD: Florida Communities Trust, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So then, from what you just
said, we're better off if we refuse the Collier 2000 money for this
particular venture.
MR. MUDD: I believe that's what the board told us they wanted
to do on the 24th of January --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- and I mentioned that during Alex's presentation
while she was kind of hedging between, do you add the conservation
property or not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Alex, refresh my memory on the
issues of management and maintenance costs of properties that we
acquire through Conservation Collier.
MS. SULECKI: We have initial exotics removal, perhaps debris
removal, perhaps fencing. Those are short-term costs. Long-term
costs, we would have development of trails for public -- some kind of
public access, depending on the parcel, the needs, the circumstances.
You might have a parking lot, you might have a rest room. Those are
long-term, years from now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they're funded how?
MS. SULECKI: We have 15 percent of our management funds
set -- or acquisition funds set aside for management in perpetuity, and
Page 60
_.___'0____."'.___._.__ ,_. .---.--
February 14,2006
we also have been applying for grants.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So now with respect to the
management funds that you're setting aside, 15 percent of what?
Fifteen percent of the $75 million?
MS. SULECKI: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now we're getting very
close to spending $75 million on acquisition alone. How are you
going to get that 75 percent (sic) if you acquire all of the properties
that you have proposed here?
MS. SULECKI: Well, we came to you with a workshop earlier, I
guess it was last year in regards to those funds, and the understanding
that I came out of that workshop with was that we had 75 million for
property purchases, we had 15 percent of that, which was an
additional 11 million on top of that for management, plus our program
costs on top of that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So our decision concerning the
maximum amount of money to be collected and expended was not
really 75 million, but it was 15 percent above that?
MS. SULECKI: It was something above that, and there were
discussions to that effect.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
that I understood that correctly.
Now, let's talk about some other things. The issue with respect to
Winchester Head causes me some concern. When we first received
the proposal from Conservation Collier to start buying lots in
Winchester Head, I raised the question very specifically, how are you
going to acquire enough lots there to really make a difference? And I
was told, people can't really build on those anyway.
But then we started buying a couple of lots, and guess what, the
prices went through the roof, and we decided to stop. It was certainly
my intention -- and perhaps I misunderstood the guidance that was
being provided to Conservation Collier at the time. But it was my
Page 61
_.",._"~..._~__m.___'_.__ .-..--
February 14,2006
intention just to stop buying the property, not just hold off for three
months, because any property owner knows that a three-month hiatus
in purchasing is not going to affect the property values whatsoever.
I no longer find that an attractive use of Conservation Collier
funds, and I certainly would like to just terminate it. And if at some
future point in time there is the opportunity to reconsider that at
reasonable values, I would be happy to reconsider it because I
understand the long-term interests, but we'll never realize the
long-term interests if we have to pay the prices people are demanding
based upon the speculative pricing that seems to exist there.
Let's move to cycle B --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, I don't mean to
interrupt. Is that a motion or suggestion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's not a motion at this point in
time. I'm just making an observation and asking questions and trying
to understand where we're going with it. But I'll be happy to include it
in a motion if -- once we get to that point. But I want to make sure
that my understanding of all these things is correct, so I'm asking for
Alex's input on some of this.
With respect to the item, the cycle B -- or cycle 3-A properties
that are listed, the Brochu property, we're going to spend $204,000
acquiring that property, but the improvements and removal of exotics
is going to be somewhere around $200,000 or more with what you
have proposed.
I'm a little concerned about relatively small parcels that don't
have good connectivity with other protected areas. And this comment,
by the way, please understand, is made in recognition of the Band C
properties that are, in many cases, small parcels in isolated areas, and I
understand you don't intend to proceed with the Band C, and I
certainly agree with that decision.
But the more relatively isolated small parcels we have, the more
difficult it's going to be for us to maintain and police those. The last
Page 62
--- .~_______".M~._ ---._-----~-
February 14,2006
thing we want to do is have isolated property that is not properly
supervised and maintained where we create potential crime problems
or dumping problems and trash problems that are a constant source of
attention and concern. And I'm very, very concerned about isolated
properties that are being proposed.
The Caribbean Gardens/Fleischmann parcel number two, I agree
with -- I think the position's already stated by the other commissioners
-- that if this property is going to remain unaltered, I would like to see
Conservation Collier buy it. If it is going to be altered for stormwater
purposes, then I understand why Conservation Collier should not
purchase it. So I would be happy to support a motion with respect to
that also.
The Milano property, I am concerned about the significance of
the Mirasol flowway disapproval by the Corps of Engineers. What
happens if they ultimately approve that flowway? What does that do
to this property, or what does this property do to that particular
project? Can you tell me about that one?
MS. SULECKI: Well, that's one question that, at our
Conservation Collier committee meeting, that I asked of Brad Cornell,
who's here in the audience today, and he was able to give a better
answer than I could, but I believe that it -- and please correct me if I'm
wrong -- that either way it adds to and gives extra capacity and options
for water flowing over the land in that area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If the flowway is built -- and I
think most of us hope it will not be based upon recent evidence. But if
for some reason the flowway is built, will there be a need to do
something to this particular parcel, the Milano parcel, in order to make
sure the flowway is not impeded?
MS. SULECKI: No. I think the thing was that if it is not
approved, then this parcel would become an option for overland
flowing through it, and the removal of the berm along Immokalee
Road would allow the water to go into the canal, which would provide
Page 63
"_M_____.__,.____ --._.-._."---
February 14,2006
another option that maybe wouldn't be available if the flowway was
not permitted as it is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If the flowway is permitted as it is,
we're going to have, what is it, 100 foot wide by four foot deep
flowway dredge there? Is it going to come to a screeching halt right at
this property?
MS. SULECKI: No, it is not. It just adjoins it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the Peters easement, I
agree that -- I don't know that the easement is something that adds
great value for the public, quite frankly, and it's another small and
relatively isolated area. I would prefer not to proceed with that.
The Schutt property, if shared with the state, I think, would be a
good -- good thing to do, and I certainly would support it, although I
wonder what could be done with that property anyway. But maybe --
MS. SULECKI: The owner's getting offers all the time for
development --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Really?
MS. SULECKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I would suggest that
we share that property with the state, if the state will agree to go ahead
with us.
And then, as I said previously, under the recommended Band C
properties for cycle three, I don't see anything there that's particularly
exciting, so I wouldn't want to deal with those at the present point in
time. And you're not proposing that, so it shouldn't cause a problem.
MS. SULECKI: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And Mr. Chairman, that's the end
of all my comments and questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. I have a couple of questions
before I turn this over to Commissioner Fiala. I'm interested also in
the Milano property in regards to, what we're stating here is that you're
going to create a sheet flow that hopefully will be there forever; is that
Page 64
~-------_...--_.._,..__.._~ - - -~_.__._-
February 14,2006
correct?
MS. SULECKI: Not necessarily. We aren't proposing really
doing anything to the property unless the circumstances -- the Mirasol
flowway does not get built and there would be a need, this would be
another option that could be used to work with water in that area.
We're not proposing to do anything currently to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, I'm saying if you --
MS. SULECKI: -- push water onto it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What I'm saying is that you're going to
encourage sheet flow action if you take down the berm that is along
the canal, which is the Immokalee Canal. So this is actually a
swampland in an area that is going to be a sheet flow area; is that
correct?
MS. SULECKI: It's an option. We don't plan to do anything to
the berm unless, in the future, it would be advantageous.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So if we don't buy this property -- why is
it advantageous for us to buy the property then?
MS. SULECKI: Well, because if we don't buy it, the owners
have already had several development offers. The front end of it, the
front 10, 15 acres, are fully developable, so we'll have another
building and development there that would, if we should need it in the
future, would not allow an outflow for water from this area.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Then why -- I'm trying to find out a
reason why we want to spend money to buy this property.
MS. SULECKI: Well, it's not just because of that. It's because it
met all of our criteria, because it provides public access. It's highly
visible. It's got native habitat on it. It met all of these criteria. And in
the current group of properties, it rose to the top.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So what happened -- if you're
saying that this is a habitat, it's got flat -- pine wood -- pine flatwood,
which tells me that that's a dry area, then it goes on and says, there's
also cypress wetland, mixed forest, so on, has bromeliads and other
Page 65
--~"~ .-. - ~. ~'"_..._.
February 14,2006
potential species, including wood storks and Big Cypress fox squirrel.
MS. SULECKI: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So the question is --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Great for hunting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. The question is, what are we
protecting here?
MS. SULECKI: We're protecting it from being developed
essentially --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. SULECKI: -- or providing --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So it's not going to be used as a part of
the flowway or -- not the flowway, but a sheet flow action, okay? In
other words are we trying to protect the swampland of this where the
cypress is or what?
MS. SULECKI: Well, we're trying to protect the parcel from
development because it has those characteristics as the ordinance calls
for as our criteria, and the -- an added reason is because of the way it
intersects with potential for whether we have the Mirasol flowway or
don't have it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I expound upon your
question?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Immokalee Road, even at a
six-lane, will be at capacity when it is six-laned with the approved
projects affecting Immokalee Road.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Approved projects we presently have on
the books.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Presently have on the books. So
why wouldn't somebody try to sell a vacant piece of property that has
no zoning designation on it, knowing that he's not going to have the
available capacity to be building anything?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there presently zoned ag.?
Page 66
----_.__.,-_._--------~_.. ---~-_._-
February 14,2006
MS. SULECKI: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Excuse me. With the Talon
property that Commissioner Henning was talking about, did -- because
it's a sending land, it would seem to be kind of redundant maybe to
buy it. Who is in charge of removing the exotics and maintaining that
land?
MS. SULECKI: Right now it's owned by the Bonita Bay under
the Talon Land Group folks, and there's no obligation to remove
exotics currently on it.
Now, when it was changed to sending land, the idea was that the
development rights would be removed, and then there was those
additional rights for management and for donation to a public entity
that we hope to achieve on that, so we hope to get a donation.
The other issues on that parcel are that there is an adjoining
school board and parks lands properties, and the Vanderbilt Beach
extension is going in in that area.
And so at this point in time, we don't know how much is going to
be taken for road, what kind of drainage needs from the Bonita Bay
folks from their development to the north, which may eat into it, is
going to be. So at some point in time if it's not donated to us, it may
be less than what was originally brought to us as 80 acres of natural
lands.
At that point, if it's much changed from what we got approval for,
we would come back and say, look, project changed. This is what it is
now. Do you wish to keep it on the A list. So we're kind of waiting
for some of those issues to shake out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. With the
Fleischmann property, I just feel that we have a good plan here to
cleanse the water before it flows into Naples Bay. I think that this is a
great opportunity, so I'm still in favor of retaining the ownership on
that.
Page 67
-_._._~ ___.___. ~w._"' ---_....----
February 14,2006
And the Milano property, I'm all for protecting the Mirasol
flowway. And if this in any way helps that, I would like to know that
as well.
MS. SULECKI: Well, one of our criteria is that we're going to
buffer current conservation lands, and so this parcel met that criteria
by being directly adjoining that potential for 800 acres of flowway
conservancy area. It currently adjoins the Old Cypress area, so it
expands on habitat that's already available, and that's one of the things
we look for.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have any public speakers on this?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We have three.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Would you call them up one at a
time for three minutes.
MS. FILSON: Nicole Ryan. She'll be followed by Brad Cornell.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. RYAN: Good morning again, Commissioners. For the
record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest
Florida. And the Conservancy supports the recommended lists
presented to you from the Conservation Collier Committee.
And I would like to speak specifically to the Fleischmann parcel
two property. The Conservancy only supports the inclusion of that
property on the A list if it is going to be kept conservation in its
natural state. If it isn't, then we believe it should go on the B list, or
I'm sorry, the C list.
But that also kind of dovetails into the bigger issue of what
should be done with that property and is the county, perhaps, moving
too quickly on using that property for stormwater when a true
assessment of where stormwater ponds could be placed really has not
been done yet.
There has been all sorts of concern about stormwater, and we do
have the properties on the north side of the Parkway that are going to
be used for those purposes.
Page 68
---------,.-~.- - ~._--~.._.- - - -- - -----~---
February 14,2006
We believe that the intent of the voters was to preserve the zoo
and the surrounding lands for conservation purposes. We're
concerned that the conversion of uplands to a use that would be
stormwater retention may not really fit into what voters wanted.
Water quality is something that's extremely important, and the
Conservancy supports many initiatives that deal with water quality in
the Gordon River and Naples Bay; however, this parcel is very good
habitat.
As Alex mentioned, a Gopher Tortoise survey was done, GTS,
everything has been located, and I believe that she has the map with
her today. Ninety burrows are on that site. It would be quite
expensive for the county to have to find someplace to relocate those
tortoises should you decide to convert these upland areas to
stormwater ponds.
So we're asking that the county really take a step back and do a
thorough analysis of all the alternate sites that could be used for
stormwater purposes. And if no other sites are suitable or simply sites
are non-existent, then if the county chooses to look at using some of
the uplands on this site for stormwater, that you look at preserving the
maximum amount of upland habitat possible, preserving the Gopher
Tortoise habitat and really keep it in line with what we believe the
voters asked for. Thank you.
MR. CORNELL: Hello, Commissioners. Again, I'm Brad
Cornell with Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of
Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, did you reset the clock? Okay. Go
ahead.
MR. CORNELL: Should I go?
And Audubon also supports the recommended list with the
stipulations on the Fleischmann parcel two. I'd like to elaborate a little
bit on that. We believe that the voters in the zoo referendum said to
the county, we want to keep the zoo and put it in public ownership,
Page 69
_____.____...__..___.m__._. ...~.
February 14,2006
and we also want to protect the conservation lands around the zoo.
And it was really understood as, those were conservation lands.
We've already fallen away from that somewhat in having to peel off
some of the lands for the development. We believe that this is
fulfilling the voters desires to keep that as conservation land.
If you cannot make that commitment, then we would -- we would
agree with you in not using Conservation Collier money for that
purchase.
On the Milano parcel, there's a lot of questions about that. That
Milano parcel represents an important opportunity. It is part of the
Cocohatchee slough today. The only reason it does not connect with
the canal, the Cocohatchee River Canal that's right below it is because
there's a big berm there.
And because we now have denial of the excavated channel that
the Mirasol -- the Mirasol project was going to dig for dumping water
into the canal -- now that's denied. So it is really critical for us to find
alternatives to bringing water through the slough to the Cocohatchee
Canal.
And this represents one opportunity. We don't want to lose any
of the wetlands, any of the opportunities along that canal, which
includes this Milano parcel. So it's a really important critical strategic
piece of land.
I know it's expensive, but it is a very high-quality conservation
piece of land in its habitat and also for its wetland and hydrologic
functions. If that -- if the Mirasol project does finally get a reversal to
build their ditch, then it still maintains -- it's right across the street
from a high school and an elementary school. It -- you know, access
there would be great for school kids and for classroom sorts of
activities, and it's very prominent, as you already heard.
So I think this is a critical piece of strategic location. It's very
vulnerable. No one can say that that it not going to get developed if it
doesn't get bought for conservation land. I think it will be, and I think
Page 70
'^-- -.-.- -~-"-
February 14,2006
we heard that in the testimony in front of the committee.
So this is an important hydrologic and habitat piece of land to
buy, represents an opportunity for restoration. And the restoration for
the berm would involve creating some gates to allow water to flow
through there, and I think that would work very well.
The Peters parcel next to Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary is not an
isolated parcel. It is small, but it's not isolated. It has a cypress head
on it, and it's right next to Corkscrew Swamp, and it does have access.
School kids and the public would be allowed to go on that parcel.
Even though it's an easement, they've agreed to have that kind of
access allowed.
And I just wanted to make one further point about the Winchester
Head. That is an -- really critical project. Even though the prices
have gone up, north Golden Gate Estates, all over, the prices have
gone up, regardless of wetlands or uplands, so that's just the state of--
just the state of the Estates.
And it -- we do not have sufficient policies in north Golden Gate
Estates to deal with wetlands, the flooding, with habitat issues. We've
not done the planning, we haven't done the stormwater management
and the watershed management plans --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you wrap up soon?
MR. CORNELL: -- for north Golden Gate Estates, I think that
Winchester Head is one small step towards that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Brad.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, your final speaker is Mimi Wolok.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did you have a question now, or do you
want to wait?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can wait.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. WOLOK: Good morning, Commissioners. Mimi Wolok,
for the record. I am representing myself today as a citizen of Collier
County.
Page 71
-_.- --_.-~-_._--_._~._-,----,,- .--_.--..-.----"--
February 14,2006
I'd like to urge you to specifically purchase parcel number two of
the Fleischmann properties. Today you have before you the
opportunity to either preserve native habitat or chop it up into sterile
water management ponds.
This property has been targeted by community leaders for over
20 years for preservation as a natural greenway. Dr. Howard Dtum,
both Doctors Ule (phonetic) and other preeminent scientists in Florida
have stated and concluded that natural wetlands can act as effective
water pollutant filtration systems.
I'd like to address the FCT grant that Commissioner Coletta
mentioned. This property would still be eligible for an FCT grant, but
it certainly would no longer be competitive. It's a very competitive
program, and the points awarded in the FCT program would go way
down with a water management pond.
There's valuable uplands on this property, particularly scrub
existing on this parcel number two, and that has become extremely
scarce in Collier County, especially Naples, at this time.
Why do we need water management ponds here? How polluted is
the Gordon River? Water management has not demonstrated the need
for water management ponds here specifically.
Can we see the water quality data before we make a decision? Is
this being done with taxpayers' money on behalf of the developers in
the area? We don't know.
At the CCLAAC, of which I am a member, the director of water
management control department presented a conceptual site plan for
the water management ponds, and he said that he had just seen that
conceptual site plan the day before he presented it to the -- to our
committee.
They're pushing this through with very little public input and
very little analysis. Water storage is a very important function in -- all
over South Florida. Before approving this hastily devised plan for
ponds, we should carefully determine how much and where water
Page 72
----- -----^---.. '.'---'.'"_.._~-'._---
February 14,2006
storage is appropriate. Not every vacant piece of land purchased by
the county should be used for stormwater management.
Some properties are more valuable to the public as native green
space. Voters like me voted for the county to purchase this parcel and
the zoo parcel to preserve it for passive recreation only. The need for
and value of more ponds right here has not been demonstrated.
Our stormwater ponds, what voters voted for, I believe, they are
not. Please purchase this property using Conservation Collier funds.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we made it pretty clear that we
weren't going to put ponds in that, if we do purchase it.
Commissioner Coyle, did you have something to say?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to make
sure everyone understands that whatever we're doing today has
nothing to do with approving ponds on this property, that there will be
a plan that will be developed that will be vetted by a number of
committees, and it will come before the Board of County
Commissioners in public hearings for the approval of any funds to be
expended on doing this sort of thing.
This is a concept, an idea. It could be that staff will find a way
where this can be done in a more natural manner. But the concept is,
that we don't need to start pretending that a decision to purchase the
land or not by Collier Conservation program is an approval of water
management ponds. It is not. These are two entirely separate issues.
The point is, if we have Collier -- Collier Conservation purchase
this property, it removes an option. It removes lots of options. We
have already heard testimony that says that 60 percent of this site is
infested with exotics. Well, of course you're going to have to modify
it if you're going to clean out the exotics. This is not pristine property.
So we're going to be very careful of it, and I think we've proven
that we're good stewards of not only the public money but also of the
lands we purchase. So let's not get people all worked up about
Page 73
- -----~._-
February 14,2006
assumptions when that's not what we're talking about today. We're
talking about options.
And so with that, someone else can talk.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would just like to suggest
that if, indeed, we do not purchase the Fleischmann property and we,
as a county, go in there to look at it for other uses, mainly stormwater,
that we would be really sensitive to these Gopher Tortoise -- to this
Gopher Tortoise habitat, as well as the scrub. And we would want to
be as good to the environment as we can be, while still helping our
water sources and protecting the quality of Naples Bay.
I would suggest that that would be something terribly important
as we move forward. I just wanted to put that on the record.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So far I agree with
Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Fiala, that I'm not all too sure
what decisions we're making here today, since we're not going to be
making that decision whether this -- if we're going to be purchasing
this for Collier Conservation or we're not. If we're not purchasing
with Collier Conservation money, then we have the option to go
forward with this series of ponds and lakes, which also are passive
recreation, from what I understand. One more time, please.
MS. SULECKI: Well, you, today, are approving our
recommended lists. And, of course, you can move properties to
whichever category you choose. So, for example, if you wanted to
wait on the Fleischmann parcel because you don't know what's
happening yet, you have the option of moving it to the B list, and we
simply hold it, and we wait and see what happens. That's one --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What happens financially? Do
we jeopardize the sale in some way, or is the sale final? We've
already put the county's money up for it. So that doesn't happen.
MS. SULECKI: I think so.
Page 74
---~" ---~"-.-._- - -_.._---,---~
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: By Putting it off, we get a
chance to be able to really get down to the nitty-gritty as far as what
the values are against the losses that we'll suffer. I'm, for one --
MS. SULECKI: We can certainly do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- for proceeding that way, to
remove it from this list and put it on the B list.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chair, I'm ready to make a
motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good, Please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, do you want to -- do you want to
do -- do you want to go down each property and see if it stays on the
A list, or do you want to move it to the B list, or do you want it to be
removed and do it that way? And then there's two properties on the
existing A list, I believe, we need to get some direction from the board
on, and that has to do with Winchester Head and the Talon property
and -- because they were brought up as discussion items on the
existing list, and then we need to talk about what do you want to do
with the Band C list.
The Band C list are basically sitting in abeyance. There's no
active acquisition there. It's basically, the staff keeps their eyes on it to
see if anything's developing or not, and then reports it back to, what do
you call it, the CCLAAC?
MS. SULECKI: Uh-huh, except for the C list. They're off.
MR. MUDD: They're off.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Can I make my motion
now? Okay.
I'll start with Winchester Head. I think Winchester Head should
be moved to the Band C list.
The Brochu property should be moved to the Band C list.
The Caribbean Gardens/Fleischmann parcel should be moved to
Page 75
--,..-....---., - - ----_.._-_._..~--,,---_..__._"----
February 14,2006
the Band C list.
The Peters easements should be moved to the Band C list.
And that leaves the Milano property and the Schutt property to
remain on the A list for cycle three.
And I've already expressed my concerns about all of the
properties listed on the Band C list. So I would make a motion that
those changes be made to the properties, and I would entertain, of
course, a friendly revision of my motion on the Talon Land Group, if
there's sufficient interest among the board to take action on that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second the idea of keeping the
Milano and the Schutt property on the A list and the recommendations
that you made in regards to the other properties to go on the Band C,
I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wondered if we might be
better served if we were to go down one property at a time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I'm--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a suggestion. I -- I just feel
that we might -- there might be some discussion, some lengthy
discussion, on some of these properties, and it would be great to be
able to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we've already gone through over
an hour of lengthy discussion on it. I think we've pretty well beat this
horse.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I thought that was a
preamble to what was to follow.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes I want to keep the Brochu
property on there, being that it's in close relationship to the Corkscrew
Sanctuary, and I feel that that's an important piece of that -- of that
preservation in that area. Would you consider that?
Page 76
_......,--,-"-- -.-..-...- . w",___,~~____"~"'_""'
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would not because it does not
have -- you pointed it out correctly -- is in close proximity. It does not
have connectivity. I think buying these isolated properties is a
mistake.
If the Conservation Collier group believes that it is necessary to
have some rest area along that green belt pathway, then I would say
that one of those parcels is sufficient to do that. It is not necessary to
buy both of them.
It's very clear that those parcels are not likely to be part of the
bigger preserve under any circumstance, and it's a fairly isolate parcel
that is going to be difficult to maintain, and I think we should -- we
should reduce our exposure, but if it will serve a useful purpose for the
greenway pathway, green belt pathway, as I understand that's what
you have in mind, then I would be willing to consider one of the
parcels, not both of them.
MS. SULECKI: May I add one thing to that, just to give you
some insight as to why it was selected? There was a focus on this area
to try to preserve pieces along the Immokalee Road corridor that
would be developed as infill, and so this was selected among a number
of others that were a little more isolated because it was directly on
Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What can you get from nine acres
that you couldn't get from four and a half?
MS. SULECKI: They're different -- one's an upland and one's a
wetland.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Pick one, whichever one
you like. You want to have a place -- you say you want to create a
little kiosk with a picnic bench or rest area or rest room or something
there?
MS. SULECKI: It was one sort of co-use that -- otherwise it met
our criteria very well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, okay. I -- again, as far
Page 77
------- --...---
February 14,2006
as modifying my motion is concerned, I would modify it for one of
those properties, one of those lots, but not for both of them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I get the consensus on the
Brochu property?
MR. MUDD: You've got a motion and you've got a second on
the original one to remove --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly.
MR. MUDD: -- Winchester Head, Brochu, Caribbean Gardens
and Peters to the B list off of the A list. And Commissioner Coyle
made the motion and you seconded, sir. And now there's been a
modification by the motion maker --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. MUDD: -- to only buy half of the Brochu property. And I
would suggest, Commissioner, if they're talking about a kiosk and a
bench and stuff like that, that you buy the upland parcel, because
buying the wetland parcel would preclude you from doing that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
MR. MUDD: And I haven't heard a second to that -- to that
change.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second that for discussion.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. What we're doing here,
would you tell me what the downside is as far as your committee
would be concerned, Alex?
MS. SULECKI: For?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The changes that have been
made? Speaking not as a staff member, but as a person that represents
the committee.
MS. SULECKI: Well, the downside is that we've taken these
properties through a very intensive scrutiny, and they've met the
criteria. And property's only getting more expensive. So we feel
they're good options to bring to you. And our next cycle will not
Page 78
,__e__...'___ "-'-..-..-----..- ----
February 14,2006
bring properties to you till next year, and properties could be even
more expenSIve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we could lose an
opportunity that was there. I can't support the motion quite as it is. I
do agree with the Fleischmann property, I do agree with Winchester
Hedge (sic). But when you get to the rest of them, you're eliminating
them after the long process that we've gone through to get there, I
don't think that would serve the public well.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So at this time the motion,
Commissioner Coyle, or -- yeah, Commissioner Coyle, would you
restate your motion that you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The motion is to -- is to move
Winchester Head to the B category, move the wetlands lot in the
Brochu property to the B category, move Caribbean
Gardens/Fleischmann parcel two to the B category, and move the
Peters easement to the B category.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And do you want to still
remaining the Milano and the Schutt property?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And part of the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the upland lot of the Brochu
property .
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. As -- to stay on category A?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Category A for cycle three.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And my second includes all of
that.
So if there's no further discussion, we'll call the question here.
All those in favor of the motion that was made by Commissioner
Coyle, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Those opposed, by like sign?
Page 79
-----_.~_._._.._----". . -. ...-...-~--_.~--~--------~-.. ....--.---
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion fails.
Do I have another motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if! may, I would suggest
that we do just as Commissioner Coyle suggested as far as the
Winchester Hedge, as far as the Fleischmann property, as far as the
Caribbean Gardens, moving them down to the B list --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and the rest of it, accept it as
IS.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Have everything else on the A list, leave
it on the A list?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion by
Commissioner Coletta to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They heard the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And seconded by Commissioner
Fiala. I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Motion fails.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. We need somebody
fresh to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion passed,
Page 80
".-.-----"_._--_._.-..__._."----_.__.~._..__.._._---_. ----
February 14,2006
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, you voted for it? Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It was a 3-2 motion. You
don't need a supermajority on this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, I'm sorry. I thought you
voted against it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did. It was Commissioner
Coyle and I voted against the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I voted against the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you did?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was three against.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we still don't have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion that we put
the money in the bank.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whose account?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Somebody in the audience
might second it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, would it be better to go down --
would it be better to go down the properties one by one and to get the
board's --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I guess that's the best way right now.
That's the only alternative we've got.
MR. MUDD: Well, the other choice is that you don't -- you
haven't approved the list, and Ms. Sulecki sits down and there isn't a
cycle three.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's not a good option.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion to try
to move this along so we don't get bogged down?
Possibly Mr. Mudd might be able to go ahead and read off each
one, somebody make a motion, somebody second it, and then we -- if
Page 81
_______._.________.'. __ ,,___._..~_~w~.__...n._._ _. n"_ - --..-..,.-..,--..,,-".-..'..---.--.'---'. --..---
February 14,2006
there's discussion, we move forward on it.
MR. MUDD: Okay. First property under the A list is the Brochu
property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Brochu property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We've got a motion. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That passes, 3-2.
MR. MUDD: 3-2. We go to the next property, which is
Caribbean Gardens/Fleischmann parcel two.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then the motion there would be
to move it down to the B list.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The B or the C list?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: B list.
MR. MUDD: B list. C list, you don't look at those anymore.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's because we're looking at
it all from the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Those in favor of moving the
Fleischmann property to the B list, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 82
-.',---' -.--,-,--,.-..-.--.-- .-'".--.---,-- .'-, __._<.."_W.'Un'__W. "..__ -._-
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Unanimous.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is the Milano
property .
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Second.
MR. MUDD: And that's to keep it on the A list, correct?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's to keep it on the A list.
Okay. Motion's been made to keep the Milano property by
Commissioner Coyle -- or Coletta, and seconded by Commissioner
Halas.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That passes.
MR. MUDD: 4-1. Next item is the Peters property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to keep it on the A list.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion for the Peters
property made by Commissioner Coletta and seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
Those -- all in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Page 83
'__'_~".___"_'_ _,' "__...._.___....______.u.__ _,.._..__.._.~.~_y"__.,..___._H ..... __..'___._nm..... ...--
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
MR. MUDD: So it's moving to the B -- it's going -- well, it's not
on the A list at all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's not on the A list.
MR. MUDD: The question now is, do we move it to the B list or
just get rid of it?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Somebody want to make a
motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just made the last motion.
Somebody's turn.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll make a motion that it should
be moved down to the B list.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion was made by
Commissioner Halas and seconded by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor -- all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is the Schott (sic)
property, or the Schutt property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the Schutt
property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion was by made
Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Henning.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 84
M-'_.____......... -,.._~ .~--,-
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Unanimous.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there was questions or dialogue on
two properties on the A list, Winchester Head and the Talon property,
so let's take Winchester Head first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Remove.
MR. MUDD: Does Winchester Head property stay on the A list?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Make a motion it be removed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Move to where?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: To B list.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle made a
motion for the Winchester property to be moved on the B list, and
Commissioner Coletta (sic) seconded.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. It passes, moved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion we move the
Talon property to the E list.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, which one?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To the E list? Second. To the B list
Page 85
"m_.~______'_""'___"__'_C'__"_'_'_"^~~_'_"'_
February 14,2006
maybe?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: C list.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: C list. I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning to remove the Talon property to the C list, and seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
Aye.
So it passes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We haven't dealt with the
Fleischmann property yet, have we, the 13 acres?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We did?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's all done.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So we do have
remainder ones we have to approve?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope.
MR. MUDD: Nope. Now that you've got the contentious items
voted on, I would like you to vote on the list as amended so that she
has it based on her ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion to that effect.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Page 86
,_...._..__,.._...'n..____.____.._._ _..,--~-_....._-"._-_._--''^_._._.- "--------
February 14,2006
Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Passes, 4-1.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a time certain, but we
also have a number of people out here in the audience in regards to the
issue of Foxfire. And what is the wishes of the commission, or do we
have to still go ahead with the --
MR. MUDD: Do your time certain, Commissioner, and I believe
the time certain item will not take a long time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And then we'll go -- if it's the board's desire, we
will go into the Foxfire traffic signal, if that's okay with --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, the problem is, we're going to be
close to -- we're going to be at lunch time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't you just give a time
certain after lunch with the Foxfire issue, I mean, if you're wanting to
address the issuing with --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, at one o'clock we have the -- we'll
be coming out of -- back into the sunshine in regards to the issue that
we're going to be discussing, so we'll have to take care of that, and it
may be right after that, go into the Foxfire. That's the only --
MR. MUDD: It will be about 1:15 then.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pardon?
MR. MUDD: It would be about 1:15 then.
Page 87
<,--.- .--._~._---_. -.-...--.-..-".---- -"---
February 14,2006
Item #10D
DIRECTION TO STAFF TO PROCEED WITH ITS DUE
DILIGENCE REVIEW AND CONTRACT PREP ARA TION OF
PROPOSED LAND EXCHANGE BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All right. So we're going to
proceed now with the time certain with --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, before you decide on that,
this is real, real simple. I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Approval of what?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Approval of the --
MR. MUDD: This is 10D. This item to be heard at 11 :30. It's a
__ request direction to staff to proceed with its due diligence, review
and contract preparation, a proposed land exchange between Collier
County and the City of Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I mean, it's just telling you
to take a look at it. You'll have to come back to us to see us -- to get
approval to proceed with anything no matter what you do, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it makes good sense.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Why would you deny the
right to take a look at it?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there something that the County
Attorney wants to put on the record?
MR. WEIGEL: No.
MS. CHADWELL: No, sir. Commissioner Coyle is correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So the motion's been made by
Commissioner Coyle and seconded by Commissioner Fiala in regards
to the land swap down at Marco. Is there any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I just want to say, Marco
Page 88
,_.,---'-'--'-'''''-'-'''--''--''---~-----'-"' ---- .----_.-- ---
February 14,2006
Island has sure been pleasant to work with, the city council down
there, and I appreciate it. And I'm glad -- if we can assist on this, we
definitely will. Thank you.
MR. CARRINGTON: Yeah. I wanted to -- I'm sorry. I failed to
introduce Bill Moss, Mayor, who is with us today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: County manager, I mean city
manager.
MR. CARRINGTON: I'm sorry, city manager is with us today.
I apologize.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It must be cold down in Marco.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Ifthere's no further discussion,
I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
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: It passes unanimously. That gives us
some time here to discuss then the Foxfire.
Item #10J - Moved from Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2006-34: AUTHORIZING REMOVAL OF A NON-
WARRANTED TRAFFIC SIGNAL FROM THE INTERSECTION
OF RADIO ROAD AT KINGS W A Y/BRIARWOOD BOULEVARD
- ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This is -- and let me just get my bearings.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I've got to get my bearings, too,
Page 89
. --',---.-.-' ..---"-"'""-" ~-
February 14,2006
here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 1 OJ.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What is it?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 1 OJ.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 1 OJ.
MR. MUDD: It's 10J, used to be 16B7, and it reads, it's a
recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing removal of a
non-warranted traffic signal from the intersection of Radio Road at
Kings Way/Briarwood Boulevard. Removal of the traffic signal poles
and equipment will cost approximately $4,000. And Mr. Norman
Feder, your transportation administrator, will present.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, very briefly. Again, for the
record, Norman Feder, transportation administrator.
The signal that exists on Radio at Kings Way and at Briarwood
was reviewed under the warrants for decertification. In fact, it was
given every opportunity in the sense of applying only the 70 percent
criteria.
The traffic volumes, both in movements out of the two access
points nor the accident issues met any of the minimum standards for
warrants.
And as you know, the warrant study requires that you review,
look at minimum standards. And if they are met, that doesn't mean
you put in a signal, but you should not have one where they are not
met.
I think the particular note is the fact that it was mentioned that
there were enough accidents to have met the warrants of five within a
12-month period, but that warrant says five accidents, or accidents that
can be corrected by the use of traffic signal. And, in fact, most of
those accidents are rear-end accidents, which, in fact, are a result of a
signal being installed.
Signals typically increase the number of crashes because of
Page 90
~--"'- W".._...__,,_._"._..... ---.'."--'.-'--...-- ---
February 14,2006
rear-end accidents, although they reduce the severity. It was also
noted that we had one fatality back in '96 or just before, before the
signal was installed, and two since.
So I don't think anything shows a warrant for this signal, and
we're recommending that it be removed.
MS. FILSON: And Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Speaker first.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The speaker is James Klusendorf, president of
Foxfire.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: He'll have three minutes.
MR. KLUSENDORF: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, staff. It
is my understanding that all the commissioners --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, would you state your name for the
record?
MR. KLUSENDORF: I'm sorry. James Klusendorf, president of
Foxfire Community Association.
I do not intend at this time to get into our written response to the
traffic study. We certainly recognize what the numbers reflected. I'm
here to point out a couple other points.
The subject signal provided a break -- provides a break in traffic
on eastbound Radio Road that permits residents of communities and
shoppers of commercial facilities to enter the roadway more safely
from Kings Way to Countryside.
Curb plans show that the Florida Power and Light's greenway
starts at Radio Road and links Rattlesnake Hammock Road to the
south. Should the project boundary be expanded to the north to
Livingston, that signal light would be needed to permit pedestrians to
safely cross over Radio Road.
There's no evidence or accertation -- assertion, rather, that the
subject signal light causes any backup in flow of traffic on Radio
Page 91
-- ----- ..._--~-_._.__.... -- ._---~.._- --
February 14,2006
Road exiting Livingston Road. The safety provided by the signal light
is an important consideration in the quality of life for senior citizens,
while exiting or entering any cross streets.
This is not a situation where a decision has to be made to install
any traffic light, rather it's a situation where a traffic light has been
paid for and installed and should be maintained for the reasons
heretofore stated. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Henning?
MR. KLUSENDORF: I have copies of the report that I sent if
the commissioners, if there's anyone here that may need one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can we ask him to leave a copy for the
record?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, for the court reporter.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mr. Klusendorf, do you have a copy that
could be left for the record?
MR. KLUSENDORF: My speech here? We'll get one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, I just want to
inform you, because of sunshine law, we can't talk only but at a public
meeting, which is not a bad thing. I think it's a great thing. But I --
the controversy between Moon Lake and F oxfire and interconnectivity
gone away has upset the community again and the whole issue going
back to the decision by the previous board.
I met with the kind folks at Foxfire to see if they would revisit
the interconnection and did bring out the fact that the traffic light that
we're talking about now doesn't meet warrants and asked them to
reconsider their decision to see if it meets warrants.
I had a call from the property manager from F oxfire yesterday
stating that the present board of Foxfire's not interested in
re-establishing that interconnection at this time.
So -- but I can tell you -- and I don't know if you have received a
Page 92
---,.. ,_........_~ __.", ,"_..._._,_~__,._n_"_' "___ -... _._.,._,,-_._.~-- -'-'-' ..--.-.........--
February 14,2006
lot of inquiries about revisiting the issue of extending Livingston Road
further to the south. And I think those -- that issue will keep on
arising if communities make this decision about their neighbors. But I
do understand some of the dilemma that they've had between the two
communities.
I want to make a motion to approve staffs recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would -- it would be good,
I think, if the two communities could find a way to work together and
justify the traffic light.
I believe that the safety of our residents is paramount to moving
safety -- or moving traffic more quickly. I've never thought that our
objective really should be to try to move traffic more quickly at the
risk, any risk, of increasing safety hazards for our community. So I
believe that should be the primary determining factor.
But I don't know if the information that Commissioner Henning
received from a representative from Foxfire is representative of the
board's position. If it is not, now is the time to let us know, because if
there is a possibility that we could postpone a decision on this in the
hopes of reaching some sort of compromise and justifying the light to
serve you, now is the time to know about that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I might mention that a warrant
study is something that's very fluid and it changes as time goes along.
I don't think that delaying this decision would serve any purpose
now, but we could always reconsider it sometime in the future when a
new warrant study is made, based upon what they're talking about.
There's the possibility that even bringing Moon Lake into this might
not meet the warrant study.
Mr. Feder, you got any comments on that?
Page 93
-_......."~-~.,._._--_._..- --,--"~-----,-._,-,,,"'"""- --,--
February 14,2006
MR. FEDER: What I would note, it would not change,
obviously, the accident warrants, because that data's for the last three
years. We would, if in fact Moon Lake was sent back through, look at
the numbers and see if that changes. Right now we're pretty far from
meeting the warrants. I'm not sure that would meet the warrants, but
again, we would evaluate it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Klusendorf, you were going to
answer my question, perhaps?
MR. KLUSENDORF: I would say right now the -- when I -- our
general manager called yesterday and talked to Commissioner
Henning, the current board that reflects our position as a current board
__ our annual meeting's this Saturday, we have new directors coming
on, we have a new board starting next week.
I'm not going to close the door, but all I can say right now, based
on the votes that are in place today, I could not open it today. But it's
going forward. I mean, nothing's always certain forever, I guess.
But we like to be a good neighbor. We've been beat up a lot,
obviously, in the press, and we don't think we quite deserve all that
we're getting, but perception-wise, I guess people feel that way.
But going forward, if that makes a difference, we didn't feel to go
ahead -- and when our decision was made to close it and knowing the
traffic study was coming, to include Moon Lake traffic in the study
and then close the door, so I thought we felt we were being fair to all
parties when we made our decision early on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very
much.
Commissioner Henning, if -- I need to ask you a question. If--
would you be willing to modify your motion slightly to delay taking
the traffic signal out for some specified period of time to see if there is
an interest of a new board in working out a compromise that might
result in justification of the traffic signal there?
Page 94
-'-"'--- .".,-_...,_._-_._.,~'---~'" "'-'--"'~".' - -.- -
February 14,2006
There is reason not to do it if we're going to find in six months
that there is an agreement and that it can be justified, because it's
going to cost us money to take those -- that traffic signal out, and I
presume the poles and everything else out of there. And then if we
decide to ever put it back in, it's going to cost us money to put it back
m.
So what I'm suggesting is not a long period of time, but enough
time to give the new board an opportunity to access the issue before
you physically remove it, and if your motion would be modified to
permit say 60 days or something of that nature before it's actually
removed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I appreciate what you're
suggesting. The issue is, the Foxfire board of directors knew that it
was going to be removed. I told them that it was. I told them when
the board was going to make that decision.
I don't think there's anything going to change, but let me ask Mr.
Feder. Can we -- can we just disconnect the light, unplug the light--
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, obviously we can do --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- until next meeting, because
the new board is going to take over this month? Am I correct?
MR. KLUSENDORF: Next month.
MR. FEDER: What I would recommend -- basically what I'm
hearing from the board -- although I do want to note two things. First
of all, there is still a signal available to all of these folks at Davis, and
that is remaining. We share, Commissioner, your concern about
safety.
We also have progression problems because of how close this
signal on Radio is to Livingston. Having said that, if it's the desire of
the board, I would recommend from what I'm hearing, if that's the way
you want to go, that we do, in fact, put in flashing mode.
It would be yellow on Radio, red flashing to the development for
a period of time allowing the new board to come in place. And should
Page 95
--~.. ..-----..--,.,.... -'....._-...~,_._--- "'----.-..- --._--
February 14,2006
the new board come back and petition you, once they open it up to
Moon Lake, then after that we would do a study, which I have some
doubts, but I'm not going to predispose. We will do the study and
evaluate whether or not the signal is warranted at that time, if that's the
direction of the board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So what you're telling me is that they do
have a light that functions properly. Ifwe decide to take this light out
of the system, if they have a light that's on Davis Boulevard.
MR. FEDER: On Davis, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So we're not putting them in
harm's way then. If they use that particular light, that light meets the
warrant; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: That is correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, communities that don't
have any traffics light, what we're saying is we're putting them in
harm's way. That is not what we're doing here, and it's a matter of--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Moving traffic.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you know, driving, you know,
my feeling. But I'll acquiesce and include it into my motion to also
direct staff for the period of -- to our next meeting to have the traffic
light blinking as Mr. Feder stated.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If that's your will, my second
goes along with that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So what you're saying is, we're going to
revisit this at the next meeting because they'll have the new board?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. MUDD: No. Commissioner, we're going to -- that's not
what Mr. Feder said. We're going to take that light, it's not warranted.
He's going to put a yellow flashing so that you see it going back and
forth on Radio Road, and Foxfire will see a flashing red right to let
them know that it's stop and go until the next meeting.
Page 96
- "--_."."-- --------"_._- ~.._--_.._~. -
February 14,2006
And if the board gets petitioned that Foxfire wants to open up
their gates to Moon Lake to change that warrant study at least as far as
the volume is concerned, then we'll -- then we'll start a new warrant
study and see if that light gets to stay there. Did I get it right, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, right on the target.
MR. FEDER: The only thing I will add is, I appreciate that that
be something coming to you at the next meeting because if, in fact,
they're going to open it and provide for it, we would want to be able to
do the warrant study still during season.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You will. You will be
able to, yes.
MR. FEDER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's a motion by Commissioner
Henning and seconded by Commissioner Coletta in regards to the
traffic light at Foxfire. I'll call the question at this time ifthere's no
further discussion.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carries 4-1, with
Commissioner Coyle dissenting.
Item #12A
CLOSED SESSION: RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PURSUANT TO SECTION
286.011(8), FLA. STAT., MEET IN EXECUTIVE (CLOSED
ATTORNEY-CLIENT) SESSION AT 12:00 P.M. ON TUESDAY,
Page 97
-".~----- -.------.-."..- -- .--
February 14,2006
FEBRUARY 14,2006, TO DISCUSS SETTLEMENT
NEGOTIATIONS AND/OR STRATEGY IN THE CASE OF
COLLIER COUNTY V. NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND
RESCUE DISTRICT, ET. AL., CASE NO. 02-1702-CA PENDING
IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FLORIDA. ATTENDING:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; COUNTY
ATTORNEY DAVID C. WEIGEL; ASSIST ANT COUNTY
ATTORNEY ELLEN T. CHADWELL; CRAIG B. WILLIS,
ESQUIRE; AND COUNTY MANAGER JAMES V. MUDD.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. I think we're
very close to lunchtime here, and we're going to be meeting up here in
our chambers; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, at noontime we will-- the board
will be considering item 12A, which is a recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to section 286.011(8) of
Florida Statutes meet in executive closed attorney/client session at 12
p.m. noon, in about four minutes, in your conference room on
Tuesday, February 14th, to discuss settlement negotiations and/or
strategy in the case of Collier County versus the North Naples Fire
Control and Rescue District.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. And we're going
to recess at this point in time, and we'll reconvene at one o'clock.
(The attorney/client closed session was had a luncheon recess
was had, and proceedings continued as follows:)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Item #12B
Page 98
-".-. -_._-_._~.- _._.m.._........__ ---.-..-----..-'-.-... .,...._,----
February 14,2006
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS REJECT THE SETTLEMENT OFFER
PROPOSED BY JOHN P. CARDILLO, ESQUIRE ON BEHALF OF
THE NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE
DISTRICT AND GIVE DIRECTION TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL,
CRAIG B. WILLIS, ESQUIRE, AND THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING COUNTER-OFFERS AND
LITIGATION STRATEGY IN THE CASE OF COLLIER COUNTY
V. NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT, ET
AI., CASE NO. 02-1702-CA; REJECTION OF SETTLEMENT
OFFER - APPROVED; CONSENSUS TO CONTINUE
NEGOTIATIONS
If everybody would take their seat, we're going to proceed.
We're out of noon recess and proceeding with item 12B.
MR. MUDD: And that's a recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners reject the settlement offer proposed by John P.
Cardillo, Esquire on behalf of the North Naples Fire Control and
Rescue District, and give direction to outside counsel, Craig P. Willis,
Esquire, and the Office of the County Attorney regarding
counteroffers and litigation strategies in the case of Collier County
versus North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District, et aI, case
number 02-1702-CA, and it's Goodlette-Frank Road project number
60134.
Mr. Willis?
MR. WILLIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's
Craig Willis, as the manager indicated, special counsel for Collier
County on eminent domain litigation.
This particular issue arose out of litigation for acquisition --
partial acquisition of property from the North Naples Fire Control and
Rescue District at station number 40, which is located on the north
side of Pine Ridge Road just east of Goodlette- Frank intersection.
Page 99
- ----.-- ,." -----_.---- --",,--------,--_..-
February 14,2006
And the county acquired 3,960 some square feet in order to do
the intersection improvements for Goodlette-Frank and Pine Ridge.
As a result of that acquisition and as part of the county's proposal to
pay for full compensation required under the constitution to the fire
district, it deposited into the court registry $162,000 some odd for
compensation. That deposit has been withdrawn by the fire district for
its use; however, the litigation is ongoing.
The district has proposed a settlement of the litigation and is
asking the county commission to transfer the deed to its ownership
that the county owns to the land for the Pelican Bay station where the
fire district has a fire station located there, to make all of the leases
with the county have a provision in it which would allow the fire
district to terminate the lease for use of its facilities with the county's
emergency medical services to a 90-day provision. I think there's one
contract that that would affect.
And, thirdly, to continue to have the use and possession of the
$162,000 some odd for the good faith deposit for the property that was
taken from station 40 on Pine Ridge Road.
That settlement offer, the recommendation from the County
Attorney's Office is that the board reject that particular settlement
proposal and give us some direction as to some alternative proposals
to resolve this litigation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any discussion or questions from
fellow commissioners?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Seeing none, or hearing none, do we
have a motion for either approval or denial?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I move that we reject the settlement
offer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion for denial by
Page 100
---,-.-..-.--...... ______,A_ _._..._.....__~__,_,_____.__..__ . _H.. ,',,_ ~--,-- ". .--".----.---.-
February 14,2006
Commissioner Coyle and seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would like to add though that
maybe we negotiate some type of an agreement whereby we change
the limitations, what do you call it, the 90-day limitations for the EMS
so that it coincides with all of the other agreements that we have in
place now.
MR. WILLIS: All right. You're suggesting that the one proposal
regarding the 90-day termination for the EMS service on the one
contract be amended to allow a 90-day termination of the EMS use of
that fire station facility?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No.
MR. WEIGEL: I think -- pardon me. County Attorney. I think
you're referring to the Pelican Bay --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: -- property, which is owned by the county, and
you are suggesting that the attorneys negotiate appropriately relating
to bringing the clause that exists with our current arrangement with the
North Naples Fire District at that facility to provide for a mutual
consent in regard to termination of one or the other's occupancy of
those premises.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: David, thank you very much. You
put it eloquently. That's exactly what I meant.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I suggest we handle these
separately? One as rejection of the settlement offer, and vote on that,
and then if we want to provide additional guidance as to further
negotiation, we can do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because I think the one thing
missing from this is that we don't -- I don't want to see any negotiation
Page 101
_.~. '-'""-'- . ----,.._---~,_._- --,
February 14,2006
with respect to any contract unless it is going to resolve the lawsuit,
end of story. I see no reason to unilaterally change it if it is not going
to solve the lawsuit problem.
MR. WILLIS: Within the context of the lawsuit to address that
issue, a mediation has been scheduled for this particular suit, and any
proposed settlement agreement that could be arrived at including
commissioner's suggestion would be subject to county commission
approval, and, accordingly, it could be a negotiating point if it's
something that the -- that we get some guidance from the county that's
something that might be obtainable.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, my point is that if we just
start giving away options at this point without accepting any
reciprocation, we are not negotiating from a position of strength. And
so I would like to see a vote on the original motion to deny the
settlement offer, and then let's have a discussion on what kind of --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, I think that's what we're
going to address, the first motion first, since we got a first and second
on that.
Is there any other further discussion?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I'll call the question, and this is for
denial.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Denial of the settlement offer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. The motion was made by
Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign.
Page 102
--" ...._~...- - ----_..__.._~
February 14,2006
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Now, we'll give guidance, or do we want to give a motion? I
think just basically guidance in regards to what we want to do here as
looking at the possibility to let you have the ability to see what you
can do other than giving up the property, but to come up with some
kind of a solution to the property.
MR. WILLIS: And I'd certainly give assurances to the
commission that any type of negotiation regarding that lease on the
Pelican Bay property would be part and parcel to overall settlement of
the litigation with regard to the fire station on Pine Ridge Road
certainly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would -- I'd be happy with that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. Everybody happy with that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WILLIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think you've got guidance, sir.
MR. WILLIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, sir.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 7,
which is Board of Zoning Appeals, and there's two items, 7 A and 7B.
I believe they're connected somewhat, and so I'll read them both. I
believe the board's going to want to hear them both, and then they can
take separate motions on each. Is that what you want to do, Michael?
MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir. We'd like to have the variance heard
first.
MR. MUDD: We'll do the variance first, right?
MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's 7B.
Page 103
---...-. - -,-,._- . -.--.-,,--,.,-
February 14,2006
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2006-35: PETITION V A-2004-AR-5438 DARRYL
1. DAMICO, REPRESENTED BY BEAU KEENE, P.E., OF
KEENE ENGINEERING, REQUESTING AN AFTER- THE-FACT
VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4.02.02C OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) OF THE EST A TES ZONING
DISTRICT FOR EARTH MINING TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
SITE AREA (20 ACRES). THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED
BETWEEN 54TH A VENUE N.E. AND 56TH AVENUE N.E., IN
SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. - ADOPTED W/CCPC
STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: That's 7B. This items requires that all-- and I'm
reading 7B, and then I'll read 7 A. 7B, this item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's a petition, variance, 2004-AR-5438, Darryl 1. Damico,
represented by Beau Keene, P.E., of Keene Engineering, requesting an
after-the-fact variance from section 4.02.02C of the Land
Development Code of the Estates zoning district for earth mining, to
exceed the maximum site area, which is 20 acres.
The property is located between 54th A venue Northeast and 56th
Avenue Northeast in Section 4, Township 48 south, Range 28 east,
Collier County, Florida.
And a companion item is the conditional use, and that's 7 A. This
item also requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's petition CU-2004-AR-5439. Darryl 1. Damico, represented
by Beau Keene, P.E., of Keene Engineering, requesting a conditional
use of the "E" Estates district for earth mining per Table 2, Section
Page 1 04
------ -.... .-,-.--.-, ,,-. -.----.. --- --"--"""--
February 14,2006
2.04.03 of the Land Development Code.
And the property location, I don't want to repeat it because I've
just said it before. And I will just note one more time, this is a
companion item to 7B, which is the variance. And I believe Michael
basically said that if the board so chooses, they have to vote on the
variance first before the conditional use; is that correct, sir?
MR. DERUNTZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would all those that are going to
participate in giving testimony on both 7 A and 7B please rise and
raise your right hand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll start to my left, far left, with
Commissioner Henning. Do you have any ex parte on this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's the far right. No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, my left, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Left. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But Henning is far right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So far.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I spoke to staff members on
both of the items and asked some questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The only ex parte I have on this
is just talking with our staff.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Likewise, staff is the only
people I consulted on this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I talked with the county
manager.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think we've got a couple of
Page 105
u_...- --""----- ~--"._~-_..-.-
February 14,2006
questions here. One was by Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. We really do need rock, and
earth mining is a very, very important activity for us, but I believe that
we are primarily responsible for upholding the law. And this earth
mining permit has been out of compliance for over three years.
I do not understand why we would even consider granting an
after-the-fact variance in view of the violations that have occurred
here. The size of the excavation has been increased by 30 to 40
percent. The conditional use has been -- has expired since 2002, if I
remember correctly.
It appears to me that there should be some penalty for doing that,
not a reward. And unless I hear something to the contrary, I'm not
going to vote for this after-the- fact variance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I feel the same way, that we're
looking -- that this person's looking for a reward. But I'll listen to my
other commissioners.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I think the question begs
to be asked is, is there anything that we can do as far as a person
violating their original agreement with the county?
Can you answer that, Stan? Is there anything that we have as far
as teeth in this where there's a penalty?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: As far as the conditional use, I don't
think so. As far as the excavation permit, it never expired. As long as
he kept digging, he had the permit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't understand.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: But do you want -- we had the same
condition with Jesse Hardy, if you remember. His conditional use was
going to expire, but the excavation permit never expired. So all we
came back for was the extension of the conditional use.
The conditional use is for the off-site hauling. It doesn't cover
the on-site digging. The excavation permit covers the on-site digging.
Page 106
--_. ..- - ---~~--_.~- ,- .~-,,-------_."_.- -_.-~~.,_..~ "'--.-
February 14,2006
Ifhe were to dig and keep the material on site, he could excavate. It's
the conditional use -- the hauling through the neighborhood is what is
a concern for most of the county.
If I could add something in here. As long as you're looking for,
not exactly a reason to let this go on -- I know the last two boards that
heard this, somebody wanted somebody punished. What we have here
is an excavation, that is two excavations, with a very small dike in
between, just barely. To make it legal, he got two separate excavation
permits for it, and I think he got them before conditional uses were
even required.
MR. DERUNTZ: That's correct.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: So there's some gray area here.
The dike that separates the two lakes should be removed. From
an engineering point of view, this is better being one large lake than
two small lakes separated by a small dike.
The Estates is building at a rapid rate. He has basically cut his
own throat by making a lot of his land unbuildable. We're probably
going to see fewer house lots out there than had he not done what he
did, which is not -- you know, it's not exactly an excuse for doing it.
But from an engineering point of view, I'd much rather see him dig the
whole thing up and put one house up there, fewer houses.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question, if I may.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And we do need the fill.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I know we need the fill,
and this man did violate some of the conditions; even if there might
not be any teeth, we can go back in and take a bite out of him for it.
Is there any possibility that the land that's left there could be
dedicated for affordable housing? I wonder if the petitioner would be
interested in doing that.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: From an engin -- I just gave you the
engineer's point of view on what we have and how we have to fix it.
As far as punishment, I guess you could do anything you want to
Page 107
---".-----..-..-.,----. ._--.-,- ..m._____........._._'... '--- .----
February 14,2006
them, short of flogging. I don't think --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But also, too, what is the sense
of just plain denying it when someone else is going to come back
later?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It would be a bad idea to deny it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It should be finished up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's ask the question, and
maybe the petitioner might want to address it later. Is there some
possibility that we might be able to use the land that's remaining for
affordable housing when this is done? Then it will serve a public
purpose, and I think my fellow commissioners would be a lot more
understanding of what we're up against.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd rather see him mine the whole thing
so we've got two huge lakes there and use all the rock for our roads.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you're right back to where
we were. But in any case, still, the question I asked, I'd like to have an
answer for.
MR. REYNOLDS: My name's Jason Reynolds from Keene
Engineering. I spoke to Darryl Damico yesterday, and he said he
would not be interested in doing affordable housing. We're already
giving up basically eight home sites. We have four five-acre tracts,
which can be split.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're giving up eight home
sites --
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- so that you can mine it.
MR. REYNOLDS: To reduce the density of the property. So
technically we could have up to 20 home sites. We're giving up eight
home sites to reduce the density on the property to 12.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought we had something in
our ordinances that required you to leave so much in the way of home
Page 108
. ._"_+__..___..H....d_._..~. --- "_u_.___....,._ .--...-..,. -"--
February 14,2006
sites available at all times. Or am I just thinking of the Estates itself or
-- oh, this is the Estates.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: One home site or two home sites.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's the requirements on
that?
Stan, can you answer that? Isn't there something in our
ordinances that requires so many home sites?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. Our ordinance requires that
every platted lot that we dig up have enough room to put a home site
on.
But you have to go back to the history of how this all started.
Remember Al McCall, the first of these excavations in the Estates?
We had a couple excavations come in, and they wanted to go property
line to property line.
At the time that was considered -- you also have to remember at
first the Estates was -- the land out there was only $1,000 an acre and
then went to $10,000 an acre, now it's up to $100,000 an acre. The
price of fill changed too.
So every few years the land is worth more than the fill, then the
fill is worth more than the land. So people want to dig out property
line to property line, then the next year they want to leave a little. I
think all that comes into play in how they set up their excavation.
But if you had all of this -- if they re-subdivide and create 12 --
MR. DERUNTZ: Twelve.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- buildable lots and they have a house
lot on each buildable lot, it meets the ordinance, and that's why we're
here, for the resubdivision and for the variance and to make the thing
conform. We're bringing it into conformance with the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: By making a variance?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can we listen to the petitioner, and then
we'll take staff, and then we'll answer the questions that
Page 109
--'-'-"--'-"'~'---"-"--~'''"-'-'''''' _ m_..___~.._ ,.--",-., -
February 14,2006
commissioners have here?
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, just basically what we've been talking
about is, you know, we just want to remove all that. I mean, it's going
to be, you know, more aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. It's
just going to -- it's going to look better.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you show us how much you're
going to move -- remove here?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's a mike right behind you,
SIr.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's a mike over -- right behind you,
sir. You might have to turn it on, too.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. Basically we're just going to be
removing all of this area here creating one huge lake for this whole
area, and all these home sites are depicted on our site plan for all but
12.
You know, this was just, you know, meant to be a dewatering
area in the beginning for these two lakes, and, you know, had a lot of
washout and everything, from what I understand, and they ended up
just -- it ended up being just one huge area, so then we basically
wanted to request a variance to remove all of this to make one huge
lake.
We're going to be exceeding the 20-acre required for the Estates,
up to 25.19. But it's just going to be a whole lot better for the
neighborhood and, you know, for the county in general with what we
build.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, I think you
had a question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. When this permit was
originally granted, it approved 15 acres for excavation size. Is that not
right, Stan?
MR. REYNOLDS: There was actually one five-acre tract in '97
and a 10-acre tract in '99.
Page 110
""- .------~.- .~.._- "--
February 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So it was approved for a
total of 15 acres of excavation?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've gone to almost 20,19.11
acres.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did you get approval to do that
from anybody?
MR. REYNOLDS: I'm just here to do the variance, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're in violation of the permit.
MR. REYNOLDS: I guess technically. But that was just meant
as a dewatering area, that area that was -- it's -- from what I
understand, it's only about six feet deep. And now we just want to
include the whole site as one huge lake, which would create more fill.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's one way I would vote to
solve this problem and that is if you mine every single inch of this site
for gravel purposes, and there would be no houses, period. That is --
you know, with all of the additional five acres of fill that has been
pulled out of there, how much is that worth?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Sir, it's not gravel coming out of this
site. It's mostly a sand fill; it's not rock.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's house pad fill and miscellaneous
fill, not the kind of stuff that you could use for roads other than
shoulders.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I am not going to reward
somebody for violating a permit, and I'm also very disappointed that
our engineering department has said that they've been attempting to
bring this into compliance for three years. Why is it we're just now
hearing about this? What actions have been taken and what is it that
prohibits you from taking action to solve this problem before it gets to
this point?
Page III
-...-..-.-.-.-....- --....., .-_._- --.__.".,_.-.-.- ---~-_..- -..---.
February 14,2006
MR. DERUNTZ: For the record, my name is Mike DeRuntz, I'm
a Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land
Development Review.
There has been some circumstances that the applicant had to deal
with and -- relating to an environmental review on the property, which
took over a year, and then there was the -- an action by the
engineering department to take some of the excavation requirements
out of the Land Development Code and put it into the code of laws
and ordinances, which were involved -- some of the issues were
involved in this site, so they were reluctant, you know, to wait until
that was approved a month or two ago.
And so that is part of the reason for some of the delay of getting
this request before the board at this point in time.
A couple other elements. The -- in looking at this, we really need
to act on what was advertised in the request as far as size of the
development and how much -- if it was approved for a variance. We
would need to stick with the area that was called for.
In our excavation requirements, there is a minimum setback
requirement to adjoining properties and to roadways, so that would
have to be taken into consideration.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait. Let's get back to my
question.
MR. MUDD: He asked you a question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you agree that they exceeded
the size of the excavation that was approved?
MR. DERUNTZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, did you know that
they exceeded the size of the excavation that was approved?
MR. DERUNTZ: Engineering department had -- was aware of
this, and they were in contact with the property owner and the
applicant. And they brought them in and -- when it was discovered,
and said, you know, we need to abate this problem.
Page 112
M'._M"_.__,._. -- -'."-~--,,-,,....._._,.._- ---" ._u,,___
February 14,2006
And in their discussions, they felt that this was the most
appropriate way of abating this problem, take this due process of
going for a variance of the area, maximum area requirement for
excavation in the Estates district, and a conditional use because you're
going to be excavating, and now excavating in the Estates requires a
conditional use. And it was their suggestion and -- agreed to follow
this approach.
If it's denied, then there's a recourse of, you know, filling the
lakes back in, you know, bringing code enforcement into it, citing
them, and so on and so forth. But it was felt, because of the benefits --
you know, this thing happened, and now we would need to try to
rectify it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if I understand the logic, if I got
a -- if I got a permit to build a three-bedroom home and I built a
four-bedroom home and you found out about it, you would tell me it's
okay to go ahead and build it five bedrooms because I've already
violated the code?
MR. DERUNTZ: No, sir, that's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what we're saying here, isn't
it?
MR. DERUNTZ: Well, I would -- I think we need the
engineering department to address that, because it was -- this
excavation permit is in their area. Stan?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other question I have,
Commissioner, also is, since this is not rock that we can use for roads,
it's strictly sand, that really puts some added emphasis on why we
should continue this.
But, Stan, maybe you can convince me.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, the fill comes out of the ground
no matter where it comes from. The more different fill pits we have
throughout the county -- if you excuse me one second.
I don't know if you can switch to the visualizer. That little dark
Page 113
--".."'"-----,~.",,. ._~'".____.m_..._ . "-"_.._- ...__._~-
February 14,2006
circle up in the corner here, that's where the pit is, and the deeper red
colors are where we have all the growth out in the Estates. Now,
whatever goes from that fill pit onto fill pads doesn't come out of other
excavations, and it doesn't have to travel longer distances across the
roads. So from an efficiency point of view, I think we'd much rather
see the fill come out of there.
As to Commissioner Coyle's question about building permits, if
you built a house and the code allowed you to build a four-bedroom
house and you had a three-bedroom house, I'm -- you'd have to ask
Bill Hammond whether we'd make you tear the house down or just
reapply for an after-the-fact building permit at four times the cost,
which is, I think, common punishment for that. It's basically a
monetary thing.
We do have one excavation in the Estates that we turned in to
code -- we turned this one in to code enforcement a year ago. We
have one that code took to the Code Enforcement Board, and they
slapped a fine of $200 a day on the person.
It's a year now, and they're still in the process of -- not everybody
out there is tremendously familiar with our process, but I think the fine
is approaching the value of the land. It's out of proportion to the
violation. He's got a pond in his back yard -- he's got two ponds in his
two back yards.
I'm sure that there's some punishment like there would be for
building a four-bedroom house on a three-bedroom set of drawings
other than tearing the house down, or maybe you would make them
tear the house down. I suppose I've seen that done, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just the added bedroom.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So the fill -- is there any way
-- and this is probably more of a legal question than anything else, but
stay there, Stan. Is there a way that we could make some arrangement
Page 114
--~--- .-- .._._-_....-._~----_.- - _._---~.-
February 14,2006
where all the fill must be sold within Collier County, taking less -- or
putting less stress on the roads, getting it into the areas that we need it
and not being sold maybe to adjoining counties? That's my first
question.
The second question, stringent monitoring. Is there a way that, if
we allow this to be approved, that stringent monitoring -- and if
forever -- you know, we have in this agreement here something about
seven a.m. to five p.m. Monday through Friday, and if they're out
there digging on Saturday, shut them down and they can't operate
anymore. Something very stringent along that line.
And thirdly -- and most importantly, I love Commissioner
Coletta's suggestion that we put some stipulations into this agreement
whereby the housing pads must accommodate a great percentage of
affordable and gap housing, and fine, along with some market rate, but
then we would answer another need and we would be -- we would
then have a reason for approving this.
Can these things be done?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, the first, I don't think you're going
to see this fill hauled to Lee County because we're getting a lot of our
fill from Lee County right now. It's just -- it's probably going to be
used in the Estates near where it's being dug from. And you can tell
there's not much fill left coming out of there, just what's in that berm
in the middle.
Monitoring, well, the reason that a lot of these are up here now is,
a few years ago when we finally got decent aerial photography of the
county, we went through and we looked at the whole county and saw
some lakes that had not been permitted.
I think we had six -- we have 950 excavation permits in Collier
County. Some of them are for as many as 20 lakes. So we got
between 3- and 4,000 lakes in the county. We found six that were not
permitted.
We've -- I think we have this one and one more left. You're
Page 115
--.--.-..------.-----.--.,- "-_..,--~_.__._._~~-,- ."-.--.
February 14,2006
going to see the other one, the $70,000 fine one probably in a couple
of months, if he ever gets through our system.
And we -- at that time we instituted a program of having
inspectors go out to each site every month to see what's going on.
And we have always had yearly monitoring reports, but a yearly
report is just not often enough to do.
And as far as whether or not these people want to go to
affordable housing, you just heard them say no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, if they don't want
to, we don't have to vote for this either, do we?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, no, ma'am, you don't. But I don't
know, other than some type of fine against the property that kind of
goes by day -- at some point you're going to tell him he has to abate
whatever's out there and bring it into conformance with code.
And if you tell him that, then you want him to fill part of the lake
back in to bring it into conformance with the percentage of lot fill, and
that's not a good use of fill at this time for what we have out there. He
has to slope his banks. Like I say, engineering would prefer to see one
big lake than two small lakes and a shallow dewatering areas. We'd
love to see one big lake and a littoral area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd love to see affordable housing
nestled all around a big lake. I think it would be a wonderful asset.
Most of the people that are in our workforce don't have the
opportunity to live around a lake. I think this would be a wonderful
idea.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am, and you better set up a
lottery for those people that are out there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I'm going to
continue this discussion with the County Attorney, where we're going
with this. Do we have the legal ability to do what we're asking?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: In terms of the questions raised by
Page 116
-- ^~__"_'"""_m.,...._.._ ...-.-- -~-_.-
February 14,2006
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. As to the restriction ofthe
sale of fill, I feel that's problematic and the county probably does not
have the authority to do that, to dictate where a product has to be sold
because of constitutional requirements about not impairing obligations
and contracts and so forth.
As to the affordable housing, as long as -- we don't have a
program yet in place. As long as a person is willing to donate
affordable housing or agree to utilize affordable housing on site, that's
fine, and that works well for us.
But on -- again, under the Dolan versus Tygard (phonetic), the
supreme court case about rough proportionality and exactions, I don't
-- you'd have to show that somehow this development -- or excuse me
-- this excavation would create some type of demand for affordable
housing, and you'd have to know what that demand would be. And
under the rough proportionality, that would be amount of affordable
housing that could be requested.
But again, because we're working on a program but we don't yet
have it, it becomes more problematic if the applicant does not agree to
it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to continue on my
questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does the applicant agree to the
Planning Commission's stipulations? There's 11 stipulations here?
MS. MURRAY: May I? I'm sorry. Susan Murray, for the
record, zoning director. I was going to suggest as one of the
alternatives you suggested, Commissioner Fiala, perhaps Marjorie, a
limitation could be placed on the area in which the fill could be
hauled, maybe a millage or distance area, and I only say that from the
perspective of impacts on road network and that --
Page 117
~- -""~-"---'---'-'- ___._H-.__.__.,,___
February 14,2006
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes.
MS. MURRAY: -- condition would be placed under the
conditional use. Under the conditional use, the use is that which is
permitted in the district, however, needs approval from the BZA
because it has impacts that may be negative to the surrounding
communities. So I think that would be a logical nexus between
limiting the distance one could haul fill versus the impact on the
community.
I also wanted to speak to Commissioner Coyle's concern about,
in a sense, approving or the sense of approving a wrong here. This is
just an option. It was one of the options, I guess, that the applicant
intended to pursue to see if he could gain approval from you for both
the variance and conditional use.
If you decide to deny the variance, in a sense you have also
denied the conditional use, although I believe you'll have to take
separate action on that.
If that happens, again, this would likely go back to the Code
Enforcement Board for some other sort of punishment. But this was
just merely an option that the petitioner had to legitimize what has
occurred out there illegally. And if this fails, then he will have to seek
other remedial action either by correcting the errors or going through
the Code Enforcement Board or both possibly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Now we need to have
Commissioner Henning's question answered.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: By the applicant. Are you
accepting the Planning Commission's 11 stipulations?
MR. REYNOLDS: I'd really have to talk to the client about that.
He's not here today. But as far as, you're talking about the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS: -- affordable housing?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no. The Planning
Commission made 11 stipulations with this variance and conditional
Page 118
---"-_.-- ~--_.- ..__.._-.
February 14,2006
use.
MR. REYNOLDS: I haven't seen those.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Were you at the Planning
Commission meeting?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: When it was brought up to the Planning
Commission and they gave guidance to us, they put in their record 11
points.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually most of them were
staffs recommendations and they expounded upon them.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, I've seen these. Yeah, this was standard
stuff, yes, sir. We were all in agreeance to those requirements.
But, you know, I want to get back to the -- if you deny the
conditional use and the variance, you know, there's just not enough
dirt in there. I mean, even if they did remove the centers to fill back in
the dewatering, the truck traffic in there, you know, which is going to
be for the conditional use as well -- I mean, you're going to have a lot
more truck traffic bringing fill back into that area, not only just for --
you know, just for the pit, but I mean, it's -- I believe just -- it would
be better to remove the fill and the dike between the properties just to
create more fill, and it would just be better for -- and I agree with what
you're saying as far as rewarding them for overdigging, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I ask some more questions?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks. The sand here, is that
used for septic tanks? I know there's only certain areas in Collier
County where you can get that quality of sand.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. We do a lot of septic engineering at
Keene Engineering, and a lot of the sand does come out of there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Otherwise, it would have
to come from where in Collier County?
MR. REYNOLDS: Big Island Pit had some. Everybody's
Page 119
..-"--' ~"'~ .....----.., '-"""'-
February 14,2006
probably running out. They were trucking in a lot from Ortona.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wherever that is. That's
somewhere in northern Florida, isn't it, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: North of here, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. REYNOLDS: But a lot of it was coming in from out of
here. They just couldn't find any fill around here. I've talked to
several installers around town, and they were having problems finding
fill in this county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, that's something to
consider. Thank you.
MR. REYNOLDS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did the County Attorney have
something to add to this before I go on to the next commissioner?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just wanted to state regarding Ms.
Murray's suggestion, that if the board were to find that there was an
adverse impact on hauling the material at great distances, either out of
the county or within the county, that as part of the conditional use, you
could add a stipulation about limiting the distance the material could
be hauled. But you'd need to make a finding based on what's in the
record, that there would be an adverse impact.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The -- I think what my
fellow commissioners are getting at, everything that comes before us
anymore has to serve a certain public good. Grant you, the good
you're serving is you're providing the fill for the house pads. Then
people won't have to put it on the road for a longer distance to get it,
and that's a positive thing to a point.
The thing is, is that we've got these mitigating circumstances of
the fact that it did slide for some period of time. You're being brought
into compliance now. You're given an opportunity by staff to be able
to come into compliance. And the commission's got to come up with
Page 120
^----.-...---.,-------.....- - -_._._~-----_...'~.,,'_..- , ..--....---.- -----
February 14,2006
a certain level of comfort that what they're doing is for the public
good, and this is the reason why all this discussion and why this thing
is dragging out the way it is.
I know that the -- excuse me. The neighbors haven't raised any
objection to this, from what I've been able to hear, and I haven't heard
anything from the civic association with objections, and that speaks
well, you know. You're still in an isolated part of the county for the
most part. What few neighbors you have don't seem to be troubled by
it.
But with that said, you know, there's still the underlying issue.
And I'd like to see this thing resolved today, but it takes four
commissioners to move this thing forward, if I'm not mistaken, and
that could raise a problem. We have already had a couple of
commissioners here come out very strong in opposition to it.
Commissioner Henning said something a few minutes ago that, I
thought it might be something you might want to entertain while
everybody regroups and discusses this further on your end and staffs
end, and that's for a continuance.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. We've recently just heard about this
affordable housing issue on Friday. And, you know, we were really
addressing a continuance on this whole thing when we first heard
about that. We weren't even sure if it was going to come up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it came up. And I don't
know where you stand, and it's your call where you want to go. But I
think a -- asking for a continuance might be a great idea.
MR. REYNOLDS: I think that would probably be a good idea as
well. I mean, you know, we really need to confer with our client and
see what he really wants to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why are we continuing it?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would like to emphasize
something here. We don't condone violation of the laws just because
Page 121
~_.-- ----,'-"--. ..- "._..~-~. ~'-'--_.- ---..- --
February 14,2006
it happens to be convenient for us. We need the fill, residents need the
fill, we don't want people driving long distances on the highway with
trucks. Those are conveniences. We don't violate the law, nor do we
condone violation of the law because it happens to be convenient for
us. We have to enforce the law.
The law has been violated here, and how in the world do we
enforce the law by permitting you to violate it even further?
Secondly, a continuance serves no purpose. It's been continued now
for three years essentially, and the engineering department has said
they've been trying to resolve it for three years.
Ifwe continue it, there's no obligation for you to come back to us
at all. You can just continue digging, I presume. Nobody's going to
stop you, it appears.
So I don't see that there is any point in continuing it. I don't see
that there's any point to -- debating how badly we need this fill. Of
course we do, but that is not a good reason for continuing to allow a
violation of a permit. It's that simple.
Now, if we disapprove this permit, then the owner will be
motivated to come back with a proposal that makes some sense to us,
okay? And that's pretty much where we are.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that -- and forgive me. I
understand where you're coming from, Commissioner Coyle, and
probably 90 percent of everything you said I'm in total agreement
with, however, a continuance gives us the ability to be able to see
what kind of negotiations can take place back there to make -- to do
some public good, to try to make up for the sins that have been
committed in the past.
What would a two-week continuance cost us? It would cost us
nothing, and then these people could pick up from where they are and
come back before us, and we could accept it or reject it at that time.
For a continuance it takes three votes. For approval it takes four. And
Page 122
..'___m""_'~_",,_ ---_.,.- -.---.-,.,-- --",-,--
February 14,2006
if you get disapproval, I don't think you can get a continuance at that
-- I'm sorry.
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, for--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I stand corrected.
MR. MUDD: -- zoning actions, like a conditional use, it takes a
supermajority. A variance takes three votes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But we're coming up to
four.
MR. MUDD: That's the second half.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The second half. And I assure
you that if you only get three now, you'd probably get three on the
next one, which means you lost out. But you have to say it, that you
want a continuance, and I'd make a motion to that effect. It's your
call.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: He's already had a continuance on this,
haven't you? No? On this issue?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Since 2002.
MR. DERUNTZ: It has not come before -- this is the first time
it's come before the board for the variance or the conditional use. The
time period, the three-year period was, they were working through
environmental issues and then amendment in the land -- the code of
laws and ordinances.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the reason I'm asking for
this, if! seem to be pushing for it, it's not to give them two more
weeks of operating time. I'm sure during that two weeks that some
negotiations will take place that will put us in a very advantageous
position that will mean well for Collier County.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Excuse me, sir. They're not operating.
They haven't operated in eight months to a year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it would make no difference
if we waited two more weeks?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir, it would not.
Page 123
..__...u_____"...._..__._._ --"---....-- --.._~.-
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But 1-- if someone would say
they want a continuance, I'd make it a motion.
MR. REYNOLDS: I'd have to say so because of the -- just the
affordable housing issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't know what it's going
to come out to be. You still --
MR. REYNOLDS: Right. But, I mean, you know, with our
client not being here, I can't really speak for him without conferring
with him as far as what he wants to do. Like you said, maybe we
should make some offer and see what happens.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you really want to be in the
strongest bargaining position, you turn it down now, and that gives the
owner the motivation to go back and find a solution. You continuing
it doesn't do anything.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to clarify something. I
didn't ask this issue to be continued, okay, and especially for
affordable housing because I know that we don't have any laws on
those type of exactions, and I'm not going to get involved in
something that might have the perception of contract zoning.
So I mean, if that's the issue of continuing, I'm very skeptical of
even participating in this discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I never made an issue. I
just think that they might be better prepared. His client isn't here. He
doesn't know --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which issue --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- he's frozen in the -- on the
spot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What issue do we have to
address?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's the public good? What
Page 124
^--......- _._,....__..."n '-'--.
February 14,2006
do they want to come forward and tell us what they're going to do?
Maybe it's --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Trying to extract something out of them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wouldn't call it extraction. It's
what they want to do for the public good. Well, then vote it down and
get it over with, just to put them out of their misery.
MR. MUDD: Ms. Filson, do we have any speakers on this
particular item?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I entertain a motion.
MR. JOLLY: My name is Don -- oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did you sign up, sir?
MR. JOLLY: Yes, I -- I swore in.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, did you sign a speaker slip?
MR. JOLL Y: No, I did not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're one of the principals
though, right?
MR. JOLL Y: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. JOLL Y: I'm the excavator. I'm the one that's doing the --
I'm the guilty party.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not doing the digging?
You're not doing digging now, are you?
MR. JOLLY: No, no, sir. We don't have a unit out there that
we're dredging in the bottom, but we're not running now. We're ready
to, but we're not.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Dredging in the bottom.
MR. JOLLY: We're going to be dredging the bottom, the sand
out of the bottom is what we want to do, because there's no sand in
Collier County. We're going to Ortona to buy it.
What happened there, I mean, I might as well tell you. I mean,
this is the way I feel.
Page 125
.--.--- -...._---~--- -"-.-
February 14,2006
MR. MUDD: Sir, you just said you were dredging. Are you
dredging -- you're dredging and you're putting -- and you're putting the
spoil or the sand --
MR. lOLLY: I'm not dredging -- I'm not dredging at this time,
no. Maybe I spoke that wrong.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You said you were dredging the bottom.
MR. lOLL Y: Well, I want to dredge the bottom, yes, for sand. I
have the okay to dredge it. Right now the machine's broke, so I am
not dredging. That's what I'm trying to say. I have the okay to dredge
for the bottom, but the machine is broken. I'm not doing it at this
time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So if you were dredging -- if the
machine was fixed, you'd still be in violation, if you were dredging?
MR. lOLLY: No, I'd be in the same lake that I had the
excavating permit for, the same lake, if the machine was running.
What happened about three years ago is, we had a storm,
whatever you want to say, I don't remember what it -- which storm it
was, and the middle of the lake collapsed with the pump, and that's
how I had the two lakes apart, and I had my retainment area apart,
which sets right there in the corner, as you can see how it washed out.
VVhathappenedis--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's a mike right there.
MR. lOLL Y: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And maybe you can just point it out.
That would be easier.
MR. lOLL Y: What had --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's on.
MR. lOLLY: It's on, okay. What happened is, I had the pump
sitting in here. This here is just a water retainment area to hold all our
water to -- instead of sending it anywhere else. I had a washout of
major proportion. This completely was gone. As you see, it kind of
washed that way. But eventually the pump ended up in the water over
Page 126
__'___""'._..,,_n_'_ _ ".__ ---_..,._,-_.,...._._-_.~.""_. _.__"M'_. "
February 14,2006
here, and that's what started this problem.
So I went in to Stan, and I had told him that I had a monster
washout, and I would like to connect both the lakes together. That's
what I wanted to do, as well as put in a little bit of this containment
area.
And at that time, he said, then I have to go to conditional use, and
basically I've been working on that ever since, and that's the whole --
the story of it, and that's what happened what -- I mean, I lost three
acres of land from, you know, the washin. I mean, there was
definitely a terrible washin.
I built a lot of it back by pulling it up on here so I could still
make my line like it's supposed to be. But actually all I want to do is
take out this line, this line, and this line, and, of course, there's some
earth in here, but not very much.
As you can see, there's plenty of earth underneath here that we
haven't got out of there yet because of water, and it's just too shallow
to get to.
We have to wait till the dry season before we can do it, which is
right now, which that's the reason that we're here now, to try to get so
we can work it in the dry season. The sooner -- the better you work.
You know -- and I don't know what Darryl's going to say about --
and he's the owner of the property. I don't know what he's going to
say about having affordable housing. I mean, we're open to
suggestions. We need to get this resolved. I mean, it's something you
don't want -- you know, we need to get it resolved.
I would like to see it resolved as soon as I can. I can have Darryl
here for the next meeting, if that's possible. I don't know. But I'd like
to see it resolved. If they only give us so many houses to build, that's
fine. I mean, we did something wrong, yet it's water. I don't know --
anytime you fool with water, water's terrible. I mean, water can wash
away land.
This is so shallow right here. Of course, that's why the dredge
Page 127
.---..-..- ---.-- -~"~._- -"-,~
February 14,2006
can dredge it out, and we'll have more land. I mean, we need land, we
need sand in Collier County. All the trucks are coming from north.
There's no more pits. It is a very big problem. I mean, we all know it.
We're not -- we're not -- definitely don't (sic) understand that there
isn't a problem.
And that's why I'm trying to say it. I can get this back into shape.
If they only want to let us do six houses, I mean, whatever they want
__ whatever you all want, I'm sorry, they. I mean, we want to get this
resolved, and I'd like to get it resolved.
I mean, that's my point, and I think I can fix it. There's been
other lakes -- and you can ask Stan -- that I've went in that somebody
dug on the wrong property, and I went and fixed it. I mean, I know
how to fix lakes.
So I had a problem here, and I'm sorry that it happened. I mean,
you want to fine us for it, whatever you want to do. We need to get
this resolved. It's sitting there, and it really needs to be one lake. And
Stan will agree with me.
Thank you. My name is Don Jolly. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To move this item along, I'm
going to make a motion to approve with staffs stipulations and
Planning Commission's stipulations.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion's been made. Yes?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just want to state that if there is
anyone that doesn't support the motion, if they'd state their reasons
utilizing the criteria for variances set forth in the notebooks that you've
been provided, as well as the staff report, to make that a reason for the
vote against. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: And the item you're voting on is 7B first, which is
the variance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep, okay. There's been a motion made
Page 128
--- ..-,.-..-----.-- -....-----
February 14,2006
and a second in regards to approving this variance of this sand pit.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye -- by like sign. So the motion
passes, I believe, 3-2.
MR. MUDD: For the variance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: For the variance, yep.
MR. MUDD: The next item is 7B (sic), which is a--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Unbelievable, absolutely
unbelievable.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, 7 A.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
Item #7 A
PETITION CU-2004-AR-5439, DARRYL J. DAMICO,
REPRESENTED BY BEAU KEENE, P.E., OF KEENE
ENGINEERING, REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE OF THE
"E" ESTATES DISTRICT FOR EARTH MINING PER TABLE 2,
SECTION 2.04.03 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
(LDC). THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN 54TH
AVENUE N.E. AND 56TH AVENUE N.E., GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES UNIT 45, IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. COMPANION
ITEM: V A-2004-AR-5438; MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE
Page 129
u,.__._ ~-~_._--~-
February 14,2006
FEBRUARY 28. 2006 BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: 7 A, which requires a supermajority vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion that we
continue this. Thought I'd give it a try.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For what purpose?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To be able to do an on-site
inspection by myself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion made for
the continuance of this.
County Manager, was that -- will that fit in our agenda for the
next upcoming meeting, which is, I believe, February 28th?
MR. MUDD: February 28th meeting is quite full, but if this
discussion has -- you know, if you're just trying to answer a couple of
questions since you've debated it and you've seen what you've got, this
could be relatively easy. But if it's not going to be a relatively easy
item on the 28th, I would suggest you go to the 28th of March,
because that's the first free meeting that you have that isn't just jam
packed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioners, we really have a
hard decision here to make.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think the decision has been
made a little bit for us. We're at the dry season, and if they're ever
going to capture the sand that's out there, they have to be able to do it
in a reasonable period of time. In two weeks I think that we could
probably get this thing up in front of us, a motion be made in very
Page 130
-_.-. ----_._--~. ---- ,.---.--
February 14,2006
short order with the idea that the item will be fresh in our minds, we'll
be able to remember it. We won't have to get into a lengthy
discussion, and I think we can reach an agreement in very short order.
I know it's a long meeting, but I don't think we're going to take more
than 15 minutes with it when it comes back.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that a -- have I got your assurance it's
going to be 15 minutes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I just have to make sure
that Coyle stays quiet, and then we'll be able to get through it, you
know.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion? If not, I'll
call the question on this. So we'll only need three on this, is that right?
MR. MUDD: And the question -- the question is for a
continuance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continuance till February 28th. Excuse
me, what -- oh, close the public hearing on this.
Okay. Now we're going to have a -- call the question in regards
to continuing this till February 28th.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Item #8A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2006-36: PUDEX-2005-AR-7824
PAWEL AND TERYL BRZESKI, REPRESENTED BY GARY
BUTLER, OF BUTLER ENGINEERING, INC., REQUESTING A
SECOND TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE MAGNOLIA POND
Page 131
.--.-.- .--" ---..'----""-"-' . ....,"~.u__.___. ,--
February 14,2006
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) GRANTED BY
ORDINANCE NUMBER 9849, AND EXTENDED UNTIL JUNE 9,
2005 BY RESOLUTION NUMBER 04-284, PURSUANT TO LDC
SECTION 10.02.l3.D. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING
OF 42.05 ACRES, IS LOCATED ON MAGNOLIA DRIVE, WEST
OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, BETWEEN 1-75 AND THE
GOLDEN GATE CANAL, IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 8A, and this
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by commission members.
It's PUD-EX-2005-AR-7828 (sic), Pawel and Teryl Brzeski
represented by Gary Butler of Butler Engineering, Inc., requesting a
second two-year extension of the Magnolia Pond planned unit
development, PUD, granted by ordinance number 98-49, and extended
until -- and the ordinance -- or the original PUD extended until June 9,
2005, by resolution number 04-284, pursuant to the Land
Development Code, 10.02.13.D.
Subject property consists of 42.05 acres, is located on Magnolia
Drive west of Collier Boulevard between 1-75 and the Golden Gate
Canal in Section 34, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, Collier
County, Florida.
The petitioner has requested an extension until February 28,
2006. The board was going to vote on it as it came along on the
change sheet this morning.
I would mention to the board again, the 28th of February meeting
is a very busy agenda item, as I've reviewed it. My recommendation,
Commissioner, if you are going to continue this particular item, that
you do so and you make it 28 March, which is your first meeting that
has some openings in it as far as time is concerned.
Page 132
___._ _m._._.._______ ..."._._,._~"-_.,,_. "-,,._-~
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They want to extend it to June
something.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, you had a
question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I received some
information provided by the County Attorney, what wasn't included in
our executive summary that the Board of Commissioners approve, a
second PUD extension on June 17,2005. So I thought it was not in
compliance. So they get actually a -- two years, am I correct, David?
MR. WEIGEL: No. I think that they received one extension, but
it was not for a full two-year period, which expired June 9th of2005.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what happened -- on June
17, 2005, an application for a second PUD extension was received by
the county.
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wasn't approved by the Board
of Commissioners.
MR. WEIGEL: It has not come to you until now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So does it meet the spirit
of the ordinance?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the spirit of the ordinance is that it's purely
the prerogative of the board to approve or not approve an extension. It
does not have -- if the board should approve an extension, whether it's
the first or the second, it does not have to be for a full two years. It
can be for any increment of that time, if the board approves it at all.
And the board, if it does hear the matter, can, in fact, in
reviewing the staff report, look at the questions that are asked and
answered in a factual form to determine if it's appropriate to extend,
and, of course, you can ask questions of the applicant, the petitioner,
as to what their plans are for the future and why they are where they
are at this point in time after several years after the approval, initial
approval.
Page 133
-----" ---,------_..._-- -._-
February 14,2006
I hope I've answered your question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So do we want to continue this or
do we want to hear it today?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I say hear it today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I'd say hear it today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Then all those that are going to
be testifying in this --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, wait. Hold it, hold it. You
just took a vote and everything for a continuance. You have to roll
that all back. No, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, no, we didn't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me, forgive me. Go
ahead. Go ahead.
MR. MUDD: Can I -- I've had two head nods not to continue it.
Do I have a third?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Okay. We're going to hear the item.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those that are going to be giving
testimony on 8A, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn
m.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Start with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no ex parte disclosures.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I discussed this with staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I discussed this briefly with staff,
but I have no other disclosures.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I discussed this also with
different staff members. I have some correspondence and some
emails.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
Page 134
w...____..... _.___w___ ^..---
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Applicant's presentation, please.
MR. BUTLER: Gary Butler with Butler Engineering,
representing the petitioner on the Magnolia Pond PUD extension.
I want to reiterate one quick item, and that is, we've been
working with staff for about the past nine months to get this to the
board. About a month ago we had a recommendation for approval
from all departments. That changed about two weeks ago, less than
two weeks ago, 10 days ago, with transportation where they had
originally signed off last July, they came back and said, we're revising
our recommendation. We haven't had any time to prepare for that.
We've talked to staff briefly where we thought we'd have two
weeks to talk to them and see if we could work out our differences.
That was the reason for the request for the two-week extension.
I know you've already said you don't want to extend, but I
thought I'd bring that up to make sure everybody knew the bottom line
on that. It wasn't our plan to extend. It was a last-minute change on
staffs level, okay?
The PUD's been in progress for a long time. We haven't actually
started development. I mean, I assume you want me to go on with a
minor presentation and answer questions.
We've been working with staff and with neighbors, including the
school board, with development of the PUD. The road, Magnolia
Pond Road's been put in, water and sewer's been put in, in cooperation
with us and the school board.
We're not asking for anything different. Obviously this is just an
extension. We came back two years ago, a year and a half ago and
had an extension to last June. This is a request for an extension to
next June.
And we do, in earnest, intend to develop the project if you grant
us this extension, within this time -- the new time constraint.
We have worked with everybody. The county's asked us for
Page 135
--.,.... -~-,.. ~-,-".... -
February 14,2006
some drainage easements. There's been several other items that have
come up.
We did resubmit this prior to the expiration. There was a new
requirement to put a traffic study in, we did that. There was
requirements from the environmental to do some work that we
completed last November, you know, three months ago.
And we -- I understand the impacts with transportation are
regarding the area out there, the roadways and the concurrency issues.
Other than that, if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer
them. I'm not prepared to speak on everything. Our traffic guy's not
here, our environmental guy's not here, but I can probably answer
most of your questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have anything -- any
questions?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How about we have any -- anything
from staff in regards to this?
MS. ZONE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name, for the
record, is Melissa Zone, principal planner with the department of
zoning and land development.
I received this PUD application, as Gary Butler had stated, the
agent, this has been through the process. On June 9th of 1998, the
commissioners went ahead and approved the rezoning from
agricultural to a PUD document known as the Magnolia Pond PUD.
September 21 st of 2004, the board approved the first extension,
and resolution was adopted of oh four to 84 (sic). The extension was
approved till June 9th of2005.
The applicants came in on March 3rd of 2005 for a
pre-application with county staff where they discussed the process of
applying for this extension.
June 17th, the application was brought into the county. There
was a resubmittal in November -- November 11th of2005. And so
Page 136
-._<-- ----,.,- ---------.------- ".. --
February 14, 2006
what happened, from March 29th to 2005 till today, the applicant has
been working with county staff on issues that they saw needed to be
addressed.
There was a change in the recommendation from approval to
denial based on the transportation element of policy 5.1 and policy
5.2, and this is where we are today.
The agent and applicant has asked to extend the PUD. We're
moving forward. All departments, the comprehensive plan deemed
this to be consistent with the future land use, the environmental issues
have been resolved, and the agent and applicant have agreed to handle
any issues that environmental have during their site development plan,
which there is a provision in their PUD that states that that is at the
time they were going to go ahead and work with the preserves.
So our issue today would be with the transportation, and the
board's recommendation to either move forward with the
recommendation of denial by staff based on policy 5.1 or 5.2 or going
ahead with the approval of the extension.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions from staff or from
commissioners?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Norm Feder?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think you need to know why
transportation changed their particular approval back in June versus
where it sits right now with recommendation of disapproval, and I
have Norman at the podium in order to tell you that.
MR. FEDER: Last July we provided approval, as was noted.
Then we came back further in November, and then after that. By that
time the state had removed Davis Boulevard from their work program,
therefore no longer could we deal with the five-year consistency, and
that's why we had to change our recommendation from approval to
denial.
I know that the representative and the developer is looking for
what alternatives of consideration of mitigation, things they could
Page 13 7
------------ --,,_.'--~"--'-'---"- --.,... -..- - ---
February 14,2006
look at.
My understanding is, even if it sunsetted, they could come back
on that project ifthere's some changes, or if it's the board's desire,
we'll be happy to work with them. But as it stands right now, without
any alteration to the state's removal of Davis Boulevard, we have to
recommend denial for consistency reasons.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Norm, is it because we've already got so
much permitted out in that general area?
MR. FEDER: As you well know, we've got an awful lot in that
area and a lot of concerns about that area. But in answer to your
question, if the Davis Boulevard project was still in there as we were
back in last July, we wouldn't be raising the issue of denial, we'd still
be saying they can be approved for consistency purposes. But without
that project in there, we're no longer in that position.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions from fellow
commissioners?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: One speaker, Teryl Brzeski.
MR. BUTLER: Teryl's not here today. Her husband is.
MS. FILSON: It says Teryl.
MR. BUTLER: I'd like to add one thing myself, if! could. The
concurrency issue, which is what we're basically talking about, could
be handled at the final SDP or the final plat stage. It's really not a
zoning issue. It's a final development order issue.
We'd like -- we'd like to work with staff. We've been trying to
work with staff this past week, but it's just been short notice. But
there's lots of things that we've proposed.
MR. FEDER: We'd be happy to work with you. The issue is not
concurrency; it is consistency. It's the five-year look. And because
that project isn't in there, then you don't meet consistency. It's not a
concurrency issue at this point.
Page 138
--- --_.~----- --
February 14,2006
MR. BUTLER: I stand corrected.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With growth management plan.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I entertain -- okay. If there are no
other public speakers, we'll close the public hearing.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a motion for you. Motion
for denial.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: On the basis it is inconsistent with
the growth management plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a second? Okay.
Commissioner Coyle -- Commissioner Coyle made a motion for
denial, and seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Henning, do you have a --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Further ex parte
communication. I did talk to the County Attorney on this during our
lunch break, received correspondence of history of the sunsetting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Ifthere's no other further
questions, we'll call the question here.
All those in favor or -- in favor of denial, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously, denial.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, if! may, Jeff Klatzkow,
County Attorney's Office. Having denied this at this point in time,
you must require that they submit an amendment to the PUD. The
Page 139
...-...,---.-.,-"----.-. '-~'--
February 14,2006
LDC requires that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So you need a vote on that or just
--
MR. KLATZKOW: It's one or the other. You either allow the
extension or you require them to come back and amend the PUD, but
there's no limbo period.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So do you need a motion on an
amendment?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I entertain a motion for an
amendment to this PUD that they have to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think it's direction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can't -- I can't direct by motion
somebody to bring something back if they don't want to bring it back.
We can disapprove -- we can sunset it, but I can't --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Which we did.
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand, but the LDC says that the
board has one or two things they can do on this type of application.
You deny the request --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We did.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- for two years. Then you have to say,
okay, now come back and amend your PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Come back and amend
your PUD.
MR. BUTLER: Yeah, obviously we have to. The plan's unusable
without the PUD amendment, so we're obviously going to be coming
back.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
Item #8B
Page 140
---.. _._~_... ._-~.. - _."-,,--- ----
February 14,2006
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2006-37: PUDZ-2004-AR-6932; R & S
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, REPRESENTED BY KELLY
MICHELLE SMITH, OF DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC.,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE RURAL
AGRICUL TURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD)
ZONING DISTRICT FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO
ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 60 DWELLING UNITS, TO BE
KNOWN AS SANDALWOOD RPUD. THE PROPERTY TO BE
CONSIDERED FOR THIS REZONE IS LOCATED WEST OF
LIVINGSTON ROAD, JUST SOUTH OF MEDITERRA, IN
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, IN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CONSISTS OF 20.58
ACRES - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 8B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided by commissioner members.
It's PUDZ-2004-AR-6932, R & S Development Company, LLC,
represented by Kelly Michele Smith of Davidson Engineering, Inc.,
requesting a rezone from the rural agricultural (A) zoning district to
the residential planned unit development, RPUD, zoning district, for a
residential development, to allow a maximum of 60 dwelling units to
be known as Sandalwood RPUD.
The property is -- considered for this rezone is located west of
Livingston Road, just south of Mediterra, in Section 13, Township 48
south, Range 25 east, in Collier County, Florida, and consists of20.58
acres.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those that are going to be
participating in this, please stand to be sworn in and raise your right
hand.
(The speakers were duly sworn)
Page 141
.---.- -~--
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And we'll start off with
disclosures, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received some emails from
Ms. Smith and a Planning Commission member.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've spoken with staff, I've
received -- and I've received some emails.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I received an email yesterday
afternoon, I believe it was from Ms. Smith, and I've also talked with
staff on this.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I received emails and also
talked to staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I received emails and talked to
staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. My name is Tim Hancock with Davidson
Engineering. Also here with us today is Ms. Kelly Smith from
Davidson Engineering, and our engineer, Mr. Jim Krall.
For purposes of the record, in the area of planning, I ask that Ms.
Smith and I be recognized as expert, likewise, Mr. Krall in the area of
civil engineering. If no obj ection, I'll proceed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good.
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. The Sandalwood RPUD property
is located west of Livingston Road and on the south side of the
proposed Veterans Memorial Parkway -- or I'm sorry, Veterans
Memorial Boulevard.
The subject property is adjacent to Mediterra to the north,
Imperial Golf Estates to the west, North Naples Middle School to the
South, and the future North Naples elementary school to the east.
Page 142
_'W -_.,-_.---- --,-
February 14,2006
The property's 20.58 acres, however, the applicant is donating a
1.20-acre parcel to the Collier County Public Utilities Division for
ASR wells as part of the proposed residential PUD. The total
developable area of the property is, therefore, 19.34 acres.
The property is currently undeveloped, although it was
previously used as a temporary construction access to North Naples
Middle School.
The subject property is located within the urban mixed-use
district and the urban residential subdistrict on the future land use map
of the growth management plan. This designation permits a variety of
residential uses at a base density of up to four dwelling units per acre.
The applicant is requesting a rezone from rural agricultural to
residential planned unit development. The proposed RPUD will
permit the development of up to 60 single-family homes and
customary accessory uses.
The requested density is 3.1 dwelling units per acres. This is
lower than the density permitted by the growth management plan and
the density rating system.
The proposed RPUD includes 2.64 acres of preserve native
vegetation. This exceeds the 15 percent requirement or 2.61 acres
required by the Land Development Code.
The conceptual master plan also proposes water management
within the preserve, with the exception of the pretreatment area, which
will be located outside of the preserve.
Access to the property will be provided by -- through the future
Memorial Parkway. The development commitments in the proposed
RPUD include the design and construction of 200 linear feet of the
southerly two lanes of the future six-lane roadway adjacent to the
subject property, as well as the accommodation of the stormwater
runoff of the southerly three lanes adjacent to the subject property.
These improvements will be subject to transportation impact fee
credits not in total, but basically the cost difference between what
Page 143
--....- ---_..~,._.._..._, -..,.-.. ~---'--'-- ---
February 14,2006
would be required to provide minimum access to the property and
what is actually constructed to meet the county's requirements.
The neighborhood information meeting was held on April 11,
2005. Several property owners from Imperial Golf Estates attended
this meeting. In response to a concern raised at the neighborhood
information meeting, the RPUD document was modified to prohibit
storage and utility sheds.
A subsequent meeting with the Imperial Golf Estates board of
directors was held on September in an effort to keep the neighboring
property owners informed about the status of the project. The result of
that meeting is reflected in the changes to the PUD that we'll be
discussing today.
Based upon the consistency of the growth management plan and
compatibility with neighboring uses, we ask that you approve the
Sandalwood RPUD in today's action.
To that end, I'd like to address an addendum to the CCPC
stipulations that we provided to your office. And based on discussions
with the members of the board of directors of Imperial Golf Estates,
we'd like to go through those one at a time quickly with you.
And the addendum I'm referring to, I believe, was sent to each of
your offices individually. With the exception of the mark-ups on my
copy, it should be similar to what I have.
The first is a standing commission requirement that the applicant
make a $1,000 donation per dwelling unit to the Collier County
Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The applicant at the Planning
Commission did agree to donate $1,000 per unit to the trust fund, but
we'd like to alter the language at a minimum to require that the
payment be made prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for
each dwelling unit.
This is an issue that is a little troublesome to the property owner
for the simple reason that after the Planning Commission, he asked the
question of me, where is this in the code? And this particular item
Page 144
~-_..._.- -.'- - --.'-... ---
February 14,2006
does not appear in your Land Development Code, at least doesn't to
my knowledge.
So Mr. Brit Svoboda, the applicant, at least wanted to make sure
that he didn't have to pay the money by virtue of zoning. When do I
have to pay this? And he had other questions on, where does it go and
what is it used for, and how's it being applied?
And to be candid with you, I really don't have answers to his
questions in that regard. And I think he may be looking to your
guidance today to help address some of those issues. We certainly do
not want to renege on that requirement, the expense of this zoning for
this property by any means.
However, I think those are valid questions as a property owner
and the applicant, and with any hope, we can get some information to
help address that today.
The PUD -- the second item is that the PUD language allows the
applicant to obtain access to ASR wells provided within the PUD.
That will be reviewed to ensure fair distribution of reclaimed water.
We've amended the PUD document and have no issues with that
stipulation.
Third, any wall constructed between the future elementary school
and the east side of the subject property will be paid for and
maintained by the developer. This is already a requirement in the
Land Development Code under section 5.03.02.
We don't see how we should be placing stipulations in the PUD
that mirror the Land Development Code. In fact, I think this board has
asked us to move away from reciting the code in zoning documents.
So while the Planning Commission put it forward as a stipulation,
it really is an LDC requirement, and we think it's unnecessary and ask
that it be removed.
The front setback, the Planning Commission asked that it be
changed to 23 feet. What we're asking is, we understand that the code
requires that there be 23 feet of clearance between the face of the
Page 145
.-..-- -,--->-- ...,-..~-
February 14,2006
garage door and the sidewalk. This ensures that a typical car parking
in a driveway will not overhang into the sidewalk and impede
pedestrians and bicycles.
However, that doesn't translate to a 23-foot pure setback. The
setback is noted from the front yard line, and if you have a side-load
garage, the 23 feet setback pushes everything back 23 feet, and you
may end up having 40 feet of clearance between a side-load garage.
And so what we've asked to do is we've asked that this language
be amended to state that the distance from the back of the sidewalk to
the face of the garage door must be at least 23 feet to allow room to
park a vehicle on the driveway without encroaching into the sidewalk.
Should the garage be side loaded, plans must ensure the parked
vehicles will not interfere with pedestrian traffic. We think this meets
the Planning Commission goal of ensuring that free space, if you will,
between the garage door and the sidewalk without applying an
arbitrary 23- foot setback, which would be excessive.
And you may have seen some homes where, for example, the
garage is set back a certain distance, and the den or another part of the
home may actually be closer to the street. I think you'd see that kind
of design apply here.
So we'd simply ask that the language be amended as stated to
reflect there will be a minimum of 23 feet clearance between the
garage door face and any sidewalk.
Language in the transportation section of the PUD document
regarding drainage from the future Memorial Parkway will be revised
and has been revised to allow transportation to retain additional water
on site, if necessary.
In essence, we're taking the water from that section of the three
southerly lanes of the future Veterans Memorial Parkway and taking it
into our system, treating it and accommodating it.
What we ask is -- what we've suggested is to modify the
language. And our concern was that we have factored into our water
Page 146
'--'---"-- -- ~-_.._... ""-
February 14,2006
management system a certain amount of runoff from that roadway,
and that runoff really correlates with the southern three lanes of the
future six-lane configuration.
Our concern was that that design changes before it's constructed.
And all of a sudden, instead of three lanes, there's more water being
shunted into our development that wasn't -- into a system that wasn't
designed for it. What we wanted to do is, we want to try and quantify
the amount of impervious surface in there.
We spoke with Nick Casalanguida, and he was concerned that
the design isn't far enough along to do that. So what we've asked for
is simply to state on the record that the water that will be accepted will
be strictly that from the impervious surface coming from the three
southerly lanes of Veterans Memorial Parkway, and anything beyond
that, we are not designing our system to accommodate.
We think that's reasonable. We simply wanted it on the record.
Ifthere was any concern over that, that it be discussed now. But that's
how our system is being designed to accommodate it. And we
appreciate that recognition in the record today.
The last item, or the next item is one that has probably had the
most movement in it, the most concern from our standpoint, and it was
a Planning Commission stipulation that the developer will provide a
six-foot-high wall on top ofa two-and-a-half-foot berm with a type B
landscape buffer along the western boundary of the subject project.
This goes back to a -- the first neighborhood information meeting
and a subsequent meeting that the applicant and the contract purchaser
or developer had with the Imperial Golf Estates board.
And to avoid dragging you through all the machinations of that,
what it has boiled down to, as of a conversation in the hallway here
today, is that we feel what's appropriate here is, the water management
system hasn't been approved by the county yet. We don't know if that
berm's going to be two feet, two and a half feet, or three feet.
So putting that in the PUD document could force a PUD
Page 147
--^--. --
February 14,2006
amendment if the berm is not designed and built at two and a half feet.
So a little cumbersome.
What we'd like to do is, the concern on the part of the Imperial
folks is that they will have a total of eight-foot-high wall. Whether it's
six foot on top of a berm, eight-foot wall, you know, if it will be eight
feet total.
So what we're suggesting is that that language read, in lieu of a
type B buffer, the developer will construct a privacy wall measuring
eight feet in total height from existing grade, and we'll have vines
planted on the Imperial side to soften the appearance of the wall.
Hopefully -- you'll hear from the Imperial folks a little bit later.
Hopefully they'll find agreement with that language. That's what
we're suggesting to achieve pretty much what the Planning
Commission asked for but without the onerous element of having to
put it on top of a berm, because height has not yet been determined
with the appropriate permitting process.
Next is, the PUD will be reduced from a maximum of67 to 60
units. That change is reflected in the document before you today.
And we also would like to ask for two more changes that have really
come about as far as discussions with your staff and the Planning
Commission.
One is to reduce the public utilities land donation from 1.24 acres
for the ASR wells to 1.2, acres. The reason for this is, we've found out
now the post office -- and I said we found out now, but at the time this
project started, it wasn't the case. The post office is asking to put all
mail boxes in one single location. The days of going to your driveway
and getting your mail, if you own a home with a mailbox, will
probably be listed as an amenity in the future on a real estate sale.
Now they're putting them all in one location.
The only place that that worked within our site plan is right next
to the ASR. So we've run it through county utilities. They're
comfortable with a reduction from 1.24 to 1.2 acres.
Page 148
-.-.- _._'-" ~-
February 14,2006
We have amended our document accordingly to also show
increase in one-hundredth of an acre and native preserve requirement.
So we've accommodated that in the calculations for the property.
So we ask that that requirement of 1.24 acres be reduced to 1.20,
and we do believe we have staff concurrence on that.
Secondly is, on the ASR property, there's some concerns as we
look down the road that if the county were to develop this property
and use it as an ASR facility, there may be some noise and other
activities emanating from the piece.
And what we'd like to request is that a type B landscape buffer on
a public utility dedicated site be installed prior to preliminary
acceptance of the subdivision. That insures that down the road
someone doesn't have to go check the zoning document to make sure
that what occurs on that site doesn't unnecessarily intrude upon their
planned development.
And so, you know, if that's not acceptable to the county, then at
least prior to the use of the site for ASR purposes, that a type B buffer
be reinstalled.
Those are the only two additions we have to the addendum that's
before you. I and our team will be happy to answer any questions you
have at this time. And if there's any issues that arise during the public
speakers, I hope and trust we'd have an opportunity to address those
with you at the conclusion of the hearing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, you want to
wait till after the staffs --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What if the county decides not
to build an ASR well? What's going to happen with that property?
MR. HANCOCK: That's a good question. At that point the
project, in all likelihood, will be developed. The addition of the
property or retention back to the original property --
Page 149
.__"M -----
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You -- what you're asking, the
correspondence that I received, if they construct the well, is you want
to be able to utilize the reuse water, right?
So if you don't get a well, what happens?
MR. HANCOCK: Well, right now, because the well doesn't
exist, we are far into the design of the community already. We're not
planning on reuse water for the community at this stage because it's
not available in the current window of development for the site.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we put a condition on
it that the county must, within a two-year time frame, utilize that
property for an ASR well or it goes back to the owners?
MR. HANCOCK: I don't believe that would hurt anyone's
feelings on our side. That seems appropriate. But I'll leave it to
county utility staff to answer that.
MR. DELONY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Jim DeLony Public Utilities Administrator.
Sir, the intent here is to have the flexibility, as we develop to
buildout, wellsites within the environment that are already prearranged
and pre-staged, so as we make tactical decisions in our water supply
and water provision for these -- for the counties, that we have these
sites already in place as opposed to try to retrofit back as this built
environment continues.
I mean, where we stand right now, we believe that this will fit
into our plans. If those plans are not able to execute, obviously, we
can't use that property. Essentially an easement could be vacated back
to the land user at county option.
We're just trying to set in motion and set conditions prudent
planning as best we know it now. But our to-be condition, and in light
of the fact that we're -- more and more, space is getting tougher and
tougher to get, and we know we're going to have a need for these
wells, we know we're going to have a need for these ASRs. It's just
that right now, today, it's difficult to say exactly here as opposed to
Page 150
._"-_.. --
February 14,2006
here.
And our approach and deployment has been to try to work with
developers and provide easements. And then as we -- as we would
make recommendations to the board in years ahead about the
provision of wells or ASRs, our public utility facilities would have
these lands available already set aside through easements for this
infrastructure, and that's the plan.
Now, within the two years you suggest, I'm not sure that we'll be
there in terms of that type of a decision to make sure, and that's the
reason we've tried to keep it as flexible as possible for the utilities to
be able to provide this.
And I believe it's a much more cost-efficient way of approaching
our infrastructure development as opposed to going back and then,
either through condemnation or purchase, you know, when -- if the
development's already built out, than trying to force-fit these types of
arrangements. And then, you know, at our stage of development,
that's the recommendation that we've made, and that's the course of
action we're pursuing on this and other site development plans and
PUDs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask you a question.
MR. DELONY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this in your master plan, the
potable water master plan, this ASR at this site?
MR. DELONY: No, sir. That's what I just said is that we want
to try to provide for opportunity as that matures and we're able to
make good decisions on where this infrastructure would be to have
these opportunities through easements to develop that infrastructure
that -- we have a hard time prescribing 15, 20 years of infrastructure
needs today exactly to that level of detail, sir, and that's what we're
trying to accomplish with these types of arrangements with
developers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's strange that in a long-range
Page 151
-- _...,,-,~- -----,"-
February 14,2006
master plan you're reaching out that far for sites for potable water and
sewers. You know you're going to have to wells. In this case you
want to have an ASR well.
MR. DELONY: Actually, I think what we're providing for is
potentially a well. Not necessarily an ASR well. It could be a potable
water well or an ASR well for reclaimed water or ASR well for
potable water.
What we're trying to provide, again, sir, if! may, is just the
opportunity through this process to have these easements available as
we flesh out the details of our master plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not an easement that was
before us today. It's actually what's being called a donation ofland of
1.2 acres. Not an easement.
MR. DELONY: Well, I think -- actually, if! may, I believe it's--
I don't believe it's in fee. I believe in this case an easement -- I could
be corrected by the developer -- excuse me. It's by easement, sir, not
by fee. It's an easement donation as opposed to a fee.
County Attorney's Office has something to help me with here.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes. I note this language was
worked out between the developer and utilities staff. And I note what
it says, as a utility easement that applies, et cetera, shall be conveyed
by deed to CCWSD. So an easement document's an easement
document, and a deed is a deed where you convey it in fee. So I think
we need to determine whether it's an easement that your department
needs, or if you need it in fee, and clean that language up here in this
document.
MR. DELONY: Typically what we would do in this case is that
we would look for an easement first and a fee later. And if at such
time that it made sense that we would have to have it in fee, we would
move to fee. But typically most of these arrangements we've asked
for these lands to be in easement, and that has been typical.
Now, I have to go back and look at this one specifically. But I
Page 152
-- ---
February 14,2006
believe, if! may, Susan, we've been looking at these as typically with
easements; is that correct? Yes.
And here we don't care one way or the other? We want an
easement. Okay. I didn't hear that. I just heard that now. Okay.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It may be the intent is that initially
it will be an easement, and then later if it is conveyed, it will be by
deed, so we just need to clarify that in this language. Thank you.
MR. DELONY: Thank you. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If it's an easement, you've got to
pay taxes on it, right?
MR. HANCOCK: May I?
MR. DELONY: Yeah, go ahead, Bob.
MR. HANCOCK: Commission Henning, you know me well
enough to know that if the county is going to a private landowner and
saying, gee, we'd like 1.24 acres for something you don't get any
benefit out of, I tend not to be a proponent of those.
In this case as the petitioner, this is a truly a win-win for us, and
the reason is very simple. Our property is slightly over 20 acres. By
donating this land to the county, our property then falls under 20
acres. There's a difference in the indigenous vegetation requirement
of about two acres. So for us it's very important that our entire project
is based on the fact that this is a donation.
Now, I'm -- you know, we could sit here and buffalo you till the
cows come home, but the truth is, we benefit by virtue of this
donation, that's why I deem it to be a donation instead of an exaction
because my client does benefit.
And so we -- if the county has an ASR need there, we want to
donate the land because our entire project is really based on the fact
that that land is being donated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to bring up something
else, an email I received going back and forth to Ms. Smith of
Davidson Engineering, and I'm going to read it.
Page 153
~_., ---.- ~-".-
February 14,2006
With regards to Donation Affordable Housing Trust Fund, our
client is of the opinion that a request by Planning Commission may be
an exaction. Weare not aware of any requirements of the Land
Development Code or impact -- an impact of linkage fees for
affordable housing.
In addition, our client had questions regarding how this money
would be collected and utilized, like the question that you did ask, in
the community. And these issues aside, the petitioner has expended a
significant amount of time and money to get the property to this point
and does not wish to have the rezoning delayed or denied over this
Issue.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is true?
MR. HANCOCK: That is true, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's where I have --
continually have a concern of, we're scaring the heck out of the public
to have a right to petition their government to take action, that if they
don't do certain things that are not in our laws, they might get denied.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. I can tell you, as we have a --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that is almost, in my
opinion, contract zoning.
MR. HANCOCK: And we get into a philosophical discussion
here that I think everybody has their opinion on. The truth is, as a
property owner comes into our office and talks about zoning, we try
and warn them up front that this has become a standard stipulation
through the zoning process, and tell them to expect it.
But when -- you know, if you're asking my opinion or asking our
client, the property owner, you know, his opinion of why should he do
this, it's not in the Land Development Code, it is -- in fact, appears to
be a stipulation that is a condition of zoning.
We are not objecting to it. We don't want to see this project get
turned on its ear over this issue. But when asked the question, how do
Page 154
-" ~--,." ----".-
February 14,2006
I view that, that is my client's answer, that it -- it may very well be an
exaction. And before the money's taken from him, he'd like to know
when he has to pay it and where it goes. And I think those are
reasonable questions, and I appreciate you raising the issue, sir.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, Cormac Giblin, your housing
development manager. If I can address your concern here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. GIBLIN: The idea of voluntary linkage fee has been
accepted and put in practice by the development community itself.
Staffhas seen the trend. And at your February 28th board
meeting, next -- your next board meeting, we're bringing forward a
resolution that will formalize this process, laying out exactly where
the donations go, the eligible uses of that money, and the mechanism
for the community to make these donations.
A PUD is a negotiation between the county and developer. This
__ Mr. Hancock started out his presentation by laying out a series of
five or six things that they are donating or committing to do above and
beyond the requirements of the Land Development Code. You know,
the lanes of roadway, the stormwater, the ASR well, the excess native
vegetation preserve. None of those are required by the LDC. It's a
negotiation between the private owner and the board, and it's up to the
board to decide what is in the best interest of Collier County,
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I appreciate that. It's just
that the perception is, he doesn't want to get denied for those, so how
would you look at it?
MR. GIBLIN: And I don't believe you can deny him for not
doing any of those things.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have anything else from staff in
regards to this PUD?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I'd like to take a IO-minute break
Page 155
-~_. -"".----.-..- .'.----
February 14,2006
for our court reporter at this point in time, and then -- we'll recess for
10 minutes.
(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, County Manager. We'll
continue with this item, 8B.
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, the applicant, Mr. Brit
Svoboda just had one comment on the affordable housing as a part of
our presentation. Ifhe could make that quickly, I promise we'll get out
of your way.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'd like to get moving -- this thing
moving along here.
MR. SVOBODA: Okay. That's fine. Thank you,
Commissioners.
For the record, my name's Brit Svoboda, owner and developer of
the -- of this property. The only comment I wanted to make, just to
make sure everybody was clear in our understanding of this.
Definitely am fully aware of our need for affordable housing here
in Collier County and more than willing to support it in any fashion
that would be of value from our side.
Our question just came up as to, at the time of zoning, we don't
even know what's getting built there. It's coincidental that right now
we have a contract on this piece of land from a builder who has his
intentions of what he wants to do with the land, but he hasn't closed on
the land.
I guess my only question was, from the beginning is, we're
willing to do this. I wish we had a better plan. Although talking with
Cormac Giblin, I'm very pleased to know that in the next meeting you
guys will be -- your group will be discussing this.
I think it's important that we at least understand where the money
goes and how it goes and who it's assessed to. And so all I want to say
Page 156
--- -.-..,--.-- -
February 14,2006
is, we're more than happy to do our share. It's just a matter of total
misunderstanding of to whom and to why and why at this point of
zoning when we don't even know what's being built there. That was
our only real question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, do -- you have some idea what the
price range is going to be for the homes, don't you?
MR. SVOBODA: From my standpoint, no. I'm just -- was just
trying to get it zoned and get it ready for lot -- you know, for lot sales
and for home sales. But yes, from your understanding, yes, it's
certainly going to be over a half a million dollars. Is that what you're
asking, Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, the homes.
MR. SVOBODA: I would assume they would be certainly over
that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I'm sure they will be. Okay.
MR. SVOBODA: Well, that's the average price here in Collier
County, isn't it, 500,000? That's average price of homes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's why we have a problem with
affordable housing, okay.
MR. SVOBODA: Yes, sir, it is. Yes, yep. And I'm in agreement
with that. I understand that, and we're concerned about that as well.
That's all. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I have two speakers, Terry Flora. He'll
be followed by John Daugherty.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. FLORA: Commissioners, my name is Terry Flora. I live in
Imperial right along the western boundary of this project.
As you heard from Tim, we have been primarily concerned with
the buffer that will exist between the two projects. And one reason
Page 157
._--- -------.- ...~
February 14,2006
that we're particularly concerned is that when the school was built
south of us, the middle school, the western boundary of this property
that you're considering today was used as the temporary access for
construction.
And they came in along that boundary and took out all of the
very tall -- very tall, very pretty pine trees that had been there for a
long time for the road along the boundary. If it hadn't been for that,
this boundary probably would have been left natural behind these
houses and along our common boundary.
But because those trees are gone and the rest of this side will
probably be clear cut, we've been very concerned about what we
would see from Imperial, as I'm sure the new owners would be
concerned about what they would see from their side.
So we have been concerned about the wall that will be put up
there. We're very concerned that it be a wall, not a fence.
We appreciate the efforts of the developer and of Tim to reach an
accommodation with us on that, and we support the language that Tim
read, which is revised from the Planning Commission's stipulations.
Mr. Longo builds a good project. We can support the project.
We would rather have a well-constructed single-family home project
back there than practically anything else you can think of.
So speaking as one homeowner there, I can say that we're in
favor of this zoning amendment, and we support the language that
Tim read with respect to the wall. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Next speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is John Daugherty.
MR. DAUGHERTY: Good afternoon. John Daugherty. lama
member of the board of directors at Imperial Golf Estates. Appreciate
the opportunity to speak today.
Weare in concurrence with the developer and Mr. Hancock in
the discussion about the permanent wall barrier that would be installed
Page 158
.-.....----.....- ~-
February 14,2006
along the western border, along with some type of vine. And as long
as we know that that would be in perpetuity to the communities, you
know, 20, 30,40 years from now, that was our major concern.
As Mr. Flora so aptly brought up, when the middle school came
in, I don't think we had gotten as involved and didn't realize that a
chiller was going to be in the back yard of about four of our
homeowners. And I have been over there at 10, 11 o'clock at night,
and it is hard to sleep.
And so we are taking a more active role today when new
developments do come up along our perimeter to see if we can't work
along as good neighbors, like the developer did come to us months
ago to one of our board of director meetings to start to talk about what
their project was about.
So we are in agreement with what was brought up today. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Was that our last speaker?
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll close the public comment.
I've got a couple of questions that I'd like to ask the petitioner.
Tim, in regards to flooding issues, you said that the berm that you
were looking at would be anywheres from two to two and a half to
three feet, and that would be in regards to the flooding. Now, exactly
-- could you be -- elaborate on that a little bit.
MR. HANCOCK: Well, the water management design is
currently in review by Collier County. And for the size of this project,
it is -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Krall -- approved by Collier
County.
So that exact height of that berm will not be determined until
Collier County checks our flood routing and makes sure that it's
adequate. So it's actually your staff that will help determine the height
of that berm and make sure that it is adequate.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The other issue I had about
Page 159
--'- .',----,- "--
February 14,2006
flooding, and you were -- you were -- alluded to the fact that a
three-laned road and the possibility that water was going to be pushed
onto your property?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Actually we have agreed to accept
the runoff from the southerly three lanes of future Veterans Memorial
Parkway into --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's going to be six lanes, right?
MR. HANCOCK: -- our project. Yeah. There will be a total of
six. We're going to let the people on the other side of the road take
those three lanes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I understand, okay.
MR. HANCOCK: But we're going to take our three, and we will
incorporate -- it will run through our system, and we're designing our
system to handle that runoff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That clarified that issue.
Normally when they build a road, they put a crown in it anyway, so
half of it goes the other way.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, and it's going to be built in stages.
There will be two lanes initially, and then the road will be built to a
four-lane or six-lane condition, so there's -- there's a lot of steps to be
had.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When Secretary Cohen of the
Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee came down to meet
with me and members of the staff, he gave us some advice, and I think
I'm going to take it. He said, if you want to manage growth under this
new growth management plan, don't rezone property.
I have stated publicly that I will not vote for rezones of property
unless there is a clear public purpose. I do not see a clear public
purpose in this particular petition.
Once it is rezoned, we're obligated to build the infrastructure to
support it. We do not have the funding. We don't know how it's
Page 160
--,----~- n_
February 14,2006
going to get done, and we cannot possibly make a determination
concerning the future impact on our roads because we don't have a
schedule of construction and we don't have defined revenues to
provide the infrastructure.
So I will not vote for rezoning. I will not vote for any rezoning
unless there is a clear public purpose.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think we've got to hear from
staff also yet.
MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Heidi Williams, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land
Development Review.
There's really only a few things that have been unsaid at this
point. The petition has been reviewed by staff and found to be
consistent with the growth management plan.
Regarding the seven stipulations the Planning Commission added
leading to their unanimous recommendation of approval, their -- the
modifications suggested by the applicant are acceptable to staff.
We've had a clarification that the well site can be granted to the
utilities department by deed and not by easement, and that the
buffering on that location will be Land Development Code required
buffering at the time of site development plan approval and -- as
opposed to the type B buffer in place right away.
Other than that, all of the suggested changes are acceptable, and
I'm available to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any questions from staff?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Staff?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I mean from commissioners, excuse me.
Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry, Heidi. With this front
yard setback, 23 feet --
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the way they have it worded here,
Page 161
--_."'- --
February 14,2006
I didn't -- it sounded like real tricky wording, and that made me very
uncomfortable. What we know is that we need at least 23 feet in a
driveway, right, in order to be able to park cars? And I don't
understand the rest of this. How did you feel about all of that?
MS. WILLIAMS: Essentially the other yard setbacks will apply
to all of the structures so that if a part of the home is in the front yard,
it can have a 20-foot setback unless it's a driveway, and then this
provision goes into place. If it's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But 20 feet isn't what we need,
right? It's 23 feet that we need, right?
MS. WILLIAMS: The 23 feet is to prevent a vehicle from across
the sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MS. WILLIAMS: So if it's -- this is to allow a side-loaded
garage, and it allows another portion of the home to be closer than 23
feet but not the driveway and not the garage.
So, for example, I believe Mr. Hancock had the example of a den
coming closer to the front yard than the actual garage, and this would
permit that type of design for the home.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you're comfortable with that?
You feel that that would provide enough parking and not obstruct
anything?
MS. WILLIAMS: That the garage will be required to be 23 feet
away from the sidewalk and that other portions of the home in the
front will be up to 20 feet but no closer than that, and that would be
acceptable.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I had the same concerns, because when
you have a side-loaded garage, that means that you can push that
home out farther, and I want to make sure that even with a side-loaded
garage, that we still weren't going to intrude on that sidewalk. That's
the most important thing.
MS. WILLIAMS: Right.
Page 162
.- --'-~---'---''''._'~ -'-
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And if I can be guaranteed of that --
MS. WILLIAMS: This provision will be applied so that no
vehicle will be in that sidewalk.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any other questions?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I motion we approve the this
petition with the included language of -- two, the PUD language will
allow the applicant to obtain or give the deed up to 1.2 acres for a
county ASR well and to be assured from the county a fair share
distribution of water; the front yard setbacks will be 23 feet on the
face of the open garage; five, they will accept the drainage for
Veterans Memorial Boulevard for three lanes adjacent to their project;
and an eight-foot wall with a type B buffer along the westerly
boundary of the property will be constructed; and reduce the PUD
from 67 units to a maximum of 60 units.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And also item number three,
construction of a wall for the future elementary school.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's already in the LDC.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's in the Planning Commission. So
the recommendations of the Planning Commission --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll include that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, okay. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, a question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Question, sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Item number one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, until it's -- we make it
law, I just -- I feel uncomfortable or it being contract zoning,
Commissioner. Ifwe make it a--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I might be able to help you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- a linkage fee, yeah, I'm all in
favor of it.
Page 163
----",.. .....~,--
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, our growth management
plan, goals, objectives, and policy, goal one, to create adequate supply
of decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing for all residents of
Collier County. Then it goes on, number of new affordable housing
units shall increase by 500 units each year. That, in itself, and the fact
it was not an extraction, it was a voluntary donation on the part of the
developer, I think it would be fool hearty on our part to just say, no,
we don't want it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I really do. I think that's a
serious mistake. You know --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think -- I want some direction here
from our County Attorney, please.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. For the record,
Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney.
We do have those provisions in the Compo Plan that talk about
providing affordable housing and, of course, it does look to some kind
of program to set that up. But it would be my legal opinion, as long as
it is a voluntary thing that the petitioner agrees to do, that it wouldn't
be contract zoning. And as long as it's voluntary, we're okay, and it
would go toward those issues in the comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just going back to the email
that I received that I read out loud. And the fear is, if it's not provided,
it will not be -- it will be denied by the -- either the planning agency or
the Board of Commissioners.
And I watched the Planning Commission where a Planning
Commissioner demanded that they give a thousand dollars per unit to
the affordable housing program. And with -- setting all that up, I just
feel uncomfortable including it. And I'm looking forward to -- that we
find and provide a legal means, a legal linkage to approve so this
question won't have to come up anymore.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If! may. I understand what
Page 164
--.' . ._-~,---- ----
February 14,2006
you're saying, Commissioner Henning, and we've been down this road
before, and we have numerous times now accepted recommendations
of the Planning Commission.
But it's more than that. We accepted recommendations of the
petitioner that comes before us. I mean, they have asked for other
changes to be made from the Planning Commission, and we're doing
so.
You know, I hope that you change your mind. If you don't, I
would like to see, if it does fail, another motion made that might also
be able to include item number one, which I think is of paramount
importance, to be able to say to the developer that we don't want your
money to go towards a contribution of what the problem is. Because
mind you, for every five homes -- excuse me, every seven homes you
create out there, you have a need for one more workforce family to be
able to take care of that need.
And this is an ongoing problem that has no end. And even
though this is only one dollar out of every 500 they're going to be
spending, probably even less than that, is going to go to affordable
housing. At least it's the beginning of something. And we have
accepted this numerous times now, is the way until we get to the point
we're going to be able to have it before us. So I beg you to reconsider.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I didn't have the knowledge of
the Planning Commission member from Immokalee exacting that out
and the correspondence, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I would see
it as a donation. But once I have that knowledge, I'm sorry I can't put
that in my motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm afraid that we're on a slippery slope
here if we continue in the manner that we are without having some
type of a linkage fee brought into this. So I have to side with
Commissioner Henning on this.
County Attorney?
Page 165
-~'''._'' ._u.."__
February 14,2006
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, thank you. I just wanted to
say, once again, before you make your motion, ifthere's anybody
that's going to deny, under the City of Naples versus Plaza of Naples,
Inc., case, I must remind you that the court held that the only criteria
upon which a planning councilor Board of County Commissioners
could legally base its decision are those criteria set forth in the
ordinance.
And you gentlemen have these criteria that are set forth in the
notebooks prepared by our office. And in this case, you would be
looking at criteria for straight rezones, as well as criteria for PUD
rezones based -- and as a basis for anyone of those was in the record,
either the written record that you have before you, and the staff report
and executive summary, or what's been presented here orally today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or if -- we can also go by -- can we also
go by what Commissioner Coyle stated earlier?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Again, I need to repeat that if that
fits in with one of the criteria for a rezone or PUD and you find it so,
then you could. But the law says that we need to look at these criteria
that are in the code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: May I --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: May I respond to that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I probably have asked
maybe six times, the legal staff, about rezoning, and every time the
legal staff has told me that there is no right for anyone to expect a
rezone.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is no right under statute.
There is no right under our Land Development Code to expect to
rezone, and that commissioners have wide latitude with respect to
rezones.
Page 166
-----~ ._-~----_..- --
February 14,2006
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: The--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, I have suggested a rate of
growth ordinance that will help us manage growth in Collier County
and our staff has said, well, you can't do that.
Now we hear that we don't even have the authority to disapprove
a rezone request. Well, if -- you know, maybe what I would like to do
is ask the legal staff to tell us what authority the commissioners really
have to manage growth in Collier County, since the state has
seemingly taken over most of the responsibilities. Rezoning is the
only item remaining, as we were informed by the secretary of the
Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee.
Am I correct, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: He did say that if you want to control it, you turn
down rezones.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: If you don't rezone it, you don't have to build it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly right. Once you
rezone it, you create an obligation to build the infrastructure. We right
now do not have any defined funding source to build the infrastructure
for those properties we have already rezoned.
Why would we continue rezoning property? It is ludicrous for us
to continue doing this. It merely creates another obligation on the
taxpayers of Collier County. And until such time as we have clear
evidence as to how we can manage growth in Collier County with this
new state growth management law, I will not vote for a rezone unless
there's a clear public purpose, and I am going to leave it to the County
Attorney's Office to implement that policy if! happen to be on the
winning side of this.
I will not let the County Attorney's Office dictate policy for the
Board of County Commissioners, at least not me.
So I'm going to make my decision on what I believe is best for
the taxpayers of Collier County in this community. And I would
Page 167
-,--"-- .__.~,,--"..- -~_.-
February 14,2006
expect that if I am on the winning side of this vote, that the County
Attorney's Office will get on the right side and defend us on it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we have the -- David
Weigel, the County Attorney, please respond?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, staff did not tell this board or any
commissioner that they could not do a rate of growth ordinance, but in
discussing a rate of growth ordinance, we indicated that it's not an
end-all be-all, and it has a -- it has a temporary function based on the
case law that has come before us.
Now, County Attorney has been exhorted to tell you the case law
relative to the decision-making that you do. And Marjorie has done a
very good job of that.
She doesn't make up these cases. She is just indicating that when
you make a decision, the decision is more defensible if it's to be
challenged if, in fact, you relate it to the criteria that are there under
the decision to be made, in this case straight rezone or PUD rezone.
A general statement saying that it must be for the public good is
not found in that criteria, although it is an important statement, and it
has a bearing of its own.
But to the extent that you find incompatibility, concurrency
issues, other things that would lend one with a specific petition before
you to come to a reasonable decision, pro or con -- and there is a lot of
latitude.
Typically in most of the decision-making you do relating to land
use, there is competent and substantial evidence placed before you that
can be defended in the narrow frame that exists in an appellate court
of review to support your decision.
But you help yourselves to the extent that you link it to the actual
criteria that are listed, that is part of our law, our local law here. And
that's what the City of Naples case that Marjorie cited was indicating,
was that it must -- must have a linkage or should have a linkage for the
Page 168
"",,-"- .--.-- .--
February 14, 2006
ability to successfully defend.
And, of course, the County Attorney Office will always defend.
But to successfully defend, we're in a better situation if those criteria
are specifically indicated, particularly in the case where we have a
supermajority vote required, because there may be two dissents and
the supermajority may fail or however the vote -- motion is, whether
it's a motion to deny or a motion to approve.
If there are statements on the record relating to the criteria, you
and the taxpayers, the citizens, will be in a better position to defend it
if it should be challenged. And that's really all we're saying. We're
not trying to take away power from the board, not for a moment. We
want the board's powers, when exercised, to be fully defensible.
And in regard to -- well, that's enough, I guess. If you have any
further questions --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Attorney, if
Commissioner Coyle would come up with a motion, could he use
criteria number 15, which says, will the proposed change create or
accessibly (sic) increase traffic conditions or create types of traffic
deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses because the peak
volumes of projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity
during construction phases, development or otherwise affect public
safety? Because of the fact that -- of the Growth Management Bill?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, not even the bill, just looking at our own
regulations, I think the answer, Commissioner, is yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: We're talking about traffic, we're talking about
consistency. As Mr. Feder indicated on an earlier item, which it is
different from concurrency, but that is -- that is part of the criteria--
part of the criteria that you look at.
So yes, that kind of statement is of assistance. A general
statement saying, I'm not voting for any rezones, will probably not
help you get to where you want to be, and that's what Marjorie was
Page 169
_._- .._~--_. -----
February 14,2006
attempting to indicate with the case law that talks about criteria, as
opposed to general statements which may have a great basis in fact,
but are difficult to sort out when they're being challenged generally,
which could occur.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Coyle? Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So item 15 would be
justification in itself? I mean, now let's go back one step. We had --
we had staff say that this was consistent as far as traffic goes, but we
can overrule staff on the determination, is that what it is?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, there should be something of record,
competent and substantial evidence that forms the basis for the
decision that you make.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about the traffic situation
that exists out there at present?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would that be sufficient? I
mean, we all drive in it every day.
MR. WEIGEL: Is not the data and the statements that you have
before you today indicating that there is an inconsistency?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, we can't
draw on our own personal knowledge of what we know?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How about --
MR. WEIGEL: It makes more -- it makes it a bit problematic,
yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How about item 25? Would that fall
under that criteria?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which is -- read it out loud.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. It's the -- 25 says, consider the impact of
development resulting from the proposed PUD rezone on the
availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with
the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier
Page 170
---~.".. -"-
February 14,2006
County adequate public facilities ordinance.
And if the -- if there is at least a part of the record that indicates
that there is an inability for the availability of adequate public
facilities and services that are consistent with the level of service that
you have out there, is there a failure or is there an imminent failure,
things of that nature, then it would appear that is another -- another
index upon which you can draw to make a decision.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you could -- you could
use 5.1 or 5.2 of the growth management plan, but our transportation
staff doesn't have a -- an issue with this. They're building the road on
their access on the easement of the east/west Livingston, or future
Veterans I guess we're going to call it. There's capacity on Livingston
Road.
So if you're going to use transportation, then I would hope that
we can be more specific of the concerns of the transportation network.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, first of all, let's make sure
we're very, very clear what I said. I said I would not vote for rezoning
unless there was a clear public purpose and, secondly, that the rezone
created an obligation to provide infrastructure for the impending
development.
We do not have defined revenue sources for all of the rezones
that have already been approved that are pending. We already know
that road segments are failing. We're predicting more road segments
to fail. Weare losing state funding for critical intersections. We
know these things to be true.
Now, in the face of all the things that we know to be true, we're
just going to play let's pretend. Let's pretend we have the money.
Let's pretend we have a contractor who will build it on schedule and
within budget. I don't find that very comforting, quite frankly.
And furthermore, I reserve the right to disagree with the staffs
Page 171
-~ ~--
February 14,2006
decision to say that it is consistent with 5.1 and 5.2. I don't believe it
is. I don't believe that staff can even make that determination at this
point in time. I think it's impossible to make that determination at this
point in time.
So confronted with those kinds of issues, I don't --
MR. WEIGEL: I know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- I don't see the problem, quite
frankly. But why don't we -- why don't we just take the vote, and if
the other commissioners don't agree with me, then it goes where it
goes. But I just want you to understand where I am on this thing, and
it's exactly where I'm going to stay on this subject.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. You may wish to look at item 26, which
hasn't been discussed yet. The question to review is, are there other
factors, standards or criteria relating to the PUD rezone request that
the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the
protection of the public safety, health and welfare.
It's a bit general. I don't know if you wish, Commissioner Coyle,
or anyone else to indicate that there are issues of -- relating to the
public health, safety and welfare, but that is a criteria generally.
Factor, standard or criteria --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I interrupt you?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wouldn't that be grounds
enough for affordable housing, to be able to use that for a basis?
When you read this over the way it's written, public safety, health and
welfare, I think that's a pretty broad statement.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Couldn't I interpret that to mean
affordable housing as my justification?
MR. WEIGEL: The growth management plan, of course,
addresses affordable housing. The growth management plan is
comprised of objectives, policies, and desires, but it's not implemented
Page 172
.'.--... -_.~
February 14,2006
in our Land Development Code or in any other vehicle at the present
time.
So to the extent -- as Ms. Student has indicated, to the extent that
there is a donation and the record before you reflects that it's a
donation, yes. As someone else said, there's that slippery line. But
the fact is, if it's a donation and the record so indicates, then so be it, it
must be a donation. But the fact is that the ability of the board to
require, or the Planning Commission to require it, is not there under
the law.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This commissioner didn't
require it, however, the Planning Commission -- I don't know what
took place with one member, but we've seen times before in the
Planning Commission where people have said maybe inappropriate
things, and we have had cases before, before they even heard them,
they've come out with letters and articles that are opposed to particular
projects, more or less prejudicing their own case. So I mean, this isn't
something that's new. It's been around for some time.
I think we're at a real quagmire here. I'm not too sure where we
can go with it. I don't know if a continuance would be in order till we
maybe have a workshop to work this out. But I'm very, very
uncomfortable with what I'm hearing, not only from Commissioner
Coyle, but I'll be honest with you, from the County Attorney's Office.
It's very difficult to get your arms around this.
I'm kind of wondering if I'm going to be condemned to hell if I
vote against this, you know, and how I'm going to have to justify it.
Am I personally liable down the road? I don't like the business of
getting something for the public good and then having it be turned
around and given back again. I think that's totally wrong. I think
we're here to serve the public in the best way we possibly can.
Well, I said enough. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, Commissioner, it
doesn't prevent the property owner to donating anyways. If you just
Page 173
~-~ ~-
February 14, 2006
take it out of the PUD as a requirement, then --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I
understand you and I think you're right, and you just changed me 100
percent. I didn't think in this whole world you could have ever done
that. I'm with you, that's if you don't say anything else.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I had a motion, but I don't think I had a
second, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was a second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There was a second? Who was the
second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And that's -- the motion was
made by Commissioner Coyle.
MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm not going to make a
motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll start over again.
Commissioner Henning, could you state what your motion was so we
can make sure it's on the record properly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It already is; am I correct. Do
you have my motion on the record? Okay.
THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second. It was to approve
everything except item number one really, was listed from the
Planning Commission, in essence.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With the corrections that were
discussed today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, okay. With that, I'll call the
question.
Page 174
^,,-,-_. m.._~._."_'" ,-.-
February 14,2006
All those in favor of approving this rezone, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor of not rezoning this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So it failed, and the reason it failed is
because of the fact that, as we've discussed earlier, Commissioner
Coyle and myself have concerns in regards to where we're going with
the rezone and where it deals with the health, safety and welfare of the
people.
Item #8C
PUDEX-2005-AR-8478: ROOKERY BAY BUSINESS PARK, LLC,
REPRESENTED BY WAYNE ARNOLD, OF Q. GRADY MINOR
AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. AND R. BRUCE ANDERSON, OF
ROETZEL & ANDRESS, IS REQUESTING A 2- YEAR
EXTENSION TO THE ASGM BUSINESS CENTER OF NAPLES
PUD. THE PUD WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED ON OCTOBER
8,2002 AS ORDINANCE 02-47, AND SUNSET ON OCTOBER 8,
2005. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 40.88
ACRES, IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD, APPROXIMA TEL Y OF A MILE SOUTH OF
MANA TEE ROAD, IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; MOTION TO
CONTINUE TO THE 1 ST BCC MEETING IN JUNE 2006 -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8C. This item
Page 175
----- _.-----
February 14,2006
was continued from January 24, 2006, BCC meeting. It is being
requested to be further continued to the February 28, 2006, BCC
meeting by the petitioner.
This item requires that all participants be sworn and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDEX-2005-AR-8478, Rookery Bay Business Park, LLC,
represented by Wayne Arnold ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates P.A.,
and R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel & Address, is requesting a
two-year extension to the ASGM Business Center of Naples PUD.
The PUD was originally approved on October 8, 2002, as
ordinance 02-47, and sunsetted on October 8, 2005.
The subject property consisting of 40.88 acres is located on the
east side of Collier Boulevard approximately a mile south of Manatee
Road in section 10, Township 51 south, Range 26 east, Collier
County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what the petitioner's requested is
that you continue this particular item until the 28th of February. Is
that correct, Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: Upon consultation with Mr. Klatzkow from
the County Attorney's Office, we would request an indefinite
continuance so that this might be brought back in conjunction with a
developer contribution agreement, which this client and a number of
other landowners in the U.S. 41/951 area have been working on.
The private group has agreed amongst themselves, and now they
have to work with county transportation staff to come up with an
agreement that they could recommend to you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bruce, when you said indefinite, that
would not -- we would not be bringing this back at the next meeting; is
that correct?
MR. ANDERSON: No, sir, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Page 176
~-"". -~.. .._-~
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion that we approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I second it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I should have said motion to
approve what Bruce just suggested.
MR. MUDD: An indefinitely continuance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just continue it, yeah, indefinitely.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Until they work it out.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, indefinite can also mean
never. Mr. Anderson, what do you have in mind? Are we talking
about a month, two months, three months? What are we talking
about?
MR. ANDERSON: I hope at the outset it's not any longer than
three months. I anticipate two to three months for a draft to be
prepared and worked out with your transportation staff that they could
bring back to you. Certainly in no event would I anticipate it
extending beyond when you take your break in June.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but you -- it's already
sunsetted. I mean, it sunsetted in October of 2005 last year. So you
really want us --
MR. ANDERSON: We can't do anything with the PUD in the
meantime anyway, so no harm.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like personally to put a
time frame of three months on it and deal with it and get it off the
books or whatever. And I hope that you would put that in your
motion.
MR. MUDD: May 23rd would make it -- would be three months.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll be --
MR. MUDD: You won't be here on May 23rd.
Page 177
------.- ~_. ._-~- ' -'"----
February 14,2006
MR. ANDERSON: No, I won't.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll be here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, We'll take care of it for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You'll be here the following month
-- the following meeting after that?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I would be, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would that be okay with you?
What meeting would that be?
MR. MUDD: First meeting in June; is that okay?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: Now, the first meeting in June could be the 6th of
June if I get -- during communication I'm going to talk to the board
about that, and that could be the first Tuesday in June. But right
around the first meeting in June would be okay with you?
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. I would be back by then.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would that be okay with you?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is that in your motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a speaker.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, to the first meeting in June, not
the 6th of June. Till the first meeting in June.
MR. MUDD: The -- whatever it is, the first meeting in June.
And you'll make a decision. You've got a -- and the reason I'm going
to bring it up is you have a F AC conference at Marco Island that
you're sponsoring with -- that you're hosting as a county commission,
and that's going to tie up the fourth Tuesday, so how do you want to
do the June meetings? And we'll talk about that during
correspondence today.
But if you say the first meeting in June, it could either be the 6th
of June or, depending on your decision, or the 13th.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have public speakers on this one?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, just one.
Page 178
.---.. ----
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Patrick White.
MR. WHITE: Good afternoon and Happy Valentine's Day,
Commissioners. Normally I wouldn't make it a practice to appear on
another attorney's matter.
Patrick White. And I'm speaking on the item today solely
because of the manner and means in which you've chosen to
apparently consider a request for a continuance on this item, and, in
fact, weren't able to do so on 8A.
And just to indicate that hopefully we'll be able to come back
with you over a request for reconsideration and, perhaps, be given
somewhat equal treatment at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. White, we did not hear any
resolution to the traffic issues by, it sounds like, your client.
MR. WHITE: Those will be made part of the request, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they have fully --
MR. WHITE: And I apologize for not being able to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They had full opportunity and
time to do that under the petition of 8A.
MR. WHITE: I believe there was some evidence in that regard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's why it got denied.
MR. WHITE: I understand that. And I just wanted to indicate
for the record so that we'd be able to -- when we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're bringing something
in that was already discussed by the board on somebody else's
petition.
MR. WHITE: Understood, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: I would also note, just for the record, that we
have not had our PUD extended before, like theirs was, and also that
we have a pending determination with the County Attorney's Office
Page 179
---- ."-
February 14,2006
on a legal question. So we're quite different. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I close the public hearing at this
time. And I believe we have --
MR. MUDD: You have a motion on the floor to continue
indefinitely and you have a second, and --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- there was discussion if you wanted to amend
that particular item to make it some time --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: In June.
MR. MUDD: -- time specific, first board meeting in June --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that could be --
MR. MUDD: But that hasn't been amended as far as the motion
or seconded as far as an amendment to the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It will be in my motion to continue
it to the first meeting in June.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Whatever that may be.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whatever that may be, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And does that follow your second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't second.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Halas, you made the second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I got the second, all right. Okay.
It's been a long day.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's quit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in -- all those in favor of
amending this or to extend this to the first meeting in June, first,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign?
Page 180
---- ~---
February 14,2006
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
Item #8D
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SCHEDULE SEVEN OF APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (THE
COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMP ACT FEE
ORDINANCE), TO REFLECT THE AMENDED RATES SET
FORTH IN THE IMP ACT FEE STUDY, PROVIDING FOR THE
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF THE IMP ACT FEE
STUDY ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY,
ESTABLISHING METHODOLOGY FOR THE ANNUAL
INDEXING ADJUSTMENT TO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES IMPACT FEE RATES, AND PROVIDING FOR A
DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF APRIL 3, 2006; MOTION TO
CONTINUE TO THE FEBRUARY 28,2006 BCC MEETING-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is a recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an ordinance
amending schedule seven of appendix A of chapter 74 of the Collier
County Laws and Ordinances, which is the consolidated impact fee
ordinance, to reflect the amended rate set forth in the impact fee study,
providing for the incorporation by reference of the impact fee study
entitled Collier County Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee
Update Study, establishing a methodology for the annual indexing
adjustment to the emergency medical services impact fee rates, and
Page 181
--_..,. ...-
February 14,2006
providing for a delayed effective date of April 3, 2006.
And staff has requested this particular item be continued until the
28th of February because there was an error found by our impact fee
consultant on the spreadsheet that would im -- that would affect the
particular impact fee that's being recommended by staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have an -- a nod of approval to
bring this back to my board --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continue this till this next meeting,
which will be February 28th. Okay.
Motion by Commissioner Coyle and seconded by Commissioner
Henning (sic). I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposing, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's unanimous.
Item #8E - Moved from Item # 16C3
RESOLUTION 2006-38: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A
RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING COLLIER COUNTY'S
SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Page 182
.___~......_~._.__m'____ .... __~._.._,.__.___
February 14,2006
REVERSE OSMOSIS WELLFIELD EXPANSION TO 20
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY (MGD) FACILITIES PLAN,
DECEMBER 2005, ALLOW THIS PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED TO
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER
OR HIS DESIGNEE TO CARRY OUT RESPONSIBILITIES
UNDER THE FDEP LOW INTEREST LOAN PROGRAM -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is item 8E, and it used to be item
16C3. It's a recommendation to approve a resolution of the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners adopting Collier County
South County Regional Water Treatment Plant reverse osmosis
wellfield expansion to 20 million gallons per day facilities plan dated
December 2005, which would allow this plan to be submitted to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection and authorize the
county manager or his designee to carry out the responsibilities under
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection low interest loan
program.
This was moved to the regular agenda at staffs request because I
believe Mr. Tom Wides has to put some information on the record.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, good afternoon. As Mr. Mudd
said, Tom Wides, Operations Director for Public Utilities. This is
another incident of a low-interest state revolving fund loan that we're
required by FDEP to put a few words on the record, and I ask your
indulgence.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the adoption of the
Collier County South Regional Water Treatment reverse osmosis
well field expansion to 20 million gallons per day, the facilities plan.
Once adopted, the county may avail itself of low-interest state
revolving fund loans for construction of this project.
Due to the rapid population expansion experienced by the county
Page 183
~._-_... ---~ ..-....--
February 14,2006
in the last few years, it is necessary to augment this capacity to meet
the increase in water demand.
The county has approved the South County Regional Water
Treatment Plant 12 million gallon reverse osmosis expansion project.
The South County Water Treatment Plant, our old wellfield expansion
to 20 million gallons, will provide the necessary raw water to supply
this plant.
The public purpose is to save taxpayers approximately $12
million by using a 20-year low-interest state resolving fund loan
versus a 20-year bond at current market rates.
Collier County is seeking $45 million in SRF loan funding under
this -- under this program. The current rate structure is sufficient to
absorb the debt for this project.
The requested action today is that the commission approve the
resolution adopting the facilities plan immediately following this
public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tom, you're asking us to give you
approval to save the taxpayers of Collier County $12 million?
MR. WIDES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Beautifully put.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- by Commissioner Coyle and a second
by Commissioner Fiala in regards to saving $12 million for the
taxpayers here in Collier County.
All those in favor of this motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 184
-'~-''''>'' ,--,----
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And could I provide a
supplemental motion to approve Mr. Wides --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's see if this is going to pass first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- Mr. Wides to save an additional
$30 million for the people of Collier County? Can we keep doing this,
Tom?
MR. WIDES: By executing a few more projects, we can do that,
so it's going to take some to save some. Thank you very much,
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let me finish the motion up.
MR. MUDD: Wait a minute. You need to finish the motion.
You've got --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those in regards to denying
this motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not denying it, approving it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We approved it once.
MR. MUDD: He just needs to finish and see if anybody's in
opposition of the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. MUDD: And I believe it passed 5-0.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, 5-0 vote.
Item #lOB
REQUEST FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THAT THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY DONATE
THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE BEMBRIDGE PUD TO
BE USED FOR AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING;
DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH HOUSING
Page 185
~--".... _".w',_ "'---'---
February 14,2006
ADMINISTRATION AND TO SEEK DIRECTION FROM THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is lOB, and that is a request from the Collier County Housing
Development Corporation that the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County donate the residential portion of the Bembridge PUD
to be used for affordable workforce housing, and Mr. Cormac Giblin,
your Affordable Housing Manager, will present.
MR. GIBLIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
again, my name's Cormac Giblin. I'm before you to present a request
from the Collier County Housing Development Corporation,
requesting that the county donate the residential portion of the
Bembridge PUD to be used for affordable workforce and gap housing.
That's -- the first issue I'd like to address is the title of this item
says that it be used for affordable workforce housing, and that was
drafted, as you know, a few weeks ago when we were under the
direction that affordable workforce would be all encompassing.
Since then we've had a couple more meetings, and you all have
taken -- given us the direction that there's going to be affordable
workforce and gap. This -- this proposal is to provide for all of those,
all of the above.
On December 13th the board heard a public petition from Kathy
Patterson, the Executive Director of the Collier County Housing
Development Corporation requesting that this item be brought back at
a regular agenda time to be discussed.
I'm going to be providing a little bit of background about the
property, about the county's history with this property, and then turn it
over to Ms. Patterson to make her presentation.
Collier County purchased the property in 2001 for a purchase
price of approximately $413,000 for this 5.2-acre site. It has been
recently appraised by our real property department and has come back
Page 186
---..-.--".. -.-
February 14,2006
with a value of about $1.1 million. It has more than doubled in the
past four years, which is probably why we're faced with this issue to
begin with.
The Collier County Housing Development Corporation is a
private not-for-profit housing development corporation established in
2001. The Board of County Commissioners was instrumental in the
enactment and the forming and the start-up of that corporation by
giving them a grant of $98,000 to be used to start up -- as seed money.
Since then they've been involved in several community activities,
community forums, housing fairs. And recently they've partnered
with the developer to provide 32 units of very low income
owner-occupied housing in the Cirrus Pointe PUD, which was
approved by the board in terms of a rezone action about a month ago.
I believe those are the specifics of the property, the costs that are
there. And without further ado, I turn it over to Ms. Patterson to tell
you what she would propose to do with it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners, I'm in
front of you once again to ask you to consider --
MR. MUDD: State your name for the record, please.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you give us your name, please.
MS. PATTERSON: Oh. Kathy Patterson, Collier County
Housing Development Corporation.
I'm here again to ask you to put the portion of the Bembridge
PUD that was put aside for residential, to put it into a land trust which,
for the Collier -- with the Collier County Housing Development
Corporation.
By putting this land in a land trust, you realize that we will be
able to keep this -- these units affordable forever. When you put
property in a land trust, they typically -- they don't own the land.
They just own the dwellings above the land, and we give the owners a
99-year lease.
Page 187
~----- ~'._--"-" -.-....--
February 14,2006
The HDC has partnered with Jim Fields of Cirrus Pointe to
develop housing, and you will see that we've got a good mix of
housing units and it will be a community that our families will be very
happy to live in.
The incomes for these units, the family income, will be for
families between 60 and 150 percent of area median. And in dollars,
that equates to a family earning between 40,000 -- and these are rough
-- and $95,000. These are the families that would be eligible to buy
these properties. The preliminary cost of the housing would range
between 150- and $350,000.
As you know, as Cormac said, we are already partnering with
Jim Fields in the development of Cirrus Pointe. Cirrus Pointe is
108-unit condo development on the corner of Bayshore and
Thomasson, of which 32 of them are going to be for those 50 to 60
percent of median income.
Construction we hope to start within the next couple of months.
The Collier County Housing Development Corporation is also a
community housing development organization, a CHDO. We are
entitled -- we can ask for money that's typically not available to other
-- other nonprofits, and we will be able to get money such as site
development money, some -- probably some pre loan development for
this project.
I have Jim Fields with me today, and he is going to describe kind
of our community -- community concept for Bembridge.
MR. FIELDS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Jim Fields. I'm managing partner of Cirrus Pointe
Partners, presently in the process of developing Cirrus Pointe.
I have some handouts here I'd like to provide. The first thing is
that this handout is really a process in terms of what I use to basically
look at property and trying to quickly determine whether it's viable in
the most -- and the keystone or the beginning point is what people can
afford. How much -- what is their ability to pay.
Page 188
--.-. ...._~-
February 14,2006
The most critical portion of this entire document is found right
after the Bembridge plan, the PUD plan. And you'll see that it's titled
Bembridge, 5.2 acres, it begins with sale prices.
When I first laid this out, I began looking at not only what people
could afford, but what was the environment in terms of retail sales in
the area, looking at what banks were doing in providing funding
sources and what the cost of those funds were going to be, what the --
what the current construction is like in terms -- on the square footage
basis, and what that ultimately results in, in terms of final
construction, overall development cost.
That was them pumped into a spreadsheet. What you see in front
of you is the result of a one-acre -- a single-story -- single-family
home on a single-story including garages, okay? And so really what
you're looking at here first is the end result.
The first part up above basically shows that based on utilization
incorporating preserve, water management and other entitlement
requirements into it, the current site of 5.2 acres will support 32 acres
(sic). Again, this is all single-story construction.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thirty-two units, not 32 acres.
MR. MUDD: Thirty-two units.
MR. FIELDS: Thirty-two units; I'm sorry, 32 units.
When I -- if you go to the next sheet, which basically is the
physical feasibility, this is -- you begin to see the assumptions I used
in arriving at that -- at that level.
I basically took into consideration, again, the ability to pay by
saying typically it's 30 percent of a family's income can be allocated
for mortgage payment purposes, with a maximum of 36 percent based
on banking standards and industry standards in terms of expectation.
I also said, we also assume that we have a median income for
Collier County of $63,400, a current mortgage rate of about seven
percent stretched over 30 years, analyzed over 360 payments.
Assuming a 10 percent down payment and closing costs of seven
Page 189
,..-.-" ".-.---.........--..- ...--
February 14,2006
and a half with commission -- real estate commissions of five and a
half percent, then extrapolated that into actual construction costs of
$120 a square foot, with a maximum retail cost of about $158 a square
foot being realized in the market today.
Taking all that into consideration, along with a garage allocation,
and allocating the percentages based on experience looking at
preserve, water management, buffers, internal buffers and other
requirements, I began to layout a whole structure of proposed mixes.
And the first goal is to basically utilize a site on single story.
Ultimately you can go two story if you want, but max out looking at
the single story first. And then basically coming up with what I see as
sales prices.
And what you see in front of you, going back to 5.2-acre page, is
that range based on 60 percent through 150 percent of median income
with sales price ranges of anywhere from 150 to 177,000 at 60
percent, and going up from there, 80 percent of median income, 90
percent of median income, and so forth.
This basically results in total allocation of 32 units, which I
attempted to -- that I -- which I then took those related costs, the
construction components, the financing and everything else that
basically is rolled into my financial feasibility.
What I found very quickly in doing the financial feasibility, that
32 units would not work on this site given the cost of development and
all the other related costs associated with it.
So then I said, okay, let's start playing with some of the
components. In there, my first shot was basically to take out the land.
Right now I had the land valued at 441,000 sitting in there. When I
took that out, it made very little difference. I still -- in the first
scenario we showed a net loss of about two and a half million dollars,
okay.
When I took out the land and basically did the -- took out the
land and then I said, okay, start looking at further, not only the land,
Page 190
~--- .- -
February 14,2006
but looking at some aspects of, like, a community building, other
things that we feel we could provide in the future and that type of
thing, it still didn't work, and I was still almost down three-quarters of
a million dollars. So then -- that tells me then I have to start
increasing units.
So then I went about the process of increasing -- stepping up the
units. So say, for example, from 32 to 42, 42 to 52, 52 to 62 and so
forth. And use -- all working within that same sales frame, those
projected sales prices, range of prices, for 60 to 150 percent of median
Income.
What I found is that when I got to the actual feasibility, 72 units
was, in fact, the component, or at least the threshold that we needed to
have to justify start-up, all these other related costs in terms of
construction, acquisition, and the other costs.
This, in essence, if -- you begin to look at how that lays out in
terms of the actual number of units provided of that 72. There would
be eight units provided for people basically at 60 percent of median
income for Collier County, another 18 units for people residing at 80
percent of median income, 22 units of people making 63,4- a year,
another 10 units at 120 percent, another eight units at 140 percent, and
another six units at 150 percent.
That basically allows this project on a break-even basis -- and I
think that's important to note, that there is no profit to be taken here
other than the fees and services provided in the project itself under the
contract, i.e., the contractor is going to be paid construction fee, a
construction management fee. The developer will be paid a
development fee. There will be no other profit above and beyond that.
The idea -- the goal here was to break even knowing that the land
-- we were going to propose that the land be contributed based on the
results here.
The bottom line is that when the project is ultimately sold and
filled, we basically have -- as it stands right now, there's basically a
Page 191
-,--_.._---_._,_..__.~,.~-,,-,._.._.- , --,,'-
February 14,2006
$55,000 profit. And the goal here is, obviously, to make that zero.
Now, there are -- there are other things that begin to flow as we
begin to go through this process. Obviously things change, materials
change. There are a host of things, banking considerations change, all
that. But for right now, this was the best snapshot that I was able to
provide to demonstrate what would make this particular site viable and
feasible underneath these conditions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're telling me that you need to have a
density of 72 units, which comes out to a little over 14 units per acre,
and yet you don't even take into consideration for somebody that's
down in the 50 percentile of the -- is that correct?
MR. FIELDS: Yes. Commissioner Halas, what I did, when I
basically looked at -- I actually tried to basically extend this all the
way down. But what happens is that the -- we go down -- somebody
has to also carry. If you look at that -- if you look at the sheet, the
fiscal feasibility sheet where I begin to lay that out, you'll note that in
the adjacent columns --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What page are we on?
MR. FIELDS: -- adjacent to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have a page number?
MR. FIELDS: I'm sorry, no, I -- it's page one of the -- of the
income mortgage construction projection sheet. You can -- you can
pick either one, and it will show you that.
Basically for a single-family for a unit of that type the project
would have to carry -- and that's the other component I put in here.
You'll notice that the square footage says that these units are only
going to be 779 square feet. This spreadsheet assumes that the
minimum's going to be 1,200 square feet, because we know that that's
what the market will demand, okay?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Twelve hundred square feet?
MR. FIELDS: Twelve hundred -- 1,200 square foot unit. That
would be the smallest unit of this entire batch, and you can see how
Page 192
.-"." " '''--'--- -_._-
February 14,2006
the unit sizes correspond on this sheet here, on the 72 unit side.
But to answer your question, if I look at the 50 percent of median
income, you're going to see that there's a $50,525 loss in terms of
actual cost that would have to be borne per unit, all right?
So when you layout mixes like this, you try to create a curve in
something that will carry without putting -- you want to remain within
those thresholds, those sales, retail sales thresholds. And what I tried
to do was stick as close as I could to that 30 percent without even
bothering going up -- right now, as it stands, from 100 percent and up,
we're talking about roughly a $25,000 addition to those sales prices in
order to justify the current mix I have with 60 and 80 percent
involved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The -- in the opening statement, I
believe, by Cormac, you were -- he was stating that these were going
to fall in the category of $95,000, which would be the 150 percentile.
MR. FIELDS: Yes, yes. That is --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. When I look at what the prices
are for these homes, you're just barely into the 150 percent. When you
look at the price of 369,360 --
MR. FIELDS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- I come out with -- if you're in the--
three times somebody's income would be about 285 -- 285,000.
MR. FIELDS: Correct. Yeah, I understand what you're saying.
This is based -- again, what we're doing here, this takes into -- I
present valued those funds. In other words, I took closing costs and
everything else and decided -- in other words, and this assumes, i.e., a
real estate commission that would then back out some of those. You
would take that number, then back out the rest and then -- to achieve
that number that you're talking about in terms of affordability.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And what'd you say it would cost to
build these homes? What was your best guess?
MR. FIELDS: Right now I've got the base square footage right
Page 193
------~-,.- --
February 14,2006
now at $120 a square foot.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hundred and twenty dollars a square
foot?
MR. FIELDS: Hundred and twenty dollars a square foot if we're
talking about single-family, single-story. And total retail or around
approximately 158-. And you'll see on the -- on the 72 unit, it comes
out to be around 163-, so it's fairly close.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wow, okay.
Commissioner Fiala, I believe you're first up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. First of all I wanted to know
whether you would be limiting the sales of these units -- I'm all in
favor of it, by the way. I think this is wonderful.
Will you be the limiting the sale of these units to homesteaded
people, to owner-occupied people, to Collier County homesteaded
owner-occupied people?
MS. PATTERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
MS. PATTERSON: They would not be investment, if that's what
,
you re --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
MS. PATTERSON: They will not be allowed to be investment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's where I'm going, that's good.
That's where I'm going.
And then the second thing is, I came in thinking, oh, my
goodness, if we didn't have land involved, that we would be able to
knock the price down a lot. You'd think that -- I mean, they say the
biggest cost of building a house is the price of the land, and it's
amazing that the price of the land doesn't seem to -- I would think
you'd build a bigger unit or something, but the price of land, according
to this, didn't make much of a difference.
MR. FIELDS: Well, it does make a difference. If you look at
the size of the square footage that are allocated --
Page 194
-_.~~ ---
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that what it does, it makes it a
larger unit?
MR. FIELDS: It allows -- it allows more -- let's say, for
example, if I looked at this 72 units, and you think about it on a single
plane, you know, with the buffers and everything else provided, we're
going to be looking at, at least vision-wise, looking at a variety of
different units in terms of single story, attached, detached, four-story
-- or two-story coach homes, that type of thing, to give it a flavor, a
feel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
MR. FIELDS: But the quality level, quite frankly, here, is
relatively high across the board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. That's what I
wanted to know also. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Who's next?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. Sir, the
chart that we have over here on -- well, I got -- there's no page number
on it.
MR. FIELDS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This particular scenario of
events coming down with the 60 percent to 80 percent right on
through to 150, that's what you're proposing; is that correct?
MR. FIELDS: Yes, that -- and you'll see the number of units
associated with that mix, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, I've got a question
for you, and I'm sure it's going to come up very shortly, and we may
have to go to staff on it.
As you know, this housing crisis is across the board and it affects
every entity of our county, every organization, school system, the
hospital, the sheriffs department, our constitutional officers, and, of
Page 195
--_._-_...~_."..._--,. .,,-~--
February 14,2006
course, Collier County Commission and its employees. We're hoping
at some point in time that we can have other people step up to the
plate. We're seeing some examples now, and the hospitals are talking
about it, the school system --
MR. FIELDS: Right, the school system.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- working on Florida--
changing Florida Statutes to be able to allow them to build on school
property for housing for the employees.
This is going forward at a fairly expeditious pace. Now, we're at
the point now where we're talking about land that's in Collier County
Commission's domain. It's not land that's been denoted by somebody
else. It's land that's in our domain.
And I wonder what -- the responsibility that we have as county
commissioners for our own employees. We're suffering an attrition
rate at present at 15 percent, and I'm kind of concerned that all of a
sudden, if this project goes out and it's open for everyone, including
the school system and everyone out there and everybody gets a couple
there, that the feeling's going to be, well, let's not work on this, that the
county has solved the problem for us. Let's take a step back and see
what they do next, and what other lands are going to come available
from the taxpayers base to be able to work with.
Would it be possible that this particular project could be
dedicated to county employees? Because wherever you can lessen the
burden, doesn't matter where it is, it's going to have an effect across
the whole market.
MS. PATTERSON: We can put any kind of restrictions on this
that you commissioners request.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. That's the
question I had.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you sure? Don't you get
federal funds? Aren't you eligible for federal funds?
Page 196
--.... -_.._.~-- -----
February 14, 2006
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you absolutely sure that the
federal government will not require that you make these units
available to anyone who wants to purchase them?
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, most of those federal funds come
through -- come through our office. The issue of putting the
restriction that is house only Board of County Commissioners'
employees may make it problematic for Ms. Patterson to go after
certain grant funds, but others don't have a problem with it. It just -- it
can be worked around if that's the desire of the board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That is one of the biggest
impediments to getting approval for this, as far as I'm concerned. If
you could -- if you can assure us that these will be -- and no offense to
any retirees in the audience, that these will be for workers in Collier
County Government, then I am very, very much in favor of this,
because we need to do something for our employees. We're having a
hard time getting -- as you know, I'm not -- I don't have to tell you
this.
So I would like to know more about the procedures for a couple
of things. Number one is, I'm not sure we can give you property and
value it below market value. I don't know that we're permitted to do
that. We need to work that out.
Now, let's suppose it's valued at $1.1 million. We need to know
the alternatives here. Is it better that we continue to own it rather than
giving it to you, or do we merely lease it to you, or do we retain
ownership, you build it and manage it?
You know, we need to work those details out because it makes a
big difference. If we must transfer that property to you at the fair
market value, as I think we should, you're talking about a $1.1 million
cost of land, not $340,000, or whatever it was, 430 --
MR. MUDD: Four hundred fourteen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- 414. So that can make a big
Page 197
--~,. - ,-,..~_. .._--~...~ --
February 14,2006
difference in your financial calculations.
The other question is, how would you go about paying that -- that
amount back to the taxpayers of Collier County and still making this
an affordable project?
So there are some details that have to be worked out. I'm not
sure we have them all worked out here today. But I, for one, would
certainly be willing to proceed in a positive manner and urge you to
continue to evaluate these things because I think it's something we all
want to do, but you've got to give us some answers to these questions.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner Coyle, I think I can answer several
of those.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. GIBLIN: Number one. The issue up for discussion today is
not whether to transfer the property today or not. It's to give us
direction to work with the County Attorney's Office to develop a
formal resolution that will answer many of those questions.
The other one about potential elimination of future grant fund
availability, Mr. Fields has done this entire analysis, you know, from a
back-in model very detailed on every piece of -- every cost it's going
to take to create these units, and has not figured on getting one penny
in grant funds.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the way it should be.
MR. GIBLIN: So he had worked the numbers to where he
doesn't rely on grant funds to make it work.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, if you get grant funds,
where does that surplus go?
MR. GIBLIN: I would assume he may be able to serve some of
those down at the 50 percent level or reduce the price of the homes.
MR. FIELDS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. Those are the kinds of
details that we need to flesh out. And if all you're looking for is
guidance to proceed with evaluation of doing this, I'd be happy to
Page 198
--- --.-....-'.--..-'.' ---
February 14,2006
make that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got some questions on this. Your
figures that you used here, what did you base the land cost at?
Because the appraised value 1.134 million.
MR. FIELDS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The market value, I believe, is about two
and a half million. Were you basing this on $413,000?
MR. FIELDS: No, I wasn't basing it on $413,000. I started off
basing it on $441,000, because we tried -- when I ran that $1.1
million, it created a significant loss. And I said, okay, let's talk about
-- let's drop it down to 441.
Well, I mean, I'm just doing it straight-out feasibility, financial
feasibility, in looking at what makes this thing work.
Right now, as it sits, we are assuming that the payment would be
referred or given to the CCHDC and somehow repaid in some time
fashion along the lines where it wasn't recognized up front, so it did
not have to be associated with this component. You see what I'm
saying? So it would not beef up these prices.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. I didn't want to interrupt
you, but I want you to get a complete answer to the question.
The problem is, ifhe pays it over a time period, there's a value of
money appreciated with that loan, with that -- and if we're going to be
__ we're going to perform our fiduciary duties for the taxpayers, we're
going to have to charge you interest on that. That complicates the
problem even more. So maybe we shouldn't be transferring the land to
you. Maybe we should keep it and we stay out of that business.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or lease it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or lease it to you, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. My other concerns were, when I
asked staff for -- in regards to financial statements, they couldn't
produce them for us. And I was concerned about that. I know that
you -- you're a 501C-3, and I would think that each year that you
Page 199
-- --_.-
February 14,2006
would go through the process of having everything audited.
So I was concerned about that aspect of it. Can you enlighten me
on this, because --
MS. PATTERSON: I sure can. You have to realize that there
was very little activity in the checking account prior to the -- my being
hired at the CCHDC, which ended up being a year ago this month.
So right now we are in the process of getting an audit. We really
aren't required to -- and Cormac may -- because we have not had over
500,000 in funds from the grant funds, we are just required to have a --
something less than an audit, a review of our books.
That was per the county when I met with them a couple of weeks
ago. But we are -- we are in the process of talking to an accountant
who does work for non-profits to see if they will do an audit for us.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. Because I would think with the
501C-3 that you have to bring everything out in front, and there hasn't
really been a clear audit trail, and that was one of my concerns.
And I'll turn this over to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I like this discussion,
where it's going, for the needs of county government, and I hope we
include the constitutional officers also.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Everybody except the clerk.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I didn't hear that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Crystal's laughing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- I don't see anything
wrong with having apartments, one-bedroom, one-bath there. There
are many employees that come to Collier County who are single, you
know, young, and they need a place to stay.
But talking about auditing, Commissioner, it states here in our
executive summary that the monies came out of emergency
management impact fees.
Page 200
.- -_.-,-,------" -'--
February 14,2006
MR. MUDD: Impact fees, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, we need to refund
that anyways, and we needed to do that ifthere's an EEOC or sheriffs
substation or whatever, because those were just for EMS. So we need
to refund that anyways in -- from the general account.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. If--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would ask the Clerk of Court
to audit his transaction to find out where the monies actually did come
from to purchase this property. So regardless, we need to straighten
this out anyways.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So your motion, Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My motion was to provide
direction to staff to continue to work with the housing corporation to
develop the details with respect to creating affordable housing,
primarily for government employees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Included in your motion would
be to look at the feasibility of the county retaining ownership of this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All those options, yeah. Whatever
makes --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it is. Any options like that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because I think the taxpayers have a lot
invested in this piece of property, so that's why I have concerns on it.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Coletta, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. We look a lot
alike.
Page 201
.-- ..m.__""_ .-
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, you know. You both start with C,
too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's a lot older than I am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning made a
point a moment ago about providing -- also looking at the possibility
of providing something in the way of a limited number of apartments,
because that would do a couple of things. One, that would get that
very low income, that single person that's out there. Also, too, it
would probably bring the cost down of what you would have there,
because it's a lot less expensive to build apartments than it is small
houses and still retain the main issue, being home ownership.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other thing that I'm concerned about
is the price ofland that's fairly reasonable. We've got a lot of density,
but yet we're looking at a top value here of 443,000. And you can buy
a single-family home where you have to buy the land and it's 500,000.
So I think there's a -- I think you need to work with some numbers
there a little bit. Okay.
MR. GIBLIN: Yeah. Commissioners, if I can add one more
point about, it's the intention of the HDC to put this into a community
land trust. They're in the process of creating that community land
trust, and it's their -- their plan to invite the board to sit on that
community land trust, so it really is respective of all the aspects of the
community. And so when we bring this back, you may also see a
request to join that partnership.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You really want to screw it up,
don't you?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think there's also--
MR. GIBLIN: It's at their request.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Isn't there also going to be, on one of the
boards, where there's going to be people who live presently in
Page 202
---- --,---" . ..-
February 14,2006
affordable housing that are going to be on this board? Are -- they
already been named?
MR. GIBLIN: Yeah. That is a requirement of what -- Kathy
mentioned her group is organized as what's called a Community
Housing Development Organization, a CHDO. And in order to be
recognized as a CHDO, at least one-third of your board members must
be low income themselves and be the recipients of this type of
housing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, are we just
about ready to make a vote here or --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. We've already got a
motion on the floor and a second.
We have a lot of homes here -- let's see -- 24 homes here that are
like above 300,000. And if we find that there's a need for more that
are, like, a little bit below that because maybe market rate is already
filling that need, would you be able to swap these around a little bit so
that -- I mean, I realize it's all calculated in profits and losses and all of
that business. But could you possibly weigh in so that you have a
little bit more that are more like affordable or something?
MR. FIELDS: Yeah. I mean, again, this is all predicated upon
what is considered affordable at 30 to 36 percent, staying within that
framework, okay? Most certainly. But obviously what I was
attempting to also do was to justify all that infrastructure, all that
start-up, everything else that went into this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. I was just thinking that, you
know, ifpeople are already building market rate, if these rate that are
higher --
MR. FIELDS: Oh, certainly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that maybe we would need more
that people aren't building, is my point.
MR. FIELDS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I won't belabor it any longer.
Page 203
~--_._.. '._..._~.M ...-
February 14,2006
MR. FIELDS: All right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'm going to -- ifthere's no
further discussion. Yes, County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, yes. In regard to the staff being
directed to kind of do all things so you can come back with a report of
various options, I would like the option of, with your authorization, to
make a request, definition request, from the attorney general, for an
attorney general opinion.
One of the statutes that we will probably be working under, under
the local government statutes at chapter 125, is statute 125.38, and it
talks in terms of a local government being asked by a state or another
government or a not-for-profit organization, that requests a desire for
purposes of obtaining property for community benefit, which would
appear is the case that we have here.
But the law does indicate that the board, meaning you as a board,
is satisfied that such property is required for such use, that is the
desired use of the requester, and is not needed for county purposes,
may thereupon conveyor lease the same at private sale to the
applicant for such price, which can be nominal. It does not require a
full price or anything like that.
But by virtue of the fact that there's a question before us to
investigate relating -- they need to investigate and we need to
investigate further about a potential limitation or use of the property
for county employee housing.
I want to make sure that the attorney general agrees that if that
were to come into play here, whether it's a lease or a sale or a
conveyance of any other kind, that the language of the statute that
says, and not needed for county purposes, doesn't run afoul with
county employee housing, and so that would be part of our
investigation.
I wanted to put that on the record and get a nod from you as well,
if you would.
Page 204
---- ---."..-- ~..-
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Ifthere's no further discussion,
I'm going to call the question. All those in favor of proceeding with
this Collier County Housing Development Corporation, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes unanimously.
And we're going to take a 10-minute break because our court
reporter has been working feverishly. I know you people here are here
for the upcoming thing, and we hope that we can take care of the
matter that everybody's waiting here for. So we're going to take a
recess, 10 minutes.
(A brief recess was had)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
Okay. The next item is obviously very important to everyone.
What we're going to do is, staff is going to give a presentation, and
then we'll have some discussion, open dialogue, amongst all of our
commissioners here, and hopefully we can come to some sort of a
resolution.
And what we'll do then is make a determination of how many
people want to speak on this item, and if we come up with something
maybe is favorable to you, then it will be up to you to see if you can
talk us out of it. So with that, we'll open this up to -
Page 205
.- ~_._.__..~.~ ---""-
February 14,2006
Item #10G
PRESENTATION OF OPTIONS REGARDING USER FEES FOR
THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH PARKING GARAGE; MOTION
FOR THERE TO BE NO BEACH PARKING CHARGE FOR
RESIDENTS OF COLLIER COUNTY WITH A BEACH
STICKER AND A $6.00 CHARGE FOR NON-RESIDENTS AT
ALL BEACH LOCATIONS; AND TO BE BROUGHT BACK IN
ONE YEAR TO DISCUSS THE REVENUE AT THE BUDGET
HEARINGS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is item lOG. This item to be
heard at four p.m. It's 4:29 as we speak. It's a presentation of options
regarding user fees for the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage, and Ms.
Mary Ellen Donner, who's your deputy director of parks, will present.
MS. DONNER: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Mary Ellen Donner, assistant director, Collier County
Parks and Recreation Department.
Two weeks ago at the January 31 st Board of County
Commissioners meeting, a public petition was brought forth with
regards to the Vanderbilt parking garage, and I was -- staff was
directed to come back to the Board of County Commissioners today
and present options for that $5 per car parking fee at the Vanderbilt
Beach garage.
We have presented a PowerPoint, and I'm not sure if the board
wishes that I go through this PowerPoint or if you would just like to
ask me specific questions. I will do whatever you shall please.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How quick can you get through the
PowerPoint so that the people, whether they're sitting here or the
people out on TV land have an understanding of what we're
discussing?
MS. DONNER: I can be brief.
Page 206
------ _.._-_.._._."..~--~"--- ------
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good, please proceed.
MS. DONNER: The first slide that you're looking at actually
outlines the operating expenses, traffic control and beach shuttle
service for the north area beach access, and we're looking at it
holistically. So you will see the associated expense of two thousand --
$274,500 is constant with one exception through all of these options.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one question.
MS. DONNER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The traffic control, I believe, was voted
upon by the Board of County Commissioners, and it was like 34- or
$39,000.
MS. DONNER: That was a partial year. This represents 111
days, which is all weekends, and then seven holidays.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. DONNER: So the $274,500 is constant through all the
options, with the exception of one.
There are 340 available parking spaces at the new Vanderbilt
garage. And a formula that we have used throughout the parks and
recreation department is 75 percent full 300 days a year, and that's
based on historical actuals.
The 75 percent full and the 300 days per year, it takes into
account the days that it's inclement that, perhaps, we don't fill. It also
takes into account the days where we may have a two car per parking
space turnover. So that formula, 75 percent 300 days a year gives you
$76,500 parking occasions.
Based on historical data, we have determined that 70 percent of
the Vanderbilt Beach goers hold the current free beach parking permit,
and that 75 (sic) of the beach goers that visit Vanderbilt visit between
eight a.m. and three p.m. That's peak time.
And half of the 58,000 parking stickers that we distribute
annually county-wide are given out in the North Naples area; 29,000
are given out in that North Naples area.
Page 207
-.. ~ -- . .,~.." - .....---
February 14,2006
We presented eight options to the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board last Wednesday. Option A is a $5 fee per vehicle for
Vanderbilt Beach garage users. This means that stickers will not be
honored, and every car that enters that parking garage will be required
to pay the $5, and that is currently what is in our parks and recreation
fee policy.
Option B is a $30 annual pass for current beach holders -- sticker
holders, and that pass would be available to those who choose to
purchase it. It means that they would be able to use the garage these --
this $30 permit holder, and for all others who don't hold a permit, they
would have to pay $5 every time they parked.
Option C is the garage would be free parking to anyone who
currently holds a free beach parking sticker, and there would be a $7
fee for anyone else who chose to park in that garage.
Option D is a split type fee. We were looking to charge anyone
who enters that garage from eight a.m. to three p.m., a $5 flat fee, and
from three p.m. on, it would be free to current beach sticker holders.
And then, of course, anyone who doesn't hold a beach parking sticker
would pay the $5.
Option E was the split structure as well. It's a $5 fee for anyone
who does not currently hold a beach parking sticker. If you currently
hold a beach parking sticker, it would be $2 every time you parked at
the Vanderbilt Beach garage.
Option F is that we would reserve 120 spots at the Vanderbilt
parking garage. They would be reserved specifically and free to beach
parking sticker holders. Everyone else would have to pay $5.
Now, something about this particular option is it would be --
once the free 120 spots were gone, regardless if you have a beach
parking sticker, you would be required to pay the $5, and we based
that 120 spaces reserved for county beach parking sticker holders on
the fact that we had approximately 100, 125 spaces that was in the old
Vanderbilt parking area.
Page 208
....-~-" ....--... ---~
February 14,2006
Option G is free parking for everyone. No one pays anything.
This is obviously where your expenses will be different than the first
amount that I -- the $274,500. So that it would be unmanned parking
area, first come, first serve. Free to anyone, beach parking sticker
holders or not. There would be no staff there. That might pose some
staffing type problems ifthere's questions as to who can park or if it's
full or -- but it would be unstaffed, unpersoned.
Option H is a $50 sticker, beach parking pass, that's good only
for the garage, but it would also be available to anyone that wished to
purchase it. So for right now, all of our beach parking stickers have a
residency or property requirement to them. This $50 pass would be
available to anyone. There would be no residency requirement.
When we went to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, they
sent -- they asked us to bring two recommendations to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Their first recommendation was that the board consider
reinstituting or relooking at the $10 annual beach parking permit fee
for all people in Collier County who currently hold the free beach
parking sticker. And that sticker, the $10, would be annually or 20 per
year -- I don't know if this sounds familiar -- would then allow these
people who hold those stickers to park at that garage at no charge.
And additionally, if you did not have a permit, then you would be
charged $10 a day to park in the garage.
And then PARAB's second recommendation was to raise the
daily parking fee across the board for everyone who parks in a beach
parking area from the current $5 that we now charge to $6 so that the
burden would be put on the people who are not county residents, and
that the revenue that that would generate would offset that which we
thought we would gain from the Vanderbilt parking garage, and then
anyone who has a permit -- a sticker would then be able to park for
free anywhere as they currently can.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. That's
Page 209
._,-_.~,...,.- ..--.------.-- ----
February 14,2006
your --
MS. DONNER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any discussion? Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do not have a good appreciation
of those options that generate operating and maintenance costs and
those options that do not.
Clearly the intent is ifthere's -- there has to be an attendant there,
there has to be some supervision at the garage. We're trying to cover
the cost of that attendant and/or the operating costs associated with
that.
Can you tell us which options create an additional cost for
someone to be there and manage that facility?
MS. DONNER: All options with the exception ofG, which is
the unstaffed parking option, has staff there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Your option number two
that your P ARAB suggested you propose to us --
MS. DONNER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- what is the level of staffing that
would be required under that particular option?
MS. DONNER: It is the same as all other options excepting the
G, and that would be one tollbooth attendant at the facility from eight
a.m. till sunset, whenever it closed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then after that, you just close
up the garage and nobody uses it?
MS. DONNER: We have a gate system that if you were to be
parked inside --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can get out, but you can't get
in?
MS. DONNER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I understand. Okay. Good,
thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
Page 210
._--,. --",..~-~ . --
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fifty-eight thousand beach
stickers out of how many residents? Is this -- what year was this
58,000 beach --
MS. DONNER: Last year, last fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So approximately out of
350 000 --
,
MS. DONNER: Approximately.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- residents, we had 58,000
beach stickers?
MS. DONNER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And half of that was allocated to
the Vanderbilt Beach area residents?
MS. DONNER: To the North Naples area residents.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To the North Naples area
residents.
MS. DONNER: Those -- half of those stickers were given out at
Veterans Community Park on Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the -- you need to include
-- I mean, you've got park rangers. Are you including the cost of park
rangers on the beaches? Nothing.
MS. DONNER: Not in this presentation for the beach access, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The reason I bring that
up, we just approved, along with this $5 fee, a fee for boys and girls to
play baseball in our fields in a league, $40 an hour. So I mean, that
was part of the fee schedule that we approved, and they always was
charged a fee. But for little boys and girls, folks, to play in a Little
League team, it's $40 an hour for that field.
MS. DONNER: Actually, the children's programs that we run--
Commissioner Henning is referring to the fee policy that was passed at
the December 13th meeting--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. DONNER: -- at which their $5 fee for the Vanderbilt
Page 211
._~" '-""'"-
February 14,2006
garage was included. The actual -- all Little Leagues and so on, so
forth, pay $1 per child per game. That is what the Collier County
Parks and Recreation Department receives from leagues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm just saying what the
board supported and adopted, and it's here in writing.
MS. DONNER: That would be facility --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Athletic fields, athletic uses for
football, soccer, softball, and Little League is $40 an hour.
MS. DONNER: That is actually a field rented by a -- an entity
that the parks and recreation department is not, for example,
co-sponsoring, and it's at a for-profit rate so if someone were to come
in and rent that field and want to run something that we're not
involved with and they're going to make money off of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But there are a lot of things in
here --
MS. DONNER: Most assuredly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- based upon little boys and
girls, parents having to pay, and that's fine. I think it just ought to be
fair, just like it is fair for me to park my boat and my trailer at a -- at a
boat ramp parking facility. I have the choice to pay $5 or I have a
choice to get a yearly pass of $60, and I need to put that in my
windshield for my parking there, so I just want to be fair in this.
And the -- as far as the beach facilities, at a minimum it costs you
three-quarters of a million dollars a year. That doesn't include the
park rangers, okay.
MS. DONNER: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, that's the -- based upon
the $400,000 that goes to the City of Naples, and that's based upon the
evidence that you presented today of that 274,500, okay.
And all I want to do, whatever option anybody wants to do here
today, I'm in favor of it as long as it pays for itself. I think that is very
important. If it is fair and balanced for everybody's recreation, I'm all
Page 212
,~,.- _.._."m__.'_._" ~ ..~.~_..._,~
February 14,2006
in favor of it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. I have some concerns in the fact
that up in the North Naples area, since we have all these beach
stickers, we've lost -- we're in the process of losing two areas of access
to the waters up there for the people in North Naples.
One was the rezoning of the marina in regards to access to the
water, and the second one is where we're losing the Vanderbilt Inn,
and now that's going to become a condominium. And, again, we're
losing that access point.
We did get -- from the rezone I believe we had $2 million to
address beach access when we had that rezone, so I would think that
that $2 million, a portion of that, could be used to address this
particular issue.
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioner, I believe that the $2 million
actually was earmarked toward capital projects, not to operating
expenses, one of which was the back bay pier area and additional
parking to help with boaters using the Cocohatchee River Marina
element, and also to help with some beach access area. So at this
point we are earmarking that for capital projects.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, this is beach -- this is beach access
because it's used for people to use the parking garage.
MS. RAMSEY: I understand. But what we're looking at is an
ongoing operating expense and not a one-time capital element. And if
you so choose to use the $2 million to offset the operating, that's
definitely up to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we'll never get anywhere.
MS. RAMSEY: I just wanted to point it out. It was used for
capital.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The other thing is, you're saying
that there's going to be one operator that's going to be there to take
tolls if we decide to impose some kind of a fee for parking at the
garage, okay.
Page 213
-<---_.~._- -~--
February 14,2006
What about the security issues because we have bathrooms in
there? How is that going to be handled?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, we do have one attendant that will be in a
tollbooth right at the very beginning of this parking garage, who has a
monitor system. And there are cameras throughout the entire facility,
one of which that shines right on the doors of those rest room
facilities, can be monitored from his location.
I will also note that we do have roving park rangers who do come
through and will be going through the parking facility and providing
him with a break as well.
So there are other rangers that are not in this particular item
because this item was just strictly to look at new initiatives that we've
basically put on in the last 12 months.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. When I looked at the annual
operating expenses associated with the public access to Vanderbilt
Beach, it mentions beach shuttle service for $77,000, yet none of these
people will ever be using that parking garage, yet the people from the
parking garage have to pay for the beach shuttle.
And if I remember, last year it came out to be something like
$7,000 a person to shuttle them. I mean, it was some ridiculous figure.
Not only that, but then traffic control. And I think traffic control
is really for the state-owned beach there, and we're hiring somebody to
control the traffic because it piles up. I don't see why the parking
garage has to pay for traffic control either. I think those expenses
should come out from others.
So then you get down to operating expenses. And I would guess
that this is even maybe a little high, $131,000, and that could be paid
just by our tourists and visitors who have to come in there and are not
people who already pay taxes.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: People who already pay taxes have
Page 214
.---.- - ------.._~- ----"
February 14,2006
paid for the parking garage, and that's the way I look at it.
MS. RAMSEY: I understand --
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let me set the record --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The parking garage has been paid
for by tourist taxes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right, right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that. But I'm saying
that, to get in and out of the garage, they are already paying taxes here
in Collier County. And you know what, we have so few bennies
anymore. Benefits like that, I think we could use that little benefit. So
that's my two cents.
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioner--
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. This is a fun
subject. Happy Valentine's Day.
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioners, Ijust wanted to point out that
the $66,000 (sic) is currently being paid out of an ad valorem account.
So, yes, it is being paid through ad valorem taxes.
The shuttle that we've been running is not currently in our
budget. And when we go to provide that shuttle service for the
residents and their visitors in that particular area, someone will have to
pay that.
Parks and recreation put into this plan all of these items so that
they can either be paid for through a user fee or they can be paid for
through an ad valorem. And we just bring them to your attention and
you may do as you wish with them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could the shuttle be user fee, and
anybody who uses the shuttle pays a fee?
(Applause)
Page 215
--""- -----
February 14,2006
MS. RAMSEY: We could do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, wait a minute. Let's back
up just a little bit. There's more to this issue than just the people that
live next to the beach. I'm sorry, but I live inland quite a ways, and I
represent 80 percent of the county. That beach is just as much mine as
it's yours.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, sure. You can use the parking
garage.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now here's the problem we've
got is that about twice a year I get to go to the beach. It's just because
of the demands of this job and because of other considerations.
Usually when it's some relatives that are visiting.
So I just want to keep up front that if we're going to be
considering what we're doing, if we're looking to go back and putting
an annual fee on, it's not going to work for the people I represent that
are only going to make it to the beach a couple times a year to pay $20
for a beach sticker. It just won't work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My point exactly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Now, let's go back to
ground zero. I mean, Commissioner Henning really woke me up on
this issue of what's fair. And till that point in time I never even
considered it.
Before this commission very shortly you're going to be having
some people from Immokalee coming to you under public petition
asking for relief from the park charges, for their -- for their Pop
Wamer leagues and a couple other baseball groups to get together.
They do not have the funds.
I mean, this is a community where the average income's under
$25,000 a year, and their children just -- mean just as much to them as
ours mean to us. And there's a real issue there.
Page 216
-.-- -,_..,~~-'. -~--
February 14,2006
So if we're going to come up with something at this end that's
going to be offering more and more to the residents that are going to
be enjoying the beach, and still we're going to cause -- make the
children pay for the use of the fields, there's not a balance -- there's an
imbalance there. And I don't know what the answers are.
I'm just curious about one thing. Do we charge people to use the
county pools?
MS. RAMSEY: Most definitely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the charge for that?
MS. RAMSEY: That's her bailiwick.
MS. DONNER: Golden Gate Community Center charges $2.50
per child, $3.00 per adult, and Immokalee is somewhat less than that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But there's still-- these
fees exist, and they're a users' fee that's there.
MS. DONNER: It is a user fee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I guess the question is not,
what can we get for free, but what can we -- what can we get that's
going to be responsible.
Now, if you're using the beach every day, granted, there should
be something in there where you can get a bargain, and maybe that
yearly pass is the way to go. That's the way I'm going with this now.
You have the ability to get to the beach in short order, you get the
ability to be able to enjoy it, that's fine. You know, paying every time,
that might not be fine. You know, $5 times -- you know, 150 a month
if you go every single day for the course of a month. That's an awful
lot of money. I don't expect anybody to want to pay that.
But if we can come up with a users' fee that would give people
that are high end users the ability to be able to pay that fee, whether it
be $50 or whatever for a full year pass -- and if we're going to start it
this year, we have to pro rate it to whatever it is we start it with, rather
than just say it begins and ends with June or July.
But it's got to be something that's -- that is going to carry its own
Page 217
'-"'- -..-.------
February 14,2006
weight. And then the other people that come along can -- being I use
the beach twice a year and if I wanted to go to the parking garage and
pay $5, I wouldn't feel like it was a tremendous imposition under the
circumstances we're looking at. But I wouldn't buy the yearly pass
because I'd never get to utilize it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have the clock turned on?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Anyway what -- the concern that I have
is we're losing more access to the waterways, and I really believe that
the people that live here in Collier County, they're under -- already
under a stress, and I really believe that anybody that lives in Collier
County in regards to beaches -- we've had our beaches free for eons of
time, and I believe the city also has theirs free, and we also support the
city by $400,000 a year. I think that we should have it set up so that
the beach pass is free for the residents of Collier County and that we
put it --
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- that we have the tourists help offset
the expenses since the tourists also paid for this garage.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And so I think that's where we need to
go with this is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the clock at?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think where we need to go with this is
that we look at a fee of somewhere between 6 and $7 that should be
charged for nonresidents, and the residents get -- have access --
especially when the majority of the beach stickers come out of the
North Naples area, which includes my district, Commissioner
Henning's district, and probably some of them might come out of even
Commissioner Coyle's district, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They better not be going to the
Page 218
--_. "...--."---- .-
February 14,2006
beach up there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So that's where I am going on this.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, everybody seems to be
really, really happy about what we've been talking about. Let me
change the mood now.
Commissioner Henning has brought up a very interesting and
valid point. Whenever we make decisions here, we have to
understand the consequences on everything else we do.
And if -- I don't understand why the children who use the pools
couldn't employ the same argument or the boaters who have to pay to
launch their boats and park their boats and trailers couldn't use the
same argument, let somebody else pay for that; I don't want to pay for
it. Charge the tourists more or charge somebody else more money and
don't charge me anything at all.
It's a lot like a waterbed. You push down in one place and it pops
up somewhere else. It's going to cost us one way or the other no
matter how we do it. It's going to cost somebody.
And I've also thought that the fairest form of tax that anyone can
dream up is a user fee. People who use a facility or use a park or
whatever, they're the ones who pay for it. People who don't use it, you
know, why would they pay for it? I don't know.
But if -- we must be careful. If we make a decision now that we
don't charge a user fee for parking and we're going to transfer that cost
to somebody else, are the boaters going to be in here next week
saying, we don't want to pay a boater's fee -- launching fee either or a
parking fee either? It gets to be a very, very complex problem.
Now, I would like to at least get an appreciation for something.
The people I've talked with -- some of you are probably in the
audience -- are justifiably concerned because you go to the beach a lot
and you go four, five times a week, you're spending over a hundred
dollars a month just in parking fees, and that's really too much, I think.
Page 219
---,--,_._- ---,-,_._._.~~ -..'-
February 14,2006
But is there a way to reach a compromise? Is there a way to get
something that is reasonable so that we still can exercise the principle
of user fees so that we don't get into difficulty with other groups who
will make the same arguments? Is it possible that a small annual fee
to park an unlimited number of times in the parking garage would be
acceptable to you?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How many -- raise your hand, like $35.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or maybe something relatively
small?
THE COURT REPORTER: I can't report the audience.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Anytime. So there are a significant
number of people who are willing to pay a share to cover the cost
here, as long as it's not exorbitant?
And I think that's the key. That's the challenge that we're faced
with is trying to find something that makes sense and helps us pay for
the increased cost of providing the service without transferring it to
somebody else.
I, quite frankly, would like to support a combination of these two
things, increase the fee for the people who do not have stickers at all,
and then give the other people a chance -- you people, the residents
who have stickers -- let you buy an annual pass that gives you
unlimited use of that facility or any other pay facilities, and that way
you can do it at a cost that's not exorbitant, it shouldn't cause you a
problem, it helps us keep the principle of user fees consistent in
Collier County, otherwise we're going to get into a big, big fight with
everybody.
And I would just like to appeal to you to give that some
consideration. And we have a few people who are registered to speak.
If you could just give us some idea of what you think would be a
reasonable annual fee for free parking in these facilities, I think we
could arrive at an agreement on doing that sort of thing.
But I personally would like to retain the principle of user fees,
Page 220
-~..> ----....-...- _.--
February 14,2006
otherwise we're going to be arguing with every group of people who
pays a fee coming in here, and it's going to be never ending and it will
drive us nuts, and every time we reduce the funding for operating
expenses for paying those attendants, we've got to take that money
from someplace. That means we have less money to pay for more
facilities, such as that garage, so more people can get to the beach. So
it has a -- has an impact on us.
But tell me about -- is $20 a year too much to pay?
No, it's too much to payor it's not too much to pay?
Okay. How about--
THE AUDIENCE: If kids have to pay $40, I think we could pay
$20.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Per car, per family.
THE AUDIENCE: Special games are $40.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? We'll have
Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks. And you know, we
need to get this meeting under control, Mr. Chairman. It's -- we're not
going to get anywhere doing what we're doing today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please quiet down out there. You'll have
your time to speak here, but I'm hoping we can come up to a
resolution so that we don't have all 200 people up here to speak. So
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I want to say -- and it's
been said several times -- the beaches are free. They always have
been. It's the access to the beaches that have become a premium.
And we went through a big process of trying to find alternatives
for that, and one of them was the beach shuttle. Don't know if that's
going to work, but that's one of the alternatives.
The thing is, the beach shuttle or boat shuttle to the beaches, or
whatever it is, the users of that recreation needs to pick that up. And,
again, I'm all in favor of it.
Page 221
-- -- "--_.~"-- -. .-
February 14,2006
But when you leave here today, I hope that you would think of
one thing what Commissioner Coletta said, and it's about those kids in
Immokalee that cannot afford to pay the fee for Little League, and
how are we going to deal with that?
Isn't that -- should be our really (sic) concern is about our future
here in Collier County?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just want to make sure that
-- what we're paying for. I can go along with, say, a $10 a year fee
and people that don't have their beach parking pass pay $5. You
know, if they're here visiting or whatever, they just go to the beach
once or twice a year -- I just want to know what we are paying for.
I still don't think we should be paying for a shuttle that might or
might not work, and on holidays that might or might not be there.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I honestly don't feel that way. And
we're talking about that as part of the expense. I don't believe it is. I
think that should be a user fee just paid by those people.
And then I go back to the other one as well, and I think that the
security for certain days of the year when we have to -- I just -- I think
we should separate it. I'll just throw that in. Maybe that's a policy we
need to set as a board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion before we
call up the speakers?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How many people are in favor of paying
a nominal charge to use the garage, and that would be -- you'd have an
extra sticker that would be on your car? As you heard all the
dialogue, we're going to be faced -- if we pass this that there's no
charge at all, we can be assured that we're going to be hit with all the
young kids that -- of course, their parents work hard for them, and
we're concerned that maybe a nominal charge for the garage to help
Page 222
----_.,.,...~ . __.w._.". ..-
February 14,2006
maintain the garage and help maintain the people there should be
something that should be seriously looked at.
How many people here in favor of this?
Okay. How many people want to have a free charge? But let's
face it, some day it's not going to be a free lunch. It's either going to
show up in ad valorem taxes -- and I don't think that's where you want
to go.
And I think that people -- because then everybody pays, but
they're not the people that go to the beach. So that's where I think we
need to stand here. And I really believe that we need to have some
type of a user fee.
And we've got option B here of $30 annual pass, and then what
we'd do is up the rate for people that aren't in the county here, that
aren't residents, maybe at $6 a day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Five dollars a day? What are you
paying for again, the shuttle? You know, I mean, it's 133 -- see, you
know what --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What are they paying right now?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know yourself, figures become
very inflated when they're presented to us, right? Right. Let's take
them -- I'm sorry. I don't mean to, you know, belabor this, but let's
make sure we're paying for what we want to pay for.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that you need to
give direction to our staff. We don't want to do alternatives to get to
the beach, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think it's a huge mistake.
We're growing here in Collier County, and we need to take a look at
alternatives to get people to the beach. So what is it? We tell them no
alternatives or keep on looking at alternatives?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it just depends on whether you
Page 223
--. -.,-
February 14,2006
want a user fee or not, I guess.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I want to get something going.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I hate to take this
far afield, but, you know, the idea of the shuttles being a bad idea--
myself, I don't know, two times a year I go to the beach. Normally I
try three times a year, and one time I come and there's absolutely
nothing, nowheres to park anyplace. You drive around down there by
Wiggins Pass there looking for -- to get into the state lands, you can't
get in there. You end up turning around and going home. That's
happened quite a few times.
So when it comes to the shuttle, I'm a supporter of it. Get it to
work, that's what I'm saying. Don't cancel it. Find a way to make it
work so that when those major days come when people want to utilize
the beach, we get them -- the most people at the beach -- most people
can have that experience that they moved here for.
But, you know, if we're going to give direction to staff, it never
hurts to have them look at the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got it--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- taken care of.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we're going fine.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, if you go to Orlando or
Jacksonville or Miami and I park my car somewhere, I can pay 15 to
$20 a day, so I think that charging the tourists $5 a day is a real
bargain. I don't see anything wrong with charging them $6 a day,
okay?
Now, that will help us offset some of the deficits that we've got,
but we have to have a user fee of some kind for the parking and the
garage. And what I would suggest is we -- how much -- how much
additional revenue would the increase for the tourists to $6 generate
Page 224
. ------" - . ,.'-"".. -...-.....-.-...-,-. -----..--" . ----
February 14,2006
for us?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, are you talking about just this -- let
me ask it --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, everywhere.
MR. MUDD: Everywhere, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Let me help just a little bit. In other parking areas
in Collier County -- because things have been said. In other parking
areas of Collier County, if you have a beach parking sticker, you get
to park there for free, so it is subsidized. If you do not have a beach
parking sticker, you pay $5, okay, for -- and that's -- I'm talking about
across the board.
For every -- I just did some quick math. For every dollar that you
raise the nonresident parking fee, i.e., you go from $5 to $6, you
generate $125,000 across the county.
So if you raised it, across the county -- I'm not just talking about
this garage -- to $7, you would cover the cost of this parking garage in
what you were -- in what we're seeing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. I want to increase it
--
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to propose we increase it
from $5 to $6 and that we have an annual $10 parking fee for
unlimited use of the parking garage for residents, okay.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that way that gets us -- that
gets us all the money we need for operating and maintenance costs.
It's not exorbitant. I don't know of anybody in this audience who can't
afford to pay $10 a year to park at the parking garage, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that if you include all
parking. You know, not just the parking garage, the beach parking
sticker of $1 O.
Page 225
-~-' '-'--'-~---'-'- ._--
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, you get that free
everywhere else.
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: One at a time here, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't they get that free everywhere
else? I mean, if they've got a parking sticker, they don't have to pay
anything anywhere.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But what you're proposing is
just for the parking garage.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm just saying, do it
countywide, and then you just hopefully spread it out more.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd be happy to do that, sure, sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How does that sound with people?
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That sounds like we've got a majority
there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a second to your motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we have a motion on the floor.
THE AUDIENCE: What about the audience?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we're going to get to that now. We
just want to make sure we've got a motion and a second.
And we'll take some public speakers. But do you want us -- are
you going to try to talk us out of this?
THE AUDIENCE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Call the speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pardon?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have 10 speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: You want to call the speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Start the first speakers there, Sue.
Page 226
-~,,~-_.__.._- --
February 14, 2006
MS. FILSON: Betty Mathys, followed by Barbara Bateman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And you'll have three minutes.
Hopefully it will be sooner.
MS. MATHYS: The parks department meeting that I attended, I
recently learned that the garage is not recognized as a growth-related
item, that's why there's a funding problem. And it's ridiculous to say
that it's not growth related. We wouldn't need a parking garage. We
would have a little lot be sufficient had there not been growth.
This parking garage should be treated like any other parking
county facility. To say that it is different is not fair.
And if this user fee goes on, the little boys' parents are going to
have to pay that too. That's one more additional thing for them.
I think that there should be enough income generated without
charging for beach parking stickers for the garage. They're going to
have approximately 200 additional parking spaces. This is going to
generate additional income.
The Ritz-Carlton has an agreement to rent the garage after sunset.
This will provide additional income.
The parking supervision by the sheriffs department is nothing
new. I go to Vanderbilt Beach. I see the sheriffs department sitting
there to watch the cars. I appreciate it.
And the park rangers patrol the area. You see them come and go
and sometimes park there to watch what goes on. These are not new
expenses. These have always been there, so they should not be
counted as a new expense for the parking garage.
There's also an attendant on duty quite often collecting funds and
telling people where to go until they can get a parking space, et cetera.
As far as other improvements considered for Vanderbilt Beach
such as the shuttle, and there was even talk of opening a new access,
this is growth related and should be treated as a growth-related
expense.
If the state park requires the sheriff and traffic control, that's up to
Page 227
-...---.-- '~-""'-"-" ,,_.~._.. ._-~
February 14,2006
the state to pay for it, not the parking garage.
I think that fee for tourists should be raised countywide or not at
all, and that residents with the beach stickers, both city and county,
should be honored.
And as far as the little boys go, I think that was kind of a
tear-jerker approach and inappropriate. They would have the same
privileges at the parking garage I would. When I go to their ball field,
I'll pay my fee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good.
(Applause)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Barbara Bateman. She'll be
followed by Rose Ralumbo.
MS. BATEMAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm here as a
supporter of the beach goers. I'm very fortunate where I live, I can
walk to the beach, I can bike to the beach.
I don't really need to use the garage, but I'm looking out for the
citizens and the residents within Collier County that would have the
access to this parking garage.
We are -- as Commissioner Halas had stated, we are really, really
pressed for parking in the North Naples area, and beach access is
being taken away piece by piece by piece.
I have a couple points that I would like to bring up. First of all,
we're using the -- or had previously used the parking area right now,
and we can go in with no stickers. We've added two more layers of
parking, additional parking. I don't see a problem with the residents
going there and parking with a free beach parking permit.
I'm also concerned over the fact that the market rate figures had
not been calculated into the figures that are being presented to you
today. It is our understanding that there is a partnership with the
Ritz-Carlton Hotel for using those facilities, and how do we come up
and justify these figures?
It seems rather bogus to be putting all these figures around and
Page 228
-.. ----
February 14,2006
not really having the market rate figured in as to what they would
generate for revenue that would offset a lot of the costs that are being
presented here today.
And we also would like to say that I want to lend my support to
all of these beach goers, and I really am trying to sway you -- no lies
about that -- that you consider all of the Collier County residents. And
I'm sure that Collier County can find some other means of revenue to
generate to pay for that garage.
And we keep promoting tourism. Come to -- come to paradise.
We have no place to park. We can't get to the beaches. We can't get
to the waterways with our boats, yet we want to charge, charge,
charge, charge, charge, and keep tourists keep coming here and
saying, well, I can't get anywhere. I can't get anywhere on the roads, I
can't get to the beach.
That's really negative for this community, and I think you really
would do this community a true justice for all of Collier County
residents, such as Commissioner Coletta pointed out, what about the
people going to that garage paying for that permit, and I take my
family out there with all my paraphernalia? I can't get in. I have a
$10 permit. Sorry.
Just like the Delnor- Wiggins Park, people pay for those passes,
and a lot of times they can't even get in.
So I hope you reconsider this. Go through your thinking process,
not just for the people in North Naples, but all of Collier County,
because there are days that they want to take their families and that
they're close, and it's the accessibility to the Northern Golden Gate
Estates area that's most convenient.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. BATEMEN: And I want to thank you very much for the
opportunity to speak.
(Applause)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Rose Palumbo. She'll be
Page 229
-._.--"~ ,.~---- ---
February 14,2006
followed by Peter Tierney.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd just like to say that if you have
something new to offer, fine. If it's going to be the same thing, then
we don't want to hear the redundance.
MS. PALUMBO: No. I give up my time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker's Peter Tierney.
MR. TIERNEY: Waiving.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Carol Wright. Following Carol will be Jacqueline
Bammel.
MS. WRIGHT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Carol Wright, and I'm representing the BBBA. I want to commend
Commissioner Fiala, you -- everything you said was absolutely
correct.
One way that you could cut out the cost for this garage is to not
have to pay for that sheriff that directs the traffic. It never was
supposed to be in this garage; it never was. And also the price of the
shuttle was never supposed to come out of this garage payment. If
you could reduce both of those, you wouldn't have a problem. Have
the non-residents pay $6 and forget all the rest of us. Thank you.
(Applause)
MS. FILSON: Jacqueline Bammel. She'll be followed by Emily
Maggio.
MS. BAMMEL: Good afternoon. I just have two very short
comments that I'd like to make. Most them have already been stated.
And I just wanted to make sure I understand this. In all other
parking garages here in Collier County, is it true that they are free to
people who have a beach sticker? Is that so? Is this the only parking
garage, beach parking garage, that we will be charging for?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think we have another
parking garage.
Page 230
.~.- ,.,--,,-,._._~--" .--
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We don't have another parking garage on
the beach.
MS. BAMMEL: Okay. What was the comment that was made
earlier as far as parking in Collier County being free if you have a
sticker then? What did that refer to? Anyplace, anyplace. So this will
be the only place where we will be charged; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Because this is the only garage, yes, ma'am.
MS. BEMMEL: Okay, yeah. And the other comment I would
like to make -- and this is Commissioner Coyle wanting to charge a
nominal fee. We've discussed this before, and one of the big problems
with the nominal fee is when you buy one sticker for that nominal fee,
how many cars in that family does that cover? That's another
consideration I think we have to take into consideration. So if you
have two or three, then you're going to have to pay for three stickers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many cars can you drive at
once, ma'am?
MS. BEMMEL: Well, if you buy one sticker, let's say you and
your wife both have a car, and you take the car to the beach on the
weekend and the sticker's on your car, and your wife takes the kids
during the week, she's going to need an additional sticker, too, so you
are going to be charged.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I go to the beach, it's going to
be with my family, thank you very much. And I think that's the way it
is for most.
MS. BEMMEL: Not always, not always.
So I think it's just a consideration we have to take. And the other
consideration is, many of us, as we mentioned before in north -- in that
area, we don't have to park. Some of these people may be coming
from Immokalee, they may be coming from far away, they may be
people who can't afford as much as, perhaps, we could to pay for that
parking spot. It's just something to take into consideration. Thank
you.
Page 231
- --~-
February 14,2006
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Emily Maggio.
THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you please hold it down, please.
MS. FILSON: She'll be followed by James Holt.
MS. MAGGIO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Emily Maggio, and I've lived here for 36 years, been
involved in beach parking and beach issues since 1986.
First thing I'd like to address is the business of we're not charging
you to go to the beach. We're charging you to park your car. Let's
face it, if you don't live close enough to the beach that you can walk or
bike there -- and that's the majority of the people in Collier County --
then your car is your access. You can't separate the two.
(Applause)
MR. MAGGIO: Parking fee -- this parking fee, if instituted, will
spread to all other beach areas. If you charge residents, it's going to
spread. The parking fee is discriminatory because you don't charge a
parking fee at any other facility, library, county park, regional park,
where you have much more infrastructure, air conditioned buildings,
lawns to be mowed, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, employees, you
name it.
No parking fee has ever, ever been proposed to offset the cost of
these facilities. I'm talking about using the basic facility. If you take a
class, you have something out -- you should -- because there's an
instructor, that's a different story.
But just to park and use the basic facility, sit under the tree, there
is no parking fee, and none has ever, even been proposed. And the
expenses on those parks far outstrip your expenses at the beach.
When the fees -- when the county took the fees off, they only did
it because we showed them in black and white that they were losing.
They were collecting $144,000 in fees, and that was when we were all
paying a dollar. They were spending all of that and then another
122,000 to pay just the salaries of the people collecting the money.
Page 232
--.-- --
February 14,2006
There are administration costs involved. You can't just say you're
going to take in this much money, because there's -- it costs money to
collect money, and you know that as well as I do.
When that fee was reinstated on out-of-county people -- and I
have them -- it was -- I have the letter right here, came to the county.
Let me read something to you.
All of this beach -- is at the expense of the residents. By
instituting fees at the county's various beach parking facilities, we
estimate new revenues of approximately $3 million annually.
Well, the staff said that's out of line, so they edited down to $938
(sic). That's almost a million dollars.
It's been 10 years. Where's our $10 million? That money was
supposed to go for maintaining these facilities and also acquiring
more. We haven't acquired any additional beach access with that
money. Where is it? Where is it?
(Applause)
MS. MAGGIO: I understand, anybody that's lived in this county
for any length of time understands, the lack of beach access is not
your fault because the onus for that belongs on the people who sat in
those chairs before you.
But please, commissioners, it's not our fault. Without -- may I
finish? Without the public efforts, Collier County would not have as
much beach access as you have today. If it wasn't for George Carse
from Isle of Capri who stood up in front of the commission and said,
wait a minute, you forgot about the public when you approved that
development on Marco Island --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bring it to a close.
MS. MAGGIO: -- you wouldn't have that south parking lot.
When the Registry Resort --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Excuse me.
MS. MAGGIO: -- made a play for Clam Pass --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Excuse me. Can you wrap it up for us?
Page 233
-"--' _..,,-.~-,--.._'.' .--
February 14,2006
MS. MAGGIO: I am wrapping it up.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. MAGGIO: When they made a play for Clam Pass, it was
grass-roots efforts by the public -- many of them Pelican Bay people --
that stopped that. And Barefoot Beach, oh, so near and dear to my
heart, you wouldn't have that 100-car parking lot at the north. The
deed for that was laying on somebody's desk unrecorded nine years
after it was executed, while the county was trying to swap it away for
who knows what.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
MS. MAGGIO: We got the parking lot built, you got 3,000 feet,
plus a big park down there. You wouldn't have it without us.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. MAGGIO: Weare frustrated --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ma'am--
MS. MAGGIO: -- because -- yes, I will stop -- we are--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right now.
MS. MAGGIO: -- constantly -- constantly having to fight for the
same free open beach access that is available at every other
publicly-owned facility.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. MAGGIO: Thank you.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Quiet.
MS. FILSON: The next--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Excuse me. Any more outbursts like
that we'll have the place cleared, okay? We understand your concerns
on this thing, but I think everybody needs to have a little bit of order.
And please refrain, I'd appreciate it very much. Yes, sir, go ahead.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is James Holt. He'll be followed by
Mr. AJ. Lugara.
MR. HOLT: First of all, I'd like to thank my commissioners.
Page 234
--~-~-^ -._-"-- -------
February 14,2006
Since this is my first meeting, it's the first time I've seen you, and I
thank you for everything you've done for me as a citizen of Collier
County.
Mainly I wanted to just state my activist position when I talk to
all my friends. We live in the Pelican Marsh community, and one of
the reasons I selected that community was Vanderbilt Beach, and we
do use the beach virtually every day at the close of the day for me to
jog and my wife to watch the sunset. So the $5 fee would be really --
you know, maybe not a financial hardship, but it would be really
difficult to swallow.
I would support -- I just want to finish by saying, I would
support, I think it's Commissioner Coyle's position -- of a nominal fee.
I think it makes sense financially. And myself and virtually all the
friends that I've spoken to in my community, I think, would support
that, the $20 or the $30 fee in addition to the existing sticker. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mr. AJ. Lugara.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please be quiet, refrain.
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Graham Ginsberg.
MR. LUGARA: Yes. I'm a pretty long-time resident here, like
Ms. Maggio is. And I go back and do remember when everyone paid
$1 back in 1991 to park at any county beach parking lot. And that was
-- that was to be raised -- and I remember back in the early 1990s -- to
2 or $3, and that's when we as residents fought to have, like Mrs. Fiala
said, an amenity in Collier County whereby residents who are already
taxpayers in this county will get a free parking sticker or decal and
only charge the tourists for those beach parking lots.
As a matter of fact, it was challenged by some people that, why
charge only -- the people only who are tourists? And that was one. I
remember there were some challenges to it.
So we fought for this back in the early 1990s to have that
Page 235
,----> _._m~_.___<'_ .--
February 14,2006
amenity. The amenity is, we already are taxpayers. We've already
paid -- we do pay our hard earned property taxes to this county.
And why if -- for instance, the garage is paid for by the tourist
tax already. The garage is paid for, or will be paid for, by the tourist
tax. So I don't see the rationale for a user fee for that garage only.
And to make matters worse, some members of the board are
trying to pile on say, let's put -- okay, we won't put the $5 fee, but
we'll put a sticker fee. We'll charge you $10 per car per sticker.
That's what you're talking about, $10 per car per sticker.
And we fought against that originally when this proposal was put
for the decals in the beginning. Let me tell you why it's not fair. It is
discriminatory .
Right now the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island get
their stickers free. They will continue to get their stickers free. Why
discriminate against county residents and charge us a fee for the decal
when those same details can be gotten by City of Naples residents or
the City of Marco Island residents, and they can go and get those
stickers for free?
You've got to get a uniform system. You can't discriminate
against county residents. So I'm against both the $5 fee just for the
garage, and I feel that the $10 fee for the sticker is discriminatory, if
the people in the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island don't
have to pay the fee either.
So let's -- so the bottom line is this, let's resolve this situation
tonight the easiest way. K.I.S.S., Keep it simple.
They need a -- the parks department needs revenue for operating
expenses of the garage. A 5 -- a 6 or $7 dollar fee just for the tourists
will cover that expense, the hole in their budget for the operating of
the garage. Keep it simple, Commissioners, 5 or 6 -- 6 or $7 for the
tourists only, and let's keep the amenity we have in Collier County --
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Page 236
"---'~ - -,,-~._~_. ---
February 14,2006
MR. LUGARA: -- for free beach parking. Thank you very
much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Graham Ginsberg.
MR. GINSBERG: Good afternoon. I just want to point out a
couple of facts. I don't think this -- the public have an idea, like
Commissioner Fiala said, the exact costs that we need to cover as far
as a maintenance fee goes. Until we have that, I think the actual
calculation has not been presented to us as to how much we could
break down, et cetera.
To give you an idea, the shuttle, that is not an operating expense.
It's not relating to the lifeguards on the beach or the people that pick
up trash. We need to get that bottom line figure.
But apart from that, I'm not in favor of the public having to pay
for the sticker, and the reason for that is simple, this commission,
yourselves as well as other commissioners, have paid out of TDC
funds for years for beach nourishment or beach building in beaches
that cannot be accessed by the tourists, and now we're asking for
200,000 from the public.
Well, just last year we spent 600,000 on Hideaway Beach. We
just spent 1.4 million to build the T -Groins in Hideaway Beach all
from tourist funds, and the tourists cannot reach those beaches. So I
cannot figure out where this 200,000 we now have to ask the public
for that -- all we've got to do is stop these TDC funds being used in
locations that they shouldn't be used for. That's the first thing.
The tourists are basically an impact to us. I don't benefit one iota
from tourists. If they take up my parking, they should be paying for it.
I pay my taxes. They can pay the TDC funds.
So you can charge the tourists a nominal fee that should tie into
the beach-related costs, and only those beach-related costs, be it $5,
and I wouldn't support much more than $5.
I don't think the public needs to pay for that sticker at this point.
I think you need to cut back on your illegitimate spending of those
Page 237
- .~-_..- ----
February 14,2006
TDC funds.
That's all I have to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
(Applause)
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. If I remember the
motion, it's been a while, it was a -- we were talking about a $10 fee
for beach stickers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The -- $10 fee for beach stickers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're going to go through the
same scenario we've been through about three times now in the last
five years. We go forward, then you get to budget time, you find the
money to cover it someplace else. It won't work.
Our civic associations will be down on us like you wouldn't
believe, like they do every single time. People that live inland and use
the beach about twice a year aren't about to shell out $10 to use the
beach once or twice. There's going to be major, major, major issue
brought up on this. It's not fair. It's totally unfair. I won't vote for it,
and I won't support it. And you people out there, I'm sure you
understand where I'm coming from.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, let's call-- I'll call the question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead and call the
question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to hear the motion again.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The motion is that we're going to
charge a beach sticker price of $10 for all residents of Collier County.
THE AUDIENCE: No.
MS. FILSON: That's what the motion was, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's what it was.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pardon?
MS. FILSON: That's what the motion was.
Page 238
,.-- ...-
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what the motion was. We're just
going to vote this, okay. The motion was -- quiet. This doesn't mean
it's going to pass. We're just going to vote on it, okay? We've got to
muster enough votes here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We do this all day.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. We do this constantly.
The motion was made by Commissioner Coyle -- who had to
leave the dais because he had other commitments -- and his motion
was that all residents in Collier County would be charged a $10 beach
sticker fee and that the people that are non-residents, I believe, was a
$7 --
MS. FILSON: Six, six.
MR. MUDD: Six dollar.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Six dollar fee--
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you for correcting me. And I
believe that was seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
MS. FILSON: That was a daily fee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think it was Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, it was.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it wasn't.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, Henning it was.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Henning it was.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did you second it?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. It's been a long time.
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then after we settle this, can we
reduce the $75 fee, annual fee, that I pay for parking my boat and
trailer at the boat launch?
Page 239
<-~- _._.~
February 14,2006
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, the public -- the public
comment is over. The commissioners have to make a decision. And
I'd ask you again, and the chairman has asked you, to please keep it--
you're done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I will ask --
MR. MUDD: You've had your voice. They're having a -- they're
having a discussion. They're going to have to make a decision. And
they're going to have to live with their decision. So please, no more
comments, no more clapping. Just let the commissioners get on with
business. And if you can't refrain, I'll ask the sheriffs deputy to clear
the room. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The point that I want to make is,
Commissioners -- and I know that you know all the different fees.
When you take a look at that, that's about a fee for whatever the
recreation is.
And, you know, for the one time a year that we go down to the
Collier County beaches, $10 a year, I'll tell you that my family's going
to buy one of those. That's not our main recreation as a family unit.
But there are so many different fees that we charge for families
that have kids that utilizes those kids things, like different kind of
balls, baseball, soccer and so on and so forth. And we need to be fair.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I understand. Any other discussion?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'm going to call the question, and
you heard the motion.
And all those in favor of a $10 beach sticker and $6 for people
who do not have a beach sticker, all those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent)
Page 240
._,--",..-~" ""------ -.--..-
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion fails.
I'm going to make a motion that we leave the beach sticker as a
free policy and that we charge the people with no beach stickers $7 a
year, or $7 each visit. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would if I knew the rest of the
story. What about the garage? You haven't brought that into it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's -- in other words, the garage is
going to be paid for by tourists coming to this area. In other words,
we won't charge anything for a beach sticker, but we'll up the fee to
$7.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To park at the garage.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: To park at the garage for non-beach
sticker --
MR. WEIGEL: Nonresident.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Nonresidents.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Non-sticker holders.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Nonresidents, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know that's not going
to support the program, so it's going to have to increase the millage.
Or not the millage, but the taxes to cover that. For 58 (sic) stickers out
of 350,000 people, that's what you want to do, Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's the way that I'm going to go
on this, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you think that's fair to
the other people who pay for recreation?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think one of the things that
Naples is famous for is the fact that it was brought out in the
Page 241
-'..."~_.".,'_.. ----,.- -'''.,'''--_.'---- '-'-
February 14,2006
discussions with the people here, and that was that there's been
attempts -- that we feel that all the residents here pay a fair share and
that -- through their ad valorem taxes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I pay too much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that may be the case, but -- so
that's why they feel that they need to have the right to go to the
beaches. And as I stated earlier, all of the areas that we've lost access
to the waterways has been up in the North Naples area in recent years,
and the pressure is on us.
And, of course, when we look at what's happening up there --
you know, one of my favorite places was the Vanderbilt Inn, and I
wish that we had the vision years ago to purchase that piece of
property.
So we're losing that. And every time we turn around, we seem to
be losing more for the citizens here in Collier County. And as we get
larger in population, it's going to be more of a struggle to see how
we're going to get our people to the beaches, and that's where I stand
on this, on the question you asked me there, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I have another question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Out of all these other fees that
we charge for recreation, are you willing to revisit those and lower
those or do away with those fees, if we're taking these out of ad
valorem taxes and providing recreation for people, instead of them
doing it for themselves? Are you willing -- to all these other -- you
know, men's softball, boat launch facilities, children's classes?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, maybe this won't pass. I mean,
we'll see if I can --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm just asking. I'm asking
you if you're willing to bring that up as far as a discussion. You're
chairman, and I don't want to bring anything up that you're not, you
know, in favor of discussing. I mean, Immokalee youth. There's an
Page 242
--. ."._.__.n_ .---
February 14,2006
athletic $5 fee here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, there's that possibility.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we're getting carried away on
the subject. I think we ought to address this one right now, and that
would be something you could bring up after we vote on this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I mean, I just want to know
whether it should be brought up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it -- why not? I mean, we
bring up everything else. We might as well.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think right now what we want to do is
move on and see if we can get a resolution to this particular --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But in answer -- well, in my
opinion, in answer to Commissioner Henning's concern, we don't
know how much we're really going to get from the tourists at this
amount of money. They've given us an idea, and I think that that's a
good idea. It's more or less like a user fee. And I think that maybe the
calculations on how much we get from the $7 per person who don't
hold beach stickers, I think we ought to see what it actually brings in
and if it covers the costs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We already know that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, how do we know how many
tourists are going to come in? I mean, you can guess, but the tourists,
I mean, they go up every year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, you have
historical information.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, and it goes up every year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Call of the question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you really believe all of that
information you get?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. I really don't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Then--
Page 243
---." . ......-.-.---. ..."-~~"' ~-
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Figures lie and liars figure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You need to come up with a
figure that you believe is true.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I am, and I think we should address
it each year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because supporting something
that is not going to support itself, you need to be aware of that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think we've discussed this
enough.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm going to go ahead and call the
question, and the question is --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir you have a motion on the floor.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion on the floor by Halas,
Commissioner Halas, and a second by Commissioner Fiala, and that
was where we have free access to --
MR. MUDD: No. There's no sticker charge and--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No sticker charge, and $7--
MR. MUDD: And people that don't have stickers pay $7
countywide to park.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. Okay. Yougotthat?
Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we've got a tie vote here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I make a motion?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fine.
Page 244
.._- -_.... - ----
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And forgive me, this isn't
meant as a putdown. You've got a commissioner that -- for your
district that is unbelievably protective, probably more so than I am
protective of Immokalee and Golden Gate Estates area.
However, you know, in the early discussions that we had, we
talked about the -- what would be fair to pay. And one scenario we
came up with -- and didn't get a lot of objections to it, and we can get
there real quick now, is if we go with the $30 fee, yearly fee, to be
able to get in the parking garage.
Well, I'm going to make the motion. I'm going to make the
motion because I think this is fair for everyone. It doesn't mean it's
going to pass, but at least it's going to be fair for everybody. A $30
fee for the parking garage, no charge for the beach stickers, because
that would be universal for everyone, and the nonresidents would be
$6 or 7. I can't remember what that scenario was you had on the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we had six when I --
MR. WEIGEL: I don't understand it, do you? Thirty dollars but
no --
MS. RAMSEY: Five dollars.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Five dollars?
MS. RAMSEY: Uh-huh.
THE AUDIENCE: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then that would be the case, $5.
That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I am not going to second it
because I think that you're going to generate money instead of paying
for the program.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It dies for a second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear any other scenarios here? I'd
like to get this moved on. We'll be here till midnight.
Page 245
----- ~-
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, I think
you're at a deadlock at this point. I don't think a decision can be made
today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we're missing
Commissioner Coyle. We could move this to the next meeting or two
meetings from now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, let's -- I would like to see a
resolution to this one way or the other.
And, again, I'll entertain any type of a motion that there's a
possibility that we might be able to get a second in support.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, how about if -- I still like the
motion that we had before that the beach stickers are still free and
there is a charge for anybody who doesn't have a beach sticker that
parks at the garage, and we -- and then to add to that motion that, we
revisit it in one year and see if the program is paying for itself. And if
it isn't, then readdress it at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll go along with that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. It sounds like you've got
a winner, Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Who's -- you seconded that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The motion's on the floor and --
by Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Henning, and I'll
call the question.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I need -- I just need a little bit of
clarity on this motion real quick.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, if you could restate
that one more time, I'd appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. No charge for the beach
parking sticker but a charge for parking in the parking garage for those
who do not have a beach parking sticker, okay, so that would be like --
Page 246
"---. ~~-_.',"' ----
February 14,2006
MR. MUDD: Five dollars ma'am, is what the rate it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a -- oh, okay. I'm going to
remove my second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because I understood that you
pretty much wanted to keep it status quo of where we're at today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where are we at today? I don't
really know. I honestly don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right now we're at $5.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We charge $5 for parking in the
parking garage.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For everybody?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whether they have a sticker or not?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: NO, no, no. That's not the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's where we're at today.
That --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't even know --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's where we're at today, right.
Today we're at -- if -- every time you go to that parking garage, you're
going to pay $5, okay? And if you're a nonresident you pay $5. So
residents and nonresidents will pay the same amount. I think --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that wasn't my motion though.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Then restate your motion so that
--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to make sure that we
cover our costs, but I want to make sure that the costs --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That we can revisit it in -- a year from
now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right, that's right. So I feel
Page 247
..----.. ----~_.--- .-
February 14,2006
that we should stick with the free beach parking stickers --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: For the parking garage?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and pay a nominal fee, whether it
be $5 or $6.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, you pick the amount.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, $5 to park in the parking
garage for those who do not have a beach parking sticker on their car,
and then come back and revisit it in one year to make sure all of our
costs are covered, and if not, then adjust them accordingly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to hear from someone
from parks and rec. on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, it might be doable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Will it cover the costs, I think
that's the question you have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Maybe seven.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd probably support the motion if we
went to $7 for nonresidents.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Would $7 -- they said it -- a
dollar raise is what, 160,000 -- 120,000 a year?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, hang on. You had stickers for
nothing and you had a motion for $7, and it came in with a deadlock
tie 2-2, so that motion's dead, and it's -- you need a different motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Six dollars.
MR. MUDD: If this deadlocks on this board today, then your
existing fee schedule is in place, and that's $5 for everybody that uses
that garage.
So ladies and gentlemen, the commissioners need to make a
decision on this particular items because if it goes off this dais today
as it stands right now, the fee schedule that's been approved is the one
that goes in force when that garage opens up.
MS. RAMSEY: And Commissioner, what I have in front of me,
Page 248
--~-- -
February 14,2006
an estimated cost, a revenue for $5, non-permit holders only is about
$115,000 annually.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So if we made it $6, then
how much would it be?
MR. MUDD: If you're asking--
MS. RAMSEY: About $140,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, $140,000. And that's
guessing that that's so many tourists, right?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm going to ask -- I'm going to ask
the question. She gave you some numbers based on just the garage.
MS. RAMSEY: Correct.
MR. MUDD: If you're saying $6 for everybody across the
county, it would be -- it would be a total of$125,000, plus the hundred
--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just talking about the parking
garage. I'm talking about the parking garage, right? So in other words
--
MR. MUDD: No. When you said -- I'm not trying to disagree
with you. But when you said all non-sticker holders for $6 --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To park in the garage.
MR. MUDD: So you're going to have a different fee for if you're
not in the garage versus in the garage for non-sticker holders? Right
now they pay five if you're a non-sticker holder.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. See, in other words, to
get like into South Beach or Tigertail, that would go up to six as well;
is that what you're saying?
MR. MUDD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I can -- I can go for that.
MR. MUDD: And when you -- and when you do that, your fee,
your annual collection fee, based on what Marla just told you from
what you garner from just the garage -- and I believe, and you said
that was 115-, Marla?
Page 249
_.~ --
February 14,2006
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: From just the garage, and my preliminary fee,
without the garage in it, would be another additional 125-, so it would
be 240-, ma'am, would be the number.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that covers everything.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the rest of the system's
subsidizing the garage, not that it's wrong. I'm just pointing this out to
you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Please, please, don't. Would you let
us talk? Thank you.
I guess that -- I don't know the other places that you pay other
than on Marco, at South Beach, and at Tiger Tail. I don't know that
there's another beach that you pay.
MS. RAMSEY: Yes. We pay -- non-permit holders pay at all
beach sites. Even in the city they pay. So in our location, you would
pay at the Barefoot Beach access, Barefoot Beach Preserve,
Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Tigertail, and South Marco. Everybody pays
if you don't have a beach parking sticker.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right now they pay $5 at all of
those places? And if you raised it to six --
MS. RAMSEY: You heard about an additional 125-, 135,000
over what we currently receive.
MR. MUDD: Plus the revenues from the--
MS. RAMSEY: From the extra deck, that's correct, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me throw something in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: From eight a.m. until three p.m.,
you have a charge of what the charge is today at the garage, or what
we approved. After that, it is free to everybody.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I didn't know that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm just saying, that's what
Page 250
-.----'" -..,.'---..-.- --
February 14,2006
I'm proposing. Because peak hour's when it's wanting to be used, you
charge, and then --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So it would be $5 every time they went
to the beach?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: From eight until three.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we --
MS. RAMSEY: That would be option D in your slide.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Option D.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think we've got a -- we've got a
motion on the floor at the present time by Commissioner Fiala. She's
just trying to form a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but I didn't have a second. So
in other words, what you're saying is, we all have beach parking
stickers --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second it for discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but we don't charge for anything,
right? And -- oh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I couldn't
hear you. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we all have free beach parking
stickers if we are residents here of Collier County and apply for them.
And then by this right now, Option D, is every parking area collects
$5 per person -- per car from eight a.m. to three p.m. and that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's just at the parking garage.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is just at the parking garage?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that brings in $315,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's your peak time,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's not everybody parking
there. That's only people without stickers?
Page 251
,'__.n_" ----. .'.--
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, that's everybody.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, that's everybody.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no. I don't want to do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what I'm trying to -- I'm trying to
get you straight. I think what you're -- what you made the motion,
okay --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- the motion that I thought you made,
and correct me if I'm wrong, that you made a motion for everybody
that has a beach sticker to have free access to anyplace in Collier
County, including the parking garage, and that nonresidents that want
to use our facilities pay a $6 fee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, yes, that's what I said.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I seconded that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Okay, good. And we go back
and evaluate in one year to make sure that it's covering all the
expenses.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly. You state that in one year we'll
come back and readdress this issue to see where we stand. And if -- I
can assure you, if it's not paying for itself, the beach fees will go up
because it has to be taken care of by some type of user fee. So we will
have an idea within a year of where we stand on this issue if it passes,
okay?
So Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the anticipated revenue
for this?
MS. RAMSEY: I believe that the figures that Manager Mudd did
were $125,000 over what we currently would receive this year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it wouldn't pay for the
facility, the parking facility, at the new parking garage?
MS. RAMSEY: I believe that it probably would because you
Page 252
-----~ ._--._.-
February 14,2006
would also have some increased revenue at the parking garage
because of the 340 parking spaces versus the 120 that we have
currently, so we would see additional revenue at that location as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: On volume.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And does that take care
of the whole expenses for the beach program, recreation program?
MS. RAMSEY: I believe that it's going to take consideration for
what we've presented here today. It's going to get close. I can't say
for sure it's going to, because we haven't done all the figuring as we
have done previous here. But if looking at just the Vanderbilt area,
which we have discussed, another additional 25,000 above what we
would receive in volume -- which I don't know that number at this
moment. I don't know that additional volume number.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you think it's going to come
close?
MS. RAMSEY: I think it will come close.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you'll let us know at budget
time?
MS. RAMSEY: Most definitely. For at least--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're going to readjust this--
MS. RAMSEY: -- that period of time that we've been in
operation, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, we're going to readdress
this. A year from now we'll bring this back for discussion, and we'll
have a really good idea because we'll have one year of operation, and I
think we'll have a better understanding of where we stand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I just heard we're going to
talk about it at the budget meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Budget meeting then. Well, that's
-- that gives us about --
MS. RAMSEY: That's totally up to you.
Page 253
- ---_.'. _._--'"-,-~. --,,~-
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- six, eight months, all right.
MS. RAMSEY: That's totally up to you, Commissioners. You
direct us.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll look at it. Six, eight months we
should have some kind of an indicator of which way we're going on
this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those in favor of the $6
increase and free beach parking with --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's not a $6 increase. I hate to
correct you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: A $6 -- going from $5 to $6, a $1
increase, excuse me. And we're going to revisit this at the budget
hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And free -- and all those that hold a
beach parking sticker park free.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Park free at all of our facilities in Collier
County, okay.
Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes.
(Applause)
MS. RAMSEY: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we take a break while these
people --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Let's take a 10-minute break and
Page 254
^---. -- -.-". ""-.
February 14,2006
give the court reporter some time.
(A brief recess was had)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd take your
seats here, we'll continue on.
Item # lOC
RESOLUTION 2006-39: A SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF FEE SIMPLE
INTERESTS AND/OR THOSE PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY
EASEMENT INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE FOUR-LANE
EXPANSION OF COUNTY BARN ROAD FROM
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD TO DA VIS BOULEVARD -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is item 10C. It's a recommendation to adopt a superseding
resolution authorizing the condemnation of fee simple interest and
those perpetual or temporary easement interests necessary for the
construction of roadway drainage and utility improvements required
for the four-lane expansion of County Barn Road from Rattlesnake
Hammock Road to Davis Boulevard. The capital improvement
element number 33, proj ect number 60101. Estimated fiscal impact,
$5,809,000.
And Mr. Kevin Hendricks, the head of our real estate --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. MUDD: -- and transportation, will -- I think you have to
Page 255
~...- ..._--^- --.'-
February 14,2006
put a couple of things on the record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great presentation, Kevin.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was wonderful.
MR. HENDRICKS: Just for the record, I need just a couple
moments. I'll be very brief. My name is Kevin Hendricks, and I want
to remind you that you've already gone through the consideration of
the various factors needed to adopt the condemnation and resolution in
the past with other condemnation resolutions.
This is a superseding resolution to identify properties not
previously considered for a pond site, which have since been studied
and found to be superior to the one that we were previously thinking
about condemning. And with that, I open it up to any questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any questions? Ifnot, I'm going
to -- oh, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does this take a supermajority
vote?
MR. HENDRICKS: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If there's no other questions, we have a
motion on the floor for approval of this and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposing, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes unanimously.
Page 256
.---+- .-..--.--..- -._-
February 14,2006
Item #lOE
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AWARD OF BID 06-3941
IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,559,343 TO AKERMAN
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE POTABLE WATER MAIN ALONG U S 41 FROM LEL Y
CANAL APPROXIMATELY 1600 FEET EAST OF
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD AND US 41
INTERSECTION TO BAREFOOT WILLIAMS ROAD PROJECT
71 059 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 10E. It's a recommendation to approve award of bid,
60-3941, in the amount of$3,559,343, to Akerman Construction
Company, Inc., for the construction of the potable water main along
U.S. 41 from Lely Canal approximately 1,600 feet east of Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and U.S. 41 intersection to Barefoot Williams Road.
It's project number 71059.
And Mr. Jim DELONY, your administrator for public utilities,
will present.
MR. DELONY: Commissioners, this is a staff recommendation.
It was included in your executive summary. I'm here to answer any
questions. I have a short briefing that -- if you need it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any discussion?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question.
Commissioner Halas made the motion and seconded by Commissioner
Fiala.
All those in favor of this -- approving this budget for the water --
potable water line, signify by saying aye.
Page 257
.",--_. .....- --.
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It carries. Thank you very much.
Item #10F
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE SELECTION OF
QUALIFIED FIRM AND AWARD A CONTRACT UNDER ITN
05-3583 CEI SERVICES FOR COLLIER BOULEVARD ROAD
PROJECTS FOR PROJECT NO. 65061 COLLIER BOULEVARD,
GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1.663,792.80 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is item 10F. It's a
recommendation to approve selection of a qualified firm and award a
contract under ITN-05-3583, CEI Services, for Collier Boulevard road
projects for project number 65061, Collier Boulevard, Golden Gate
Boulevard to Immokalee Road, in the amount of$1,663,792.80.
MR. AHMAD: Jay Ahmad.
MR. MUDD: Jay Ahmad, your director of engineering for
transportation, will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion to approve this
item and a second.
Is there anything you've got to put on the record?
Page 258
-_.--, -~_..."- .."-
February 14,2006
MR. AHMAD: No, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You look exhausted after that last --
MR. AHMAD: Well, I share your exhaustion, Mrs. Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any further discussion? If not,
I'm going to call the question.
All those in favor of this, signify --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One thing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The attachments to the
agreement, Commissioners, are really good, and I think -- commend
staff for taking everything under consideration, and this is a very hard
item, too, and I hope we get it done as soon as possible.
MR. AHMAD: Thank you. This is the project that was bid, and
the bid came in 70 percent over. And this is actually for the CEI
services for that project. And we're hoping to have our CEI complete,
constructibility to review, and help us to rebid this project, hopefully
by March or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the thing they did, they
give it no start date and no end date for this CEI, and that's good
because we don't know when --
MR. AHMAD: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did a great job.
MR. AHMAD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. If there's no further discussion,
I'm going to call the question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Coming from him, that's good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 259
--'.---.'-'. ..-- --.-.,,-....-,.. ...-..-,--_.~_._.,..._- -----
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign.
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It carries. Thank you very much.
Item #10H
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ADOPT A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A
REFERENDUM ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 7,2006 TO
DETERMINE WHETHER VOTERS APPROVE CONTINUING
THE LEVY OF AN AD VALOREM TAX NOT EXCEEDING .25
MIL THROUGH THE YEAR 2013 TO CONTINUE TO FUND
THE CONSER V A TION COLLIER PROGRAM'S ACQUISITION
AND MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT ALLY SENSITIVE
LANDS EVEN AFTER THE $75 MILLION DOLLAR BOND
ISSUE PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED BY REFERENDUM ON
NOVEMBER 5, 2002 FOR SUCH ACQUISITION AND
MANAGEMENT HAS BEEN SPENT; COMMITTEE TO BRING
BACK FOR CLARIFICATION AND AMOUNT OF THE CAP AT
A FUTURE BCC REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10H, and
that's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
adopt a resolution calling for a referendum election on November 7,
2006, to determine whether voters approve continuing a levy of an ad
valorem tax not exceeding .25 mills to the year 2013 to continue to
fund the Conservation Collier programs acquisition and management
of environmentally sensitive lands even after the $75 million bond
issue previously authorized by referendum on November 5, 2002, for
such acquisition and management has been spent.
And Mr. Michael Pettit, the deputy County Attorney, will
Page 260
..--.^ _. .--
February 14,2006
present.
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Mike Pettit,
Chief Assistant County Attorney. We're bringing this item back to you
as a result of direction received at a December 6, 2004, BCC
workshop which dealt with Conservation Collier program and
questions that had arisen about exactly what the voters intended to be
spent on that program.
As a result of that workshop at that time, you asked staff and the
Office of the County Attorney to work toward the 2006 election to put
a ballot before the voters asking them whether they wish to continue
to be subject to this .25 mill levy through the year 2013, even after the
bond was paid for.
And in addition, I think there was some discussion earlier today
on the other Conservation Collier item, I think approximately a 15
percent fee for management expenses had been paid through the
millage that had been raised to date.
And so what this resolution will do, quite simply, is provide for
the legal advertising and the placement of that question on the ballot.
A vote by the voters will mean that they desire or are willing to
continue to be subject to that levy, a vote of yes. A vote of no would
indicate that that voter or the voters did not wish to be continued
subject to that levy after the bond debt is taken care of.
Any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We instituted the Conservation
Collier in 2002?
MR. PETTIT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, how much has that raised
since then?
MR. MUDD: Thirty-six million dollars, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thirty-six--
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and change.
Page 261
--.......----,.-"-.. e___'_ -~-_.._- ~---~_._~--
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And some change. Now, what is
being projected to raise on a quarter mill to 2013?
MR. PETTIT: Mr. Lorenz or Ms. Sulecki can respond to that.
There was some discussion at the workshop.
MR. LORENZ: The current -- current levy produces around $15
million a year. So if -- at flat, which we weren't -- at a flat projection,
that would be at least $150 million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So -- 150. So, yeah,
we're talking $186 million program, correct, or are we going to -- or is
it --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- it's 75 million plus the,
approximately, 150 million.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what Mr. Lorenz told you was
over a 10-year period of time at a quarter mill flat rate with no
increase in population, which you know is not correct because we get
about 12,000 additional residents a year, the estimate is 150 million
total, total, for the entire program. I believe it's going to be above
$150 million, more like 175 to 200 million total for the total program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you're using
increased assessed values on that then because a quarter of a million
raised on the same property in 2006 will probably be more in 2007,
correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That's why I said it will probably be
about 175 to 200 million total over that 10-year period of time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're not -- but you're
usmg --
MR. MUDD: That's increased assessment, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're using not only new
residents, but you're also using increased assessed values?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So in my opinion, that's raising
Page 262
---^^ .....____u.', ....-".-. -
February 14,2006
the tax because it's offering the same services. And I'm afraid, with all
the different scenarios -- a quarter of a mill doesn't say much when
you put it on a ballot. When you sayan amount not to exceed, using
ad valorem taxes, that does say something.
And it's -- and the language that was put on the ballot, I think was
very clear. It says, a quarter of a mill for a certain amount -- period to
pay a $75 million bond issue. That says a lot. And a quarter of a mill,
I think, is -- leaves a lot of questions to the voters. And I would
personally like to see something more specific like a dollar amount. I
mean, you can answer the question, what it's going to cost the average
person.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can staff give us some direction on this?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the -- this particular item came up
before. As Commissioner Henning basically stated, it was quite clear
on the referendum, at least it was quite clear to me, and it was quite
clear to Mr. Pettit.
There was some confusion about the people that basically
sponsored that referendum and advertised for that referendum, that
they believed for 10 years they would get a quarter of a mill in tax
proceeds to go to the program, and we got into the old referendum
language. And the reason this came up --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because we had a cap on it.
MR. MUDD: -- is because I asked Mr. Lorenz, I said, Mr.
Lorenz, I said, you're going to increase assessments, you're going to
have new taxpayers coming on board. If you're purchasing $75
million in land and then you're basically doing maintenance in
perpetuity with some kind of a trust amount of money and living off
the interest to do the maintenance, I said, you're going to get to a point
in time where you're going to have to start notching that quarter of a
mill back over the 10-year period of time to get down to be something
less than that, rolling back that mill rate because of the referendum.
And when I stated that and he carried that forward back to the
Page 263
.-- -.-....- --.----.---..->--- < "----
February 14,2006
Conservation Collier Advisory Board, they were concerned, and they
proceeded to start to work on referendum language where they could
get clarity on the issue. And I believe this particular language is that
clarity on the issue that they're -- that they're hoping to attain.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think where Commissioner Henning is
coming from -- he would like to see a cap placed on there, and that's
where I -- we need some guidance from staff on what is -- what is an
acceptable cap on this if we're going to put this back on the ballot.
MR. MUDD: I believe that the group that -- and the direction
with the board was not to put a cap on it, to basically levy the .25 mills
for the 10 years.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm sorry. At the time it
came up, I don't think I would have agreed to give direction not to
have a cap. If I'm going to go to the ballot box and vote on something,
I want to know what it is. I just don't want it to be a blanket amount
and have it run whenever.
I mean, that's what we went through before where they came --
they promised 75 million, then they came back and tried to say it was
the cap we were supposed to go with. That puts out voters' distrust of
what's taking place.
Whatever the cap is, the cap is. But I do think there should be a
cap in place. And I don't want to be the one to set that number.
Whatever they project the earnings will be, that it will not exceed
some given number.
MR. MUDD: If that -- if that's the direction of the board, then
don't vote on this particular referendum language and send it back to
the CCLAAC, and let them work on this particular item, and have it
come back to this board at a future meeting with a dollar amount.
MR. PETTIT: Yeah, I -- just to clarify what Mr. Mudd said.
You can do that. Weare not under a time crunch at this point to have
this resolution passed. As I understand it from the supervisor of
Page 264
~-"--^'-"-" "--, - ^---~--- - ---
February 14,2006
elections, we can go farther into the year, bring the resolution back. If
it's what I hear you say, Commissioner Coletta, and you,
Commissioner Henning, you would be interested in tying to the
millage rate also a cap.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly.
MR. PETTIT: A flat dollar tax --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not to exceed--
MR. PETTIT: -- somewhere in the language so that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- so many dollars.
MR. PETTIT: -- so that the millage would continue to be levied
until we hit that cap, and then that would be it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just saying that for clarity.
I'm not going to support it at all, none of the Conservation Collier. In
fact, I'll probably be out there talking against it. For one reason, these
lands come available for conservation, they come off of the market for
affordable housing.
And I'm just saying, if you want to take something to the voters,
make sure it's clear. That's all. But I'm not going to support it until we
address the issue of affordable housing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I enter -- so we need a motion on
this? Okay. I entertain a motion on this.
MS. FILSON: Do you want me to call the speakers?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any -- is there speakers?
MS. FILSON: I have one speaker. I don't believe he's here, but I
want to make sure. Brad Cornell. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Entertain a motion on this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Entertain the motion to send it
back to the committee --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- for clarification with the
dollar amount on it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: With a cap on it.
Page 265
~_."--.' --
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With a cap on it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I got a motion by Commissioner
Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala. I'm going to call the
question.
All those in favor of sending this back to staff --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, committee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The committee, yeah the CCLAAC, to
the committee, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It passes.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So you've got direction there, I
think. Okay, thank you.
Item #lOI
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE COLLIER COUNTY'S
FISCAL YEAR 2007 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10I, and
that's a recommendation to approve the Collier County fiscal year
2007 federal legislative agenda and myself, and Ms. Deb Wight will
present on this particular issue.
Page 266
---.-.-.- --'''''-'-- --_.~_.-_. ,--
February 14,2006
We -- this year we have a federal lobbyist and -- that you
approved. We had -- we sent an all-points bulletin out to
commissioners, to staff, even to some -- the municipalities to ask them
if they had any items that they would like to be considered for this
year.
Some 25 or 26 items were submitted. Those items were relayed
with a rather lengthy packet back to the Ferguson Group in
Washington, D.C. They basically took that list of25 or 26 and started
to do a straw poll with congressional staff that would have to support
it from our -- from our two congressmen and the two senators of the
State of Florida.
They've also talked to some committee staffers about the
particular issues to determine the probability of future funding for
those particular items this year. And what they were trying to do was
to come up with a -- with a grouping that had a strong chance of being
approved and to bring those moneys back to Collier County.
They basically came down and took that list and got it down to a
total of eight. Those eight are on your visualizer.
And they are number one, Interstate I-75/Everglades interchange
project development and environmental study.
As you remember, the board put aside around $700,000 to start
the interchange justification report on this particular item, and this
would be the next step in getting this interchange to come to fruition.
The next item is Lely Area Stormwater improvement project.
This project total fund is in the tune of around $41 million, and we're
asking for, this year, for some $2 million.
Number three is Interstate I-75/Collier Boulevard, which is State
Road 84 interchange. That's the -- that's at Davis Boulevard, to get that
interchange up to speed, because it has some severe problems to fund
that particular item.
Next item is number four, which is healthcare access for the
uninsured. This is a project that Congressman Diaz-Balart is very
Page 267
--_.,~.__. - .,.----..-- ...,,->_.'."..._--, --~-,-
February 14,2006
excited about because it focuses in on the Immokalee area and an area
where you have a good portion of the population that has insurance
problems for healthcare.
The number -- the fifth item is the Naples Zoo park development
that brings some federal dollars to help us defray some of the cost in
order to create that central park, that park theme on the zoo property
plus the 68 acres that adjoin it to the east. Total staff estimate for that
park development in its -- and this is a rough estimate on our part, and
we're fine-tuning our financials on this, is around $19 million, and
we're asking for a million or so from the federal government this year
for this particular project.
Sixth project is the South Immokalee Park, community park, and
that is -- right now is being run out of a trailer that's pretty rusty on the
side, if -- the last time I looked, and this is to put it into a permanent
facility building to the tune of around 70 -- $700,000.
The next item is number seven, it's a transit/paratransit operation
facility, and that's to -- that's to help us build a facility for our CAT
buses for maintenance and for its operation to run out of.
Right now, we plan to co-locate that at the County Barn facility
as we acquire some properties to the north and south of that particular
property to expand it. So you'll have the regular County Barn
maintenance, you'll have the complete sheriffs operation there, along
with our CAT bus storage and maintenance.
And the last item, number eight, is stormwater drainage basin,
number three, water quality and flood mitigation. That's the City of
Naples stormwater project that's high on their list.
Those are the eight particular projects that staff is recommending,
along with your federal lobbyist, that you approved for your agenda
for this year.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The number five, does that
include the stormwater ponds?
Page 268
~---+ +'---'~-~--- ,___""m -
February 14,2006
MR. MUDD: No, sir. This is just for the park development.
The stormwater ponds and things would be -- would be cost shared
with the county and the Big Cypress Basin, South Florida Water
Management District.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I don't feel comfortable
-- you know, I -- my understanding, that the people voted to save the
Naples Zoo property from development, and here we've got Naples
Zoo park development, so I can't support that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know what it is. What is it?
MR. MUDD: It's basically to put the boardwalks in, to put the
crossovers to the park, walkways that you can get -- and you can enjoy
that area along with the zoo experience, and not necessarily have to
pay a zoo fee, because you're not going to the zoo property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, it makes it very
accessible; is that what you're saying?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is this part of the concept of the central
park theme?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and it will also tie into the greenway
that's going to the south with Naples through that particular -- through
this property.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's -- when this was up for
discussion, I think that was one of the caveats to this whole deal with
the zoo was to come up with a central park theme.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It came up when?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: In the discussion when we were
discussing purchasing the properties and getting the land trust
involved in this. There was a number of people that stood up at public
comment in regards to wanting this as a Naples -- or a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Central park.
Page 269
------ ------~._...- ----
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- central park for Naples.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A lot of mail on that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A lot of mail. I think that that's one
thing that carried it at the ballot box really.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I appreciate it, because I
received emails just the opposite.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you really?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. But you know, maybe I'll
change my mind at the end of the day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice to know.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, I just wanted to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll research it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I just wanted to bring that up so
that you understood that -- what was happening there.
I understand where you're coming from definitely, that
everybody looked at this as going to be strictly left in its environment,
but then there was an awful lot of discussion in regards to that. So
where do we stand on this then? You need a motion on this to
approve this?
MR. MUDD: I need a motion, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion that we approve
these eight subjects to -- for fiscal year 2007 for our --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Federal legislative --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- federal legislative agenda, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Coletta or -- yeah,
Coletta.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response)
Page 270
----- "^-.,..-"--.--.. .--
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question. All those in
favor of supporting this as our federal legislative agenda for 2007,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign.
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes.
Item #10K - Moved from item #16F4
RESOLUTION 2006- 40: RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO COUNTY RESOLUTION # 2004-370
COVERING A POLICY FOR THE APPROV AL OF FUNDS FOR
TRA VEL EXPENSES FOR PERSONS CONDUCTING OFFICIAL
TOURISM BUSINESS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is lOK, and this used to be 16F4, and it reads, it's to recommend
approval of an amendment to the county resolution number 2004-370
covering a policy for the approval of funds for traveling expenses for
persons conducting official tourism business.
Also note that the board's approval of this item will result in a
new resolution superseding resolution 2004-370, and this was pulled
at Commissioner Coyle's request.
Prior to Commissioner Coyle's departure, he basically said -- and
here was his concern on this particular item, if I may try to relay it
back to you.
As it reads by itself, it portrays a less than wholesome aura to it,
Page 271
,-~--_._"^ - ._.._~.,._. ...-._._--~ -------------.-- .-
February 14,2006
but you have to stipulate the fact that -- and he's talking Tarot card
readers and things that will attract people to come to your display in a
hall where there's a series of communities that are trying to get people
to go visit their particular areas, and sometimes you need a little bit of
a sideshow out in front to attract people to come to your display so
they can learn more about the information.
This has nothing to do with somebody going out with a Tarot
card reader, okay? This has to do with it being in front of your
display.
And Mr. Wert, if you could please help me explain it a little bit
more.
MR. WERT: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
For the record, Jack Wert, your Tourism Director. A couple of
examples of some of the things we've used in the past -- and I must
preface this by saying, the tourism business, as you all know, is really
competitive out there, and destinations are all vying for the same
travelers, so you really do need, at a trade show, to be as visible as you
possibly can.
We've used in the past things -- like we've brought an executive
chef to a trade show so that they're cooking delicacies, and that
attracts people.
We've also used a fisherman doing a demonstration of how to
cast. In that case, it was -- it happened to be an adventure travel show,
so we wanted to show people what it was like in Collier County to
come and experience those things.
In another show we used an astrologer. As Mr. Mudd said, a
Tarot card reader. This was an international meeting planner show
and one where the international folks really are into astrology, and that
really attracted people to our booth. We got a lot of meeting planners
at our booth that we never would have been able to attract otherwise.
So what we're trying to do with this change in the resolution is to
accommodate some of those unique expenses that we do run up
Page 272
--~--- ~ -_.-..~---'_.- ..---.".... .----.-
February 14,2006
against. Trade shows are really, as I said, very competitive these days,
and we need to always be looking for new and different ways, and this
change in the resolution, we feel, does that so that when these
expenses come through, the clerk's office understands that it is a valid
public purpose, that we have done this strictly to attract attention to
our display in that trade show setting.
I'll be happy to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any questions? Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
approve, but I requested some receipts of payments for some of these
travel expenses, and one in particular that caught my eye is a taxi or a
limo waiting for somebody to show up, and it was quite hefty. And I
would hope that you would talk to your staff to try to make better
decisions.
MR. WERT: I will, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. WERT: I will.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I was just going to back Jack up
on how you do have to get some really off-the-wall things in order to
attract people over to your booth, because I come from that industry,
and everybody has a booth and everybody has a destination and
everybody has outgoing people and pretty decorations. You've got to
have a hook to bring them in, and so I was -- I'll second this motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
The only thing you're missing here is, in this list of what you're
looking for, reimbursements, are wars fought, balloons emptied, and
possibly tigers tamed.
So at that, I'll call the question, if there's no further discussion.
All those in favor of approving this amendment, signify by
Page 273
----.. -'-'---'-"--'- .. "-.'-',-..,'--' ~-
February 14,2006
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign.
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It carries.
Item #10L - Moved from Item #16F3
RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO PAY PARADISE ADVERTISING
& MARKETING, INC. FOR COMMISSIONS DUE ON
EMERGENCY/DISASTER RECOVERY ADVERTISING FROM
MAY 25,2004 TO PRESENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $27,113.50-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item, Commissioner, is 10L. It used to
be 16F3. And it reads, to recommend approval to pay Paradise
Advertising and Marketing, Inc., for commissions due on
emergency/disaster recovery advertising from May 25, 2004, to
present in the amount of$27,113.50, and this item was asked to be
pulled by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Wert, I don't have any
questions for you.
The County Attorney made some statements prior to this of his
findings, and if you'd just repeat that for me, please?
MR. WEIGEL: It's been so long it will be tough. But actually
what I -- what I indicated, this item as well as a companion item, that
the -- any question of compensation based upon a bar or limitation of a
statute -- 215.425, I believe -- is not an issue because compensation
Page 274
.,---- -- -.'---..'- ---'-
February 14,2006
has not been paid. So this is not extra compensation for services
rendered, so that we found it legally sufficient, and I'd had this
discussion with Ms. Kinzel of the Clerk's Office.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- what we're asking
be paid is $27,000 for emergency advertising, and it's paid to Paradise
Advertising for arranging those advertising ads.
In the agreement under the advertising part, I don't see any
compensation, and I just have a question. Is this $27,000, is -- who--
is the taxpayers or the tourist taxpayers receiving a benefit from this?
If so, how?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, the tourist taxpayers and beyond
the tourist taxpayers, the residents of Collier County, have received a
benefit in the sense that a service has been provided, but through
omission, this contract merely provided, up to this point, through the
pass-through of the expenditures that Paradise Advertising incurred in
providing the services -- they incurred significant expenses for the
advertising that they did in the different mediums and locations, cities,
et cetera; and they paid those and we paid them for that, and they
made no money themselves. And it is typically handled through
commISSIOn.
Either Mr. Wert or Mr. Carnell may wish to talk about the
commission aspect, because this involved, as well -- having
determined that there was an omission, they have worked out a
settlement of what is a reduced rate from the market practice, is my
understanding.
MR. WERT: That is correct, yes. We -- traditionally,
advertising contracts and services are on a fee -- on a commission
basis. For instance, in -- if we ask the agency to buy an ad for $100,
they would place that ad, and the television station, for instance,
would bill them $85. The $15 would be their fee, their commission,
for placing the ad, for doing the research to determine which stations
to place the ad on, to check them when it comes in, and so forth, so
Page 275
---~ . W".__'___"'~_"_"""_ ,~.,,--_.~ '---.._-
February 14,2006
that is their compensation.
If I went out and bought that same ad, I would pay a $100, and
we're going to pay the agency $100. So there really is no difference.
There's no added compensation here. This is -- this is what we would
pay if we bought it ourselves, if that helps to clarify.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the issue in the part of the
contract, an emergency advertising, there is no compensation to
Paradise.
MR. WERT: Because of an oversight on our part when we
drafted the contract, we didn't catch the fact that we hadn't put that
.. .
provIsIon m.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that was corrected on 16F2
--
MR. WERT: And we did that this morning, that's correct, right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I believe it was, and I agree
with that. I'm just trying to find out what's the extra benefit we're
receiving for this 27,000.
MR. WERT: The extra benefit was all of that emergency
advertising that you graciously gave us the opportunity to use last
summer primarily did help us stay competitive in the marketplace to
get people here to try to replace some of that meeting business that we
lost because of the hurricanes in '04.
So it was very helpful to the county. We just got the figures from
our research company that in '05 we attracted 1.4 million people,
which is up about 200,000 over the year before.
So we definitely got some more folks here. They spent more
money that -- the economic impact, which is really the measure of
how our citizens benefit -- was nearly $1.1 billion. So this is a huge
industry, and really our whole community does get some benefit, not
all businesses, but most businesses do.
And so there's a definite benefit. And really what happened, the
agency, as Mr. Weigel said, they paid the media for what we -- what
Page 276
___m ~ -~_....__._._-_."._- ...----.-----.---- .--.-
February 14,2006
we wanted purchased, and they simply traded dollars. There was no
compensation to them for all of their time involved in placing that
advertising and so forth.
So obviously they get a benefit because they get some revenue
back for their expenses. But really the public benefit is what that
brings to the community in terms of added business and spending, and
jobs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I appreciate the
explanation, though it really didn't answer my question.
MR. WERT: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's fine. It was a benefit
to the public. The issue, there wasn't no compensation in that part of
the contract, and I don't find any added benefit within the contract, so
I'm not going to support it, but I'm glad we corrected it because I think
advertise -- Paradise Advertising is a great company to do business
with. I just think that we ought to uphold the contract, that's all.
MR. WERT: I understand where you're corning from, and it,
again, was oversight on our part. We should have had it in there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I make a motion to approve,
being that it was a -- it was an error on our part. We have since
corrected it, and I would guess it would never happen again. I would
hope it would never happen again.
MR. WERT: It won't happen again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I think we need to own up to
this and make it correct, make it whole. So I make a motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a second on this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion to approve and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 277
.-._.._--. ".'___w__.._ .,..-.--. --~--_..._-,.- --
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those in a --
MR. MUDD: Opposed?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- not in favor of this by -- boy, am I
getting tired.
MR. MUDD: Just say, all-- anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Any of those opposed, signify--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got one -- okay, 3-1 vote. Sorry.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings --
MR. WERT: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item # 11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: We've finished paragraph 10, and we move to
paragraph 11, which is public comment. Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: We have two under public comment. I believe
one left. Kenneth Thompson?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, he's gone.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Thompson had -- Mr. Thompson had issues
about his recycling cart being run over, and Mr. -- Mr. DELONY will
get that fixed.
MR. DELONY: Been fixed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Been fixed already.
Mr. DELONY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good.
MS. FILSON: And the next speaker under public comment is
Phil Osborne.
MR. OSBORNE: Good evening, Commissioners. Sorry to keep
Page 278
--~,- ~,.~_..,. _...e___....__.O- -
February 14,2006
you here on Valentine's Day. I know you have plans for the evening,
as well as I, so I'll be as brief as I can. I'm normally here speaking
before you on behalf of the boaters of Collier County or the Marine
Industries Association, but today I need your help on a personal issue.
Our business has continued to grow year after year, fortunately.
And on about the summertime, the property next door to my property
on Airport Road became available for purchase, although at an
extreme price, as you can well imagine.
I entered into an agreement to purchase the property after
consulting with a locate construction firm on what sort of permitting
and such that I would need to begin utilizing the property.
It was explained to me that because I was taking down a building
and not replacing it and simply just needed additional parking, that I
would most likely be able to get by with an SIP permit application.
And so we proceeded forward, and I purchased the property.
I have now expensed out about $200,000 of my money and
continued to make monthly payments on the mortgage for the
payment that I purchased. And there were delays because of
environmental issues, which were clarified and delays because of the
hurricanes, which we all suffered under.
I went before the county permitting process in November, and I
was rather alarmed at the outcome. I was told that I would need to go
through an SDP process, which would take three to four months
before I could begin using the property in any fashion.
And the gentleman that I met with -- and this is really kind of the
crux of why I'm here because I fear that I'm going to face tremendous
opposition as I go forward in lieu of the fact that I feel I've been a
good steward to the county in my commercial business.
I was informed by a gentleman -- one of the several
representatives from the county -- that -- and you might find this hard
to believe, but I was informed that because the previous owner had
been such a problematic tenant, that my process for application was
Page 279
---_...- _._.--~-_.- -.".------ <.~. ____.'.n ----_.
February 14,2006
going to be a lengthy process and I could expect considerable
problem.
I was then told it would be three or four more months before
anything could happen and I could begin to use this property. So I
found out that I would be able to corne before you and ask for a
temporary use grant from you all if you felt it was appropriate so that I
could go through this process with the folks over on Horseshoe Drive
to get our business in order.
I want to make -- am I done? I want to make clear that I continue
to be a good steward to the county in my commercial endeavors, and
whatever the county's problems were with the previous tenant there, I
don't intend to carry any of those forward.
So I'm just simply asking for your help now to grant me a
four-month temporary use permit so that I can begin the demolition of
an ugly carwash and put up a nice boat display. That's all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I'd like to -- too bad we don't
have somebody from staff here that's in that too bad that's in that
community development/environmental services. I'd like to know
more why they're punishing you for something that was done by a
pnor owner.
MR. OSBORNE: I nearly fell out of the chair when the man said
it. My representative from the construction company kicked me under
the seat -- or under the table so as I didn't blow further opportunities,
and --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's interesting. I'd like to hear the
other side of the story myself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- Commissioner, I did
contact Joe Schmitt, and what we recommended for the temporary use
of the property is petition the board. And as long as the board agrees
with it, he would -- he could grant it.
And so I'm going to make a motion to allow Naples Boat Mart to
use the property that he just purchased as a temporary use until he gets
Page 280
---- - .--~.- _._".~---- --.-
February 14,2006
his permit approved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The question I have here is, what
transpired? Do you have any more background on it, since we don't --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know Mr. Osborne and I
talked about what -- your question, Commissioner, and I'm not going
to answer it. It may be a misunderstanding or something like that, but
that's something that you'll have to ask Mr. Schmitt about, about the
comment from one of our staff members.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I'd like to research this, because
I'd like to know -- because every story has two sides to it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I just need to know what really
transpired.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I'm sorry. Your motion's
to allow him to go forward or to bring it back?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mr. Schmitt informed me
that as long as Naples Boat Mart petitions the commission for a
temporary use on his property that he just purchased, he can grant that,
Joe Schmitt can grant it, as long as it gets the blessing from the board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But Joe Schmitt didn't have a
problem with us doing that? Did he have any -- anything he said,
beware of the Ides of March or something like that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. And believe -- trust me,
Mr. Schmitt is not going to do anything that he feels is not (sic) out of
his realm as an administrator at community development.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I trust your evaluation on
this, and I'll vote for it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's already seconded.
Page 281
----~ --- .'. -.-----....-. '-'-
February 14,2006
Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, we'll call the question. And this is
to give him a conditional use?
MR. MUDD: It's to authorize staff to give him a temporary use
--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- temporary conditional use--
MR. MUDD: For four months.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those in favor, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If! may, I would like a report
on this as it goes forward. I'm sure all the others commissioners
would, too. In other words --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I want to know the story.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- it's been issued, and this is
what we're looking for and how the whole results are corning together.
MR. OSBORNE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Thank you.
Any other people registered? Okay. So I guess I'll send it over
to-
Item #12C
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ADOPT A RESOLUTION SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION NO. 94-136, AND PROVIDING GUIDELINES
Page 282
"'---~'--- _._-~-_......_._- ------..,.--. ..-,._,.._---,"..-
February 14,2006
FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPLICANTS FOR APPOINTMENT
TO ADVISORY BOARDS; MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE
MARCH 28, 2006 BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 12,
which is the County Attorney report. You've done A and B, brings us
to 12C. This item was continued from January 24, 2006, BCC
meeting. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt a resolution superseding resolution number
94-136 and providing guidelines for consideration of applicants for
appointment to advisory boards.
And I believe Mr. Weigel's going to do this.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, and we've continued to work with Ms.
Filson and Jim's staff, Leo particularly, to tweak it a little bit. It
provides a time extension for the committee recommendations when
they're having trouble with a quorum.
We -- already the board had approved the concept of applicants
for advisory committee positions to be reviewed or interviewed by the
committees prior to recommendation. And the resolution now also
provides for extensions of time that can be made by the executive
manager to the board, Ms. Filson, on her call based on how
information is corning in from the appropriate committees.
So we think we've touched all the bases there, and it's ready for
question and approval, perhaps.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do -- Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I got a -- I got a note from
Janet Vasey here, and she made a good point. And she said that
maybe -- maybe the committees would like to discuss it first amongst
themselves and give us a recommendation.
She said that ifthere's a serious problem with procedure for
filling vacancies, I would recommend that you delay making a
decision on membership interviews and get some input from your
Page 283
-~"-'-'-- -- _.....~_._--".-_..,.. -...--.---- ""-","-~--'- ....._--~-
February 14,2006
advisory boards. Let us know what your concerns are with the current
procedure and allow us to suggest possible solutions that would not be
so disruptive to work performed by your committee and supporting
staff members.
How do you feel about that, Sue?
MS. FILSON: It's up to the board. It doesn't make any
difference to me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. What's the flavor of the board
here? Fiala--
MS. FILSON: The only question I have is, if you approve the
resolution, the only question I have -- and I know there's been a
question in the past -- is if it includes the productivity committee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any discussion on this matter?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there is concern over the
productivity committee over this thing just adding more time to it.
You know, when you get -- what, how many people apply for it at any
one time, II?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She said something, 12 to 15
candidates.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And, you know, I mean,
their time --
MS. FILSON: I can tell you I'm advertising for the productivity
committee, and the deadline is this Friday, and I have two applicants.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. That's now, but that
could change. And believe me their time's at a premium. You know,
we're always looking to expand their scope of --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Research.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- research. And to give them
something like this -- I'll tell you what, I have a meeting with them
corning up the next couple of -- I think it's tomorrow. I'll pose the
question to them again and ask for clarification from them. But I
know that from what I've been hearing that there is concern.
Page 284
------ ---.-.----.- ""'''.--"--.<.--'.''-- ---~_.
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Since you're the liaison on that, could
you report back to us?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I sure will. I'll be happy to
every time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can we hold this off till next meeting to
make this decision --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe not next meeting because it's
supposed to be so full. There's no time -- you know, there's no hurry
on any of this, is there? Maybe we could postpone it till March.
MS. FILSON: And I believe it was Commissioner Coyle who
wanted the committees to interview applicants.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, so then we'll make sure
he's here.
MR. MUDD: Do you want to continue this item till March 28th?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: March 28th.
MR. MUDD: Do I have a vote on that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion to bring
this back at the March 28th meeting.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Got that.
Page 285
,----,.. ---,-. -- -_.-, ...._-_...".,.-..,----- -"-'~---~-'-- _._~
February 14,2006
Item # 12D
CONSIDER PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN
REFERENCE TO THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED GORDON
DOUGLAS V. COLLIER COUNTY CASE NO. 2:04-CV-545-FTM-
33 DNF, NOW PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, FORT MYERS DIVISION,
AND GIVE DIRECTION TO COUNTY ATTORNEY
REGARDING THE LITIGATION - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 12D. It's to consider a proposed settlement agreement in
reference to the lawsuit entitled Gordon Douglas versus Collier
County, case number 2:04-CV-545-FtM-33-DNF, now pending in the
United States District Court for the Middle District court -- for the
Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, and give direction to
the County Attorney regarding the litigation.
And Mr. Michael Pettit, the Chief Assistant County Attorney --
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: -- will present.
MR. PETTIT: Good evening, Commissioners. I'll answer any
questions. I will say that this matter --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
THE COURT: And Commissioner Henning has got a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's motions to the judge to
dismiss. Has that even been answered?
MR. PETTIT: To the best of my knowledge, those are
unresolved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we have a motion to dismiss
of -- we won in the local, correct? No, no, this is a --
Page 286
'-"-" ~ .._."_e...._ >~..- --
February 14,2006
MR. PETTIT: This is federal court.
MR. WEIGEL: This is federal court.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And we had a motion to
dismiss that we never heard on that.
MR. WEIGEL: No, we -- in fact, you're right, Commissioner.
We had a motion to dismiss, and the dismissal was granted, and so --
but the court gave them an opportunity to refile, so they filed an
amended, a new complaint, and that has not corne up for hearing for
dismissal.
But in the meantime, what the court has done is forced us, if I can
use that term, to go through a mediation, which, of course, we were
not particularly eager to do because we felt that the case had little
merit.
But we went through the mediation and ultimately culminated,
when the mediation was actually over, that there was a bit of a
discussion in the parking lot afterwards, and this figure of $11 ,000
carne from the other side as a figure to make the case go away. We
expect that their costs to date significantly supersede that figure of
$11,000 to settle.
We also recognize that to prepare for the trial that would lie
ahead -- and it is set at this point in time -- would probably cost the
county in time and human resources something more than $11,000,
but we're prepared to go to trial and argue what we think are the lack
of merit of the issues that have been presented.
It becomes, in part, a business decision; it becomes in part a
policy decision in regard to lawsuits of this type. Whether we go
forward with the trial -- there is always a potential risk in trial, but
we'd go forward in trial and see it through or pay it and make it go
away, notwithstanding that the settlement agreement indicates that
there's no fault on either side and all charges, claims, et cetera, are
dropped, it does corne back to a bit of a policy decision by the board
as to how they want to handle these kinds of -- these kinds of cases.
Page 287
.~-' - .--.-
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How much money do you think that we
would spend if we take this on to court?
MR. WEIGEL: Our best estimate is probably about 21,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I hate to award somebody
on a frivolous lawsuit, but it's not the first time we've done this to
make things go away, that we're making a good business decision.
But it's just -- it's hard to accept that we're paying somebody $11,000
with no merit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other questions?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, there's been a motion made and a
second and -- to pay this off, and I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absent
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carries, 3-1.
Item #12E
RESOLUTION 2006- 41: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH THE HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AS AN AD-
HOC COMMITTEE; PROVIDING FOR CREATION AND
PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR TERMS, APPOINTMENT OF
MEMBERS, AND FAILURE TO ATTEND MEETINGS;
PROVIDING FOR OFFICERS, QUORUM, AND
COMPENSATION; PROVIDING FUNCTIONS, POWERS, AND
DUTIES; PROVIDING FOR DISSOLUTION OF THE
Page 288
--..--- --,-._"--_._-'-"-~'---+"-"'- "_,.__.____,..__w_ _ ,----
February 14,2006
COMMITTEE; AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 2005-
174 IN ITS ENTIRETY -ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 12E. It's a
recommendation to approve a resolution to establish the Habitat
Conservation Plan Advisory Plan as an ad hoc committee; providing
for creation and purpose; providing for terms, appointment of
members and failure to attend meetings; providing for officers,
quorum and compensation; providing functions, powers and duties,
providing for dissolution of the committee and superseding resolution
number 2005-174 in its entirety.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thirteen people's a little bit
wieldy. Is there a particular reason why we want to increase it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING. Okay, what is it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the reason being is, it
came up during discussion. Before it was nine -- or it was how many?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Nine.
MR. WEIGEL: No, that's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And because of the fact we were
changing scope that we were looking for, it just was -- originally was
the RCW -- I'm not going to say the same -- and then we expanded the
scope to look at the possibility of multi-species, and the problem being
is that we originally put the committee together based upon that one
criteria, it was a single species. And by doing that, by expanding it,
we wanted to give the public a chance to be able to corne back into it
because it's no longer the same animal that it was when it started, just
to be able to open it up again.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You did a great job.
Page 289
.--" ---........-.-.....-..--...--..---... ."---------.-- '.. _._-~--_. ..-
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did I explain it -- I can repeat it
again in French.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No thanks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So who are you trying to
capture to get more input on this that you think that we don't have
right now?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I really -- it's a good
question. I don't know who it will be, but the thing is is that because it
changed the scope, I'm sure there's a lot of landowners out there that
may have second thoughts that may have wished to join the committee
originally. I may be totally wrong. And only time will bear us out
when we see the applicants and who they are that corne forward.
It's just that it doesn't seem fair that this committee would just
take a tremendous jump forward without some sort of more public
scrutiny. That was the reason for it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. Motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion on the
floor by Commissioner Henning and second by Commissioner Fiala in
regards to approving this resolution.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign.
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It pass -- carries unanimously.
Item #15
Page 290
.-.-.-.---- ----.---.- -"." ._.~..,-_., --
February 14,2006
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 15,
which is staff and commissioner general communications.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And did you want to start off?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I have two items. One is we're still
working with the Conservancy to work out those particular issues on
the parcel of land that they purchased that's adjacent to the zoo
property. We haven't forgot about that. We're still working through
different issues as far as something that will hold us through the time
of their loan that they've had to -- about a $2 million loan for the
purchase of the property.
I mentioned to the commission before that their loan agency
wasn't real -- wasn't real upbeat about putting a conservation easement
on a property that they have a loan for. We wanted to try to do
something in between that time that would hold the Conservancy to
their word that they basically gave to the board, and then have
something afterwards, after the loan is no longer there and they've
paid it off, that we will have in perpetuity, so we're still working on
that particular issue, and we're working and reviewing documents
between their agency and our agency.
The next item is to try to figure out what the June schedule's
going to look like. And I'm sorry I don't have something -- something
better. But just bear with me as I try to zoom in on May and June a
little bit.
And if you'll just look, you'll see that May has five Tuesdays in it
and June has four. Your May dates for the second and fourth Tuesday
would be the 9th and the 23rd for your BCC dates.
And the reason I -- we have some issues is because you have
F AC coming into Collier County and having their annual conference
in Marco Island from the 27th through the 30th. I believe there will be
Page 291
...__.d_______ ~_... -_._.-. .--_..~. -..-.-- --'-"-~-- _.,--~-,.. --..--
February 14,2006
some official responsibilities for this board with that delegation down
here from the State of Florida and descending on Marco Island as
they've done in the past.
So the 27th, Tuesday, which would be the fourth Tuesday in June
kind of gets really -- gets dicey for us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask, have -- I'm just going to
throw this onto the table. On the 27th, I know the Kiwanis
convention, like they always start on the 28th, but that's like the arrival
day. They never have anything really planned except in the evening
when they have some kind of a dinner or something, and then the
convention really begins the next day. Do you -- do you know on the
27th if that's --
MR. MUDD: There are -- there are some events in the evening,
ma'am, and they are corning here in the afternoon of that day --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The 27th.
MR. MUDD: -- as you would -- as you would expect. It starts
on the 27th in the evening.
The recommendation I have, because May you would get a break
on the 30th, we could have a two-week break and have that meeting
on the 6th and then again on the 20th, and that would free up the last
week of June from the 27th to the 30th, and then I would recommend
that we do budget workshops on the 22nd, 23rd and 26th of June, and
26th being the wrap-up make-up day, and that would -- and that would
pretty much take a look at that schedule in June.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, because I think they're going to
start arriving -- they're going to start arriving here sometime on the
26th, the afternoon of the 26th. I think there's already some -- if!
remember correctly, we have some things scheduled already for that
on the 26th. So because of the fact that we're the host county, I think
that we want to make sure that -- as you brought out, we need to make
sure we got that time free.
MR. MUDD: So the recommendation is to have the board
Page 292
----" "."._-<-_.__..~- -_.~~--- -"-
February 14,2006
meeting on the first Tuesday and the third Tuesday of June, so that
would make it the 6th and the 20th, to have the budget workshop for
county staff on the 22nd, the constitutionals on the 23rd, and any
wrap-up that we need to -- or action items, to do it on the 26th if we
can't get it done on the afternoon of the 23rd, as we did the three-day
discussion this year.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning's got a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, since we're rearranging
this, can we get our budget book on June I? Because you're packing
everything in. You're packing the meeting in there, then you're
packing the budget, and when you're dealing with a billion dollars, we
need time to go over that.
MR. MUDD: We'll get you the book as quick as we can, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I am not in favor of changing
things around unless we have ample time to review the material that
you provide us. And a billion dollars is not chump change.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if we can get the budget
book on June 1, I'm all in favor of that. That gives me plenty of time
to review, prepare notes and things like that; otherwise, let's keep it
the same as we were last year.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I can tell you that if we keep it the same,
I won't be here. I mean, I'll have an excuse.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the budget is that
-- one of the most important things.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It is one of the most important things.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Don't you want the
material ahead of time?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think the county manager said that
he would get us the material --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As soon as possible.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- as soon as possible.
Page 293
------ -,.---.- ______._~__.__H'_~. "'___"_H" --
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that doesn't--
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We've told the constitutionals that they
have to give us their budget books on 1 May. Last year we didn't get
some constitutional books till 1 June, so it's hard to bring the whole
budget to you in order to get you that stuff on 1 June.
You have passed a resolution telling the constitutionals they need
to provide their budgets in by 1 May. If that holds true, we'll be able
to get the books to you on 1 June.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you get the material-- if
you can get your stuff to us by 1 June and the majority of them do,
you know, God bless the person who doesn't bring it.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And just give it to us all
ahead of time.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because I know you give it to
us in May, the budget book. So all I'm saying is June 1 is the
deadline.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Whatever he's got. So we may
not have the whole big picture.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We might not have some of the
constitutional officers, I understand that, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We'll have the biggest part of the
picture. We can do those last few things, right, is what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, if the sheriff
comes in on the 15th, that's going to be very difficult for me to
approve his budget being -- not enough time, sufficient time to review
it.
MR. MUDD: Sir, 1 June, that's the deadline we're shooting for to
have the budget books to you with every bit of information that I have
that's been given to me.
Page 294
------'_.- ...--.-.---.....-"'.-..-......-----...-..-.-.. --, _._~,,_.._.. '-'-'-~-" -...-- -'-'--
February 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Are we okay with that particular calendar that I
basically recommended to you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I am.
MR. MUDD: And I will get something officially down to Sue
Filson in a memo tomorrow morning so that she can adjust your
calendars accordingly.
That all I have, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Attorney, do you have
anything to bring up?
MR. WEIGEL: Not tonight, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll go down the line here.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Well, Commissioner
Coyle said I could have his time since he left, too. So I just want to --
no. The only thing I wanted to say is, I'm just so proud of this
commission and what we accomplished today with the Bembridge
PUD. That was absolutely tremendous. I mean, I've been getting
fairly depressed about affordable housing. I didn't think it was ever
going to happen. And to hold a meeting of that magnitude and
accomplish the goals we accomplished without the room being filled
with protesters, I think that's a red letter day for Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was a good place though. I mean,
it was a good fit there. I think -- you know, when it makes sense, it
makes good sense.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just very, very pleased. I
just wanted to thank everybody here for the wonderful job they did
today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, actually I'm kind of like with
David Weigel. I was going to talk to everybody about putting
together a committee. This was a suggestion from Nino Spagna about
Page 295
----,~--^ -'-"---'>'-'--"-'--~- ------"'--~...__...'..._.~,,-.,,-_.,,----_.."- -.-, -----
February 14,2006
the growth literate -- blue ribbon plan growth committee, and I
thought it was a wonderful idea, and especially because Fred Coyle's
been talking a lot about, you know, what we can approve and what we
shouldn't approve and how we approve PUDs and rezones and added
density and so forth, but I'm too tired tonight. I'll talk about it again at
another meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Sunday morning I
opened up the paper, looked at the local section, looked at
Commissioner Fiala's district, East Naples, trailer park needs to be
fixed or sold, county officials say.
And it goes on saying, Collier County supervisor so-and-so said
the county has talked to people interested in buying their property, and
we're trying to facilitate -- help facilitate the sale.
When did we get into the real estate agency? I mean, first of all it
was Riviera, that we put people together to purchase the piece of
property. Now we've got code enforcement putting together people to
buy pieces of property. When does -- under the purview of chapter
124, where can I read that that is part of the charge of the county
government?
MR. MUDD: Sir, you read it the first time I did on Sunday
mornmg.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is this going to continue?
MR. MUDD: I hope not, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope not. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I just wanted to bring to light that
I was given a letter to sign. And there -- the second paragraph where it
starts out, on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, I just
wanted to make sure that there's -- that it's clarified that it should have
probably read that I, as the chair, asked the governor to speak at the
breakfast. So I want to make sure that it was clarified and it wasn't
caught by our staff in regards to this.
Page 296
__m_' -..-,..---'-" .--
February 14,2006
So we are still asking the governor to attend the breakfast that
we're going to have up at Tallahassee, I believe, on -- seven a.m., and I
believe that is on the 23rd, whenever the legislature consortium day is.
So I want to make sure that I didn't overstep my bounds and it was
something that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I wanted to do that.
Another item that I'd like to discuss -- and we can decide on what
we want to do about this. We had one individual that served this
community very, very well. It was Ken Abernathy. And I think that
he served not only the county here very well, but he also served the
city.
And I'd like to see if we could corne up with some -- either a
naming of a building or a street, something on behalf of what he's
done here for the citizens of Collier County.
The way that you normally go through this is you have to go out
and collect a number of signatures and things of this nature, and I'm
not sure if we want to do that. So I just brought this up for discussion
to see where -- what other people here thought, my fellow
commissioners, in regards to -- to pursue something of this nature or
drop it. So I'm open for discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had, a while back, I've been
approached by many people when our favorite newscaster, Rich King,
died. And we were trying to name a greenway after him, and
somehow that's still hanging in limbo. So I don't know how easy it is
to do this, but I think Ken Abernathy has -- was such an outstanding
citizen, it would be something to at least pursue. It might not go very
well, but I would say fine if you want to pursue it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's an existing policy in
Page 297
.___....___.._____."__u. - -...-------..- -,,- -~.-.-- ,,-.-
February 14,2006
place, and maybe you ought to get together with the county manager.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, there is an existing policy, and
that's where you have to get a number of signatures and so on in
regards to this. So that's why I was thinking that maybe if we thought
it was -- it deemed the respect of --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll sign your petition.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Huh?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll sign your petition.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You'll sign the thousand?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm sure Darcy would sign
it, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's two.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Halas, in regard to the correspondence you
were sending to the governor, if the -- if you're asking to sign either on
behalf of the board or you, as chairman of the board -- and it really
makes no difference particularly if you're looking for the board either
to approve or ratification, and they give the head nods or state on the
record, then your letter would be, I think, as you're looking, to have
the opportunity to send it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: So, again, if you'd -- I thought I heard a response
from one --
MR. MUDD: You had a motion and you had a second, sir. If
you could just carry it through.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those in favor of sending this
letter on to the governor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 298
_.....~ ._..._,"- "..--.-...... _...._~-~..- --
February 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. You've got it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. You've got it covered.
Now do we need -- how about with the discussion that we were
just having here with Ken Abernathy? I know that we have a
resolution in place now where we need 1,000 signatures. So I'm not
sure if we want to pursue this or just -- I'm not going to go out in the
streets and try to get 1,000 signatures.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, wait a minute, are you
doing the ballot petition to get reelected or -- I mean, are you going
the petition route? Because you could get both of them at the same
time, and I'll help you with --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think I'm probably going to pay my fair
share. That's what I'm going to go on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a suggestion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I guess this issue's dead then.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I wouldn't say it's dead. I'd
say the opportunity could present itself at any time and we'll see it.
I'm not too sure what it is right now. I remember we went through this
for Max Hasse, getting the park named after him when he was still
alive. Then when his wife passed on, we named the building after her,
and that was --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And what -- did you go through the
signature process with 1,000 signatures or--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, we just carne here and
kicked butt and got it done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There wasn't a policy in place.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But now there is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When I tried to do the greenway for
Rich though, they said that -- well --
MR. MUDD: We were going to do a bridge, but a bridge wasn't
Page 299
_____'.'m-"_..___.'.' --.".....-----... .-~-,.~ m._._
February 14,2006
really fitting in what he wanted to do.
Commissioner, there's ways to get things named. It just needs --
something needs to get built so that you can put it on it that seems
appropriate. Mr. Abernathy used to be an attorney, if! remember
correctly, based on his bio or at least on--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got it.
MR. MUDD: Maybe--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: One of those rooms--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no, no, no. I got the
perfect one. The Bembridge PUD, when we get that thing together.
What a perfect thing. Right in the middle of the city, and name it in his
honor, why not?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What, the Abernathy --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it's kind ofa long time,
but you know, still.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Affordable housing.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we'll take a look at that, okay?
And the same thing with Rich King, and we'll work on those particular
Issues.
I believe there's some avenues in that policy to give this board
some latitude. The thousand signatures is to basically -- if somebody
out of the blue says, my uncle died, I'd like to have a building named
after him where you could figure it out. But if you have somebody
that's done a lot of civic work for this county, is a citizen of notoriety,
per se, that has done great public good, I believe there's ways in that
policy you can get that stuff done, and I'll look into that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good.
MR. MUDD: And we'll look and see ifthere's an appropriate
place where we can get that done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Very good. Appreciate that.
We've got -- do you need three nods on that or --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, nod here. Count me three
Page 300
___"_~'~'._'_____""'___'_W _..._,.,-~---"._.,. __u_...._ ""--
February 14,2006
times.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Got a nod here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've got everybody's nod.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, great.
Other than that, I want to wish everybody that's still sitting in the
gallery here, along with my fellow commissioners, a belated Happy
Valentine's Day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hey, Paul, get ready. We're going
out to dinner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And if there's no other comments, I'm
going to adjourn this meeting today. We're adjourned.
*****
***** Commissioner Fiala moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coyle and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted *****
Item #16A1
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK
SOUTH COMMERCIAL CENTER", APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A2
Page 301
-.__._.~--_...__.__._.' ....---.---.,-.---. . ..",~._." ..-. v.__.". .---..--,
February 14,2006
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "TREVISO BAY",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item # 16A3
RESOLUTION 2006-22: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "FOREST GLEN OF NAPLES". THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2006-23: FINAL APPROV AL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "FOREST PARK". THE ROADWAY
AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y
MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY
Item # 16A5
RESOLUTION 2006-24: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "FOREST PARK PHASE II". THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE
Page 302
,-~.^ "",--_."--- ---~--" "---
February 14,2006
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A6
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "ARTESIA NAPLES",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A7 - Continued to February 28,2006
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "BRENTWOOD TWO"
Item # 16A8
INTERIM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE MCINTOSH
PROPERTY UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM - FOR TWO (2) PARCELS
LOCATED AT THE NW CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF
PINE RIDGE ROAD AND LOGAN BOULEVARD
Item # 16A9
COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO SUBMIT A
FLORIDA HUMANITIES COUNCIL (FHC) MINI-GRANT
PROPOSAL TO FUND AN INTERPRETIVE TRAIL PROJECT AT
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER OTTER MOUND PRESERVE
FOR $5,002 (OF WHICH $2,000 WILL BE REIMBURSABLE) -
TO PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS AND EDUCATIONAL
ACTIVITIES ON CONSERVATION COLLIER LANDS
Page 303
~_m -". -..-.. ."""-"- --
February 14,2006
Item #16A10
TWO IMP ACT FEE SA TISF ACTION OF LIENS FOR TWO
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES DUE TO A CHANGE IN
OWNERSHIP AND THE SUBSEQUENT RECORDING OF NEW
DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
IMMOKALEE RESIDENTIAL IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL
PROGRAM, AS SET FORTH BY SECTION 74-201 (G) OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES -
LOCATED AT 1204 AND 1225 ALLEGIANCE WAY,
IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA
Item #16A11
TWO IMP ACT FEE SA TISF ACTIONS OF LIEN FOR TWO
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES DUE TO THE DEFERRED IMP ACT
FEES BEING REPAID IN FULL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
IMMOKALEE RESIDENTIAL IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL
PROGRAM, AS SET FORTH BY SECTION 74-201 (G) OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES -
LOCATED AT 627 CLIFTON ROAD AND 1240 ALLEGIANCE
WAY, IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA
Item #16A12
BUDGET AMENDMENT TOTALING $250,000 FROM FY06
FUND 186 RESERVES TO ASSIST WITH THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE RURAL HEALTH TRAINING CENTER
IN IMMOKALEE - FOR INITIAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION OF AN UNUSED 32,000
SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING IN IMMOKALEE, CURRENTL Y
Page 304
_.-- -.,----- ~."'--_...-....._"- ---
February 14,2006
OWNED BY NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL (COMPANION
TO ITEM #16G1)
Item #16A13
ADDITIONAL PERMANENT POSITION OF SUPERVISOR FOR
A NEW WORK TEAM BEING ESTABLISHED TO PROVIDE
IMPROVED LAND USE PROJECT REVIEW AND PERMITTING
APPLICATION INTAKE SERVICE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION AT A TOTAL BUDGET COST OF $58,500 FOR ALL
SALARY, BENEFITS, TAXES AND OPERATIONAL EXPENSES
- TO ENSURE ACCURACY AND CONSISTENCY AMONG
INTERNAL DEPARTMENTS AND WITH THE PUBLIC
Item #16A14
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
SIGN A POLICE AFFIDA VIT AGAINST TRESPASS AT THE
RAILHEAD SCRUB PRESERVE PURSUANT TO THE
RAILHEAD PRESERVE INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN -
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OF THE PRESERVE
Item #16A15
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WAIVE THE
FORMAL COMPETITION PROCESS AND SOLICIT QUOTES
TO SELECT A CONSULTANT TO UPDATE THE GENERAL
GOVERNMENT BUILDING IMPACT FEE, FOR A COST NOT-
TO-EXCEED $50,000, DUE TO AN ACCELERATED DATE OF
COMPLETION REQUIRED TO MEET DEADLINES SET FORTH
BY PROPOSED LEGISLATION RELATED TO STATUTORY
Page 305
--- -,--.__. __'~_~.F_"_ .. -.._----- ..--
February 14,2006
GUIDANCE ON IMP ACT FEES - NEEDED TO OFFSET
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
SIGNIFICANT GROWTH
Item #16B1
AWARD BID #06-3934 "PINE RIDGE ROAD/I-75
INTERCHANGE STREETS CAPE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT"
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION INST ALLA TION TO
HANNULA LANDSCAPING, INC. AT A BASE AMOUNT OF
$185,416.83 PLUS A 10% CONTINGENCY OF $18,541.68 FOR A
TOTAL OF $203,958.51 (PROJECT #740461)
Item #16B2
ADOPT -A-ROAD AGREEMENT WITH ASAP SIGNING
AGENCY OF ANA PATINO, INC. - SIGNAGE TO COME FROM
EXISTING INVENTORY
Item #16B3
SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKING OF THREE FIRMS FOR
NEGOTIATIONS FOR RFP 06-3931 "PROFESSIONAL DESIGN
AND RELATED SERVICES FOR GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
FROM WILSON BOULEVARD TO DESOTO BOULEVARD",
PROJECT NO. 60040 - W/STANLEY CONSULTANTS,
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE AND DOUGLAS AND
WILSONMILLER
Item # 16B4
SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF
Page 306
~---'- .._~..._-- ,..--"..--... -',-,,-_.',---- ~-
February 14,2006
COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF GOLDEN
GATE P ARKW A Y AND EAST OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD
(ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT $465,240.90) - WITH 2150 N.
GOODLETTE ROAD, INC.
Item #16B5
DRAINAGE AND POND USAGE AGREEMENT AND TO
ACCEPT A NON-EXCLUSIVE DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM
ROYAL POINCIANA GOLF CLUB, INC., NECESSARY FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE SIX-LANE
EXP ANSION OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD FROM GOLDEN
GATE P ARKW A Y TO PINE RIDGE ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60005
(FISCAL IMPACT $27.00) - FOR THE RELOCATION OF A NEW
GOLF CLUB ENTRANCE TO BURNING TREE DRIVE AND
THE DONATION OF EXISTING TRAFFIC LIGHT EQUIPMENT
Item #16B6
AWARD BID #06-3933 "GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PHASE
II" FROM 29TH STREET SW TO 13TH STREET SW LANDSCAPE
AND IRRIGATION INST ALLA TION TO HANNULA
LANDSCAPING, INC. AT A BASE AMOUNT OF $622,424.86
PLUS A 10% CONTINGENCY OF $62,242.48 FOR A TOTAL OF
$684,667.34 (PROJECT #600221)
Item #16B7 Moved to Item #10J
Item #16B8
Page 307
~_.. ___~_____m ----,_..~-'-. --.--"-.".- ----_..~- "----
February 14,2006
CHANGE ORDER NO.2 TO ADD $93,740.70 FOR WATERLINE
INSPECTION AND $149,055.07 FOR SEWER INSPECTION TO
JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC. UNDER ITQ 04-3583 "CEI
SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY ROAD PROJECTS" FOR
PROJECT NO. 60018 "IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT FROM
COLLIER BLVD TO 43RD AVE N.E." IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF $242,795.77
Item #16B9
FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO SHARE A PORTION OF THE
CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE LEL Y AREA STORMW A TER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PHASE I AND A BUDGET
AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $400,000 OF REVENUE
APPROPRIATING SAME AMOUNT AS AN EXPENSE INTO
THE PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 511011) - AS PART OF THE
NAPLES BAY INITIATIVE
Item #16B10
RESOLUTION 2006-25: COUNTY INCENTIVE GRANT
PROGRAM (CIGP) AGREEMENT AND A MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT A TION TO FUND THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL (PD&E) STUDY FOR SR 82 FROM
THE LEE COUNTY LINE TO SR 29 WITH THE COUNTY'S
OBLIGATION BEING $500,000 - TO F ACILIT A TE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SR 29 BYPASS
Item # 16B 11
Page 308
-,..__._~ ---- ~.. . - ---._----.-- ----
February 14,2006
BID #06-3935 "US 41 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH PHASE IV
STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT" FROM
IMMOKALEE ROAD TO WIGGINS PASS LANDSCAPE AND
IRRIGATION INST ALLA TION TO VILA & SON
LANDSCAPING, CORP. AT A BASE AMOUNT OF $347,437.76
PLUS A 10% CONTINGENCY OF $34,743.77 FOR A TOTAL OF
$382,181.53 (PROJECT #600241)
Item #16B12
WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $152,486 TO PBS&J FOR
DESIGN OF THE NORTH ROAD DITCH IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 511381), IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SERVICES CONTRACT
NO. 02-3371 AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $30,000 - TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SHOULDER SPACE
AND IMPROVE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONDITIONS
Item #16B13
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO ENTER INTO A
WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $114,519.50 WITH
CARTER & BURGESS, INC. FOR A TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDY FOR
THE BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE AREA -TO ASSESS
TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES IN THE
BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE AREA
Item #16B14
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING THE FISCAL YEAR
2005-2006 COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (FUND 426) FEDERAL
Page 309
---"--,.~ -.-- ~~---_.._. -..-." -'--
February 14,2006
TRANSPORTATION (FTA) 5307 AND STATE BLOCK GRANT
5311 REVENUE ALLOCATIONS AND ESTABLISH
CORRESPONDING PROGRAM EXPENSE BUDGETS VIA
BUDGET AMENDMENT
Item #16C1
PAYMENT OF INVOICES FOR UNIFORM ITEMS IN THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,967.50 - FOR SHIRTS AND HATS
USED TO IDENTIFY AND LOCATE CREWS WORKING IN
VARIOUS COUNTY LOCATIONS FOR THE W ASTEW A TER
DEP ARTMENT
Item #16C2
WORK ORDER HS-FT-3785-06-04 WITH HAZEN & SAWYER,
P.C., FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT
PLANT REVERSE OSMOSIS (RO) WELLFIELD FOUR NEW
RELIABILITY POTABLE WATER WELLS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $748,432.00 (PROJECT NO. 71051) - TO MEET THE NEEDS
OF CUSTOMERS AND STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Item #16C3 - Moved to Item #8E
Item # 16C4
CHANGE ORDER TO WORK ORDER NO. AB-040-06-02 WITH
ANGIE BREWER AND ASSOCIATES, L.c. IN THE AMOUNT
OF $99,634.00 UNDER SARASOTA COUNTY CONTRACT NO.
2003-040 FOR STATE REVOLVING FUNDS LOAN
Page 3 10
.-...-" .-.-....-..-- " ..----.. ----
February 14,2006
PROCUREMENT SERVICES FROM THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR
THE "SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT
PLANT REVERSE OSMOSIS WELLFIELD EXPANSION TO 20
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY (MGD)" (PROJECT NO. 708921)
- TO MEET THE WATER DEMANDS OF COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16C5
AWARD WORK ORDER CDM-FT-3593-06-03 WITH CAMP,
DRESSER AND MCKEE, INC., FOR PROFESSIONAL
HYDROGEOLOGIC AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
WELL SITE EVALUATION AND TRANSMISSION MAIN
STUDY FOR WATER SUPPLY FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF
DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NERWTP IN THE AMOUNT OF
$771,302.00 (PROJECT NO. 70899) - TO MEET THE DEMAND
OF CUSTOMERS IN THE NORTHEAST AREA OF THE
COUNTY AND STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS
Item # 16C6
AWARD WORK ORDER CDM-FT-3593-06-04 WITH CAMP,
DRESSER AND MCKEE, INC., FOR PROFESSIONAL
HYDROGEOLOGIC AND ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED
TO THE RELIABILITY WATER SUPPL Y WELLS FOR THE
NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $975,026.00 (PROJECT NO. 71006 AND
NO. 71011) - TO MEET THE OPERATIONAL AND
RELIABILITY NEEDS OF CUSTOMERS AND STAY IN
COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Page 311
~.~....- "- .... -,-~ , '''~-'...- ..--..-.-- -
February 14,2006
Item # 16C7
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $68,420.75 FOR SOUTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PROCESS CONTROL
BUILDING EXPANSION (PROJECT NO. 72509) TO
REIMBURSE THE AMOUNT THAT DID NOT ROLL FORWARD
FROM FISCAL YEAR 2005 TO FISCAL YEAR 2006
Item #16C8
WORK ORDER CHM-FT-3291-06-01 UNDER FIXED TERM
CONTRACT 01-3291 TO CH2M HILL, INC. IN AN AMOUNT OF
$31,000.00 FOR TIME AND MATERIALS TO PROVIDE
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING INSPECTION SERVICES TO
SERVE THE NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY (NCWRF), AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,121.00 FOR
PROJECT NO. 73966; NCWRF BLEACH SYSTEM - FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE NCWRF BLEACH PLANT
Item #16C9
WORK ORDER MPI-FT-3785-06-06, "LANDFILL GAS-TO-
ENERGY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE" FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, WITH MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $215,000 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE WORK
ORDER (PROJECT NO. 59004) - FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
A LANDFILL GAS-TO-ENERGY FACILITY AT THE NAPLES
LANDFILL
Item #16D1
Page 312
---- ""_.-.. -_..,-.- ------
February 14,2006
RESOLUTION 2006-26: COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC
ANIMAL SERVICES ("DAS") TO CREATE A TRUST ACCOUNT
FOR THE SOLICIT A TION, RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURES OF
DONATIONS TO COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL
SERVICES - FOR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING, SPECIAL
EVENTS AND OTHER SPECIFIC PURPOSES
Item # 16D2
EXPAND A .8 FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) POSITION
ASSOCIATED WITH SERVICES FOR SENIORS PROGRAM TO
1.0 FTE - TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS ON
THE WAIT LIST FOR CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND
INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF SPENDING WITHIN THE
COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY
Item #16D3
REPORT EXPENDITURE OF DIRECT MATERIAL PURCHASE
PROGRAM FUNDS ASSOCIATED WITH ADDITIVE CHANGE
ORDER #20 FOR NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL PARK - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E1
RESOLUTION 2006-27: AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE DEED CERTIFICATES FOR THE SALE OF BURIAL
PLOTS AT LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS
CEMETERY DURING THE 2006 CALENDAR YEAR
Item # 16E2
Page 3 13
_'_'.'" _,~~~.._n_ '_'_'_,^~.,,",.._..._,-,.- -"".-..-,. UU_" ~.__",.~.,~_,. ._.. ','"'_,"_"~__'__.....__m_. ~ ..--
February 14,2006
RESOLUTION 2006-28: AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE AGREEMENTS, DEEDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
REQUIRED FOR THE SALE OF GAC LAND TRUST PROPERTY
DURING THE 2006 CALENDAR YEAR - FOR PROPERTY
CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY BY A V A T AR
PROPERTIES, INC. IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
Item # 16E3
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD APPROVED
CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 17, 2005
THROUGH JANUARY 19,2006
Item #16E4
STANDARD FORM DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT FOR USE IN
THE ACQUISITION OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES FROM A SINGLE FIRM - TO BE DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16E5
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH HORSESHOE DRIVE
DEVELOPMENT, L.C. FOR OFFICE SPACE TO HOUSE THE
STATE ATTORNEY'S ECONOMIC CRIME UNIT AT A FIRST
YEAR'S ANNUAL COST FOR RENT AND COMMON AREA
MAINTENANCE FEES OF $72,018.79, FUND 001, AND A
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS COST OF $12,454.00, FUND
178 - FOR AN INITIAL TERM OF TWO (2) YEARS ENDING ON
JANUARY 31, 2008
Page 314
---"->'" ". "--...--- - - --.-. . "~._..~,;--~". --..-.----." ---..-
February 14,2006
Item # 16E6
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH HORSESHOE DRIVE
DEVELOPMENT, L.C. FOR TEMPORARY OFFICE SPACE TO
HOUSE THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT'S
DATA CENTER OPERATION AT A FIRST YEAR ANNUAL
COST OF $125,545.50 AND RELOCATION EXPENSES OF
$282,745.00 - FOR AN INITIAL TERM OF TWO (2) YEARS
ENDING ON JANUARY 31, 2008
Item #16E7
DECLARE CERTAIN COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY AS
SURPLUS, AUTHORIZE A SALE OF THE SURPLUS
PROPERTY ON MARCH 11,2006 AND AUTHORIZE THE
DONATION OF CERTAIN SURPLUS PROPERTY TO THE CITY
OF EVERGLADES AND THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F1
CHANGE ORDER #1 FOR CONTRACT #03-3537 WITH
PARADISE ADVERTISING AND MARKETING, INC. FOR
MEDIA ADVERTISING AND PRODUCTION IN THE AMOUNT
OF $148,384.19 AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER
OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER #1 AFTER
APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE - FOR
OUTST ANDING INVOICES FOR MEDIA AND PRODUCTION
COSTS FOR FY05
Item # 16F2
Page 315
---..--. ~___.__.___~.,,"...___..h__"'_"___~'_'_~_'" --~-- ------.-
February 14,2006
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE TOURISM AGREEMENT FOR
EMERGENCY/DISASTER RELIEF ADVERTISING PLAN WITH
PARADISE ADVERTISING AND MARKETING, INC. - TO
COMPENSATE THE AGENCY FOR THEIR WORK ON
PRODUCING THE ADVERTISING PLAN
Item #16F3 - Moved to Item #10L
Item #16F4 - Moved to Item #10K
Item #16F5
COST INCREASE OF $243,663.86 IN TDC FUNDS TO THE CITY
OF NAPLES GRANT FOR THE DREDGING OF DOCTOR'S
PASS, PROJECT NO. 905501 AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS. THE TOTAL REVISED GRANT
WILL BE $842,163.86 - DUE TO INCREASES IN FUEL,
CHANGES IN SCHEDULING, CONTRACT ISSUES AND
POSSIBLE WEATHER PROBLEMS
Item #16F6
AWARD RFP #05-3875 HURRICANE EVACUATION STUDY IN
THE AMOUNT OF $39,800.00 TO DEWBERRY & DAVIS, LLC
AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER
MONIES FROM RESERVES TO FUND THIS STUDY -TO AID
LOCAL OFFICIALS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT BY
UPDATING THE COUNTY'S ORIGINAL EVACUATION
STUDY
Item # 16F7
Page 316
-~-_.~-_._-'---~. -.-.---- ..-........-..---. ..-
February 14,2006
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH GULF
SHORE ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, FOR THE
CONTINUED USE OF OFFICE SPACE BY THE PELICAN BAY
SERVICES DIVISION AT A FIRST YEAR'S ANNUAL RENT
AND COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE FEES OF $27,353.00-
LOCATED WITHIN THE SUNTRUST BUILDING AT 801
LAUREL OAK DRIVE
Item #16F8
GRANT AGREEMENT TO RECEIVE $75,000 FROM THE
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION, FLORIDA BOATING IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM FOR THE NEAR SHORE REEF MOORING BUOYS
PROJECT AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS - TO EDUCATE VISITORS AND RESIDENTS
ABOUT CRITICAL CORAL REEF NATURAL RESOURCES
WHILE PROVIDING A RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR
BOATERS
Item # 16F9
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT (FUND 146) BUDGET
AMENDMENT #06-115
Item #16F10
AMENDMENT NO.1 TO CONTRACT 05-3854 "COLLIER
COUNTY BEACH RE-NOURISHMENT" (PROJECT NO. 90527)
WITH GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK COMPANY, LLC,
WHICH DOCUMENTS CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS LEADING
UP TO A FINAL CONTRACT AND INCREASES THE SAND
Page 317
"..__._.~_.. .. --._----,-- - ....__._ _____.__.____.__~__~_.__..o __...__
February 14,2006
QUANTITY DUE TO POST DESIGN EROSION FOR AN
ADDITIONAL $1,035,287 - DUE TO EROSION OCCURRED AS
A RESULT OF HURRICANE WILMA
Item #16F11
LETTER TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CONCERNING NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM'S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR NON-EMERGENCY
AMBULANCE SERVICE AND AUTHORIZE SIGNATURE BY
THE CHAIRMAN - DUE TO NCH'S LATE SUBMISSION
(RENEWAL) OF ITS CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
Item #16G1
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE
EXPENDITURE OF $250,000 FROM FY06 FUND 186 RESERVES
TO ASSIST WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FLORIDA
STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE RURAL
HEAL TH TRAINING CENTER IN IMMOKALEE - FOR INITIAL
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
OF AN UNUSED 32,000 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING IN
IMMOKALEE, CURRENTLY OWNED BY NAPLES
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL (COMPANION TO ITEM #16A12)
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
HA VING ATTENDED THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Page 318
-~.~,,~...,..... -~-""'- ---_."-'- ----
February 14,2006
COUNCIL'S 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AT THE NAPLES BEACH HOTEL AND GOLF
CLUB ON JANUARY 30, 2006; $60.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED
AT 851 GULF SHORE BOULEVARD NORTH
Item # 16H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
HA VING ATTENDED THE GULF CITRUS BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) KICKOFF EVENT ON
FEBRUARY 1,2006; $10.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED
AT A.DUDA & SONS FACILITIES LOCATED STATE ROAD 29,
IN HENDRY COUNTY
Item # 16H3
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT TO ATTEND
THE ANNUAL GULF CITRUS COUNTRY GALA ON
SATURDAY, MARCH 18,2006 AT THE LABELLE CIVIC
CENTER; $50.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S
TRA VEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 481 STATE ROAD 80,
LABELLE, FLORIDA
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER FIALA REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT TO
ATTEND THE 2006 HUMANITARIAN AWARD LUNCHEON
ON FEBRUARY 23, 2006 AT THE RITZ-CARLTON BEACH
RESORT; $125.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRA VEL BUDGET - TO HONOR MICHAEL
Page 319
----~--"._-- --- ._.____"___~m' _,,_ _, ..._._"" -,-'-'-"" --------.-'..---. ----
February 14,2006
WATKINS & ELLIN GOETZ
Item # 16H5
RESOLUTION 2006-29: SUPPORTING THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COORDINATING COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION NO. 2006-01 FOR
SUPPORT IN ATTAINING ADDITIONAL JUDGES, ASSISTANT
STATE ATTORNEYS, ASSIST ANT PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND
SUPPORTING PERSONNEL FOR THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF
COLLIER COUNTY - TO ASSIST IN PROCESSING
OFFENDERS THROUGH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM RESULTING
IN MORE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF THE JAIL
POPULATION IN COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16Il
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED:
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 320
_ __..__~__H'_ ~-----_..- --.....---
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 14, 2006
1. FOR BOARD ACTION:
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 ) December 17, 2005 through December 23, 2005.
(2) December 24, 2005 through December 30, 2005.
(3) December 31, 2005 through January 6, 2006.
(4) January 7, 2006 through January 13, 2006.
B. Districts:
(1 ) Port of the Islands Community Improvement District: Agenda of
August 26, 2005; and Minutes of August 26, 2005.
(2) Collier Mosquito Control District: Meeting Schedule for Fiscal
Year 2005 - 2006.
C. Minutes:
(1 ) Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes
of December 14, 2005; and Agenda of January 11,2006;
Agenda of February 25, 2006 (Special Meeting); Agenda of
February 8, 2006; Minutes of January 11, 2006.
(2) Bayshore/Gatewav Trianqle Local Redevelopment Advisory
Board: Agenda of January 3, 2006; Agenda of December 6,
2005; and Minutes of December 6, 2005.
(3) Collier County Citizens Corps Advisory Committee: Minutes of
November 16, 2005; Minutes of December 21, 2005; and
Agenda of December 21,2005.
H:\DATA\Melanie\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\2.14.06 Misc. Corresp. Memo.doc
-----....-.. ..". -
(4) Collier County Coastal AdYisorv Committee: Minutes of
January 13, 2005; Minutes of February 10, 2005; Undated
Memo regarding the budget workshop held on February 18,
2005; Minutes of February 18, 2005 (Workshop Session);
Agenda of March 10, 2005; Minutes of March 10, 2005; Minutes
of March 24, 2005 (Special Session); Agenda of March 24,
2005 (Special Meeting); Minutes of April 14, 2005; Agenda of
April 14, 2005; Minutes of May 12, 2005; Agenda of May 12,
2005; Minutes of June 9, 2005; Agenda of June 9, 2005;
Minutes of August 11, 2005; Agenda of August 11, 2005;
Minutes of September 8,2005 (FDEP Workshop); Minutes of
September 8, 2005; Agenda of September 8, 2005; Agenda of
September 8,2005 (FDEP Workshop); Minutes of October 13,
2005; Agenda of October 13, 2005; Minutes of November 10,
2005; Agenda of November 10, 2005; Agenda of December 8,
2005; and Minutes of December 8, 2005.
(a) Collier County Erosion Control Line: Minutes of March 10,
2005 (Workshop).
(b) Coastal Advisorv Inlet Sub-Committee: Minutes of April 5,
2005 (Fieldtrip and Workshop); Agenda of April 5, 2005
(Fieldtrip and Workshop); Agenda of May 3,2005
(Workshop); Agenda of May 12, 2005 (Workshop); Minutes
of June 3, 2005; Minutes of August 11,2005 (Workshop);
Agenda of August 11,2005 (Workshop).
(5) Collier County Contractors' Licensina Board: Agenda of
January 18, 2006.
(6) Development Services Advisorv Committee: Agenda of
January 4, 2006; Minutes of January 4, 2006.
(7) Collier County Emeraency Medical Services Advisorv Council:
Agenda of January 26, 2005; Minutes of January 26, 2005;
Minutes of February 18, 2005 (Workshop); Minutes of February
23, 2005; Undated Announcement canceling the March 23,
2005 meeting; Undated Memo canceling the April 2005 meeting
due to the lack of a quorum; Minutes of May 25, 2005; Informal
Minutes of June 22, 2005 (No Quorum); Unofficial Minutes of
July 29,2005 (No Quorum); Minutes of August' 2005
(incomplete date); Agenda of August 24, 2005; Minutes of
September 28, 2005; Undated Notice of Cancellation for
H:\DATA\Melanie\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\2.14.06 Misc. Corresp. Memo.doc
-.. -"-
.--^~..__._,_..,.." .-....--...
October 26 (incomplete date) meeting (No Quorum); Undated
Notice of Cancellation of the December meeting (members out
of town); Minutes of November 22, 2005.
(8) Environmental Advisory Council: Agenda of February 1, 2006;
Minutes of December 7,2005.
(9) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainaqe MSTU Advisory
Committee: Agenda of January 11, 2006; Minutes of
December 14, 2005; Advisory Committee/Board Four-Year
Review by the Board of County Commissioners for Fiscal Year
2006; Agenda of February 8, 2006; Minutes of January 11,
2006.
(10) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board: Agenda of
February 7, 2005; Minutes of February 7, 2005; Agenda of
March 7, 2005; Minutes of March 7, 2005; Agenda of April 4,
2005; Minutes of April 4, 2005; Agenda of June 6, 2005;
Minutes of June 6, 2005; Agenda of August 1, 2005; Agenda of
October 3, 2005; Minutes of October 3, 2005; Agenda of
November 7, 2005; Minutes of November 7, 2005; Agenda of
December 5, 2005; Minutes of December 6, 2005;
Memorandum dated January 3, 2006, listing the dates there
were no meetings; Agenda of January 11, 2006; Minutes of
January 11, 2005.
(11) Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of January
10, 2006, Minutes of December 13, 2005.
(12) Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Memo dated
January 6, 2006, from Colleen M. Greene, Assistant County
Attorney to Winoma (sic) Stone regarding Meeting Minutes and
Cancellations; Amended Agenda for February 24, 2005;
Minutes of February 24, 2005; Agenda for September 22, 2005;
Minutes of September 22, 2005; Agenda for October 13, 2005;
Minutes of October 13, 2005; Agenda for November 7, 2005
(Joint Workshop with the BCC); Minutes of November 7, 2005
(Joint Workshop with the BCC); Minutes of November 10. 2005;
Agenda of November 10, 2005; Agenda of December 15, 2005;
Minutes of December 15, 2005.
(13) Collier County Historic and Archaeoloqical Preservation Board:
Letter dated January 6, 2005, from Raymond V. Bellows,
Historic Preservation Coordinator, to Susan M. Harp, Certified
H:\DATA\Melanie\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\2.14.06 Misc. Corresp. Memo.doc
- "....._-~ ._._.,",,+-~.__..._~- . _....___,_m__....._.~.-...,__..___
Local Government Coordinator regarding Meeting Minutes,
Scheduling; and Cancellation of the December meeting;
Agenda of January 18, 2006; Minutes of November 16, 2005.
(14) Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes
of November 16, 2005; Agenda of November 16, 2005.
(15) Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue Advisory Board: Agenda of January
6, 2005; Agenda of February 3, 2005; Agenda of March 3,
2005; Agenda of April 14, 2005; Agenda of May 5,2005;
Agenda of June 9, 2005; Agenda of July 7, 2005; Agenda of
August 11, 2005; Agenda of September 1, 2005; Agenda of
October 6, 2005; Agenda of November 3, 2005; Agenda of
December 1, 2005.
(16) Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of December 12, 2005; Form 8B Memorandum of
Voting Conflict for William Hager Poteet, Jr. dated December
12,2005; Agenda of January 17, 2006.
(17) Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of January 19, 2006; Minutes of December 15, 2005.
(18) Librarv Advisory Board: Memo dated December 20, 2005, from
Luz Pietri, Administrative Assistant, to Winona Stone, Assistant
to the County Manager regarding Minutes, Agendas, and
Cancelled Meetings; Agenda for December 14, 2005.
(19) Parks and Recreation Advisorv Board: Agenda for December
21, 2005; Minutes for December 21,2005; Agenda of January
18, 2006.
(20) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Memo from Barbara
Smith to Sue Filson, Executive Manager of the BCC dated
December 20, 2005, regarding Missing Agendas and Minutes;
Agenda of February 2, 2004; Minutes of November 9, 2005;
Minutes of December 8,2005; Agenda of January 4,2006.
(a) Budqet Sub-Committee: Agenda of January 25, 2006;
Minutes of September 21, 2005.
(21) Collier County Planninq Commission: Minutes of November 17,
2005; Minutes of December 1, 2005; Agenda of January 5,
2006.
H:\DATAIMelanie\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\2.14.06 Misc. Corresp. Memo.doc
-.--"."'.'. --.".--.------.
,'_'-'"'~-'- -- . ---.-.,..
(22) Collier County Government Productivity Committee: Memo
dated December 28, 2005, to the Board of County
Commissioners from Barbetta Hutchinson, Executive Secretary,
OMB regarding Meeting Minutes and Agendas and a Cancelled
Meeting; Minutes of October 19, 2005; Agenda of January 19,
2005; Agenda of February 16, 2005; Agenda of March 16,
2005; Agenda of April 20, 2005; Agenda of May 18, 2005;
Agenda of May 24,2005; Agenda of May 27,2005; Agenda of
June 15,2005; Agenda of August 17,2005; Agenda of
September 21, 2005; Agenda of October 19, 2005.
(23) Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda
of January 17, 2006; Minutes of November 15, 2005.
D. Other:
(1 ) Collier County Housinq Authoritv: Annual Financial Report of
FYE 9/30/05; Approved Budget for FY 2005-2006; Registered
Office and Agent; Schedule of Regular Meetings for 2005-2006;
Description of Outstanding Bonds for FYE 9/30/05; Public
Facilities Report; and Audit FYE 9/30/05.
(2) Clerk of Courts: Email from Chris Ryser to Helpdesk dated
January 13, 2006 regarding the rezoning of Riviera Golf Course
to Affordable Housing.
H:\DA T A \Melanie\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\2.14.06 Misc. Corresp. Memo.doc
- ----
-.-"--- --------"... - -~.--_.__._- -......--.-
February 14,2006
Item # 1611
DESIGNATE THE SHERIFF AS THE OFFICIAL FISCAL YEAR
2006 APPLICANT AND PROGRAM POINT-OF-CONTACT FOR
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU
OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, ACCEPT
THE GRANT WHEN AWARDED AND APPROVE APPLICABLE
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - TO SUPPORT OVERTIME COSTS
RELATED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM FUNCTIONS
Item #16K1
OFFER OF JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,365.00 AS TO
PARCEL 148 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V
REGENT PARK CLUSTER HOMES ASSOCIATION, INC, ET AI.,
CASE NO. 04-3452-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO.
66042) (FISCAL IMP ACT $2,265.00)
Item # 16K2
MEDIA TED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NO. 167B IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V ANDY R. MORGAN, ET AI.,
CASE NO. 02-5169-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PHASE TWO,
PROJECT NO. 60018) (FISCAL IMPACT $48,431.00)
Item # 16K3
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE WITH AJAX
PAVING INDUSTRIES, INC. AND/OR AJAX PAVING
INDUSTRIES, INC. OF FLORIDA ARISING OUT OF THE
Page 321
~--_.,,~_..- -._"--,-_._".".-~ ,-.-....---_..'.. - . ._-----~--~-,-,_._-,,_...,--
February 14, 2006
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT TO WIDEN GOODLETTE-FRANK
ROAD BETWEEN PINE RIDGE ROAD AND V ANDERBIL T
BEACH ROAD IN COLLIER COUNTY (CONTRACT NO. 02-
3424) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K4
MUSIC FESTIV AL LICENSE FOR RADIO FIEST A SPECIAL
EVENT, PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 70-11 - HELD ON
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 12,2006 ON THE IMMOKALEE
AIRPORT GROUNDS
Item # 16K5
ACCEPT $250,000.00 TO RESOLVE ALL DISAGREEMENTS
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND HANSEN INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES AND DEEM CONTRACT 03-3500 FOR "LAND
USE AND PERMITTING SOFTW ARE APPLICATION"
TERMINATED FOR CONVENIENCE - DUE TO INTERNAL
ISSUES
Item #17 A- Withdrawn
AN ORDINANCE CONSENTING TO THE EXERCISE BY THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF TUSCANY RESERVE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OF CERTAIN
ADDITIONAL POWERS RELATING TO PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Page 322
-- ----,~--- ....--..--..--.....-- '-'"_.'--'~- "--
February 14,2006
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:20 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~~~
FRANK HALAS, ChaIrman
ATTEST:
DWIGH':(E:BROCK, CLERK
"
" ;'
By: .".~......~.,:, '~. ". "tJ. -. ~LJJ ./J.( .
::.', JiI",' " . ~',
". AtW$t' <to '1r'IIU I
., tgnltn'o.l..
"'I,. '"
These minutes approved by the Board on 3-1c.f"'aooto , as
presented v/' or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 3 23
--_._~ -"-,._-""-"""~,,,,->-,,,,~,,,'-"_."""""-"-"'.""'''-''-",,,,,-"'- -- .---