BCC Minutes 02/28/2006 R
February 28, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 28, 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
Derek J ohnssen, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
February 28, 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 28, 2006
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 IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Senior Minister Debra C. Williams, Unity of Naples Church
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 25,2006 - BCC/AUIR Special Meeting
C. January 30,2006 - BCC/TDC Workshop
D. February 6, 2006 - BCC/Strategic Planning Workshop
E. February 6, 2006 - BCC/ AUIR Special Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) J ames Hatcher, Environmental Services
2) Frank Terilla, Wastewater
Page 2
February 28, 2006
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating March 2006 as National Purchasing Month. To be
accepted by Steve Carnell, Purchasingl General Services Director, Collier
County Purchasing Department.
B. Proclamation designating March 2006 as South Florida Birding Trail Month.
To be accepted by representatives of local and state park and land
management agencies.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Barry Erickson, Senior Operator, Public
Utilities Division, as Employee of the Month for February 2006.
B. A status update by Julie Koester, President, and Joe Cox, Executive Director
of the Children's Museum of Naples.
C. Presentation of a Florida Communities Trust grant award for the Goodland
Harbor Park project. To be presented by Representative J. Dudley Goodlette.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Robert Bender to discuss sound control issues at
the North Collier Regional Water Treatment Plant.
B. Public Petition request by Mayor Sammy Hamilton to discuss donation of
surplus property.
C. Public Petition request by Jose Varela to discuss the 640 acres agreement
between Collier County Government and the SFWMD.
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 was continued from the Februarv 14. 2006 BCC Meetine:.
This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Petition CU-2004-AR-
5439, Darryl J. Damico, represented by Beau Keene, P.E., of Keene
Page 3
February 28, 2006
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
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. A request that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (Board)
adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 04-4l, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code (LDC) to add the amendments of LDC
2005 Cycle 2 for the following purposes. Amendment of Chapter 1 includes:
the addition of abbreviations and definitions included in the Bayshore and
Gateway Triangle overlays and the addition of a definition of "gap" housing.
Amendment of Chapter 2 includes: the amendment of the Bayshore Mixed
Use District (MUD) overlay; the addition of the Gateway Triangle MUD
Overlay; the addition of the Golden Gate Downtown Center Commercial
Overlay (GGDCCO) District; deletions and additions to the Table of
Permissible Land uses in Each Zoning District for the Golden Gate overlay;
amendment of the Goodland Zoning overlay to change clam nurseries from a
conditional use to a permitted use; and amendment of the Affordable
Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) Rating System. Amendment of Chapter 4
includes: amendment of the site design standards for development in the
BMUD overlay subdistricts and the addition of site design standards for
development in the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District overlay and
GGDCCO overlay. Amendment of Chapter 10 includes: the addition of a
Mixed Use Project (MUP) approval process with decision making criteria
and public notification requirements for a petition for a MUP approval from
the Board of County Commissioners.
B. This item was continued from the J anuarv 24. 2006 BCC Meetine:. This
item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided bv Commission members. PUDEX-2005-AR-8382:
Cleveland Clinic Florida, represented by Jeffrey Nunner, P.E., ofNunner
Group LLC, is requesting the second 2-year extension of the Astron Plaza
PUD in accordance with LDc Section 10.02.13.D.5(a). The subject
property, consisting of 8.56 acres, is located on the south side of Pine Ridge
Road and the north side of lOth Street S.W. in Section l7, Township 49
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Page 4
February 28, 2006
C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn and and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDZ-2003-AR-499l,
Robert Mulhere, of RWA, Inc., representing Woodfield Builders, LLc,
requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "RPUD" Residential
Planned Unit Development to be known as Rockedge RPUD, subject to the
approval of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement authorizing
the developer to utilize affordable housing bonus density units (in the
amount of 111 units at 7.5 bonus density units per acre) in the development
of this project for low-income residents. The 76.46 acres subject property is
located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (CR 951) approximately 6 tenths of
a mile south of intersection with Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, in Section 23,
Township 50, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. This item requires
that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members.
D. This item was continued from the Februarv 14.2006 Board of County
Commissioners Meetine:. 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.
E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance amending Schedule Five 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 2005 Fire/Rescue Services Impact
Fee Update Study, establishing a methodology for the annual indexing
adjustment to the Fire Impact Fee Rates, and providing for a delayed
effective date of May l5, 2006.
F. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. DOA-2005-AR-8ll3:
Michel Saadeh, of Vineyards Development Corporation, as owner and agent,
is requesting an extension of the DR! Development Order build-out date
Page 5
February 28, 2006
from May 7, 2005 to May 6, 2010 to allow completion of ongoing and
planned construction planned for the Vineyards of Naples DR!. The subject
property, consisting of l,930 acres, is located along 1-75 bounded by Pine
Ridge Road to the south, Vanderbilt Beach Road to the North, Airport-
Pulling Road to the west and Logan Blvd. to the east, within Sections 5 & 8,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, also portion of Section 6, Township 49
South, Range 26 East and portion of Section 1, Township 49 South, Range
25 East, Collier County, Florida.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Board.
C. Request to reconsider Petition Sandalwood RPUDZ-2004-AR-6932.
(Commissioner Halas request)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Recommendation to approve an
Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Collier Development Corporation,
now known as CDc Land Investments, Inc., for 47.93 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed
$2,106,400. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development
and Environmental Services Division)
B. Recommendation to approve an alternative road impact fee calculation and
resulting rate of$8,854 per 1,000 square feet for the proposed Naples
Motorsports automobile dealership. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
C. Recommendation to award bid #06-3920 - annual contract for "Annual Road
Micro-Surfacing Contract" for the approximate annual amount of
$1,100,000. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
D. Follow-on report to the Board of County Commissioners regarding existing
codes of laws and ordinances throughout the State of Florida regarding the
Page 6
February 28, 2006
enforcement efforts of the Contractor Licensing Office and the Code
Enforcement Department pertaining to the regulation of contractors found in
violation of applicable laws and ordinances. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development and Environmental Services
Division)
E. Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve budget
amendments to re-allocate unspent landscape maintenance funds in the
amount of $l ,462,422 to CAT bus shelters, Pelican Bay Resurfacing,
Limerock Conversion and other Landscape Projects. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Jack Alexander Snay for 4.24 acres under the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $165,650.
2) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Sunshine Trusts, LLC. for 4.04 acres under the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $16l,650.
Page 7
February 28, 2006
3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Ana L. Gonzalez and Marta M. Famada for l.l4 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $7l,l50.
4) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Golden
Gate Estates Unit 48 Tract 1 Replat.
5) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Arrowhead
Reserve at Lake Trafford Block B, approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
6) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Reflection
Lakes at Naples Unit II (Phases II & III), approval of the standard
form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the performance security.
7) CARNY-05-AR-8584, Annie Alvarez, Athletics/Special Events
Supervisor, Collier County Parks and Recreation Department,
requesting a permit to conduct the annual Country Jam on March 10
through 12, 2006, at the Vineyards Community Park located at 623l
Arbor Boulevard.
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facility
for Cemetery Mausoleum and Chapel at Palm Royale.
9) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners approve a budget amendment of up to $24,000, from
FY06 Fund 186 adopted budget, to cover a gap in salary for the
Immokalee Weed and Seed Coordinator position. (This is a
companion to Item l6G 1 )
10) Recommendation to approve Petition A VESMT2005-AR7203 to
disclaim, renounce and vacate the Countys and the Publics interest in
three 30 foot wide Right of Way Reservations as recorded in O.R.
Book 313, Page 41, O.R. Book 342, Page 192 and O.R. Book l048,
Page 1968, Public Records of Collier County, Florida; Companion to
final plat approval for Brentwood Two.
Page 8
February 28, 2006
11) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
for recording the final plat of Brentwood Two," companion to
Petition A VESMT2005-AR7203, and authorize acceptance of a
conveyance of a portion of this plat,and authorize the Chairman to
convey said portion to FDOT for the loop ramp improvement from
Immokalee Road onto 1-75.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment recognizing
increased grant funding for Collier Area Transit in the amount of
$141,498 from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5307 grant.
2) Recommends Board's approval of Adopt-A-Road Agreement (1) for
the following: Gabriel Pena-Weichert Realtors Internet Realty Group.
3) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners approve
the repayment of impact fees for the US4l from SR 951 to CR92
Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study from Gas
Taxes in the amount of$8l3,200.
4) Recommendation to award Contract #06-3905 Fixed Term Road
Safety Audit Services" to three firms at an estimated cost of$180,000
annually.
5) Recommendation to authorize staff to approve one (1) Work Order for
Wall Systems of Florida DBA Professional Building Systems for
construction of three RCP Style Bus Shelters and adjoining amenities
(Contract #02-3349 Annual Contract for General Construction) for a
base amount of$83,789.00 and contingency of$4,189.45 for a total of
$87,978.45.
6) Recommendation to approve converting five (5) Desk Top Computers
with five (5) Laptop Computers for the Transportation Engineer
Inspectors at a cost of $5,000.
7) Approve Selection Committee ranking of firms, and approve attached
Contract for RFP #06,3919, "Professional Surveying and Related
Services" for Randall Blvd. (Immokalee Rd. to Desoto Blvd.), County
Page 9
February 28, 2006
Project #60065 in the amount of$589,955.87.
8) Recommendation to accept two Lake Maintenance and Drainage
Easements from Pulte Home Corporation and the Orange Blossom
Ranch North and South Master Associations for the purpose of
recording the OR Book and Page on the previously Board approved
Orange Blossom Ranch North lA and lB plat maps prior to their
recordation in the public records.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve Change Order #2 under contract #02-
3313 (Professional Geographic Information System (GIS) Services for
Collier County) to Wilson Miller, Inc., in the amount of$185,827.50
and approve the necessary budget amendment.
2) Recommendation to award Work Order CDM-FT-3593-06-02 with
Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., for professional engineering
services for the design of Tamiami Well No. 37 and services during
construction for both Tamiami Wells No. 34 and No. 37 in the amount
of $483,979, Project Number 70158.
3) Recommendation to award Work Order CH2-FT-3785-06-0l Contract
05-3785 "Fixed Term Utility Engineering Services" to CH2M HILL,
Inc. in an amount Not to Exceed $200,000.00 to provide professional
services for design of project management documentation to serve the
County Wide Capital Project Delivery Process (CAPDEP), and
approve the necessary Budget Amendments for Project Number
75006.
4) Recommendation to award Work Order HS-FT-3785-06-05 in the
amount of$150,000 to Hazen and Sawyer, P.c., and to approve the
necessary budget amendments to perform a professional engineering
study for a wastewater treatment capacity analysis, a process
enhancement and modernization, and a maximization and
optimization of the total operation of the North County Water
Reclamation Facility (NCWRF), Projects 750081 and 750082.
5) Recommendation to approve Work Order MP-FT-3785-06-05 to
Malcolm Pirnie for the Engineering Services in the Amount of
Page 10
February 28, 2006
$357,218 for the Design, Modeling, construction Plans, and Technical
Support of probable improvements and upgrading to the existing
Master Pump Station, Project 73945, Project 73051.
6) Recommendation to approve Budget Amendments for $106,284.43 in
Water Impact Fee Capital Projects Fund and $146,504.86 in water
User Rate Capital Projects Fund to reimburse the amount that did not
roll forward from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006.
7) Recommendation to approve the submittal of the attached Water
Savings Incentive Program (SIP) grant applications to the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for each project in
Public Utilities Engineering Divisions (PUED) Construction Water
Savings Program.
8) Recommendation to award Contract #06-3940 to E.B. Simmonds
Electrical, Inc. to construct the Wastewater Collections Lift Station
Electrical Upgrades and Telemetry Additions, in the amount of
$263,350.00, Project 73922.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
draw of $11 ,000,000 against a previously approved Local
Government Pooled Commercial Paper Program Loan Agreement;
Designating the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to
be the authorized signor of the draw agreement.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the submittal, and accept the award and
execute the agreement for a $6,000 Library Services & Technology
grant application to the Florida Department of State, Division of
Library and Information Services for an "English Language Leamer
Short Story Discussion Program;" and to approve the necessary
budget amendment.
2) Recommendation to approve application and Memorandum of
Understanding for a Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe
Exchange Grant in the amount of $350,000 from the United States
Department of Justice.
Page 11
February 28, 2006
3) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County
Parks and Recreation Department Facilities and Outdoor Areas
License and Fee Policy.
4) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing a
developer contribution of$500,000 toward the Vanderbilt Beach
Access #8 project.
5) Recommendation to approve the Older Americans Acts continuation
grant in the amount of$858,4l3 and authorize the Chairman to sign
the agreement between Collier County Board of County
Commissioners and the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida,
Inc.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Report and ratify Property, Casualty, Workers Compensation and
Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the Risk Management
Director pursuant to Resolution # 2004-15 for the first quarter of FY
06.
2) Recommendation to approve a Freedom Memorial Park Monument
application from the American Foundation for Hungarian Youth and
Culture, Inc.
3) Request from The City of Everglades and the Collier County School
District for the Donation of Surplus County Assets Authorized for
Sale in the Public Surplus Property Auction Scheduled for March 11,
2006.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve payment for one-half of the installation
of an emergency traffic signal for the new EMS Station #22 on
Bayshore Drive and to approve a Budget Amendment in the amount
of $73,778.25.
2) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign entry forms for
the National Association of Counties (NACO) Achievement Awards.
Page 12
February 28, 2006
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
approve the expenditure of up to $24,000, from FY06 Fund 186
adopted budget, to cover a gap in salary for the Immokalee Weed and
Seed Coordinator position. (This is a companion to Item l6A9)
2) To approve and execute the Site Improvement Grant Agreements
between the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and grant
applicants within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment area. ($40,000)
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Henning requesting reimbursement for attending a
function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Henning
attended, as an Executive Board Member, the Southwest Florida
Regional Stewardship Alliance meeting. $49.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Henning's travel account.
2) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
Veteran Services Department Volunteer Luncheon on February 16,
2006 at the Elks Lodge; $15.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas
travel budget.
3) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attending the
Naples Community Hospital 50th Anniversary Celebration on March
4,2006 at NCH; $30.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas travel
budget.
4) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attending the
Marine Corps League of Naples Press Day Luncheon on March 16,
2006 at Elks Lodge; $15.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas
travel budget.
Page 13
February 28, 2006
5) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attending the
Gulf Citrus Country Gala on March 18, 2006 at LaBelle Civic Center;
$50.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas travel budget.
6) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Festival's
High Tea Buffet while a speaker at its opening ceremonies. He is
requesting reimbursement in the amount of $10.00 to be paid from his
travel budget.
7) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
funds already paid to attend a function serving a valid public purpose.
To attend the Marine Corps League of Naples Press Day Luncheon on
March 15,2006 at the Elks Club; $15.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
8) Appoint a Board of County Commissioners' designee as the Board's
representative on the Collier County Public Safety Coordinating
Council.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous correspondence to file for record with action as
directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve an agreed order awarding expert witness
fees and costs as to Parcels 135, 735A & 735B in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-3632-CA
(Immokalee Road Project #66042). (Fiscal Impact $155,409.35)
2) Recommendation to approve an agreed order awarding expert witness
fees and costs as to Parcels 162 & 762 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Beverly J. Gatti, et al., Case No. 03-255l-CA (Golden Gate
Page 14
February 28, 2006
Parkway Project #60027). (Fiscal Impact $7,500.00)
3) Recommendation to approve the stipulated final order as to Home
Depots Interest in Parcel l03 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Ocean Boulevard Partnership, et al., Case No. 04-4300-CA
(Immokalee Road Project No. 66042). (Fiscal Impact $2,800)
4) Recommendation to approve an agreed order awarding expert fees
and costs associated with the taking of parcels 106 and 706 in the
lawsuit styled Collier County v. Louis E. Cerminara, et al., Case No.
05-0620-CA (Collier Boulevard (CR 951) Project #65061). (Fiscal
Impact: $14,500.00)
5) Recommendation to approve an agreed order awarding expert fees
and costs associated with the taking of parcels 107 and 707 in the
lawsuit styled Collier County v. Louis E. Cerminara, et al., Case No.
05-0620-CA (Collier Boulevard (CR 951) Project #65061). (Fiscal
Impact: $13,700.00)
6) Recommendation to approve an agreed order awarding expert fees
and costs associated with the taking of parcels 108 and 708 in the
lawsuit styled Collier County v. Louis E. Cerminara, et al., Case No.
05-0620-CA (Collier Boulevard (CR 951) Project #65061). (Fiscal
Impact: $12,500.00)
7) Recommendation to approve an agreed order awarding expert fees
and costs associated with the taking of parcels 109 and 709 in the
lawsuit styled Collier County v. Susan C. Hallock, et al., Case No. 05-
0646-CA (Collier Boulevard (CR 951) Project #65061). (Fiscal
Impact: $12,500.00)
8) Recommendation to accept an offer of judgment and approve a
stipulated final judgment for parcel No. 146 in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. Ziad Shahla, et aI., Case No. 04-600-CA
(Vanderbilt Beach Road Project #63051). (Fiscal Impact $8,539.00)
9) Recommendation to approve a stipulated order taxing expert witness
fees and costs as to Parcel 177 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Big Corkscrew Island Fire District, et aI., Case No. 02-2218-CA
Page 15
February 28, 2006
(Immokalee Road Project #60018). (Fiscal Impact $11,500.00)
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
settlement agreement and release with J. C. Drainfield Repair, Inc.
arising out of violations of Ordinance No. 2003-18, the Industrial
Pretreatment Ordinance.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDA TION 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.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 16
February 28, 2006
February 28, 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 County Commissioners for Collier County is now in
session for February 28, 2006.
At this time we're going to have the invocation followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance. And the invocation today will be given by
Senior Minister Debra C. Williams of the Unity of Naples Church.
MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. Greater God, we are mindful
of the importance of this gathering today, and we ask that you bless
each member of this commission and all who participate in these
meetings today with wisdom, clarity, discernment and good
judgment.
We thank you, as we know for ourselves, for every person here
today, for every person in our county and community, particularly
those most vulnerable and those in need, that the light of God
surrounds us, the love of God enfolds us, the power of God protects
us, and the presence of God watches over us.
Wherever we are, God is, and truly all is well, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
CONSENT, SUMMARY AND REGULAR AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll start off with County
Manager Jim Mudd. Do you have any changes or additions to today's
agenda?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' meeting, February 28, 2006.
Page 2
February 28, 2006
First item, withdraw item 9C. That's a request to reconsider
petition Sandalwood, RPUDZ-2004-AR-6932, and that withdrawal
was at Commissioner Halas's request.
Next item is item 1 OD. Please note that the report on contractor
licensing was printed incorrectly. The executive summary printed on
the blue stock is actually the reference backup executive summary for
the January 10, 2006, BCC meeting.
The correct executive summary for this item are pages 5 through
10 of this item, and it's printed on white stock, and that note is at the
staffs request.
Next item is item 16A8, under considerations, add an additional
line to the executive summary that reads, number seven, the water
utility infrastructure connected beyond the master meter is owned and
maintained by the owner, and that's at staffs request.
Next item is to move item 16A10 to 17A. That is a
recommendation to approve petition A VESMT2005-AR-7203 to
disclaim, renounce and vacate the county's and the public's interest in
three 30-foot-wide right-of-way reservations as recorded in O.R.
Book 313, page 41; O.R. Book 342, page 192; and O.R. Book 1,038
page 1968, public records of Collier County, Florida; companion to
the final plat approval for Brentwood Two, and that's at staffs
request.
Next item, withdraw item 16B4. It's a recommendation to award
contract number 06-3905, a fixed term road safety audit services to
three firms at an estimated cost of$180,000 annually, and that
withdrawal is at staffs request.
The next item is to move item 16B7 to 10F, and that's to approve
the selection committee ranking of firms and approve attached
contract for RFP number 06,3919 professional surveying and related
services for Randall Boulevard (Immokalee Road to Desoto
Boulevard), county project number 60065 in the amount of
$589,955.87, and that's at staffs request.
Page 3
February 28, 2006
An additional item that was brought to our attention this morning
is to withdraw item 6B, and that's a public petition by Mayor Sammy
Hamilton.
That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any additions or corrections by
County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: No, none, sir; thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
Ex parte for today's consent -- excuse me -- summary agenda,
starting off with -- changes to today's consent agenda or summary
agenda. We'll start off with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. There's item 8B,
correction of location, north side of 18th Avenue Southwest instead of
18th Street Southwest.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That was 8B?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No ex parte on today's summary
agenda or no changes to consent.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have nothing to declare, no
changes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have nothing to declare and no
changes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No ex parte on the summary
agenda and no further changes to the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And I have no ex parte on the
summary agenda or any changes on the consent agenda.
Page 4
February 28, 2006
Entertain a motion for approval of today's agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. 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: Carries unanimously.
Page 5
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
February 28. 2006
Withdraw Item 9C: Request to reconsider Petition Sandalwood RPUDZ-2004-AR-
6932 (Commissioner Halas' request.)
Item 100: Please note that the report on contractor licensing was printed
incorrectly. The Executive Summary printed on the blue stock is actually the
referenced back-up executive summary from the January 10, 2006 BCC meeting.
The correct Executive Summary for this item are pages 5 through 10 of this item
and is printed on the white stock. (Staff's request.)
Item 16A8: Under CONSIDERATIONS, add an additional line to the Executive
Summary that reads: 7) The water utility infrastructure connected beyond the
master meter is owned and maintained by the owner. (Staff's request.)
Move Item 16A10 to 17A: Recommendation to approve Petition AVESMT2005-
AR7203 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the Public's interest in
three 30 foot wide right-of-way reservations as recorded in O.R. Book 313, Page
41, O.R. Book 342, Page 192 and O.R. Book 1048, Page 1968, Public Records of
Collier County, Florida; companion to final plat approval for Brentwood Two.
(Staff's request.)
Withdraw Item 16B4: Recommendation to award Contract #06-3905 Fix Term
Road Safety Audit Services to three firms at an estimated cost of $180,000
annually. (Staff's request.)
Move 16B7 to 10F: Approve Selection Committee ranking of firms, and approve
attached Contract for RFP #06,3919, "Professional Surveying and Related
Services" for Randall Blvd. (Immokalee Road to Desoto Blvd.), County Project
#60065 in the amount of $589,955.87. (Staff's request.)
February 28,2006
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, and #2E
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 25,2006 BCC/AUIR SPECIAL
MEETING; JANUARY 30, 2006 BCC/TDC WORKSHOP
MEETING; FEBRUARY 6,2006 BCC/STRATEGIC PLANNING
WORKSHOP MEETING AND THE FEBRUARY 6, 2006
BCC/ AUIR SPECIAL MEETING - APPROVED AND/OR
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Okay. I believe the next thing on the agenda is -- I need a motion
to approve the following: January 25, 2006, BCC AUIR special
meeting; January 30, 2006, BCC/TDC workshop; February 6, 2006
BCC strategic planning workshop; and the February 6, 2006,
BCC/ AUIR special meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion to approve and
a second.
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: Opposed, by like -- opposed, by like
sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries unanimously.
Item #3A
PRESENTATION OF THE OUTSTANDING SERVICE AWARDS
Page 6
February 28, 2006
TO JAMES HATCHER AND FRANK TERILLA - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have service awards and
employees and advisory board members. Sir, we have -- we have two.
Do you want -- the 20- year. You want to take them up there
and we can just move that -- move those particular awards
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
MR. MUDD: -- awards up to the dais.
The first 20-year awardee is James Max Hatcher from
Environmental Services.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: James, thank you very much for your 20
years of dedicated service. There's an envelope also for you. Thank
you so much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good going, Max.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations.
MR. MUDD: Mac, if you could just turn around, we can get
your picture with the commissioners.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Sir, the last 20-year awardee for today is Frank
T erilla from Wastewater.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you so much for your dedicated
service to Collier County. There's a letter for you also. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Frank, thank you very much.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's the end of our service
awards.
Item #4A
Page 7
February 28, 2006
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 2006 AS NATIONAL
PURCHASING MONTH - ADOPTED
That moves us to paragraph number four, proclamations. The
first proclamation, 4A, is a proclamation designating March 2006 as
National Purchasing Month, to be accepted by Steve Carnell,
Purchasing and General Services Director of Collier County
Purchasing Department.
And I believe he has the purchasing department with him today.
MR. CARNELL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Steve Carnell,
Purchasing, General Services Director. I did bring a few of my friends
with me today.
And we wanted to let you know -- first off, we appreciate the
recognition of the National Purchasing Month proclamation. And
pursuant to that, we're going to be conducting some outreach activity
with our local vendors and with our departments that we service
during the month of March in the form of some different training
opportunities and communication with them.
Just wanted to let you know that this -- we've got just about
everybody here today. And these folks work extremely hard and have
been responsible for a number of innovations and progress to your
purchasing system in the last few years. We've implemented contract
administration and support and have achieved several hundred
thousand dollars in savings for you just in this fiscal year alone.
And in addition to that, we're looking at other ways to streamline
and improve our business processes and the ordering of commodities
and goods and services.
So I do want to let you know how proud I am of these folks and
how much I appreciate all the effort they do to support our efforts day
in and day out, and we do appreciate the recognition this morning.
MR. MUDD: Steve, have everybody go up there, and then
Page 8
February 28, 2006
they'll read the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I was going to say.
MR. MUDD: Got a little ahead of ourselves, but that's okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I think that was a great start
to the proclamation. And in fact, one big accomplishment is the
overhaul of the purchasing contracts individually last year were a
tremendous help.
Let me start the proclamation by saying:
Whereas, purchasing professionals playa significant role in
efficiency and effectiveness both in government and business; and,
Whereas, purchasing professionals through their combined
purchasing power spend billions of dollars each year and have
significant influence upon the economic conditions throughout the
world; and,
Whereas, Collier County Purchasing Department provide a
valuable added service such as contract negotiation, administration
and vendor management and training; and,
Whereas, Collier County Purchasing Department and
Professional Purchasing Associations throughout the world engage in
special efforts during the month of March to inform the public about
the important role played by the purchasing professionals, business,
industry and government.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, that they recognize the importance of
purchasing professionals in general and in Collier County Purchasing
Department in particular.
Now, there -- and hereby claim that the month of March 2006 as
National Purchasing Month.
Done in this order, 28th day of February, 2006.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion made and
Page 9
February 28, 2006
a second.
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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for all you're doing. It's not
an easy job.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You understand this is a
recognition of your good work. This is not encouragement to go out
and spend money?
MR. MUDD: Thank you, Steve.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 2006 AS SOUTH
FLORIDA BIRDING TRAIL MONTH - ADOPTED
The next proclamation, sir, is 4B. It's a proclamation designating
March 2006 as the South Florida Birding Trail Month, to be accepted
by representatives of local and state park and land management
agencIes.
Would those ladies and gentlemen please come forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We also have some other birders in
the audience. They should raise their hands so we can see them. How
are you? It's good to see you.
Page 10
February 28, 2006
MR. MUDD: Please come on up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Proclamation:
Whereas, bird watching is the nation's second fastest growing
recreational activity; and,
Whereas, Collier County is nationally recognized as a bird
watcher's paradise; and,
Whereas, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission's Great Florida Birding Trail South Florida Section has
been published; and,
Whereas, Tigertail Beach Park, Eagles Lakes Community Park,
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, Delnor- Wiggins Pass State Park,
Conservancy Nature Center, Picayune Strand State Forest, Sabal
Palm Hiking Trail, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve, Collier-Seminole State Park, Fakahatchee Strand State Park,
Everglades National Park, Gulf Coast Visitor's Center, and Big
Cypress National Preserve were selected for inclusion in the Great
Florida Birding Trail South Florida Section for their bird watching
characteristics, accessibility, and ability to withstand birder use.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that March 2006 be
designated South Florida Birding Trail Month.
Done and ordered this 28th day of February 2006, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Frank Halas,
chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Second.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 11
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Should I give this to somebody?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Somebody want to take this? Somebody
want to hold this proclamation up there?
Put it right in the front there.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sometime you want me to come
to one of your seminars, I'll do my bird call for you.
Item #5A
RECOGNIZING BARRY ERICKSON AS EMPLOYEE OF THE
MONTH FOR FEBRUARY 2006 - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings to us paragraph 5,
presentations, and the first presentation is a recommendation -- excuse
me -- yeah, excuse me. Let me start again.
First presentation is 5A. It's a recommendation to recognize
Barry Erickson, senior operator, public utilities division, as the
Employee of the Month for February 2006. And could Mr. Erickson
please come forward.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Barry Erickson's position at the North Water
Treatment Plant requires an individual to assume supervisory as well
as operational responsibilities.
Barry is the day shift senior operator. He's tasked with a diverse
and complicated array of administrative duties. These duties include
purchasing, payroll, budget development and tracking, development
of performance evaluations, as well as representing the facility
internally and externally.
In addition to these critical functions, Barry assumes the role of
Page 12
February 28, 2006
plant manager as needed. Barry is actively involved in facility
reliability and improvement projects.
As a direct result of Barry's efforts, the department realized a cost
savings of approximately $40,000 relating to the procurement of
media for the degasification structures.
This was accomplished by utilizing a direct purchase option from
the manufacturer, thus eliminating the typical vendor mark-up.
Barry is active in his church and community volunteering his
time in coaching and instructing youth soccer and softball programs.
Barry assisted with the development and implementation of a creative
schedule utilizing in-house staff and the current membrane
replacement proj ect.
This proj ect will result in substantial cost savings in energy and
chemical uses. Additional improvements for an overall water quality
and production are already being realized.
Barry exemplifies an employee going above and beyond his
duties at the plant. He is a great asset to the public utilities division in
Collier County.
Commissioners, I'd like to present to you today the Employee of
the Month for February 2006, Mr. Barry Erickson.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good going, Barry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you very much for
thinking outside the box and saving us a lot of money.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And here's a letter, here's a check for
you. And, of course, most important, you can put on your wall a
plaque. Thank you very much for your service. We appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Barry, thanks so much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Barry, if you'd stand here in the center
here, we'll take a picture.
(Applause.)
Page 13
February 28, 2006
Item #5B
PRESENTATION TO UPDATE STATUS OF CHILDREN'S
MUSEUM OF NAPLES - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next presentation is 5B, and it's
a status update by Julie Koester, president, and Joe Cox, Executive
Director of the Children's Museum of Naples.
MS. KOESTER: Good morning, and thank you so much for
having us today. I think you'll be excited to see what we have done in
the past year since you have last had a presentation from us.
MR. MUDD: You want DVD?
MR. COX: PowerPoint.
MR. MUDD: Okay. You want podium computer?
MR. COX: Yep.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Hang on.
MS. KOESTER: Just to bring you up to speed, there are 299
children's museums in the nation right now, and thanks to your
foresight, we will now have one of the finest in our county.
And it's been really funny, because we've been, of course, in the
organizational process of getting this built for us. And every day that
it rains, Joe gets a phone call to find out what time the museum opens.
So we -- we're going to be so excited when there's an actual location
to call and give those hours.
MR. COX: Good morning, Joe Cox, Executive Director for the
Children's Museum of Naples.
I just want to also thank you really for your foresight in helping
us make this happen and bring this museum to Collier County.
Just going to give you a quick update about what we've been
working on over the past few months.
The mission, as I'm sure you recall, is to provide an exciting,
Page 14
February 28, 2006
inspiring environment where children and their families can play,
learn, and dream together. And that's really such a critical issue for us
here in Collier County, connecting families across the board.
Over the past few months, we've expanded our founding board of
six members to a total of 12 board members. We were recommended
for a half million dollar state grant through the division of cultural
affairs cultural facilities program, and several of you did write letters
of support for that, so thank you.
We've also completed our concept designs and elevations for the
exhibits, which I'll show you in a second, and we've also been working
for four years now with representatives from the Collier County
public schools to develop a five-year educational plan from the time
we open, going forward, and the idea here is that we want to make
sure, if we're building this facility, it's going to be critically important
for the Collier County public schools.
And so we started off and they were saying, well, we could
maybe use this for second graders. Now they're talking about using
this as a field trip destination for kindergarten, first grade, second
grade, and so on and so forth. So they're very excited about it.
We've expanded our board of directors. We now, as I say, have
12. We have a couple of our board members sitting in the room, the
audience today. And this is really critical as we move forward
expanding our boards, leaders in the community, as well as business
community, as well as individual donors.
The Division of Cultural Affairs Program, this is a half million
dollar grant. We ranked 22nd out of 37 in the process, and so that
now moves forward to the state for approval, hopefully. This is the
first in potentially three of up to a million and a half dollars in grants
for capital that we can get from the state. So we're going to be going
after as much state money as we can.
The site is well under construction. The park is well under
construction. And as you know, we have that northwest corner where
Page 15
February 28, 2006
the construction trailers are right now.
This is our concept sketches for the building. Here's the front
view of the building. The building's called Wind and Waves and was
actually selected by a group of children. We had our architect come
up with four different elevations. The one that we all thought was
very elegant, the children thought looked boring. The one that we
thought was a little crazy but still exciting, the children adored. And
so the idea is, this really will be a building that couldn't be anything
else.
Here's another view of the building from the side. And I'm going
to run through quickly the exhibits so -- the exhibits have really come
a long way since the first ones that you saw over a year ago.
We've now got the layout of the building, and these exhibits are
exactly as you would see them within the context of the building.
The two-story Banyan tree, the beach exhibit. And just to remind
you, all of these exhibits came from focus groups that we held right
here in Collier County with families and children saying, what do you
want to see in a children's museum that represents Collier County?
So we could hardly not have the beach.
The farm is a really exciting exhibit where children work
together to learning about farming.
Four Seasons. This is probably my personal favorite. The
children will walk through four different exhibit galleries experiencing
different seasons. So it snows in winter, and they actually have real
snow inside the igloo. They can go gardening in spring, and then in
summer, it rains, and they're in Naples, right on the edge of the
Everglades here in Naples, so we want to incorporate the Everglades.
This entire exhibit will go through a 24-hour day cycle over the
course of an hour. So there will be afternoon thunderstorms, the
sound of rain coming in, sunset, sunrise, and all of the corresponding
sounds of plants -- or of animals, and all the different wildlife they'll
see throughout the day.
Page 16
February 28, 2006
Lizard Lounge. You may have read in the paper this morning
we've been doing focus groups with the local school children for the
Lizard Lounge. This is a specific space for 8- to 12-year-olds. No
parents allowed, which we're very excited about. There'll be museum
staff in there to monitor the activities, but they're actually coming up
with the programs and with the exhibits for this specific space.
Construction. Again, Collier County, we wanted to make sure
that we're representing everything going on, and construction has
historically been a big industry in Collier County. This is green
construction. We're going to be talking about green construction.
This is a green building overall, and we want to make sure that green
construction is included so as children grow up, they're familiar with
what that entails.
The art studio and gallery, a great space for being creative.
Space Kidettes. Space exploration as imagined by children. This
entire gallery looks very complex but is designed to be packed up and
put into storage a couple of years down the road so that we can host
major touring exhibits from the Smithsonian, from the Field Museum,
from the Exploratorium in San Francisco, that will encourage people
to come back to the museum over and over and visit Collier County
to see these exhibits.
And then the street. As you walk in and look to your left, this is
exactly what you'll be seeing, this is our version of downtown, and
we have the Naples trolley, we've got the produce market, and all of
these are the fronts for the exhibits.
And then out in the back yard we have outdoor experiences for
children, too. There's a water table, there's a maze, there's an
amphitheater for outdoor performances.
As I say, we've been working with the school system. We have
an education council which has been in place now for four years,
includes members from the Collier County public schools, the
private schools, the scout councils, as well as FGCU. And the idea
Page 1 7
February 28, 2006
here is, we're developing education programs to serve the entire
community and really start lifelong learning in children.
And that's why where we are is really working right now to build
this community of founding families to make the museum a reality.
I think this is just a fantastic quote, and it really symbolizes what
we're doing, "There's always one moment in childhood that the door
opens and lets the future in," and that's really where we are right now.
So thank you. I'd be happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. I have a quick question before I
turn it over to Commissioner Fiala.
What's the square footage of the building going to be when
you've completed it?
MR. COX: The square footage of the building is 25,000 square
feet, with a two-story building, enough that 15,000 is dedicated exhibit
space.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Commissioner Henning was
first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ladies first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. When do you hope to
start construction, and when do you envision completing it?
MR. COX: We hope to start construction within a year, and
we're hoping to be open spring 2008.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Membership. Have you started
sales of membership?
MR. COX: We're looking to start sales of members with
preconstruction prices six months ahead of opening.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What about reciprocals
to the other museums in the country?
MR. COX: We'll be offering a membership level probably
around $150 per year for a family, which will get you into any of the
299 children's museums around the country by being a member of
Page 18
February 28, 2006
the Children's Museum of Naples.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You be interested in selling one
membership in Collier County before the summer?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sounds like you'll be first in line.
MR. COX: I'm sure we'll provide some memberships,
absolutely.
Yeah. That's the thing. I mean, once summer hits for us,
summer's going to be busiest season.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. COX: Thank you for the opportunity to update you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Great presentation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
(Applause.)
MS. KOESTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're doing more and more for
children in this community. It used to be years ago that they were
kind of ignored. It's nice to see this.
Item #5C
PRESENTATION OF A FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST
GRANT AWARD FOR THE GOODLANDHARBORPARK
PROGRAM - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, the next presentation is 5C, and
that's a presentation of a Florida Communities Trust grant award for
the Goodland Harbor Park project, and I believe that's the Margood
Property, to be presented by Representative J. Dudley Goodlette.
REPRESENTATIVE GOODLETTE: Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman and members, I'm pleased to have the opportunity
Page 19
February 28, 2006
on behalf of the Department of Community Affairs, the Division of
Housing and Community Development, to present this morning a
check for $1.9 million less that 13,000, it's $1,886,222.50, which is a
significant portion of the funds that I applaud you for appropriating to
purchase the Margood Resort in Goodland, Florida.
I might, if I may, just take a minute to tell you that obviously,
this -- the vision that you had and that your department of recreation's
had in identifying this landmark site for the preservation of the
community character in Goodland will live on forever, and I'm
pleased that the -- the State of Florida could contribute in this in such
a significant way, almost 1.9 million of the $2.5 million purchase
price that you have approved, that you actually expended.
And I think it's also worth mentioning, while I have the mike,
that the -- the good sense of Mr. and Mrs. Elhannon (phonetic) and
Sandy Combs who, at a significantly reduced price, agreed to sell this
treasured property to the county. Probably at something less -- at
least a million dollars or more less than the appraised value of this
property .
And so this is a collaborative effort, the state working
collaboratively with local government to preserve these historic sites.
And I applaud you for that, and I just wanted to take this opportunity
to present this check to you from the State of Florida for $1.9 million.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Representative
Goodlette. We really appreciate that, and it's going to be well spent
on that park down there in Goodland. We're really looking forward to
it. Thank you again.
REPRESENTATIVE GOODLETTE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about a picture or photo
opportunity of you handing the check to our chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I love checks like this.
Page 20
February 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION - REQUEST BY ROBERT BENDER TO
DISCUSS SOUND CONTROL ISSUES AT NORTH COLLIER
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT W /COMMISSIONER
COLETTA TO MEET WITH STAFF REGARDING ISSUE-
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our first public
petition, and that's a public petition request by Robert Bender to
discuss sound control issues at the North Collier Regional Water
Treatment Plant.
MR. BENDER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name
is Robert Bender. I sent all of you a letter on February 10th. I hope
you've had a chance to read it. It, I think, explains the problem that
we have and the background on this problem. We do, in fact, have a
problem with the North Collier Water Treatment Plant, particularly
with noise.
There were a whole lot of promises made by a whole lot of
people in 1991 and a lot of stipulations and conditions put on the
building and the rezoning of the land for the citing of this particular
project. It was a 4-1 vote for the rezoning, but there were a lot of
stipulations, and, quite frankly, those stipulations have not been
followed.
The problem is, is that there are so many people that have come
and gone since. I'm one of the few people that has all the history on
this. And the bottom line is, is the commission brought heavy
industry -- and that's exactly what this plant is, heavy industry -- into
an existing neighborhood. And it is -- it was existing. I lived there.
And I own right now about 18 acres there, and I get to listen to this
Page 21
February 28, 2006
doggone plant every day, 24 hours a day.
This was not the way it was supposed to be. It didn't have
anything to do with the sound ordinance levels. The commission was
very, very specific with staff, from the county manager on down, that
they didn't care how much they spent, they wanted this plant to be
built with -- meeting all of the promises that were made, and if there
were problems afterwards, they would quickly fix it.
Here we are 15 years later. I've already been before -- not this
commission, but a commission previously, and it has gotten to the
point now -- the reason I'm here right now is because six weeks ago I
tried to talk to staff about this, and emails, telephone calls to live
people and to recordings, have now -- basically nobody will talk to
me.
Now, I see a lot of people come before you guys, and you get all
kinds of conditions from them to do a project. And the bottom line is,
is when they don't do what they say they're going to do, you guys put
their feet to the fire. This has not been the case with this particular
proj ect.
I talked with several people before this project was ever done,
one who was a consulting engineer for the Cape Coral RO plant, and
he told me that he was involved with several proj ects on the east
coast similar to this, and that you could literally stand next to those
buildings with them operating at full capacity and you could not hear
the machinery.
This was what was supposed to be done with this plant. In fact,
staff pointed to the grills for the air-conditioning in this room at that
time and said, the noise coming from that plant will be no louder than
the air-conditioning air coming out of those grills.
Staff has been disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst, in
ignoring the stipulations which have never been rescinded, to take care
of this problem.
This is not rocket science. You have a fixed structure with
Page 22
February 28, 2006
known noise-making equipment that stays there all the time that can
be -- the noise can be mediated -- mitigated.
There's absolutely no reason not to do this. And, quite frankly,
the only reason it hasn't been done, in my opinion, is I have not found
a person that cares enough to take care of the problem yet.
You guys need to do something about this because you brought
this plant into an existing neighborhood over the objection of almost
300 people that sat here for the very reason I'm talking to you about
it right now, and with -- you're going to hear all kinds of spin on this
thing.
But if you contact the people that were in my letter and you look
at the -- and I'm the only one that has a videotape of almost all of the
proceedings back then because we didn't have what we have now --
you will see basically what was being said and the context in which it
was being said.
I want this problem fixed, and I would prefer that you tell staff
you want it -- you want a solution brought to you within a time certain
and you want it fixed within a time certain.
Now, I'm simply asking for you guys to adhere to the promises
that were made and the stipulations that were set to put this plant
there.
Questions?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning was
firs t.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was from before.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Bender, I hear what
you say. I did read the report in great detail. And it's a little difficult
to understand, you know, the depth of the problem. I would like to
call Mr. DeLony up front for a moment and ask him a couple
Page 23
February 28, 2006
questions.
MR. BENDER: Well, as you can tell, I'm a little ticked about
this thing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you've been on top of this
issue for a number of years.
MR. BENDER: Yes, I have.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I -- what I'm trying to do
is, I want to be able to really assess the situation. It was the prior
commission that approved it, and I would say this commission
probably would have approved it too, because it's a needed facility.
MR. BENDER: The prior commission --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Approved the water treatment
plant. It was some time ago that it was -- but that doesn't matter. I'm
sure this commission would have done likewise because it's a needed
facility, and it's got to go someplace.
MR. BENDER: Well, I -- sir, I've been through this situation in
2000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Bender, please. Let me
take this up with staff, some questions, please, and I'll address
questions to you, if need be, afterwards.
MR. BENDER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. DeLony, my question to
you is, the noise level at Mr. Bender's house prior to the plant being
built and now, what's the difference?
MR. DeLONY: I can't -- for the record, Jim DeLony, Public
Utilities Administrator. Sir, I don't know if I can answer that
question. I wasn't here when the plant was built actually in 1993, to
say what the difference is. What we have -- excuse me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I could rephrase the question.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The noise level at Mr. Bender's
house, how much of the noise level that he receives is directly a
Page 24
February 28, 2006
responsibility from the plant and how much is it?
MR. DeLONY: Commissioner, with regard to the noise levels,
we -- through the work that's outlined in the presentation that I've
given you with regard to the $1.6 million expended to date with
regard to noise abatement within that plant, we believe not only are we
in compliance, but we're doing very well in terms of any southward
movement of that noise.
Specifically, I know that from the readings we've taken on site.
And also, I know, you know, socially with regard to the fact that
within 300 yards, as opposed -- I mean 300 feet as opposed to 1,000
feet, which is the distance between the front area of the plant and Mr.
Bender's home, is 1,000.
Three hundred is the distance between the plant and some
townhouses that are on Vanderbilt. I have absolutely no problem or
complaints heard from anyone that are closer to that plant and reside
closer to the plant than Mr. Bender.
The -- I have spoken to both the homeowners' association,
government liaison officer, as well as several of the residents that are
in there, and they don't seem to have or are experiencing the same
concerns that Mr. Bender has.
We have taken all mechanical and operational actions we feel
that have kept us in compliance with the county noise standard, and in
some cases, I believe we're below that, yet we continue to have
concerns about this matter from Mr. Bender. Did I -- I don't know if I
answered your question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You answered it in part. At Mr.
Bender's house, the decibel ratings that you pick up, that you -- the
noise studies that you did, could somebody address that? Give us
something as far as a measure of sound that you're hearing at 1,300
feet away from the source.
MR. DeLONY: My information from staff here, we did take
some compliance readings at his home during our last noise take --
Page 25
February 28, 2006
noise sampling, and we found that the -- actually the leaves and the
animal noises at his home are louder than the plant.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: At that time, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is the plant--
MR. BENDER: I've been through this so many times,
Commissioner. That was never ever, ever, ever the stipulation. The
stipulation was, is that the noise level at their boundary line, their
boundary line, the plant's boundary line would be no higher than the
ambient noise that existed before the plant was put there.
I -- I ask you, you come and sit on my porch, particularly when
they crank the emergency generators up, which have, on occasion,
run until 1 :30 in the morning. You can go three-quarters of a mile
down Weber Boulevard, and the entire neighborhood is inundated
with the generator noise.
Now, emergency generators, fine. But they have had so many
runnings of the emergency generator because of a thunderstorm
within the limits of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's required. When they
have a thunderstorm within a certain distance, you have to fire it up.
That's required by law.
MR. BENDER: And that was not the way it was presented
when this plant was sited, that it would only be used for emergencies,
which they were saying basically would be just maybe an hour or
two when it was required, when the power was unreliable, the
external power.
If they're going to run it until 1 :30 in the morning and inundate
the entire neighborhood, then they have a responsibility to take care
of the noise.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Bender, I'll look into it
some more. All I can tell you is that I don't know how much value
I'm going to be listening, because, I don't know if you've noticed or
Page 26
February 28, 2006
not, but I do have a hearing loss. I have special speakers here --
MR. BENDER: I do, too. I do, too, Sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But, let me look into it, and if
there's something to this, I definitely will bring it back before the
commission. Thank you very much, Mr. Bender.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION - REQUEST TO DISCUSS THE 640 ACRES
AGREEMENT BY JOSE VARELA - TO BE BROUGHT BACK
FOR DISCUSSION AT THE MARCH 28.2006 BCC MEETING
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next public petition is a public
petition request by Jose Varela.
MR. VARELA: Varela.
MR. MUDD: Varela, to discuss the 640 acre agreement between
Collier County government and the South Florida Water Management
District.
MR. VARELA: Thank you. Good morning, Honorable
Commission. Thank you for allowing me the time to come before
you and speak.
Today I stand before and ask that you rescind on the agreement
between this commission and the South Florida Water Management
District and disallow any more extensions.
On September 24,2003, the county entered into an agreement
between themselves and the South Florida Water Management
District where the South Florida Water Management District had until
October 1, 2005, to transfer to the county 640 acres of land
earmarked for OHV use in consideration for the county to give up its
Page 27
February 28, 2006
roads in the Picayune State Forest.
Here we are almost three years later after the agreement was
signed, and we are still waiting. I have contacted by email and phone
the staff of this agency and they refuse to speak to me the same way
they are negating on their contractual obligations.
You are in a special position. You are in a position that history
rarely gives us, and this is the opportunity to re-right a wrong. This
agency, unlike this commission, has no accountability.
I would like to think that the government that I chose to govern
me will hold all parties responsible to their contractual obligations.
I understand that agency has been looking at different sites, even
outside the county, as alternative areas, one of them being close to
Lake Trafford in Immokalee. They want to use the muck that is in
the bottom of the lake, the stuff that contains the toxins in the lake,
and let us ride in there.
This is a direct quote from our County Manager, Jim Mudd.
And I quote, I think that gets you what you want. You don't want to
give us a piece of land that nobody can use because it looks like
something that came out of Love Canal. I know. I'm from Buffalo. I
know Love Canal.
I can show you every one of those brown fields, hot spots. All
you have to do is look at the fish. They've got three eyes, no teeth.
We don't want to have that. We want a healthy area that people
can do that. I don't believe that stuff coming out of Lake Trafford is
going to be that bad. But, you know, you do samples and you do
what you got to do when the scientists tell you that. Those are the
kind of things we like to have. Now, can we agree to that?
This is the response from Mr. Panzy (phonetic). He's a senior
attorney for the South Florida Water Management District: Yeah, I
just have a couple of questions. Make sure we're communicating
clearly. I don't want to delay you.
With respect to the last issue, the 640 acres, I'm assuming you
Page 28
February 28, 2006
recognize that right now we do not know the degree of contamination
or what it will be three years from now, end quote.
This is one of the alternative sites that are being considered. The
stuff is hazardous to the lake but not to A TV riders. This direct quote
you just heard is on PAGE 51 of the transcript involving a lawsuit by
Bernard and Helen Noble and Vincent Doyer (phonetic) versus
Collier County, case number 05-0064-CA, in which the county had to
name the South Florida Water Management District a third party to
the lawsuit because they failed to take responsibility for the roads
inside the Picayune State Forest, the very roads that the county
signed over to them.
So this commission has a choice to make today. Keep the deal
you made with the devil or bring this up to a hearing in front of the
entire commission and bring all the parties involved in this and ask,
where do they stand with the 640 acres.
If they cannot find the promised 640 acres, then this commission
can and should immediately forego the agreement and take the roads
back. This will, in turn, put a stop to the so-called Everglades
Restoration Proj ect, make the lawsuit brought against the county a
moot case because no roads will be torn out, so therefore, those two
plaintiffs can no longer claim this against the county, and the county
will not relinquish the roads until there's a legal riding area in place.
This whole project was sold to us using sound science.
According to an article posted on February 23, 2006 on the Naples
Daily News website, the director of this agency cites paperwork for a
slow start.
I quote, models have become bigger and more important than
they should be, said Carol Welle, Executive Director of the South
Florida Water Management District. Planners are spending too much
time tinkering with computer models that try to predict how water
might flow through proposed reservoirs, pump stations and other
structures.
Page 29
February 28, 2006
Instead of generating 50 more computer models for a project,
planners should rely on common sense, she added, end quote.
In the same Naples Daily News website, there was another
article published on January 28th. And I quote, the prospects aren't
good, Terrence South, the deputy Everglades policy advisor, told
environmental activists and government officials at a gathering in
Hutchinson Island on Florida's east coast.
Congress hasn't passed a resource -- a water resource
development act for Everglades restoration since 2000, the year the
project began. Lawmakers aren't giving the go-ahead for the U.S.
Corps of Engineers to begin new proj ects because the agency already
has more than 40 billion in proj ects on its to-do list, South said, end
quote.
All this money, not including the 10.1 billion and growing for
the project, and we can't find any land. Obviously we don't want to
find any either.
I know you're probably wondering why this is such a big deal.
There are many valid reasons for the issue to be brought up for
discussion. The first one is a matter of principles. We have a signed
contract; however, we have families. This is one of the ways in
which we like to recreate. We believe that families that play together
stay together.
Second, we are taxpayers. Every single A TV bought in the State
of Florida, whether new or used, that is titled is assessed a $35 tax.
That is a requirement of the Florida off-highway vehicle titling tax,
chapter 31 7. This is the money that the state is supposed to use to
buy land for riding areas.
According to a report that was conducted by the Florida
Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services on December 19,
2002, called the Off-Highway Vehicle Safety and Recreation Report,
a requirement of the T. Mark Schmitt Off- Highway Vehicle Safety
and Recreation Act states, on page 1, part A, and I quote, the State of
Page 30
February 28, 2006
Florida has made a dedicated effort in conserving environmentally
sensitive lands under the past quarter century.
The recreation conservations, CARO (sic) program, the
Preservation 2000 and the current Florida Forever Program have all
been model programs that have resulted in protecting natural areas
that otherwise have been lost to development or other uses.
However, the family recreation OHV rider has been left out of
the mix with no new riding areas being established on conservation
lands purchased by the State of Florida since the late 1970s. This was
-- this report was done at a time when riding was still allowed out on
the Picayune State Forest.
We have since lost the 72,000 acres of legal riding areas.
Consequently, all the riding done now in the county is considered
illegal.
Page 18, bullet number 11 of this same report states, opening
new OHV sites in South Florida needs to be a priority. Currently a
large number of OHV and off-road vehicles are illegally riding on
both public and private lands in South--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, how close are you to finishing?
MR. VARELA: Probably about another two minutes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. VARELA: Thank you.
As apriority, a minimum of two sites should be developed in the
areas of Dade and Collier Counties over the next two years. Again,
this report came out in 2002. What did we do? We closed down the
only public legal riding area we had.
I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be one; however, I've been
going out to Big Cypress National Preserve since 1978, and I can tell
you that I have seen what -- the consequence of man reeking havoc
of nature. No off-highway vehicle activity would ever do as much
damage as has been done since Napoleon Bonaparte Broward ran and
won the governorship of this state in the early 1900s.
Page 31
February 28, 2006
Since then, man has been trying to tame what he called the
abominable. First it was drain the Glades, then flood control, then
sugar. At the end of the day, we have spent billions, will continue to
spend billions, and the polluters will continue to pollute while we, the
commoners, suffer at the hands of the powerful.
We give the okay to use 12,000 acres to build a town, a town
where there are panthers currently living, but this is compatible use.
Families playing together on the same piece of property would have
been deemed incompatible. This is the hypocrisy behind the entire
Issue.
I ask that you please reconsider, bring this up for public
discussion in front of the entire commission, and reconsider the facts.
Talk to the county manager and ask him how the South Florida
Water Management District has already tried wiping their hands
clean.
Here's another example of what I'm trying to address.
According to the Sierra Club web site -- and this was posted on
January 24, 2004, and I quote, Sierra Club will no longer support the
package of projects known as CERP, the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, but only support those projects that clearly enhance
restoration of the natural Everglades as intended by Congress.
The Sierra Club will oppose the congressional funding of
projects that serve mainly to enhance urban water supply under the
guise of Everglades restoration.
Sierra Club believes the balance intended by congress between
economic interests in the needs of the Everglades has vanished in a
web of details worked out by the Bush administration representing
the interests of urban sprawl and big agriculture.
The club cites as primary evidence the new rules passed by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and endorsed by Florida that will act
as the road map for the investment and the management of a dozen of
separate projects that will total over eight billion.
Page 32
February 28, 2006
Also the club cites the amendment passed by the Florida
legislature will full support of the governor, Jeb Bush, that allows the
sugar industry to continue polluting the Everglades for at least 10
years. Ten more years of pollution.
Why are we even doing this? It's very simple. You put garbage
into the lake, you get garbage out of the lake.
Here's yet another example, this one straight from the South
Florida Water Management District website. This was posted on
February 13, 2006. And I quote, the governing board of South
Florida Water Management District and the Palm Beach County
Board of County Commissioners have reached a no-cost lease
agreement that would help the county establish a public recreation
area on 313 acres west of Delray Beach until the land is needed for
construction of an Everglades restoration proj ect.
The land known as the Seaman's (phonetic) property was
purchased by the district as part of its east coast buffer project and is
slated to be transformed into a water preserve area in the future.
Because construction is not scheduled to begin for several years
the county will maintain and manage the land in the interim as a place
where the public can jog, fish, mountain bike, and hike among any--
many other passive activities. A specific list of allowed users will be
determined by the compatibility and the preservation of the natural
and historical resources of the property.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir?
MR. VARELA: End quote.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you about finished? Are you about
pretty close to finishing?
MR. VARELA: I've got three more sentences, then I'll be done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. VARELA: Thank you. What was done to the citizens of
this county and neighboring counties with the land grab of the
Picayune State Forest and the empty promise by a rogue government
Page 33
February 28, 2006
agency with no accountability is one of the best examples of abuse of
power I can find in my own time.
I'd like to thank the commission and all the other members of the
county government for allowing me. And if you guys have any
questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, Mr. Varela, I want to tell
you that was one of the best prepared presentations I've heard in a
long time. You put a lot of work and effort into it.
And a lot of people out there agree with the issues you brought
up. Back when this came before the county for a determination, I
voted against the tradeoff for the restoration. Not that I was against
the restoration. I do support the restoration of the Everglades.
MR. VARELA: So do I; so do I.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If it's done in a responsible
matter. I just never thought that we'd be able to find the 600-some
acres that would be -- meet all the requirements, and I was hoping to
be proven wrong and I still hope to be proven wrong.
Mr. Mudd, is this coming back before the commission in some
form in the near future?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. First meeting in March you should have
an amended agreement with the South Florida Water Management
District and the state for your consideration.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine. Would you be able to
come to that meeting, sir?
MR. VARELA: Yes. What day is that going to be, County
Manager?
MR. MUDD: It will be March 14th.
MR. VARELA: March 14th.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm just going to ask for a
nod one way or the other. Mr. Terrance Clares (sic) -- I'm sorry.
Terrance, is there anything that you want to add or no?
Page 34
February 28, 2006
MR. TEARS: If I could speak to this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please.
MR. VARELA: Real quick, that meeting's going to take -- here,
the same place?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
MR. VARELA: And is it going to be open up for other
members of --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, always. Every meeting
here is open.
MR. VARELA: Okay. And it's going to be open for other
members of the public to come and comment on this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
MR. VARELA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what we need, to be able
to approach these things and break them down to little bits where we
can digest it. But you know, you made a lot of statements, and I
wanted to give water management a chance to respond.
MR. VARELA: Sure.
MR. TEARS: First thing I'd like to respond to is the
acceleration. The district is bonding over $2 billion to move forward
with -- accelerate eight projects. In Southern Golden Gate Estates,
restoration which is known as the Picayune Strand restoration project,
is moving forward, and the goal is to complete that project.
In addition, as part of the settlement agreement with Collier
County, we have been giving you a million dollars a year for the last
three years. The challenge is, that I find, because I'm really the one
that's trying to drive finding the 640 acres, is the suitability
requirement.
And I've located already 13 sites. I've taken them to different
agencies. And I can't get their blessing on those sites, and that's the
challenge.
And the only site that I've been able to find which is disturbed
Page 35
February 28, 2006
provides at least a 400-acre footprint to do whatever the county wants
to do and mold it the way they want to do is 624-plus acres out by
Lake Trafford.
I mean, it's an opportunity in the future. If after we do some soil
testing and ensure the safety -- public safety is utmost importance to
us and the county -- this site could be molded to a future park, and I
think it's a great opportunity, and we still need to consider it, and
county staff currently is considering that.
We tendered that offer in May to meet the obligation of our
agreement because that was the only site that we could find. And
we're doing everything possible to find a site for Collier County.
We're not a rogue agency. We're doing everything possible to meet
our commitment.
And really at the time the agreement was signed, the dynamics
of Collier County changed. You had rural lands, stewardships being
formed, Ave Maria made their development known, and that changed
the dynamics of land in Collier County.
The other issue is, you know everybody says ORVs are beautiful
machines. They are. But there's a certain group of OR V users that do
destroy land. And most of the large owners of land in Collier County
do not want ORV usage adjacent to their property, so it's very
difficult to find a section of land in Collier County for this type of
use. But we're doing everything possible to meet our commitment.
MR. VARELA: May I address the gentleman of the Water
Management District?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Briefly. I've got one more
question for him.
MR. VARELA: Well, go ahead. Go ahead, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney here also. Go ahead,
David.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In regard to an agreement or revised agreement coming back to
Page 36
February 28, 2006
the board and the proffer date of March 14th, the next -- the first
meeting in March, I don't know that we can say that there will be a
revised agreement ready to go to the board on the 14th because the
County Attorney Office, on behalf of the Board of County
Commissioners, is still in, I'll put it nicely, negotiation in regard to
revisions to the agreement.
And I'd say it's undecided at this point that it would be in --
necessarily be in the form that it's ready for publication and the
agenda for the 14th. It may be that we want to go for a date a little
bit later than that with more certainty, quite frankly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Also I think that where we are right now
is, we're still working with South Florida Water Management on this
particular issue.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I think Commissioner Henning
was first.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if severing the
agreement or rescinding the agreement is going to get where the
gentleman wants us -- wants us to be. You know, the property owner,
being the state, it's still public lands. And you need to get permission
from them to utilize that property in Southern Golden Gate Estates.
MR. VARELA: Well, I'm not an attorney. The only thing I can
think of -- and please bear with me. I'm not an attorney. I'm just
somebody that's very disappointed in this whole -- you know, in this
whole issue of the 640 acres.
You have to understand, we went from 72,000 acres to zero at a
time when they were calling for more ORV places to be opened up,
specifically in Collier and Dade County.
What I would think that should happen is, tell the South Florida
Water Management District you have 30 days to come up with a
riding area. You do not -- cannot find one within 30 days -- after all,
Page 37
February 28, 2006
you're already pretty much going on three years, you cannot find a
riding area, take the county, give the -- have the county give back the
$3 million to the agency, and go ahead and open up the roads that the
county owns in the Picayune Strand forest to ORV use, so we can't
ride in the forest, but we can ride on the public road that the county
owns. And I'll guarantee you, I guarantee you, that would definitely
put pressure, and within a month or two after they have us riding out
there on the county public roads, there will be an ORV park open.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't think --
MR. VARELA: Guaranteed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir. I don't think we're going to
solve the problem today, so I think what we need to do is -- the
wheels of government sometimes move slowly, but I think we're
going to address this issue, and I believe that the end result will be
that -- just give us time, but I think that the end result will be that
we'll take care of the people that have ORVs.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. Clarence, I was just
wondering, I know it takes an awfully long time to get all of this stuff
going in the Everglades anyway. Is there a way for somehow an
agreement to be created that will allow these people to use the land
that they used before until we finish the area over there, the 640
acres, or is that not a possibility?
MR. TEARS: Well, there's a couple issues here. First issue is,
these 55,000 acres in Southern Golden Gate Estates were private
parcels which the state acquired. All right. That's the most
important. They were private parcels which the state acquired.
The state is looking at roughly 2,000 acres in Southern Golden
Gate Estates for ORV usage; however, it has to be presented to the
federal government, Department of Interior, because of the dollars
used to purchase the lands in Southern Golden Gate Estates, so there's
a lot of multi agencies involved.
Page 38
February 28, 2006
The state is recommending a portion of Southern Golden Gate
Estates for ORV use yet we still have to have -- the state still has to
get their partners to sign off on it, and that's the challenge.
John Outlan wrote a letter. He's with DEP. Wrote a letter
yesterday to Brad Cornell, I read the email, stating that the state is
looking at it; however, they still have to have their federal partners
sign off on that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you,
MR. TEARS: In addition, the state has a special task force
looking at ORV usage in state parks throughout the state, and they
meet on a quarterly basis, and they -- I mean, the state is trying--
trying their best to find locations for ORV usage.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the
public petition is only to determine if we, as a Board of County
Commissioners, want to bring it back for further discussion. We
cannot solve this here today.
It is inappropriate for us to involve ourselves in cross-examining
people and trying to arrive at solutions when we don't have all the
stakeholders here, and I would hope that we would limit our decision
to just deciding when we're going to bring it back -- if we're going to
bring it back, and I would suggest we do -- but when is the best time
for us to bring it back for discussion, and not a discussion about a
contract, but a discussion about how do we get the 640 acres that we
were promised.
It is -- and the gentleman makes a perfect example. I disagree
with much of the other things that he said. But a principle is
involved, and we were -- we were promised that we were going to get
some land.
And it makes no difference, in my mind, Clarence, if the federal
government has to approve it. We need to find a lever to put enough
pressure on the federal government to get off their duffs and approve
Page 39
February 28, 2006
it.
So my only concern is, when is a good time to bring it back so
we can resolve it?
MR. MUDD: it would be -- the best meeting that you have is
the 28th of March, the one that's most open.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That would probably be the
best one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well-- but I believe the county attorney
said that they're still working through the litigation process on this, so
it may be farther down the road than that.
We can schedule it for the 28th, and then if it doesn't meet the
requirements, then we can continue it from that point on. But if you
want, why don't we just -- if we get a couple of nods here, we'll go in
regards to the 28th of March.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may comment. I agree. I
want to do it as soon as possible. But I don't want to get in front of
the county attorney and have a meeting that isn't complete, missing
that element.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that's what I said.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. Whatever they agree on,
they can -- when the county attorney gets with the county manager,
whatever that date is, I need to know well in advance so I can give
public notice. I need a news release on it to be able to get it out to the
public.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Mr. Chairman, in fact, Mr. Coletta's hit
on what I was thinking, was that, for instance, when we come up and
-- although March 28th is potentially a viable date wherein we are --
we, the county, and state the South Florida Water Management
District, because we brought them in, have involved them in this
Doyer and Noble lawsuit, and it's in this what we call chapter 164
proceedings -- which there's been mediation and it continues.
And it's in the element of reaching a settlement as well as
Page 40
February 28, 2006
sharing the responsibilities relating to the lawsuit concerning those
two private persons' property that we're moving forward, but at the
same time, it's more than merely the 640 acres.
But it's been -- it has been an element of applying pressure to the
South Florida Water Management District and the state relating to
those 640 acres. And so we're still in -- we're still in that context of
lawsuit and dispute resolution that we're forced into under state law.
At the same time, the 28th might be a viable date. But the
agreement that we bring back, if we do bring back a revised
agreement, to some degree is -- potentially it would come to settle the
issue of the 640 acres, but it may not be what this board is looking
toward in the sense of timing or alternatives in the meantime, things
of that nature, which you may wish to discuss.
So I would look forward for the County Attorney Office to work
very closely with the county manager and with the commission for a
date, and so that a -- through whatever means, Commissioner Coletta
or us, get press releases out and notices out so that parties could
attend.
It might not be the 28th, but certainly not before the 28th, if I
could leave it that way for you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think that's what we were
discussing, that we would place it on the agenda as the March 28th
meeting. And if we saw that we weren't going to be able to
accomplish that task, then there wouldn't have to be a press release,
and that -- so that's the best way to handle it.
So do I have enough nods here?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we'll put it on the 28th, and then
we'll go from there.
Thank you very much.
MR. VARELA: Thank you, Commission.
Page 41
February 28, 2006
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2006-45: RE-APPOINTING THOMAS E. FINN TO
THE BA YSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9A, and that
is appointment -- and that's the Board of County Commissioners,
appointment of a member to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Thomas Finn.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion and a second for
Thomas E. Finn to be appointed to the Bayshore Beautification
MSTU.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Seeing none, 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: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It carries unanimously.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2006-46: APPOINTING JOSEPH L. DILLON TO
Page 42
February 28, 2006
THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD
- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 9B. It's appointment of a member to the Ochopee Fire
Control District Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Joseph
Dillon.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
approve Joseph Dillon for the Ochopee Fire Control District, and a
second.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Seeing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor of the motion, 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, unanimous.
Item #10B
AN AL TERNA TE ROAD IMPACT FEE CALCULATION AND
RESULTING RATE FOR THE PROPOSED NAPLES
MOTORSPORTS AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP - APPROVED;
STAFF TO WORK ON CALCULATION FOR ACCESSING
IMPACT FEES REGARDING VEHICLES FOR SALE-
Page 43
February 28, 2006
CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is lOB, but understand lOA has got a time certain of 11 a.m.
lOB is a recommendation to approve an alternative road impact
fee calculation and resulting rate of $8,854 per 1,000 square feet for
the proposed Naples Motor Sports Automobile Dealership.
And Mr. Norman Feder, Administrator for Transportation
Services, will present.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, this is a recalculation based on
what was done with Jaguar of a specific calculation of trips generated
by a specialty automobile dealer. In this case we brought it up to
current cost but used the same basic calculation, given that it's a very
specialized clientele that would be involved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And you basically said that you used the
same calculations that -- when the Jaguar dealer came?
MR. FEDER: Yes. I brought up to current rate structure for the
impact fee program.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion for approval and
a second. And I have discussion by Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I will vote in favor of the
alternative method of calculation, but I do have a recommendation I'd
like to make to the commissioners, and that is that the process we
have for calculating impact fees particularly for automobile
dealerships, I think, is flawed.
And it's not something we dreamed up. It's a national process.
And it essentially uses the building square footage on the lot to
determine impact fee, but yet for many automobile dealerships, the
parking lot is more important with respect to the calculation of an
Page 44
February 28, 2006
impact fee because if they have hundreds of vehicles in the parking
lot, the size of the building is of no relevance concerning the traffic
that it generates.
And I understand that figure we use is an average of the two
types of dealerships, but it still doesn't get precise enough to really
understand the impact.
And to use an example, a person could buy a block, an entire
city block, of property, put 1 OO-square- foot building on it, cover that
entire city block with cars for sale and attract people there to look at
them, and they'd pay impact fees on the 100-square-foot building,
which is almost nothing.
So I would merely ask that, after voting on this -- and I will vote
for it -- that the commission give the staff guidance to take a look at
this and see if we can't come up with a better way of assessing it, and
that way if it's a normal process, it doesn't have to come to us under
these circumstances.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, we will do that. Again, in all of
our impact fee process, especially since we are pushing to get full
cost, we have to have a provision for variation when you're going to
go on an average situation, if you will.
Having said that, we're in the process of updating our impact fee.
We'll ask our consultant specifically to look at this area.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call the question. I believe the motion was
made by Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Coletta, in
regards to the calculation for impact fees for Naples Motor Sports
automobile dealership.
Those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 45
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by, like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we get a consensus of the
board on what Commissioner Coyle brought up so --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- staff has clear direction?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we give -- why don't we give
staff direction? Do I have three nods on this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Please, I believe that
Transportation Department Director Norm Feder said he was going to
look into that anyway because they understood what was going on.
Thank you very much.
Item #1 OC
AWARD BID # 06-3920 - ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR "ANNUAL
ROAD MICRO-SURFACING CONTRACT" - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10C, and that is a
recommendation to award bid number 06-3920, annual contract for
annual road micro-surfacing contract for the approximate annual
amount of $1,100,000.
And, again, Mr. Norman Feder, Administrator for Transportation
Services will present.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, I have John Delate that can go
through any of your technical questions on this, but basically this is
our annual contract. Since it's over a million dollars, it's on your
Page 46
February 28, 2006
regular agenda, and we're open to any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have any discussion on this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Seeing none, I entertain--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- a motion.
Okay. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion to approve this
contract for micro-surfacing of the road.
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: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It carries, unanimous.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
Item #10D
FOLLOW-UP REPORT REGARDING THE ENFORCEMENT
EFFORTS OF THE CONTRACTOR LICENSING OFFICE AND
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT PERTAINING TO
THE REGULATION OF CONTRACTORS FOUND IN
VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAWS AND ORDINANCES-
MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO
CHANGE THE LDC - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10D. It's a
Page 47
February 28, 2006
follow-on report to the Board of County Commissioners regarding
existing codes of laws and ordinances throughout the State of Florida
regarding the enforcement efforts of the contractor licensing office
and the code enforcement department pertaining to regulations of
contractors found in violation of applicable laws and ordinances.
And Mr. Joseph Schmitt, your Administrator for Community
Development and Environmental Services Division will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good morning. Again, for the
record, Joe Schmitt, Community Development/Environmental
Services Administrator.
With me today, Bill Hammond, my Director of Building Review
and Permitting; Michael Ossorio is here today as well if you have any
questions involving contractor licensing and the Contractors'
Licensing Board, and also from the County Attorney's Office, Jeff
Klatzkow. Basically we're here to discuss, at your request, a
follow-on that, in summation, was really you asking for us to look at
more aggressive ways to hold contractors financially responsible for
the cost of any variance-related land use petitions that a contractor
may have caused as a result of unpermitted work.
I'm going to defer to the County Attorney. Attachment A was
my initial report. And as Mr. Mudd noted, there was a mix-up in the
way this was printed, so the executive summary is really on the white
stock. The blue stock was the original executive summary from the
January 10th meeting.
At attachment B was a report, or is a report from the county
attorney who conducted a survey of the 15 counties. In sum,
basically the violation -- there are already -- already provisions on
the books for dealing with holding contractors responsible and paying
restitution to any aggrieved party that had action taken against them
in regards to unpermitted work; however, in this executive summary,
what we're asking -- or we're asking for your direction.
If you want this to come back, we can put very specific language
Page 48
February 28,2006
in our ordinance and in the -- the land development code, which
basically, and I quote, restitution to property owners who incur
expenses for any and all associated variances as defined by the land
development code, and we can -- we can note such language. In the
land development code or in the -- in dealing with the code dealing
with the contractor licensing activities, we can certainly do that.
Also, this report, in the last meeting or in the meeting of January
10th, you asked for feedback on two cases that you cited. I provided
feedback on those. We can -- we can answer your questions in
regards to those two cases. I don't see any need to bring them up
unless you have any specific questions.
I guess subj ect to your questions, basically the recommendation
is that the board give staff direction to amend section 4.3.5.1 of
ordinance 20 -- or 2002-21 to include language that defines
restitution to property owners who incur expenses for all associated
variances defined by the land development code for the county --
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
That pretty much covers it. I know I went over it briefly. I hope
that you did read the executive summary, but I'm -- subject to
questions, that concludes my introduction.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got a question before I turn this over
to Commissioner Henning. Of the counties that do have an
ordinance, what was your take on the information that was placed in
those ordinances?
MR. SCHMITT: Can I -- I'm going to turn that over to the
county attorney. They pretty much conducted the review of the
ordinances.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. In particular, like Manatee and
Martin County.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think that our ordinances fall within the
same general ambit as everybody else's. It's a question of our take on
them. We have the power to bring contractors before the Code
Page 49
February 28, 2006
Enforcement Board, for example. We just haven't done that as a
matter of custom. From direction of this board -- if it is direction of
this board to do that, we'd -- as a staff, we'd be happy to do that.
Of more concern was -- and it's been a concern of mine for a
while of the innocent property owner, who a contractor does
something that's wrongful and a property owner winds up taken to
the shed on that.
With the board's direction, we could amend the ordinance so
both the contractor and the homebuyer -- and the homeowner could
be brought before the Code Enforcement Board. And at that point in
time, it can be determined, is this an innocent homeowner, and if so,
you know, what should the punishment be? Should it be against the
contractor solely? Should it be the contractor and the homeowner?
And we can work it out there at that point in time. And that would
be the primary change that I would recommend this board direct us to
make.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I like the idea of having
all parties at the table to get both sides of the story for resolution of
the responsible party. I think that's appropriate.
Mr. Schmitt, I do have a question --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- about the contractor licensing
process.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or -- is there anything available
on the website about the process of contractor licensing, you know,
any information about what the consumer should be doing and
looking for as far as a reputable contractor? And is there a possibility
to list on the web page a -- contractors who have violated the laws
and give the particulars?
MR. SCHMITT: The -- yes. And to answer your question, the
Page 50
February 28, 2006
website does have information.
Weare doing a complete revamping of all the websites in Collier
County, so that -- there's a contract -- John Torre currently has a
contract to look at the entire web site process. But there are -- there is
information. Certainly anybody can call contractor licensing to get
information on the past history.
I would have to defer to the county attorney whether or not we
can post names. I believe we probably could post names of those that
are under some -- or pending action. But I'm -- I would have to
really -- that's something I would have to defer to the County
Attorney.
Mike, do we post -- or Bill, do you know? If you want to talk--
MR. HAMMOND: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Bill Hammond, Director of the Building Review and
Permitting Department.
Everything that the Contractor Licensing Department has and
every action of the Contractor Licensing Board, as you're aware, is
public record, and it's in the open.
We do respond to phone calls if they ask for specific information
about a contractor. We don't have the Contractor Licensing Board
minutes posted on the web site right now. But, you know, any actions
or summaries of actions, at the board's direction, that information
could be posted on the board. But we do -- we do routinely handle
requests for public information about contractors, and we forward that
to the requesters.
MR. SCHMITT: I would like to add, we are going to put a flier
in -- I thought it was going to go out last month, but it should go out
in this month's utility billing to all the residents in regards to just a
one-page primer on how to -- what you're doing if you hire a
contractor, the kind of questions you should ask a contractor to
ensure you're hiring a reputable -- honest and reputable contractor.
And as I noted in the last presentation in January, quite frankly,
Page 51
February 28, 2006
98, 99 percent of the folks out there are -- want to do the right thing
and they're honest businessmen. It's unfortunate there are a few out
there who do not.
And we -- Bill-- Bill Hammond and I speak with members of
the industry. We depend on them to police their peers just as much as
Mike and his team who are out there in contractor licensing to ensure
that, in fact, we're dealing with those who are -- who are not
representing at least their trade as they should. So -- yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, is it something
you might be interested in, or is it a value to put some information on
the web?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. We will do that. We'll put some
information on the web. It's on the web now. You can go to the
building department, hit contractor licensing. But what we can do is
post contract -- I'll make sure from the county attorney that it -- as
Bill Hammond mentioned, it is public information. And if we cite
someone through an enforcement action, we'll -- if that's your
direction, we'll post that on the web.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I -- personally I think it's
a good public service.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But, you know, your
department -- and I think that you can give us some direction --
MR. SCHMITT: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on whatever you think is best
to serve the public in this.
MR. SCHMITT: We will do it. I mean, it's not a problem. We
will post that information on the web. I think -- and I would
recommend we do so.
It is my recommendation we come back with an amendment to --
through the ordinance, which is -- basically goes into our laws of
codes and ordinances to identify specifically that the contractor canu
Page 52
February 28, 2006
be held accountable. They can already, but I think we'll clarify the
language and make it very specific.
And we'll come back with an amendment to that ordinance to --
based on your direction and your approval, we'll come back with that
amendment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a couple of clarifications. I
like the recommendations that have been made.
And Jeff, I'd like to verify that if we agree to add the language to
section 4.3.5-1, restitution to property owners who incur expenses for
any and all associated variances as defined in the Collier County
Land Development Code, is that in any way is limited by the $500
limit on civil infractions, or is it an entirely different kind of
assessment and penalty? And if it is a different assessment of
penalties, what is our legal authority for assessing that penalty?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's a good question. I don't have a -- I
don't have an answer to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I was focusing more on bringing both the
contractor and the homeowner before--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- the contract --Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a good idea too, but once
you get them in there and you make a decision, what decision are you
going to make, a civil fine --
MR. SCHMITT: Mike Ossorio --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you going to have a civil fine
against the contractor if you find the contractor's guilty? If so, then
how do you hold the contractor liable for any and all expenses
incurred by the homeowner, who supposedly is innocent? How do
you do that legally?
MR. OSSORIO: Well, first of all, for the record, Michael
Page 53
February 28, 2006
Ossorio, Collier County Contractor Licensing.
The very first thing is restitution is defined up to $10,000. Once
we get -- there is a civil judgment. It's up to the County Attorney's
Office to go ahead and file proper liens on the property of the
contractor or real property. So once it leaves the licensing issues and
we issue a finding of fact for the monetary money, it goes to Robert
Zachary's office in the County Attorney's Office for Prosecution.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let's stop right there. You've
got a variance issue.
MR.OSSORIO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's say that the variance is
encroaching four feet into the rear yard setback, and that is clearly a
citing problem, I presume, either for a pool or a house itself. How
does a $10,000 maximum liability meet the requirement?
MR.OSSORIO: Well, that's under state law, unfortunately.
The $10,000 is a maximum of restitution we can order a contractor
under 489.
Now, we regularly handle these on these cases, so -- we had one
last week where there was a couple of inches into the setbacks.
Contractor came in, paid his penalty of a thousand dollars to rectify
the problem.
It's -- I'm not going to say it's an ongoing problem, but it does
happen that the survey does come back and there's an issue with a
couple feet here or there. But most likely when we go in front of the
board, once the finding of facts is issued by the chairman, which is a
contractor itself, the contractor pays.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me break it down, and I'll
try to be very brief with this. There's two things you can do. You can
fine the contractor $500 a day, and each day it is uncorrected after
the time you've given him to correct it is a separate citation so it will
continue to accumulate, so it gets to be pretty large. The next thing
you're talking about is restitution to the homeowner.
Page 54
February 28, 2006
Now, are these one and the same things? Are you contemplating
that we'll take the fine that you impose against a contractor and you
turn that money over to a homeowner as restitution of some kind?
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. It goes right to -- the finding of
facts gets issued, and the contractor has X amount of days to make
restitution. Some is made in installments. Some is made right up
front.
We had a case two months ago. It was $30,000 restitution, not
restitution but order per contract. Not restitution. That's totally
different to pay back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let's talk about -- we're
talking about restitution, okay, to the property owner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, let's see if the
county attorney could shed some light on this question here.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. The subject's very interesting.
The fine under state statute for violation of ordinance, which
provides up to $500 is separate from restitution. An example would
be -- and I think that response from Joe Schmitt or Mr. Ossorio
would be that when fines are levied and they -- by the Code
Enforcement Board, they are not necessarily restitution, but are fines
that go to Collier County. And restitution is an available element that
can be applied and would be separate from fines.
I think we have the flexibility in our local lawmaking that we
could conceivably meld the two -- this is a kind of off-the-cuff
thought here -- meld the two if we wanted to use the continuous fine
day after day imposition that the Code Enforcement Board does;
however, there is the possibility in some circumstances where the
ongoing activity is not ongoing.
And so the 5 -- up to $500 per day, day after day, may not be
available, but that still doesn't answer the question for restitution.
Restitution does exist, can exist separately. And I think that if you
just authorize the staff and county attorney to bring back measures to
Page 55
February 28, 2006
you that provide for the full application of the law, we'll bring
something to you which answers those questions and, perhaps, gives
you a choice, but certainly answers as to what you -- what you and
ultimately the Code Enforcement Board can do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That helps a lot. So let me
make sure I understand. You can assess the fines as you currently do,
and if you wish, you can assess a restitution amount which has no
maximum value?
MR. WEIGEL: Potentially not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, take --
MR. SCHMITT: But the board has -- the Contractor Licensing
Board has to make that determination.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that, and we've
already gotten to that point. We've said, it's a good idea to take
people there to learn the facts.
Now, the last step in the process is that none of the two things
that I think we just talked about would cover state-licensed
contractors. So now the additional -- so if a person is a state-licensed
contractor, you're not going to be able to do any of that. Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: No. We only can -- we only notify the state in
that regard.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. You can withhold permitting
privileges.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, you package all those
together in a document that is legally supportable and enforceable,
and I think it covers my concerns.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So it -- now, the important
issue is that if you withhold permitting privileges for someone who is
in violation of these -- of some thing, you have to guard against
someone going out and reincorporating and thereby getting around
Page 56
February 28, 2006
your prohibition or withholding of permitting privileges.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I would task -- I would ask that
the board task the legal department to give some thought to that to see
how we could put it together in a way that makes some sense so that
we've got some teeth in this law; otherwise, it means nothing because
you just go and you get a state license -- a state contractor's license
and you don't get penalties much at all. So that would do the trick
for me --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Along with the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- recommendations that they've come
forth with?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other discussion?
I'll entertain a motion. If you'll -- you put together the motion --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- along with the guidance to the county
attorney in regards to what you just discussed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. It would be my motion to
accept the staffs recommendations to change the land development
code to permit the assessment of restitution to property owners who
incur expenses for any and all associated variances as defined in the
Collier County Land Development Code and also withhold permitting
privileges from contractors who are in violation and who do not
make or pay the appropriate restitution or fines.
MR. SCHMITT: Can I correct that? It would -- also be in the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. SCHMITT: Specifically chapter 22.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, did you have
Page 57
February 28, 2006
something? And also, how about we challenge the staff here in
regards to the item you brought up where people all of a sudden
change different --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would hope they would--
they would include that -- that legal language in the document itself to
try to guard against people circumventing the effects of this law by
reincorporating this.
MR. SCHMITT: One problem, if I could bring out -- and you're
going to see another one in a couple weeks, and I don't want to
discuss the case. But in these cases of owner/builder who -- then
there's no contractor involved. It's an owner/builder.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's the owner/builder who
bears the responsibility.
MR. SCHMITT: Right. And then it's the owner/builder who
then sells the home, and then the new purchaser is stuck.
I don't know. We would look at that, but almost in -- and most --
in those cases it's pretty much a civil matter between the new
property owner and the person they bought the home from.
And we have those where -- we do have very specific rules on
owner/builder and how many times you can do it and the tax laws and
some of those things. But I -- what we'll do is, we're going to just do
a comprehensive review of the entire ordinance and try and nail this
down solid.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I understand that we can't
solve every potential situation that might arise in the future, but this
will get us down the road a ways, and then we can fine-tune it as we
go.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a second on Commissioner
Coyle's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So I have a motion by
Page 58
February 28, 2006
Commissioner Coy Ie and a second in regards to coming up with
direction for coming up with different ways of addressing the Collier
County code and ordinance in regards to protecting the property
owners against people who may not be the proper contractors.
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?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Anything else before we take a break?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We are in recess for 10 minutes, and
we'll be back at 10:48.
(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. Collier County
Commission meeting is now back in order again. And-
Item #10E
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RE-ALLOCATE UNSPENT
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE FUNDS TO VARIOUS PROJECTS
DETAILED - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on our agenda is
item number 10E, and that is a recommendation for the Board of
Page 59
February 28, 2006
County Commissioners to approve budget amendments to reallocate
unspent landscape maintenance funds in the amount of $1,462,422 to
CAT bus shelters, Pelican Bay resurfacing, lime rock conversion, and
other landscape projects.
And Mr. Norman Feder, your Administrator for Transportation
Services, will present.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, you have in the landscape
operations budget a provision for 12 months' worth of funding. In
many cases the projects came through in construction and
completion, not using the full 12 months, plus the landscaping staff
had done a couple items for efficiency. I could have them detail if
you'd like, that leaving us an availability of dollars previously
budgeted that we're recommending be reallocated, as was noted in the
executive summary, essentially to provide some funding for
additional bus shelters, which are needed throughout the county for
the Collier Area Transit System, some monies for Pelican Bay
micro-surfacing.
We have a portion of that three miles that particularly need
resurfacing now, and we're looking to do the micro-surfacing for the
full three miles to keep that facility up, some 200,000 of that towards
lime rock conversion, to further add funding to that proj ect need,
that's greatly underfunded, and then some more to refinements within
the landscaping program itself.
Be happy to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions to staff?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion to approve. Do I hear a
second?
I'll second that.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll call the question. All those in favor,h
Page 60
February 28, 2006
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10F
SELECTION COMMITTEE'S RANKING OF FIRMS AND
CONTRACT FOR RFP #06-3919 "PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING
AND RELATED SERVICES" FOR RANDALL BLVD. -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 10F, and that used to be 16B7, and that is to approve
selection committee rankings of firms and approve attached contract
for RFP number 06,3919, which is professional surveying related
services for Randall Boulevard (Immokalee Road to DeSoto
Boulevard), county project number 60065, in the amount of
$589,955.87.
And Mr. Jay Ahmad, your -- see, I knew I'd get it right. Jay
Ahmad, your Director of Engineering --
MR. AHMAD: You've been working on it.
MR. MUDD: -- for transportation, will present.
MR. AHMAD: Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. Again, my name is Jay Ahmad. I'm your Director of
your Transportation Engineering and Construction Management.
And I'm here asking for your approval of this item to approve
Page 61
February 28, 2006
the selection of AIM Engineering and Surveying, Inc., for providing a
survey for this five-and-a-half-mile project named Randall
Boulevard, as you know, and this is from Randall Boulevard from
Immokalee to DeSoto, which is -- we're going to do 300 feet of
survey for about five-and-a-half miles.
We're going to do -- this consultant will provide also survey of
all the side streets for about 2,000 feet. There are about three canal
crossings associated with this project, and they're going to do about
eight pond sites, survey for those eight pond sites.
And the reason we're doing this proj ect now instead of as
planned in 2010 -- 2009/'10, is to allocate the right-of-way. We're
doing the design in-house to allocate this right-of-way and reserve it
before these developments that are occurring and these houses that
are being built, and it would cost us a lot more in the future if we do
it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: A question I have is the 300 feet. Is that
-- you're looking 300 foot out of the -- besides the right-of-way, the
real right-of-way that you need for the road?
MR. AHMAD: Including the existing right-of-way, they will do
300-feet slots for the entire length. There is actually a half-a-mile
section within that that they will do 350 feet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Next question is, are you looking
at -- when you say the projection of the Randall Road (sic) is this
from Oil Well Road -- or excuse me -- Immokalee Road and then
following Randall Road and eventually intersecting at Oil Well
Road?
MR. AHMAD: It's the existing Randall Boulevard all the way
to DeSoto, the survey of that existing roadway, including --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. AHMAD: -- the 300 feet on each -- for the corridor.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: First I want to thank you and
Page 62
February 28, 2006
staff for taking a proactive stance on this. As the commission is well
aware, we have a meltdown out in that particular area with the
growth that we're experiencing and the lack of roads.
The next thing is, I want to know why it was pulled from the
agenda. Did staff pull it?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I was -- I was notified by our purchasing
director that they're -- that I needed to notify the board that the
purchasing department will be making some minor changes to the
contract from how it presently reads, but that none of these changes
will affect the total contract dollar amount, the scope of services to be
performed, or the time schedule for completion. And if the board had
any questions on that particular statement, that I would make sure
that staff was here so that you could ask -- get answers to those
particular questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate that, and I'd like to
make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion by
Commissioner Coletta, and seconded by Commissioner Fiala to
approve this.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I had raised a question
about the dollar amount of this project. It seemed to me to be an
exorbitant amount of money for a survey job. But with the addition
of stormwater retention ponds and things of that nature, I can
understand how it can get a little bit more complicated.
But I am concerned about, how does the scope of work of the
survey interface with all of the money we spent a couple of years ago
establishing benchmark data out in that area for the FEMA flood
maps. And I'm wondering if that has been taken into consideration
and to what degree has it been taken into consideration?
MR. AHMAD: I don't have an answer to that. Maybe Mr. Feder
Page 63
February 28, 2006
would -- would you like to add?
MR. FEDER: Yes. Commissioner, that other effort gives us a
very good starting point for a lot of the survey work, but the work
here is actually surveying the eventual improvement. That gives you
your benchmarks to help your survey start from.
In addition to what you heard so far, you are also doing a lot of
pot-holing out there to make sure we don't have any muck or wet soil
conditions to deal with. Additionally, they're doing an aerial flight of
the aerial so we have good specifics.
Commissioner Halas had asked us, the Chairman had asked us
about connection up to Oil Well, and yes, we do intend to -- while
this is looking at the full Randall corridor, basically 100- foot
corridor, 100 feet on each side to see all of our options to at least
impact, but to preserve that corridor, we're also trying to work with
Big Cypress CDD to establish a diagonal that will get it up to Oil
Well.
And the concern is that we need to protect Randall as a
continuation of Immokalee since we know that we're restricted to four
lanes with a lot of local application, at schools and the like, on Oil
Well from Everglades over to Immokalee. But there are some other
features in here, pot-holing, the flight, as well as the detailed survey
work. And yes, it does take advantage of what's been set out there for
monuments and --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So you're convinced that
$589,000 is a reasonable price?
MR. FEDER: Yes. Actually with what we're getting in surveys,
even for smaller projects right now, it's a unit cost, it's a good price,
and overall for what we're asking.
And, again, what we're trying to do is a design in-house to get it
through to the right-of-way phase so that we can then create
setbacks. We've got a couple of commercial at the corner coming in,
and we're also trying to look at the intersection of Randall and
Page 64
February 28, 2006
Immokalee as part of this project as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just want you to take note
that George Washington surveyed a major part of the State of
Virginia for less than $25,000.
MR. FEDER: And I wish I had him working today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, at those prices.
MR. FEDER: At those prices.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Where are you, George, now that we
need you?
Is there any other discussion before I call the question? If not,
I'll call the question on this.
The motion was made by Commissioner Coletta, 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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries unanimously.
Item #10A
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH CDC
LAND INVESTMENTS, INC., FOR 47.93 ACRES UNDER
CONSERV ATION- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to our time certain
item, which is lOA. It's a recommendation to approve an agreement
for sale and purchase with Collier Development Corporation, now
known as CDC Land Investments, Inc., for 47.93 acres under the
Page 65
February 28, 2006
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program at a cost not to
exceed $2,106,400.
And Ms. Alex Sulecki, your manager for the Conservation
Collier program, will present.
MS. SULECKI: Good morning. And, again, for the record,
Alexandra Sulecki, coordinator for Conservation Collier program.
And I'll just note that I have in the room this morning, concerned
also with this item, our staff members from real estate services,
Assistant County Attorney Mike Pettit; Mr. Pat Utter, who's a
representative for CDC; Mike Bower, who's the manager of Natural
Resources for the City Naples; and some other interested parties who
may want to speak to you on this.
I'm here to answer questions for you this morning. Any
questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I had some questions and
called the real estate service, and Nancy Earp (phonetic) was very
helpful to walk me through the property and that. But I did receive a
call from the property owner. Somebody in our staff must have told
them that I had questions about it.
I can in the future just contact the property owner if that's what I
should be doing. I thought it was appropriate to ask questions from
staff. Maybe I should just contact the property owner in the future?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And the question is?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it isn't a question. I just
-- if I have a question of staff, I didn't -- I didn't know it was going to
be sounding through the community that I asked a question. But
again, Ms. Earp was very, very helpful.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. My question has to do
with access. I'm a little bit concerned about the lack of public access
Page 66
February 28, 2006
and how the paths tie together.
Couldn't these paths be opened up so they would be able to
accommodate people with a disability and also people on bicycles so
it would be tied into the county system for people to be able to reach
this by bike from some distant point?
I think it's wonderful to have a strolling pathway that goes
through the woods. To those people that are physically able to be
able to take advantage of it, that's wonderful. We always have
people that ride bicycles that would love to be able to recreate here.
And we certainly have people that are disabled that would also like to
have wheelchair access.
MS. SULECKI: Well, this parcel is kind of a connector piece in
the idea of the Gordon River Greenway. And so while there may be
some access difficulties directly to the parcel, the concept is to bring
the pathways down through the area through the uplands from the
parcel to the north, which is the Fleischmann number two parcel, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the pathways aren't--
they're not a hard surface. They're just -- they're just going to be
mulch; is that correct?
MS. SULECKI: Well, mostly, I think, through this area, we
would plan on boardwalks, and those certainly can be built to accom
-- and they would be built to accommodate disabled persons.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But how about bike paths, too?
Is there some way the people from the outside could access this
through the county system? I mean, we're trying to network things,
we're trying to find alternate means of transportation, and I hope that
we're forward thinking enough to include this in those plans.
MS. SULECKI: Well, I'm sure that we are. Commissioner, I
know that we have to take it one step at a time, and the acquisition is
really the first step. So we haven't made our final plans for access or
where things are going to go. We wanted to take this step forward.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please, as you move forward
Page 67
February 28, 2006
towards that access, please keep these -- those thoughts in mind.
MS. SULECKI: We do, we do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have some concerns also in the same
line that Commissioner Coletta had, and that is the idea of people
who are handicapped that are in wheelchairs. And I think that we
need to have interconnectivity with the other parcels that we're
buying and acquiring through that whole area so that not only do we
take into consideration people who are handicapped, but also as
Commissioner Coletta said, in regards to bike paths.
The other concern I have is bathroom facilities. Are we going to
have bathroom facilities that are going to be located near or adjacent
to the -- these paths as they go through?
MS. SULECKI: Well, we've certainly not gotten to that
planning point yet. I don't know if we would have bathroom facilities
on this particular parcel or not. It might be more of a pass-through
parcel. It's a connector for the Gordon River Greenway so it would
go through it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Well, I just hope that you would
take that into consideration when we start to develop this piece of
property .
MS. SULECKI: We will, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's very important.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I personally like
this parcel, and I'm glad that we're pursuing it. One of the reasons, of
course, is we can keep the exotics removed from this parcel. I think
it needs maintenance and continual maintenance, and that's, of course,
part of the Conservation Collier project, is to continually maintain
them.
Page 68
February 28, 2006
And as part of the greenway, from what I understand with all
greenways, they have -- they're for non-motorized vehicles, but bikes
are certainly part of that equation.
So I think we should move forward with it, quite frankly. I like
the idea, and so I'd like to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: I have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe we have three speakers on this,
public speakers, if you'd --
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Nicole Ryan.
MS. RYAN: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: Nancy Payton.
MS. PAYTON: I'll waive as well.
MS. FILSON: And Pat Carroll.
MS. CARROLL: For the record, my name is Pat Carroll, and
I'm here as chairman of the Southwest Land Preservation Trust
spearheading the Gordon River Greenway project.
And there is very exciting. This is a piece of property that
definitely is the last little piece of the puzzle for the Gordon River
Greenway.
And you have great questions regarding the type of use of the
pathway. And the main goal of the land trust right now is to work
with all parties involved, the city, the county, and all parties
involved, to develop a consistent cross section, so that as this pathway
crosses jurisdictional boundaries, it will remain the same.
And right now, we're working on a minimum of a 12-foot-wide
pathway, maybe 14 feet wide. That, with the design standard, is
sufficient to support both the pedestrians and cyclists.
And this particular piece of property will be accessed by one of
the main connections to Goodlette Road. And we have, you know,
other easements drawn up, we're working with the property owners,
Page 69
February 28, 2006
and that will have a direct connection to Goodlette Road.
And then at that point the bridge crossing the river, again, is
right in that area, and that bridge will be handicapped accessible.
So this is absolutely marvelous, and I do encourage your
support. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other -- that's the last public
speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other discussion
before I call the question?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion was made by
Commissioner Fiala, and seconded by Commissioner Henning.
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: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Unanimous.
MS. CARROLL: Thank you very much.
Item #llA
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS: JAMES CUSICK -
RIVERA GOLF COURSE ZONING ISSUES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item on
the agenda, which is public comments on general topics. If you want
to wait till the meeting's over to do that, or would you like to do it
Page 70
February 28, 2006
now?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we go ahead and continue it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Point of order?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We generally bring it in at the
end of the meeting, and if there's someone that has public comments
that's prepared to come at the end of the meeting, I would ask that it
be opened up again at that time. I would strongly suggest that we
wait.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that basically satisfies the agenda
for this morning, and this afternoon at one clock we will start with the
Board of Zoning Appeals and advertised public hearings.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there one right now that--
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I do have one public speak, Mr. James
Cusick.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Why don't we take that one, and
then later on if there's another person, we'll re-open it up again.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sounds fine.
MR. CUSICK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir.
MR. CUSICK: James Cusick, and I've been a resident, a
taxpayer, since 1996. I lived in Windsor Place in Berkshire Lakes.
I've got two questions. One, could the commissioners issue a
statement that the Riviera golf course is presently zoned correctively
(sic) and into perpetuity? That's the first question. You understand
it?
Second, if you can't issue that statement, why can't you, please,
tell us? That's all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the county attorney can
answer that question.
Page 71
February 28, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Mr. Cusick, your question is, can
the Board of County Commissioners make a declaration that the
Riviera Colony Golf Course zoned as it is in perpetuity.
Well, the Board of County Commissioners, as any local
government with zoning and regulatory powers, has to receive
petitions from landowners as they are submitted, and they work their
way through the process, or in a position to come to the Board of
County Commissioners.
So it's inappropriate for this Board of County Commissioners to
prejudge anything unless it comes to it through the official channel of
a petition asking for them to make a change.
It would appear in the current information that is available that it
will be some time, if at all, that the question should come to the
board. When and if it does comes to the board, it will have been
reviewed by county staff pertinent to the development issues and
zoning issues that may have been a part of its application.
It will also be reviewed by the planning commission, the Collier
County Planning Commission, with comments and recommendations
for the board to consider. That's if and when it does come to the
board at some point in the future.
But they do not have the authority and it would be inappropriate,
and would advise them legally inappropriate, for them to make any
statement as a board relating to that property at the present time.
MR. CUSICK: It would be wrong to confirm that the zoning is
correct? It's wrong to confirm that? This is the hottest item that I've
seen since I've been here, since Foxfire and Stadium Naples.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the answer is, it is --
MR. CUSICK: It's wrong?
MR. WEIGEL: It is inappropriate for them to make any
statement about the current zoning of the property. The zoning is
what the zoning is. And if a question comes to them to consider a
change in the zoning, when it comes to them sitting as a board, they
Page 72
February 28, 2006
will have the opportunity to have a full hearing and listen to the
public as well as the petitioner, staff, and the recommendations that
come from the planning commission, environmental groups, anyone
else that wishes to be involved at that point in time they, as a board,
would make a statement.
MR. CUSICK: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much, sir.
MS. FILSON: That was your final public speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. If there's no other business until
one clock, we're adjourned till one p.m.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Collier County Board of County Commissioners is back in session
from a lunch break, and I believe we're starting with agenda item 7 A.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL #2006-47 TO BE PREPARED BY THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: PETITION CU-2004-AR-5439,
KEENE ENGINEERING REQUESTING A CONTINUAL USE OF
THE E ESTATES DISTRICT FOR EARTH MINING
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and that's Board of Zoning Appeals, first
item is 7 A. This item was continued from the February 14, 2006,
BCC meeting.
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 continual use of
the E Estates district for earth mining per Table 2, Section 2.04.03 of
the land development code.
The property's located between 54th Avenue Northeast and 56th
Page 73
February 28, 2006
Avenue Northeast, Golden Gate Estates Unit 45, in Section 4,
Township 48 south, Range 28 east, Collier County, Florida.
And this was a companion to variance 2004-AR-5438, which the
board approved at their last meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. All those that
are going to be speaking on this item, would you please stand and
raise your right hand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Disclosures from our county
commissioners, starting with Fred Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the only disclosure I have
for this item is the fact that we've heard this once before at a prior
meeting, so whatever was said then I'm disclosing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I met with staff, met with
Don Jolly, Cormac Giblin, Patrick White, I also went out to the site,
as was suggested at the last meeting, and I have some pictures I'll
share with you later.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Myself, I have nothing to
disclose other than I've talked to the staff and then, of course, the last
meeting that we had here.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Yes, the last meeting
also, I've spoken with staff, and I've spoken with Pat White.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to Mr. Don Jolly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Proceed, sir.
MR. WHITE: Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners,
Pat White with the law firm of Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur,
representing Brad and Darryl Damico, the landowners on today's
conditional use application.
The subject property's a 44-acre combination of 16 parcels, some
Page 74
February 28, 2006
of which are non-conforming in that they're smaller than your
estate-sized lots.
We appreciate first off the opportunity to appear before you
today at the continued hearing so we can provide you with additional
information in support of the request.
I've had extensive discussions with everyone on your staff, I
believe, that's pertinent, including the County Attorney's Office, the
planner, your engineering folks, Cormac Giblin, who's not available
today, in housing, other folks in engineering, in an effort to try to
address what the board raised as its specific concerns at the last
meeting.
One of the issues that I believe was raised was a concern about
code enforcement. I went back and investigated that. There was, in
fact, a code enforcement complaint filed. A violation was
investigated, and the matter was closed in probably a little over a
month. That involved a slope bank being too steep, and that was
addressed by the excavator, Mr. Jolly, in a timely manner.
Additionally, I think one of the board's concerns was about what
I will call excess excavation as opposed to over excavation. When
you look in the code of laws, it seems to be very precise that an over
excavation refers to going too deep, below what the permits or the
regulations allow. In this case, that is not what has happened, but
there admittedly has been an excess of materials removed, looking
simply at the idea of going too far horizontally beyond what the
excavation permits authorize.
Your code does allow some elasticity in that manner, up to 20
percent, and a maximum of 50,000 cubic yards. Certainly there was
no request for that to take place here, but there is some degree of
flexibility for the permits that are issued. And I mention that because
similarly the code of laws doesn't set forth any precise penalty for an
excess or other type of over excavation.
So what we've worked with your staff on, are to try to find ways
Page 75
February 28, 2006
to address those concerns that the board expressed about an excess
excavation and, perhaps, more importantly, to talk about, with your
staff, what the concerns were in terms of being able to make some
way of getting things properly situated with the county in terms of
affordable housing.
We investigated a number of different types of regulatory
schemes that the board has either adopted as its own rules, for
example, out in the rural village where there's a range of affordable
housing units that are expected to be added in as a percentage of
what's developed, under those rules, which are at typically higher
densities than this project will be if approved. The percentage that's
looked at is somewhere between six to 10 percent.
So we've looked at that number, which, for us, was somewhere
around eight percent we were trying to get to, meaning about one of
the 12 ultimately platted lots that will be created if this conditional
use is approved. That's one of the conditions of the conditional use.
So we looked at the rural village rules, we looked back, Cormac
and I, to the prior rules. Although never adopted, there was some
direction that had been considered in terms of -- I don't want to say
inclusionary zoning -- but certainly part of the workforce regulations
that have been contemplated and similarly, what was contemplated,
to some degree, as part of gap housing.
So what we've been trying to do is to find a way to stay
reasonably close to where the board either expressly, or to the extent
that the staff has brought forward ideas, we were in that rough range.
We looked at that in combination with the idea that, how would
we make sure this wouldn't occur again? You'll probably recall that
in January of this year, your staff brought before you, and you
approved, extensive revisions to your code of laws pertaining to
excavation regulations.
In some of those there are specific limits to 20 feet in depth in
the Estates zoning district, which is where we are with this proj ect.
Page 76
February 28, 2006
So we believe that if the conditional use is approved today,
based upon what we're going to offer to the county, that there is every
expectation that the excavation activities that will be authorized by
the permit that will have to be obtained after this conditional use, if
it's granted, would be a way to ensure that the restoration activities
that are needed in order to get to the place where they could build
their site plan that you've all seen as part of this application, that's the
way that we would do that.
And we would look to keep that on a fairly tight time line with
milestones that would be imposed as part of that excavation permit.
They're not specifically part of this conditional use set of
conditions, but rather something that your staff would look at to
ensure would occur when the subsequent excavation permits were
sought.
So I think that that's one way to make sure that we're going to
actually get to the place where you'll end up with a plat before you
that will have 12 lots that either meet or exceed the area requirements
for an Estates-sized lot.
Turning back to the affordable housing issues, in looking to
balance those concerns with those that the board expressed about the
excess excavation, what we're prepared to do, in order to make things
right with the county, is to offer a voluntary contribution in the form
of a donation to your affordable housing trust fund. And before I tell
what you the amount is, I want to tell you why, out of all the
alternatives we considered, that is the one we're offering.
Simply stated, if there were a more precise program that we,
today, could have told you we were going to enter into, I believe my
clients would have requested and sought to do so.
My recommendation to them is an alternative. In order to have
the board able to, through its subsequent actions, as it comes forward
in how it's going to utilize some of the monies that have already been
donated as voluntary contributions for residential and other types of
Page 77
February 28, 2006
construction, we want to be able to give you that maximum degree of
flexibility by essentially putting these funds into a trust fund, which
my understanding is the creation of an account for is imminent, so
there will be an actual depository for those funds that would be held
by the clerk's office, so that when the board comes to the place where
it's made some policy determinations and given your staff some
direction on how it programmatically wants to utilize those funds,
you'll be able to do so.
We're not suggesting how you should prioritize those, but we're
recognizing that it gives you the flexibility to be able to pick between
which of those programs you may ultimately implement.
And the only thing that we would say as part of the proffer to a
donation to that trust fund is that when you ultimately enact those
regulations, that we would be entitled to a credit for what we've paid.
If whatever you ultimately impose is a higher standard, at that point
in time that, you know, we're required to, we'll meet that. If we're in
excess of that, that's okay. Those monies are still going to remain in
your trust fund and be utilized as you will direct your staff to do so.
At this point, I think -- most of what I think you're going to hear
after is from your staff. And the only thing probably left from me is
to tell you that -- the amount of that contribution and the timing. The
timing is anticipated to be actually a payment at building permit
application, and the reasoning for that is that we believe in the
discussion with your staff, that is the simplest bright line point in time
on the development cycle time line for them to track the actual
commitments being kept and to, you know, most easily control
whether or not any additional development approvals are going to be
forthcoming from the county.
So with that said, the dollar amount per lot or unit is 10,000 so
that there would be a total of 120,000 that would be paid in the
increments of 10,000 based upon when the building permits were
applied for.
Page 78
February 28, 2006
And I believe that that hopefully will address what concerns
were that were expressed. If you have any questions at this time that I
can answer, I'd be happy to attempt to address them for you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be honest with you. I'm
going to wait till after staffs presentation, so you can put me on hold.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. White, your discussion
about the donation of affordable housing and the time frame and
when the board approves something that is legal is really putting me
in my comfort zone on that whole issue, and hopefully we can get to a
time when we can create that rational nexus between workforce
housing needs and new housing, so I appreciate that.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Wasn't this amount to be put
into that account really kind of like to overcome the fact that the law
wasn't -- I'm trying to say this so nicely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Violated is a good word.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That there were some infractions
with the law, and this was kind of a way, like a fine, more or less,
right?
MR. WHITE: I think that's a fair statement. It is certainly
something that I discussed not only with my clients, but Mr. Jolly as
well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I would think then that if,
indeed, it is a fine, maybe it should be paid up front, because, you
know, to charge people who buy a house the $10,000 extra to payoff
this fine is not doing anything to make the owner responsible for
these infractions.
MR. WHITE: I think that's certainly something that I could ask
my clients to consider. I would look for some direction, perhaps, from
Page 79
February 28, 2006
the board as to a point in time that -- or an event in time so that we'd
have some way of both the county staff knowing and my clients
knowing when that type of an obligation would have to be met.
Just kind of off the top of my head, some of the points that
precede building permit application on the development cycle
timeline, looking to try to align this with, you know, the county's
processes, we certainly come in for a plat at some point before those
building permits, and perhaps that's one point of entry.
As you know, that's a condition of approval of the conditional
use is that we must come in and replat, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, my point was, I'm hoping that
we don't ever see him continuing the practice as he's done before.
And by having to pay the fine up front now to continue on
excavating would probably embed it in his head that I don't want to
do that anymore. Look how much it's cost me this time.
MR. WHITE: I understand, Commissioner. And certainly that's
something, again, I'll hopefully look for some direction from the
board on as to a precise point. But I just try to say that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. That's only my suggestion. I
don't know if my fellow board members would even agree with it.
MR. WHITE: Well, it's probably important to just note that
there this is a combination of concerns that we've tried to address.
And as I'd indicated, even the code of laws provisions that talk about
over or excess excavations are ones that give the authority to the
board, essentially, to, by resolution, kind of impose those types of
fines or restitution, if you want to characterize them as that.
But it is something certainly I'd be willing to talk to my clients
about. And if the board wants to give direction in that regard, I would
simply ask for a couple of minutes to confer with them, so -- it
probably shouldn't take even that long, but --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My question is, what happens if we just
give you the directions just to go ahead and dig out all you can
Page 80
February 28, 2006
because of the shortness of fill that we have in Collier County and
forget about the building sites there?
MR. WHITE: Well, the only limitation, Mr. Chairman, would
be to the extent that the board two weeks ago approved the variance.
The nature of that variance was to go beyond the regulation that
limited it to 50 percent of effectively parcel area that you could
excavate. That variance brought it up to just over 57 percent.
So I don't know what the actual number would be to be able to
excavate that far, but our feeling at this point I think is that what is
imposed as the conditions in the conditional use are reasonable.
If the county at some point in time is going to revise its
regulations and allow for that to occur, that may be something that is
possible for other property owners, but it wouldn't seem to be
something that's kind of fit in amongst the variance that's been
granted and the request for conditional use before you today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's try to put this in a little bit of
perspective. Just to review some background that Mr. White has
brought up, this excavation permit was to expire in 2002; in fact, did
expire in 2002.
And according to the staffs statement, it has continuously
operated at these two sites, so we're roughly four years beyond the
expiration date.
Question number one, how much fill was removed and what was
the profit on that fill over those four years?
Number two, the operator excavated almost 30 percent more
than is permitted by law. How much profit was made by excavating
more than was required (sic) by law?
And now we're told that $120,000 will solve all that problem.
And, in fact, you don't have to solve that problem. The Board of
County Commissioners solved that problem last time by voting to let
you get away with that, which is unfortunate.
Page 81
February 28, 2006
But now you're going to propose building, I'm sure, some very
expensive homes there, and what is the profit margin on that? The
$120,000 you're talking about, in my opinion, is chump change. I
can't imagine why anybody would vote to reward someone for such
flagrant violations of the law. It makes no sense to me. But I think
I'm going to be outvoted here.
I just want to put this in perspective so that we understand what
is really going on. You get a permit, you mine it until you get tired of
mining it, you mine beyond what the law requires or permits, then
you get an excuse for doing that, and now you build expensive homes
around a wonderful big lake that you've created, and you try to
pretend that $120,000 is going to make it all up? I'm not buying it.
MR. WHITE: I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman, whether you want
me to try to respond to some of Commissioner Coyle's comments and
questions or not, but if you would, I'd be happy to try to address
them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WHITE: I don't know the answers, obviously, as to how
much or dollars of profit, but I understand your point, and I can assure
you that in stark terms, through my discussion, not so much with the
landowners but with the excavator, we've had a -- an understanding.
And if you need him to appear before you, he can make those
statements on the record.
But suffice it to say that one of the reasons that the county itself
revised its regulations is, in fact, to reflect more current practices
where there's a tighter cycle of on-site inspections.
And so my point earlier was that, have we taken the steps that
are appropriate to ensure that this does not happen again and to
balance, not so much rewarding the individual whose done this, but
rather to not penalize the landowners who arguably aren't in the
business of mining or monitoring the permit and its activity.
One of the two permits that you mentioned did, in fact, expire.
Page 82
February 28, 2006
The other has, essentially, an infinite life, but it's admitted quite
openly today before you that there was an excess amount of
excavation that, in fact, your staff may tell you is higher than the
percentage that you mentioned.
And in looking as to the variance, although it will cure the
regulatory problem with the percentage limit, it does not authorize the
actual use which the conditional use does. And your staffhas, I
think, protected the board very carefully by making sure that the
variance is conditioned upon the conditional use, to some extent, and
the conditional use is conditioned upon approval of the variance.
So you have a set of interlocking board approvals that I think are
intended to act in concert to ensure that nothing like this could ever
occur agaIn.
And I'll just sum up by saying that to the extent that it has
occurred, in my direct one-on-one conversations, it's been made very
clear on how we're going to proceed as part of the excavation permit
so that there'll be significant milestones to ensure that there will be a
remediation of the site before there's any removal of fill from the site
so that all of the activities will be directed towards bringing this into
compliance for what ultimately will be the plat request before any
further profit-making venture is possible.
So I hope that will, at least in part, answer your questions and
concerns.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, actually, the executive
summary that we received says that the two permits -- the first one
was to expire on August 29, 2002, and the other expiration date was
for March 10, 2002. So I see nothing in this executive summary that
indicates that either permit had essentially endless life or no
expiration date.
MR. WHITE: I'd simply ask -- and I haven't had the time to
investigate those details. But my statement to you is based upon your
staffs comment to me. And when they're before you, perhaps, they'll
Page 83
February 28, 2006
be able to give you an update. It's possible the executive summary
may not be correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Stan, could you
come up for a moment, please, for a moment?
MR. WHITE: Are you done with us?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there may be some other
questions later.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This issue of the permit and
being in violation of it, could you address that as to how this all
comes together?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. Stan Chrzanowski with
Engineering Review.
The petitioner had two permits, one -- because at the time we
had a limit on the amount of yardage -- on the amount of acreage you
could dig in excavation on the Estates, but we didn't really address
the fact that you could buy two contiguous 20-acre parcels and dig on
both of them right next to each other.
The earlier permit was a normal excavation permit. It just gets
renewed year to year. It expires, but you can renew it every year. If I
could put something on the visualizer.
I don't know how well you remember what you saw last week of
the limits of his excavation, but if you look at the bottom left-hand
corner just under that arrow that disappeared out of sight, you'll see
the appraiser's date on that aerial photograph is 2002. I keep hearing
that he's done all kind of work since 2002, but that's roughly the
limits of the excavation that have been out there for the last three or
four years.
That little lake in the middle is a dewatering area, and the other
two lakes were the two excavation permits that he got carried away
with. The one, the earlier permit, the first one, like I say, is
Page 84
February 28, 2006
renewable year to year. But then we added something putting a
lifetime on permits in the Estates because we wanted them to finish
them up. We didn't want them running forever.
There's a lot of history. I guess I'll wait till I make my
presentation before I keep talking. Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not through, if I may.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, if you'd be so kind,
I'd like to have you put the first photo up I gave you. And you've just
seen the one from 2003. This is 2005 from the web -- I got this right
off the -- last night off the appraiser's website.
There's a slight difference in the whole lake configuration, but
it's very slight. Over in the biggest lake there, down in the lower
left-hand corner, there were some little sand islands in there that are
removed. I kept going back and forth, back and forth looking for a
difference, and I wasted a lot of time. Other than that, there was
none. But I'm glad you got to see the picture before.
Would you go to the next picture, please?
Now, these pictures here, it's quite -- what's amazing about this
is it was taken with my camera phone, and I never thought they'd
come out quite as clear as this. Here you can see one of those
dividers in the lake that's in there.
Go to the next one, Mr. Mudd. That's a little clearer.
Now, here's a better view of it, and you can see the divider going
across, and you're looking at the waterways on each end. Now, I'll
tell you the way I look at this, that if we kept it the way it was and
we left these dividers in the lake as is, what's going to happen,
eventually they're going to grow -- be overgrown with exotics, the
Brazilian pepper, and they're going to be a distraction for what it is.
Would you go to the next picture, please?
What you're looking at is a view from a property where they're
building a house that's not on the lake but it's a lake view that the
Page 85
February 28, 2006
people that are around the lake will be able to enjoy as time goes
along. And this is one of my concerns is the fact that if we ever allow
them to dig this lake out shore to shore, this is one of the concerns
the civic association had, and they addressed it in master plans in the
past, was that if you don't have homesites on these lakes, who's going
to take care of them? What reason would they want to take care of
them to maintain the beauty of them to be able to keep the exotics off,
to keep the brush cleared, and to be able to make sure the fences are
maintained in an orderly fashion?
And that's why the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association and
the master plan had supported that each lot, where they did
excavation, there had to be a site, even some of the smaller sites, but
at least one home to be able to be in place.
And I don't want us to ever get to the point where we say, go
ahead and do it border to border, because what you're going to leave
is a large lake, and who's going to maintain it in the future?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The property owner; he owns the lake.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, good luck, kid. Who's
going to come and maintain a lake if there isn't a property on it, if
they don't have a house on it? I don't think they will.
Go to the next picture, please.
This is a view, too, of the fence that they have to maintain.
Now, I think that's part of the code. And I assume that when this is
done, they'll have to still maintain a fence because a lake probably of
this nature would be an attractive nuisance for young kids in the
neighborhood.
Go back to the first picture, the one showing the waterways and
all that.
Now, there's a couple of things that we've got to realize, the plus
points of lakes of this magnitude. One, where you've got lakes, you
don't have houses. This takes the place of numerous houses.
Also, this has a -- this is a vessel to be able to contain a lot of the
Page 86
February 28, 2006
runoff from the north and also hold it. And I -- correct me if I'm
wrong on this, Stan, but I believe that if the sand holding water -- and
if you just have a water -- body of water, it's 40 times the volume as
it would be in sand; is that what it is?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Maybe 40 percent more. Sand, I might
guess, has a void ratio of about maybe a third. So a third of the
volume of totally saturated sand would be water. So if you take that,
you've maybe got three times as much, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To be able to help with the
Tamiami Aquifer and everything, it's better to have lakes of a
magnitude of enough capacity to be able to hold the water and release
it slowly?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's more recharges. It's why we make
people build lakes, so that you hold the water on site and release it
slowly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's one of the reasons
why I think they're heading in the right direction with it. I can see
this as a plus to be able to remove the berms. I definitely see it as a
plus to remain the -- keep the remaining house sites where they are.
Am I concerned about the profit motive? You bet. I'm
concerned in the fact that if they're not making a profit, what are they
up to?
You know, I'll be honest with you, if there isn't a profit motive
when you're dealing with land uses, then they're up to something, or
they're telling you something less than the truth. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks. The whole issue about
the affordable housing question, Commissioner Coletta, correct me if
I'm wrong, I think it's pretty much a standard question, what are you
going to do about affordable housing? And in this case, I don't
remember your questioning as part of the fine for --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I --
Page 87
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As part of the variance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm kind of lost with the
fine notion. You know, I hate to put guilt, you know, unless Stan can
show us where they did something wrong, on them. If they're
making a donation of this magnitude -- I mean, I don't know of
anyone that's ever come across with $10,000 per unit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: They violated the law.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that was -- when
Commissioner Coletta brought it up -- that's the point -- it had nothing
to do with the violation or the variance. It kind of had to do with the
houses that were going to be put on there, just like anybody else
who's going to put housing on it, you always ask, okay, what are you
going to do about affordable housing?
And the resolution is what Mr. White said. So the biggest point
about the conditional use is, Mr. Stan Chrzanowski stated is, how do
you fix it? And I think the conditional use of what you're
recommending is how to fix the problem with it.
And I just -- we're really stuck on the action that we did last
meeting, and this is -- this is an action of a conditional use, of fixing
a problem. So I hope that we can get beyond that and deal with the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hope so, too; I do, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the conditional use instead of
the variance.
MR. WHITE: I misstated earlier when I said there were 16
parcels. There may be 16 parcels, but there was the possibility, I
believe, that 20 single-family homes could have been built. We're
reducing that 40 percent down to 12.
And if you want to, look at that voluntary contribution we're
prepared to make in light of prior residential unit contributions from
other folks, and that being just roughly a thousand dollars per unit.
I think you could -- and I'm saying this is the case with us, but
you could look at it and say that nine-tenths of what we're bringing
Page 88
February 28, 2006
forward today is arguably in the nature of, perhaps -- I don't want to
call it restitution or a fine, because there, you know, has been no
finding of violation per se, but I think you could see it in that
proportion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have a presentation by staff?
Any other questions before we go to staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please proceed.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Good afternoon. My name is Mike DeRuntz.
I'm a Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land
Development Review.
This application is for a conditional use permit for earth mining,
which is a -- is identified as a conditional use in the Estates-zoned
district.
There were no -- there was not a meeting with the EAC. There
was a meeting with neighborhood -- a neighborhood information
meeting that was held on September 21, 2004. At that time there
were no comments or objections that was voiced, but later we -- the
staff did receive a petition identifying objections such as traffic,
noise, unsightliness, reducing the water table by this excavation.
This map that is on the visualizer is the location of those
addresses of the petitioners. You can see each of them are on 54th
Avenue and -- that's Northeast.
And the planning commission took this quite seriously in their
deliberations of both the variance and the conditional use permit.
And in their action of recommending approval for this conditional
use, there was 11 items they added to what staff had recommended.
To help with this ameliorating effect of this conditional use, we
recommended, as number two, a buffer, type D buffer, separation
from right-of-way to the excavation of 50 feet.
But the planning commission also incorporated an item which
was a time certain item for number 10, which stated that this
Page 89
February 28, 2006
conditional use approval shall expire 14 months from the approval
date of this petition by the Board Of Zoning Appeals. So there was a
time certain for this so that this would not linger on as the
excavations -- as the two previous excavation permits that had
occurred.
They can come back and request an extension, but that would
come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals, and it would be up to
your approval.
And number 11 specifically stated that there'd be a limitation on
the time and duration for that excavation that can occur at that
location, and they were limiting any use of 54th Avenue Northeast to
any truck traffic. Currently all the traffic from this excavation is
using 56th Avenue.
The staff is -- found that this is compatible to the adjoining
properties, and we felt there was several items that -- the engineering
staff had identified how this lake would be actually a benefit in that
area, and staff and the planning commission tried to identify
significant conditions to make this conditional use compatible with
the surrounding properties. If there's any questions, I'll be glad to
address those.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle has one for you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You just said that the current truck
traffic from this excavation project was using 56th Avenue Northeast.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why?
MR. DeRUNTZ: That is their main entrance. They do have a
berm --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, no, wait a minute, wait a
minute. The statement was just said earlier that they really haven't
been doing anything out there since 2002. Now, why is there truck
traffic?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, when they had excavation they were
Page 90
February 28, 2006
using 56th Avenue N orthest.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When they had?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's no trucks then leaving
there now, is that --
MR. DeRUNTZ: I'm not aware of that, sir. I haven't been out
there recently. But there is a berm across the front of the subject
property on 54th Avenue, so the trucks can't leave that -- by that
route.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm just trying to get at the
issue of --
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- of the fact that they are, in fact,
doing something out there. And they said last time before us they
were doing something out there even now. And so the idea that there
has been no activity out there since 2002 is simply not true.
MR. DeRUNTZ: You're correct, sir. The excavator did state
that on the record at the last meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, one final question I'd like to
clarify. In the executive summary before it is stated that the Collier
County Engineering Department has been attempting to bring these
excavation permits into compliance over the past three years.
Would you please tell us what actions you have actually taken or
attempted over the past three years to bring this into compliance and
why you are unable to do it?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, I hope so. First thing we did
was we told the excavator that he was -- when we found that he was
in violation, we told him that he was in violation. But at the time
since the violation was an over excavation of area, we didn't think he
should fill it back in. I still don't think that's a good idea.
What we did was we sent him to code enforcement. And I know
Patrick said there was one code enforcement case, but there still is an
Page 91
February 28, 2006
open code enforcement case awaiting the resolution of this issue with
John Marsh.
And when we turned him in on the code enforcement case, we
tried finding a reasonable solution. The solutions was that he come
back in for an addition conditional use and then -- for the entire site
and to subdivide the site, and then come back in for another
excavation permit.
Well, our standard procedure involves pre-applications. And at
the pre-application, people from different staff departments bring up
different issues. It took them a while to resolve some of these issues.
People trying to get through the system will find it takes eight
months to a year. People -- we have -- we're a bureaucracy. It takes a
long time to get some items through our procedures. They have been
less than diligent in pursuing this.
And if -- I didn't exactly say they weren't doing anything. If you
look at the two photographs, you'll see some small differences. They
had -- we told them that the most important thing was to get the lake
banks dressed up because we considered that to be a physical hazard.
They were out there dressing up the lake banks.
And like Commissioner Coletta says, if you look you'll see some
mounds of earth were removed. There's been stuff moved around.
There were a couple of house pads created and filled in that
weren't there before. But we don't consider that -- that's work, but we
don't consider that the off-site hauling of massive amounts of fill
down -- I think he actually brought some fill into this site, or rocks or
whatever, and buried them to bring the thing up, which is really the
best way to do it when you're dealing with water.
It's -- we've been working with him for a few years, and it's just
taken us a long time to get this far.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I were building a house and you
found that I was not in compliance, I'd probably be red tagged by
code enforcement, wouldn't I?
Page 92
February 28, 2006
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, you would.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nobody red tagged this project,
did they?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We did shut him down a couple of
times, but then we let him go because he was restoring the bank.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If I could make a short presentation. I
made a long presentation last time. Just three things I'd like you to
remember.
This is a very large lake. It will be when the berms are removed.
The berms should be removed. There should be no berm down the
middle of that lake. That's just not a good idea.
Filling the lake in is not a good idea either. It's a waste of fill.
We have a very nice large lake here. It doesn't really make any sense
to make it any smaller.
And as far as the issue of the size of the lakes goes,
Commissioner Coletta is right, when this item -- when we first started
allowing people to dig out in the Estates, dig lakes in their back
yards, the argument was, fill at that time was worth more than the
lakes -- than the land was worth, and the argument was, we didn't
want people digging out a lake and then leaving a parcel and nobody
maintaining it. So the board said, you have to have a house lot on the
parcel.
Now, there is nothing wrong with digging a lake from setback to
setback. We do it all the time as a county, and we do it because we
need the fill and we need the retention area for different proj ects that
we have.
There is some talk about going into the Estates, buying lots and
digging them out, setback to setback for retention. We'd also get
some of the fill. There's just been talk about this.
And the reason that wouldn't be a bad idea is because the county
would be there to maintain the lake when it's done. But in this case,
Page 93
February 28, 2006
you have homeowners living around this lake. From an engineering
point of view, the best thing to do is bring the lake into conformance
with code and sell off the lots around the lake to homeowners that are
going to maintain it.
That's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one -- couple of questions before
I turn this back over to Commissioner Coletta or -- yeah, Coletta, and
that was some of the items that Commissioner Coyle brought up.
I find it difficult or somewhat hard to understand that somebody
that is in violation, that it takes us four years or so to finally get some
type of restitution on this.
And I -- I have -- it's very difficult for me to understand why it
takes us so long to get the parties involved and make sure that they're
back in compliance. It just boggles my mind.
And whether we have, as you said, some sort of a bureaucracy, I
would think that they have a commitment. They have a responsibility
to make sure if they're out of compliance, getting in compliance.
And I don't believe that filling the lake in is the way to do it, but I
think that we need to have some way of making sure that if
somebody is out of compliance and tearing up the environment, that
we should be -- some way or another, that we should have something
available to us that we can address this particular problem. I just find
it very difficult.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I think what we're
finding here is that -- I'm sorry. Were you through your presentation,
sir?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. I'm just standing here --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just standing there waiting to
see what happens.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- to see if there's any questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, I think what we
Page 94
February 28, 2006
have here is, we have circumstances that are prevailing that we should
have taken care of before. If it's the land development code that's
wrong, then we need to change it so these things can be addressed in
the future.
Meanwhile, we've got something that's extremely lax. Who do
you blame? Staff? Do you blame our LDC? Do you blame the
commission for not being a little more forthright in making sure
these things are right? Or do you blame the developer that's out there
digging the lake within the guidelines that he's receiving from staff?
And you heard what staff had to say.
What I'm going to submit --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we didn't give him guidelines to
dig over that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the thing was is that there's
no mechanism in place to be able to see -- to be able to follow this
thing on a day-to-day basis, and they're still allowed to proceed. I
guess the whole thing is written loose as anything.
Now, let's look at what logic has to say here. We're dealing with
a situation, one, we need fill. That's secondary. There's fill out there
in different other places, too.
Two, we've got an unsightly situation that's not going to go
away. If this isn't corrected and they leave -- and I'm sure they've
made enough money off it that they could probably pull off and they
could still build the houses there. There's nothing to restrict them
from that. Those houses there -- am I right? You can still build the
houses on those lots?
MR. DeRUNTZ: The home pads would have to be created to
meet the minimum standard of the land development code.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. But I mean, they
wouldn't have to come back to this commission and say, please, can I
build these houses. They can build them one per lot line that's there.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
Page 95
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So that's not an issue, whether
they build the houses. But they can go ahead and just leave
everything with the new people that are moving in there and stick
them with what the lake's going to look like. I doubt you're going to
find somebody coming in there to move out those middle islands.
I'm telling you from the people that live out there and from what
the master plan said and the civic association in the past, the very best
thing to do is to go ahead and approve this and accept that $120,000
as their just due for what they did. That's a lot of money, $120,000 to
go to affordable housing, and they're doing it voluntarily. That sort
of balances the books both ways, you know.
They're admitting the fact that things could be done better, but I
think it's our responsibility to make it happen better in the future.
And to that -- with that end then, just to get this whole process
moving, I'm going to make a motion for approval. I just don't know
how to handle some of the items that have to do from the planning
commission, whether -- I believe they were all acceptable. And I'm
not too sure how you address the item with the donation that's being
made. If someone could help me with that.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Excuse me. I've been asked to remind
you one last time that when we found this violation, we had just
started our enforcement program on lakes. Before then we didn't
have a methodical, systematic approach. We went back through
aerial photographs, and then later through the lidar topography. We
found some violations, and we've been trying to get them up to date
ever since then.
We have 950 excavation permits in this county, and probably 3-
or 4,000 lakes covered under those permits. We had six violators.
This is the second to the last one. We have one more to go, and he's
been in the system, I would guess, 18 months, and I really don't know
why it's taken him so long, other than our system is complex. You
know, condition --
Page 96
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record again, Joe Schmitt. That other
petition also involves some land use elements around it and a final
plat. That's Miller, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I finish the motion? I'd
like to give it a try.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Excuse me. To assist you in that request, we
could add that as one of the conditions, condition number 12, that
$10,000 donation per lot be incorporated, and I think Patrick had the
language as far as the timing on that that he wanted to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, yeah. Let's -- I'm going
to have to refer back to Commissioner Henning on it, because he's in
agreement that there's no problem accepting a donation, but I don't
know how he feels about it being entered in, and I want to make sure
that if this motion's going to go forward, it's got a reasonable chance
and it's worded in a way that I give comfort to my fellow
commISSIoners.
MR. BAKER: Commissioner Coletta, Denny Baker, for the
record. I've spoken to the clerk's office. They can accept a donation,
even though we don't have the program in place. They can accept a
donation, put it into a holding account until the program is in place, at
which point -- it would be approved by the board, at which point it
would be disbursed according to whatever the agreement in the
program asks for.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to defer to
Commissioner Henning on that last part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, Mr. Baker, I
think, said it correctly that -- yeah, it would be held at the Clerk of
Court until we figure out how the program is going to work.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I'll make that part
of my motion.
Page 97
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'm second your motion if--
the problem I have, I think the donation is in order. I think that's the
right thing to do, but when they were saying that they were going to
take these donations at the time they were ready to build these homes
-- I forget the wording -- not with CO, but when they were getting
the permits, that means that they're going to work that into the price
of the house so somebody else is going to be paying the fine for
them, and they're the ones that were at fault. If you put the fine up
front, now I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll sorry. Put the--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The $120,000, that's what they plan
on donating to us. And if we get that up front to put into this account,
then I would second your motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you have something to say
before I say anything?
MR. WHITE: No, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle's over here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I make -- I -- well,
I just have to finish the motion, I'm sorry. Okay. Then that's included
into my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I'll second it.
MR. WHITE: And all I'm looking for, so I can advise my
clients, because I'm sure the first question they're going to ask me is,
when are they required to make that payment, and we either need an
event -- and I'd suggested before that when the platting--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about walking out the door?
MR. WHITE: Let me suggest this.
MR. MUDD: Does 1 June sound okay?
MR. WHITE: Well, let me make a suggestion. They have to
come in and get an excavation permit. And would some definite
period of time after that permit is approved be appropriate?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, yeah, because, I mean,
Page 98
February 28, 2006
nothing's going to happen, and you want to go and you want to
excavate. I would say probably within 30 days. Does that sound like
that's realistic? Because it's got to be a short --
MR. WHITE: That's acceptable.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because they wouldn't be going
through all this. Because they've got a small window of time to work
with. They're not going to waste any time, that's for sure.
MR. WHITE: Thirty days after excavation permit approval is
something I think that, between the staff and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. WHITE: -- our firm, we will make sure that that takes
place.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That's fine with me, for
the motion maker and second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, uh-huh. I'm nodding, but you
can't see me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. I believe then the
county attorney had something to state, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. What I had to say won't
take long. It's primarily to the staff. You've been struggling to
explain why it took so long, and, in fact, trying to take some blame
for this. You know, when somebody runs a traffic light, you don't
blame the policeman for it. It's not your fault. It is the responsibility
of the person who's doing the job.
I'm unhappy that it took so long for us to get to the point of
getting it resolved or inspected, but that doesn't make you responsible
for the violation. The responsibility for the violation lies clearly with
the person doing the excavating and the landowner. They have those
responsibilities. They should know what the laws are and they
should abide by them. I just wanted to clear that point up.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did the county attorney have something
Page 99
February 28, 2006
to say?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: No, sir. Thank you for
recognizing me though.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do have a question for the
county attorney. Since we don't have an ordinance on the boards --
Board of Commissioners fine -- that's what I'm hearing, this is a fine.
I know that code enforcement and contractor licensing takes care of
those fines. Are we in legal compliance?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think this is being -- I've heard
that term discussed, but I think -- and Mr. Weigel may wish to weigh
in -- that this is a voluntary contribution for affordable housing
purposes.
MR. WHITE: And that is, indeed, the case.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I just get confused when
we say fines.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was never in the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I said it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it was. It was in the second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was in the second, but I can
change -- I'll change my -- that wording from fines to voluntary
contribution.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have any --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then the next question,
Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- if I may follow up on that, if
we put a time line on these donations, it's still a donation? Is my
assumption correct?
Page 100
February 28, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: Your assumption is correct.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's interesting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any public speakers on
this item?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So we'll close the public hearing
then.
Any other further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Just to remind you of the
fact that the only thing that will change is the berms wouldn't get
removed out of the middle if we decide to vote against this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you be so kind as to restate your
motion or bring your motion up so that we've got a good record of
this, because I think we've made a couple of changes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'll be more than happy
to. I think I can recall the whole thing totally.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- my motion is to support
what staff recommendations are, what the planning commission has
included in here, and the fact that the petitioner will make a voluntary
donation to the affordable -- what is that, the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Housing land trust fund, is it?
MR. MUDD: Trust fund, yes, that's right.
MR. BAKER: Trust fund.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- within 30 days of the time he
receives his permit to proceed with excavation.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The amount? I think you need to
state the amount.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, 120,000.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Or 10,000 per lot?
Page 101
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think -- yeah. I think
the total amount is sufficient rather than dealing with the amount per
increment, because, I mean, just so we're there, 120,000.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, but if -- and just if, as Mr. White
mentioned before, the density on these lots could be higher than the
12 lots that they're--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I rephrase that to
say 120,000 for 12,000 -- for 12 houses or a--
MR. MUDD: $10,000 per lot.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- $10,000 per lot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Your second agrees.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because that last change changes
the motion. That last change in the motion essentially says you can
build more than 12 unit as long as you give another $10,000 for each
unit.
MR. DeRUNTZ: I would like to assist on that. When it's
subdivided, it's going to have to meet the Estates lot area
requirements, and that's two-and-a-half acres per lot out there, and so
you won't get that total of 20 lots. You'll be looking at 12.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we included in the motion--
MR. DeRUNTZ: But that -- his mention was the way it was
platted previously, it could have been that amount. But when you re-
subdivide this property to what the conceptual site plan where each
homesite was 150 by 150, the yield, in still meeting the lot area
requirement, you would have 12 lots.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand Commissioner
Coyle's concern on this, because what's to say they couldn't fill in
another part there, and the next thing you know, we have a lake that's
surrounded by houses.
Page 102
February 28, 2006
So I'm going to limit it to 12 houses and $120,000. They can't
have a problem with that, because we've been using the number 12
consistently, and we won't have any inconsistency in finding out that
all of a sudden we have 20 houses with seven-and-a-half foot between
them from the lot line to lot line.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which was really -- when you said
and all of the conditions, that's one of the conditions from planning
commISSIon.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, it is. That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's number nine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So that's number nine.
It's already covered.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was part of the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Attorney?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. That's what I was
going to put on the record, was condition number nine limits it to 12.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much, Donna
and County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So the end result is that we're
going to come up with this and that the only -- the only thing we're
doing here is a slap on the hand by us as long as this person comes
forward with $120,000; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's basically it, and they do
all the corrective work to approve the aesthetics of the area.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are we clear on the motion?
Okay. And the second? Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do have another question. Are
they going to be permitted to continue excavating for any purpose
other than filling in the pads?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So they can continue excavating
Page 103
February 28, 2006
and selling gravel, right?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And taking -- yeah. That's to take out
the center portion of the berm.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Get clarification to that,
because my understanding is, they've still got some to bring the lake
down to the right depth, because you've got a shallow area on one
side there.
MR. WHITE: Correct. And the commitment and our expect --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: On top of what they've already taken
out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You bet.
MR. WHITE: Our commitment and the expectation of what the
excavation permit is going to require is that there will be restoration
to what is shown in the conceptual site plan. In other words, we'll be
recreating the lake, refilling portions of it, so that it will be able to
comply with what you saw as the conceptual site plan and that no fill
will be removed until that is done.
If there's some excess, then this would authorize its removal.
But essentially it would have to come into compliance with the
regulations and the conditions this board would impose.
And I think that that's a key thing in terms of code enforcement.
I know when I had the privilege to serve you, that the primary policy
objective was to gain compliance, and that's what I've sought to do
here with this particular project is to get it into compliance and keep it
there so that there's a strong message sent to the community.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But the question that -- one of the things
that was brought up were, that we're not going to force the individual
to fill the lake in. Now you're telling us that you're going to fill
portions of the lake in.
MR. WHITE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If you look at the conceptual
site plan, some of the area that has been excavated, in order to come
Page 104
February 28, 2006
into compliance, will require that it be backfilled and that the slopes
be stabilized.
It is not a tremendous amount, but it is some small amount in
various places. And I'd be happy to, you know, give you the detail on
it if it's going to assist you in making your decision. But they're not
going to be doing it in a way that is going to increase beyond the 12
units.
So they're just going to bring it into compliance, and I think
that's the key thing here, is to ensure that there's compliance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But just for my own satisfaction--
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- you said there's one area of the lake
that's shallow, so they are going to continue to dig that, then take out
the strip in the middle --
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- okay? And then some of the fill,
obviously, where you've got the contour line drawn around here,
that's going to be area that you're going to backfill.
MR. WHITE: That is correct. That's my understanding.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. To make sure that the slope is
correct?
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So -- but you are going to end up
digging even more out of the lake for resale?
MR. WHITE: I don't know how much. I think that that may be
something that you, perhaps, would ask your staff about.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we're asking you because you're
the one that's representing the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was there, and I might be able
to help you with it. There's a big area of the lake there that they use
for water retention that's shallow. It has no value at the depth it's at
now. It would be a nuisance more than anything else. It's only a
Page 105
February 28, 2006
matter of feet deep.
And if you were to allow the whole thing just to stop at that
point and not bring it down to the depth that you need, not only are
you losing a valuable resource, but you're not going to have the lake
that you're looking for in the end that will be aesthetically pleasing.
The line that goes around the outside of the lake is where the
actual shoreline will actually end up being to be able to give a balance
to it. And the littoral that was planted on the edge and the slope to it
will be able to support the wildlife and the fish life that will go into it.
Ifhe stops now, it's a disaster. It's an absolute disaster that I am
sure the neighbors in that area will not support, and still they can sell
the house lots.
MR. WHITE: I think if you look at the visualizer graphic -- I
don't know if you can see, but there's a darker bold line, and those are
the contours of the proposed total 25-plus-acre lake.
And as Commissioner Coletta indicated, an approximately
1.7 -acre portion of that will be a littoral planting zone, which is now
the new requirements that are imposed.
So our objective here was to address the concerns the board
raised about the excess excavation, to address the concerns about
affordable housing, and to assure this board that there would be
compliance henceforth.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I believe we've got guidance on
the motion. We've got that pretty well straightened out. I'll call the
question.
All those in favor of this, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, like sign?
Page 106
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. Okay. Motion, I believe, fails.
We need a 4-1 vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The only thing I'd like to add is,
now try to figure out what you're going to do to be able to remove an
eyesore from the community.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's easy. It's in violation. Send
code enforcement out there. They'll get it straightened out.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is item 8A. I've also been told that for item number 8B, there
is a -- one of the petitioners has to leave by 2:30, and it's at the
board's pleasure which item you want to do first, 8A or 8B or try to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's go with 8B for the one that the--
yeah.
Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2006-48: PUDEX-2005-AR-8382 CLEVELAND
CLINIC FLORIDA REQUESTING A 2 YEAR EXTENSION OF
THE ASTRON PLAZA PUD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: 8B. This item was continued from the January
24, 2006, BCC meeting. This item requires that all participants be
sworn and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDEX-2005-AR-8382, Cleveland Clinic, Florida,
represented by Jeffrey Nunner, P.E., of Nunner Group, LLC, is
requesting the second two-year extension of the Astron Plaza PUD in
accordance with land development code section 10.02.13.D.5(a).
The subject property consists of 8.56 acres, is located on the
south side of Pine Ridge Road and the north side of 10th Street
Southwest in Section 17, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, Collier
Page 107
February 28, 2006
County, Florida.
And oh, by the way, Commissioner Henning did make a
correction this morning. It's 1 Oth Avenue; is that correct, sir,
Southwest?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Every time I go home I know it
.
IS.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those that are going to be
speaking on behalf of this item that's before the Board of County
Commissioners, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bruce--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hold on. We've got to have ex parte by
the Board of County Commissioners, starting with Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Since we've heard this before,
everything that was revealed the last time is hereby revealed again,
and I also have an email in the file if anyone wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I had -- I received email
from Mark Teeters, and I made two phone calls to him before and
after the last time we heard it. I also talked to staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Myself--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm sorry, forgive me.
Also I talked to -- I talked to Mr. Anderson about it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I received emails, and I've met
with Mr. Anderson on this item, and I've also talked with staff, so
that's my disclosure.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I have some emails here that
I've received, and I believe I spoke briefly to Mr. Anderson about
Page 108
February 28, 2006
this, and I can't remember, I might have even spoken with Jeff
Nunner but I don't remember if I did or didn't. Did I?
MR. NUNNER: Not this go around.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I didn't. Okay. Another
subject, sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Please present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had -- excuse me, Mr.
Anderson.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- I spoke to Jeffrey
Nunner on this item, and the emails are the same as they were before.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please proceed.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson, from
the Roetzel and Andress law firm on behalf of the Cleveland Clinic.
Here with me today is William Peacock. Mr. Peacock is the
Executive Director of Facilities and Construction for the Cleveland
Clinic, and he's retired military with 24 years as a Navy engineer.
Also here with me is Mike Masty, who is the president of Collier
Regional Medical Center, which recently entered into a contract to
purchase the Cleveland Clinic Hospital facility on the north side of
Pine Ridge Road, and also, of course, with me is JeffNunner, our
local engineer.
The future plans for the Astron Plaza PUD property, which is
owned by the Cleveland Clinic, are in a state of flux right now, and
that's because of HMA's recent purchase of the main campus of the
Cleveland Clinic Naples. This eight-and-a-half-acre property was
originally purchased by Cleveland Clinic with plans to eventually
move doctors' offices there from their main campus building and
build other support uses.
HMA is interested in this PUD property for potentially the same
use that the Cleveland Clinic had planned, but they are still in a
Page 109
February 28, 2006
decision-making progress on whether to purchase this PUD property
or not.
The staff report does find that this PUD, which is next to 1-75
and is in an activity -- an interstate activity center, where a full array
of commercial uses are permitted, is consistent with the growth
management plan, which is the first criteria for a PUD extension
request.
The PUD has a building height limitation of up to 60 feet, but
anything taller than three stories and the required building setback
from 10th Avenue Southwest more than doubles. It jumps from 50
feet to 125 feet. So there is a built-in incentive to stay at three stories.
Your staff also finds that this increased building setback
requirement and the permitted land uses remain compatible with the
surrounding area, and that satisfies your second criteria for PUD
extension.
Your staff report finds that the third and last criteria, whether the
PUD would place an unreasonable burden on public facilities, has
been met and that the PUD does not place such a burdening, largely
because of the widening of Pine Ridge Road.
Based on the facts that this PUD does meet your criteria for
approval of its last and final extension, we would respectfully request
that you approve this extension application for their final and last
extension for two years to allow the new purchaser of the main
campus to figure out if they want to incorporate it in their plans for
this new hospital that they acquired.
And we're -- any of us are available to answer your questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If there's no further questions--
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, excuse me. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Anderson, would you
go over that height limitation, the three stories thing, one more time?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
Page 110
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're -- currently with the most
recent extension that has expired you can go up to 60 feet. Now what
is it, your intent to really do, stay at three stories and well below 60
feet, or is it to try to get to 60 feet?
MR. ANDERSON: They don't know. All-- my point was
simply that the -- although the PUD allows 60 feet, there is a penalty
built in for going over three stories, that is, your building setback
from 1 Oth Avenue increases.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: And my point being that there's a
disincentive to go more than three stories, even though it's allowed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there's no height attached to the
three stories? It could be actually three stories and 60 feet tall?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, yeah, the way this PUD is written. I
mean, if there were architectural features that extended another few
stories, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was my question. You can
take me off.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So you're saying that if you go beyond
60 feet, is what you're saying then? It doesn't worry about the three
stories. Normally three stories is anywhere from 10 to 12 feet high
per story.
MR. ANDERSON: Right, right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So -- but you're still saying if
you -- if we make a motion of three stories, then you're looking at
three stories being 60 feet in height.
MR. ANDERSON: No, no, no, no, no. That was Commissioner
Coyle's comment. My point is simply that the PUD allows 60 feet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right.
MR. ANDERSON: We did that -- the client would like to keep
that, to have that option to figure out if they want to use the property
Page 111
February 28, 2006
for medical offices and keep the building farther away from 1-75
when it gets widened, and the PUD provides that any building taller
than three stories has to have a greater setback.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And what are we going to define three
stories at as far as height so that we fall in the guidelines of the
setback? That's my question. Is the 60 feet actually three stories, in
your terminology, or is -- after 60 feet, do the setbacks increase?
MR. ANDERSON: No, they can't go more than 60 feet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: In height?
MR. ANDERSON: In height, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And what's the setbacks?
MR. ANDERSON: The setbacks for anything greater than three
stories is 125 feet from the right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So are we saying then the 60 feet entails
that if they go to 60 feet, they have to have a -- a setback of 125 feet?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, from the residential street.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's my question.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's my question.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just to remind you that the
EOC is, what, 100 feet tall, and it's three stories. So, you know, I
think it's good that we nail down what three stories really means.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions? Staff
presentation?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can I ask one question real quick,
because I'm trying -- because I asked a question of Leo, and he didn't
know it either.
And I want to make sure Bruce got this correct. There's been
some -- there's been some dialogue, at least I've been reading in the
paper -- I don't believe everything I read in the paper, but I at least
read it -- that's talking about parking underneath the building.
Page 112
February 28, 2006
Would -- if there was a parking level underneath this three-story
building, would that be included as a story or would it be parking
with three stories above parking? Just trying to protect the
neighborhood on 1 Oth Avenue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's three stories above
parking, but the parking would be included in the height measurement
of 60 feet.
MR. MUDD: So in that particular case, they could be 50 feet
away --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Four-story building.
MR. MUDD: -- from the road, and they can increase the usage
on that particular property because the parking's underneath the
building.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Building.
MR. ANDERSON: We would be willing to state as a matter on
the record that their understanding of a story is 10 to 12 feet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. But again, as the question was
brought up, is the actual building height measured after the parking
garage, or is the building height or the stories measured at ground
level?
Maybe staff can help us out on this.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay
Deselem. I will attempt to address your questions. The PUD is silent
on the issue, so if there is, in fact, parking underneath, then that
would be counted as a story.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: And the limitation of extra setback is tied to
number of stories, not number of feet. So if it's anything above three
stories, there's an increased setback.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that's including the parking garage.
We want to make that very clear.
Page 113
February 28, 2006
MS. DESELEM: It could be, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is it or could be?
MS. DESELEM: If there is one, yes, it would include it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All right.
MS. DESELEM: And I would also mention that since this is
just a PUD extension, it's not an amendment. We are precluded from
adding any conditions or stipulations to it because that would then
constitute an amendment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, if we -- if we don't have any
control over that at this point in time, then how are we going to
control whatever the height is and the discussion that we've been
going through? We really don't have any control over it; is that
correct?
MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding is you have the PUD
as it currently exists, and before you now is a decision as to whether
to extend that or not to extend that. If you were to not extend it, they
would be required to either amend it or rezone it to something else.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Kay, you said --
MR. KLATZKOW: You could require them to amend the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. KLATZKOW: You could require them to amend the PUD
and get this issue resolved in that mechanism.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: On the extension? I'm sorry.
MR. KLATZKOW: Your choice is to grant the extension or
require them to amend the PUD. If they come in for a PUD
amendment, this issue can get hammered out to your satisfaction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, right, if we extend it. If
you sunset it, how can you amend a PUD, because we sunset it? Isn't
there no longer a PUD?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. What I'm saying is, instead of
Page 114
February 28, 2006
sunsetting --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know. It's what Ms. Deselem
said, and I understood, if we deny it, they could come in for a PUD
amendment.
MS. DESELEM: If I may. It remains zoned PUD. You're not
taking away their zoning, so it stays PUD. So they do have the option
to amend that PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why do we have sunsets
then?
MS. DESELEM: Because it gives you the opportunity to re-
review them once the time comes to sunset. That's why we're here
today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioners Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I suggest something that may
be simpler, that won't be quite so traumatic? If there's any
misunderstanding about something that we seem to be concerned
with, cannot the petitioner voluntarily stipulate something in the
extension that would solve that problem, Jeff?
MR. WEIGEL: David Weigel, county attorney.
The discussion I've heard so far seems to be just an
understanding, for the most part, of what the terminology is in the
PUD and what's in the land code in trying to define that terminology.
The discussion of stories and what is a story does not appear to
me to be an amendment of the PUD. The PUD does talk about three
stories interrelated to a setback relationship, and above three stories
there are some limitation, which Mr. Anderson has indicated to you.
So the fact that Mr. Anderson's indicated that he accepts the, call
it, common thought that a story is 10 to 12 feet is not in and of itself
an amendment or going to require an amendment to the PUD, is my
opinion, quite frankly, and I'm not sure that there's any other question
that you have right now.
In regard to the sunsetting that Mr. Henning was questioning and
Page 115
February 28, 2006
Ms. Deselem was responding, additionally though, when something
sunsets, there's an inability to go forward and development.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: So that it's not merely --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It has to come back to the
board?
MR. WEIGEL: Right, exactly. That's right. So it will require an
additional activity on behalf of the property owner. Things don't just
continue to stay the same. They will have to come and do something
if sunsetting occurs and an extension is not granted or a PUD
amendment is not pursued as far as that goes.
So if the question before the board today is that -- that we
haven't gotten to a -- well, I don't think there's any further question
ultimately that the definition of terms and understanding of what the
development would be based upon the current zoning. As yet, I don't
see anything that demands or requires them for an amendment.
Perhaps I've missed something, but I'd be happy to respond at any
point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I make a motion?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion for approval of
the extension, recognizing Mr. Anderson's definition of their belief of
what a story is.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second that for discussion.
Is there discussion on this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Public speakers?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I have one speaker, Gregory Pryer.
MR. PRYER: Yes. My name is Gregory Pryer. I live on 10th
Avenue Southwest.
I was asked by some fellow residents to come before you today
Page 116
February 28, 2006
and make a few comments on our behalf and on behalf of the Logan
Woods Association.
First I'd like to apologize for any confusion which seems to have
been created by a few of the residents who did not understand fully
the limited purpose of this petition at this time and, therefore, they
may have overreacted prior to your last meeting.
We definitely prefer that the property remain as residential.
Now, if there is no basis for that and it's only a question of extending
the petition, we have really no way to oppose it. So we're interested
in keeping our area residential and maintaining our lifestyle, which is
consistent with our street.
We're concerned that any commercial development will affect
the tranquility of our neighborhood, and we hope that in the future,
when the time is right, that the owners or the new owners will give us
the opportunity to be part of the planning process, and, therefore,
we'll be able to lessen the impact on our lives and our neighborhood.
I'll be willing to answer any questions, if you have any.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I just want to state on
the record, again, like I did the previous time this was on the board
since I live on 1 Oth Avenue Southwest. Talking to the county
attorney, this PUD is conceptual, don't know what's going to be built
in there, except for what's laid out on the PUD. So I don't see any
benefit or detriment to my property as far as value or any personal
benefit from it.
MR. KLATZKOW: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, sir.
MR. PRYER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion by the board?
Page 11 7
February 28, 2006
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion for approval
and a second. Call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion passes, I believe, 4-1.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item, or
do you want to take a break?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll take a break, give our court
reporter a 10-minute -- or 12-minute break, and I'd like everybody
back at 2:37 if possible.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Again, ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Board of
County Commissioners is back from recess.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2006-08: A REQUEST TO AMEND ORDINANCE
04-41 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE TO ADD THE AMENDMENTS OF LDC 2005 CYCLE 2
FOR THE DETAILED PURPOSES - ADOPTED W /
STIPULATIONS; RECOMMENDATION TO CONTINUE THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS RATING TABLE
(SECTION 2.06.03) TO THE MARCH 28TH BCC MEETING -
Page 118
February 28, 2006
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to the next item on
your agenda under advertised public hearings, and this is item 8A, a
request that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
board adopt an ordinance amending ordinance number 04-41, as
amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, to amend the
amendments of the LDC 2005 cycle 2 for the following purposes:
Amend -- amendment of chapter 1 includes the addition of
abbreviations and definitions, including the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle overlays and the addition of the definition of gap housing.
Amendment of chapter 2 includes the amendment of the
Bayshore mixed use district, MUD, overlay; the addition of the
Gateway Triangle MUD overlay; the addition of the Golden Gate
downtown center commercial overlay district; deletions and
additions to the table of the Permissible land uses in each zoning
district for the Golden Gate overlay; amendment of the Goodland
zoning overlay to change clam nurseries from a conditional use to a
permitted use; and amendment of the affordable housing density
bonus rating system.
Amendment of chapter 4 includes amendment of the site design
standards for development in the BMUD overlay districts --
subdistricts and the addition of site design standards for development
in the Gateway Triangle mixed use district overlay and the Golden
Gate downtown center commercial overlay district.
Amendment of chapter 10 includes the addition of a mixed use
project approval process with decision-making criteria and public
notification requirements for a petition for an MUP approval from the
Board of County Commissioners.
MS. FABACHER: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners.
For the record, Catherine Fabacher. I'm with the Zoning and Land
Development Review Department, and I am the LDC, Land
Page 119
February 28, 2006
Development Code, Coordinator.
I wanted to state that this is our third meeting before the BCC on
these -- the amendments from this 2005 cycle 2, and this will be --
we're required to have two public hearings on each proposed
amendment, and this will be the second hearing on the amendments
you have before you today, and you'll recall that we passed the other
amendments at the February 8th hearing that we had.
Margie, I think, has to read something.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. For the record,
Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. I've reviewed
the advertising for these proposed amendments and find it to be
legally sufficient.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. FABACHER: All right. Shall we continue, Mr. Chair, in
our usual manner, down the line?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MS. FABACHER: Okay. I, unfortunately, did give you another
handout. It's on our first item, which is going to be page 1 and page I
of our summary sheet, and it's the definition of gap housing.
What we -- what I had put in the packet is what you had asked to
bring back from your -- from our last first public hearing where you
said page 123, and then the addition of one, page 124A. Since -- so
that's what the handout is for you.
Now, what you have right now is on page 1, as you can see,
housing, gap housing, owner-occupied gap housing, and it says, 80
percent to 150 percent of median income. Originally we had put in
101 to 150, but I think that there was some discussion on lowering it
to 81 to 150.
Commissioner, did you want to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. The discussion has
gone all over between 81 and 101. My biggest concern, which I spoke
to Jim Mudd yesterday about, as well as Joe Schmitt and a few of my
Page 120
February 28, 2006
committee members, was if we started at 101, we would still have a
gap between 81 and 101, because the rest of it only goes up to 80.
And our purpose was to fill the gap, not create another one. So I
would like to -- I would like to make sure that it's included, 81 to 150.
Thank you.
MS. F ABACHER: Yes, ma'am, thank you. And just for the
record, I would like to go back and just -- we discovered a typo when
we were looking at it in the existing language, so I'm afraid you don't
have it in your folder. But it had said, rental workforce housing less
than 50 percent, then the next line said, rental workforce housing less
than 51 percent to 60 percent of median income. So we just wanted
to strike less than in the original text that's currently in the LDC, if
that's okay. You don't -- you have it on your new one. You see
where -- it's just a typo, I think, in the original language that exists
currently.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can I ask a question? In the
information that was just presented to us here, it says owner/occupied
workforce housing, 81 percent to 100 percent of the median income,
otherwise considered to be moderate income. That's still considered
gap housing; is that correct?
MS. FABACHER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. F ABACHER: It will fall under that umbrella.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you want to add that in there,
just to clear that up?
MS. FABACHER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Joe, can you come to the mike and make
a clarification here for us?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator of
Community Development/Environmental Services.
In following the guidance, what we will now do is strike out that
entire line, owner-occupied workforce housing, 81 to 110 percent.
Page 121
February 28, 2006
I'm looking at your two-page handout.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
MR. SCHMITT: That will being stricken, and now gap housing
will cover 81 percent to 150. And when the ordinance comes to the
chair for signature, it will clearly define and be laid out to define the
-- what currently exists, and then we'll define gap housing as 81 to --
81 percent to 150, which really quite -- makes it fit much better with
the application chart in the next amendment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. What you have on here right
now, it's 81 percent to 100 percent, is what I read on the second page,
the first --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. That will -- that line will be -- follow me.
I'm going to go over to the visualizer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Flip it over.
MR. SCHMITT: Just for the record, we're going to -- I want to
make sure this word, housing from, because it really was incorrect, so
housing from 51 percent to 60 percent. I'm going to turn the page,
and, in essence, in your guidance right now, this line will be stricken
and this will be changed to 81 percent to 150.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And that basically brings into jell everything
that you've asked. And one more, thank you, Mr. Mudd. And that
will -- that will clean up the entire definition.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any questions? Yes.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When we were reviewing this, we
were talking about the affordable housing density bonus chart and the
need to develop an economic model that would help us determine if
we were awarding the density bonuses in an appropriate percentage.
I don't see any changes here. What happened?
MR. SCHMITT: Okay. We're on -- you want to go to the next
amendment?
Page 122
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I just wanted to make sure --
if we're going to get to it, that will be fine, but --
MR. SCHMITT: The next amendment, what I do not have --
and we want to move to the next amendment what I have are samples
that, basically, again, that Cormac presented that showed how it's
applied. But the economic models, you're looking for actual data on
how it's applied to justify the numbers we came up with. That was
what was directed. I don't have that information available today, but
-- I was not able to compile it in time for this meeting. I--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We asked for it when the LDC
was brought before us --
MR. SCHMITT: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- before us for review.
MR. SCHMITT: I do not have --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's been a month or more.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand, Commissioner, that the -- all
right. Well, we had developers coming in today to talk about exactly
that, because we don't do the development, as you all understand.
And the economic models are -- exactly what you want is the
justification for how we developed the chart. But -- and we've asked
developers to come in and present examples as to how they would
apply this chart, the construction costs, the density, and how those --
the densities help pay for those units that are sold as affordable
housing, but I do not have those here today. We were going to have
two developers here.
Susan, do you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell me what happens then, if we
approve this today, we approve a chart that we're really not
comfortable with. What happens? What are we going to do?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, Commissioner, as we pointed out, this
chart -- we know this chart -- well, it was developed naturally from
what we originally had, and then we inserted this term gap housing.
Page 123
February 28, 2006
And through the -- through the planning commission, we basically
bumped up these numbers and developed it.
N ow I'm on page -- to make sure you're in your book, we're in
the next amendment, page 4.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm on page 54 of 102.
MR. SCHMITT: All right. I'm--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what we've got for our
packet.
MR. SCHMITT: You're in the actual ordinance itself. I got to
pull that out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I recommend we just continue this
until the staff gets it right; otherwise, we're going to wind up making
mistakes on a very, very important issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I agree.
Commissioner Coletta, you had something to say?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I was -- that chart, too, I
mean, I want to know what the balance is between low and
affordable, and I'm not getting there without the chart in front of me.
The way it was set up before, I thought it was a pretty good matrix
going across. I really don't know where it is.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can we continue this -- County
Manager, would we have anything on our schedule for March 28th?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It would be a good time to do it. That's
the best meeting that you have. I don't mean to keep throwing things
on March 28th, but the rest of the meetings --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because I think there's some
information here that's missing --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I have on my notes from the last time
that you met, the first reading of this particular item on the bottom of
126, Cormac, private sector partners to validate the numbers on the
chart, and that's exactly what I wrote down that night that I was sitting
Page 124
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right. And what was the date of
that?
MS. FABACHER: February 8th.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: February 8th or something, wasn't it?
MR. SCHMITT: We -- and I apologize. We had a developer
coming in to layout his model for us to explain how we would apply
this from the economic validation. He is not here.
And all I can do is depend on the data that they provide, because
this is -- what you were asking for, Commissioner, is basically the
cost of construction and how they would -- how the at-market value
units pay for and subsidize the affordable housing units, and you were
looking for an economic model to define that.
We had, as you recall over a year ago, Mr. Fishkind, Russ Wire
came in, talked about density and how density is applied, but I do not
have the economic data. And we can continue that and bring it back.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can I get a motion for continuing this
till --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion for continuance
until March 28th, and I further suggest that staff maybe get a
qualified consultant involved in this -- and Dr. Fishkind would not be
a bad person to do this -- because it -- I am concerned that over three
weeks we haven't been able to get a developer to provide us
information.
Secondly, I'm very, very concerned that staff would depend
upon a single developer with respect to formulating something so
important. So I would prefer to get a more impartial source of input
from Dr. Fishkind, if possible.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if that's the case, can I just
withdraw this amendment and move on to the next amendments?
You want to put the other ones at risk, and we'll just withdraw this
chart completely from the amendments cycle, and I will have to bring
it back.
Page 125
February 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have any other areas of concern
in regards to these land development code changes for the Triangle
and for Bayshore or--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to second his motion by the
way so that we can be discussing that. Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I've got a second on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I've been asked whether or
not I would withdraw my motion and consider just having this
withdrawn. The problem is, affordable housing is very important to
us, and we're trying to make some decisions here, and, quite frankly,
we're not getting a lot of help. And I would like to get this moved
along, and I'm afraid if we just eliminate it, then it will be the fall
before we get anything before us, and --
MR. MUDD: October the 25th.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: October the 25th, and that's way,
way, way too long. So I suggest we get at it and get this thing done
by March 28th.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: March 28th.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a second on the motion.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, yes. A couple of things
are giving me quite a bit of concern, one is the fact that I really don't
know where we stand even with the old chart now. I thought I had a
good understanding of it that there was a bell curve going across, how
it could be done. Now I'm hearing that we're recommending Fishkind
to give us an analysis of this. And if we're doing that, this is the
same gentleman that could find no need for affordable housing in
several different studies he did and came up with a surplus. I'm
having a hard time with this, a real hard time.
MR. SCHMITT: I didn't recommend Fishkind. I mean, that's --
Page 126
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe he's not the right guy. I'm
not --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, he's the wrong guy, I'll be
honest with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'd suggest we pick the right
guy, whoever that is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Baker, if you want, can
you come up for just a minute, because I want to set the record
straight on this so we don't go down the wrong path.
MR. BAKER: But what I suggest -- Denny Baker, for the
record. What I suggest is we contact Tallahassee, the DCA and the
contacts we have up there, and get two or three names, and speak
with those individuals, and do something pretty quickly. Obviously
the 28th is not a lot of time so we have to move quickly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have to warn you ahead of
time. Fishkind made a presentation to the Regional Planning Council
when we shared with everyone the results of a couple of his recent
studies. We unanimously agreed to give -- not unanimously, but the
majority of them agreed to give it back to staff and let them do the
analysis rather than Fishkind.
I just -- just very serious reservations. Go ahead and get the
names from Tallahassee. As far as I'm concerned, that's a great idea.
But I need somebody to come to my office and explain exactly
what matrix means, because I don't think it's anything like it was
explained to me the first time.
MR. BAKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I really have serious
reservations about it now.
MR. BAKER: Well, why --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much for
bringing this up.
MR. BAKER: I recommend that we come back at least in a
Page 127
February 28, 2006
memo fashion to the commissioners with our selection of the
consultant and the criteria and what the objectives and scope would
be and what the output would be and get buy-in from the
commissioners and then move forward.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, the problem is, we can't meet the
deadline by March 28th.
MR. BAKER: Well, we have to move quickly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, exactly.
MR. BAKER: As quickly as we can.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, let me -- for the record, I mean -- and
Mr. Mudd knows, to meet the 28th deadline, we're already reviewing
executive summaries now. I have between now and Friday to
basically finish the economic model, and I just want clarification.
All you're looking for -- what you're looking for is to define how
we would apply this chart in regards to, economically, the feasibility
of success or failure in regards to the application of this chart; is that
what you're looking for?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chair, can --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got to clarify this issue.
Now, this was -- this was discussed very carefully and clearly last
time, okay? I'll do it one more time.
The private sector has as much a responsibility, if not more
responsibility, for dealing with the affordable housing crisis as
government.
We have had the tendency to just throw additional density at
developers so they had to come up with a little bit of affordable
housing. I don't believe they've come up with enough affordable
housing.
For example, if you're going to provide affordable housing that
sells for $140,000, you'll generally have to subsidize as a developer --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
Page 128
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- more than you would if you
were going to provide gap housing at $250,000. So I want some
economic evidence that shows that our -- our density bonuses that are
provided for the various levels of housing are designed to achieve the
greatest possible affording -- affordable housing percentages that we
can get.
And I -- I have seen ratios where the developer says, okay, I'll
give you one affordable housing unit if you'll give me four market
price units. Sure. That's a real deal. But what is the right ratio? We
need to understand that, and you need to understand that as a staff in
order to develop this kind of a chart because the more density we
grant people, the higher we're driving the prices.
So what we want to do is grant enough density only to generate
the affordable housing -- the maximum affordable housing that we
can get out of the property. And, quite frankly, my position is, the
private developer should not be asking for profits on those things.
They have an obligation, just like we do, to solve this affordable
housing crisis, and they've got to get into this ball game, and so far
they're not there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I feel like clapping.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't want to get carried
away with it, but -- maybe it's too late for that. Is it too late for that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you want to go stand at the
podium?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that's what we need to do, and
we need to do it fast. We've played with this thing for too long.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. Before we do, can I get some
clarification. Are we going to postpone the whole rest of the cycle or
just this -- the particular amendment?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My understanding was we were gOIng
Page 129
February 28, 2006
to -- we were going to postpone the whole cycle because we feel that
the whole thing might be --
MS. FABACHER: Well, I don't know--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I wouldn't want to interfere
with -- when you say postpone the cycle, are you telling me that
because you can't develop this chart before the 28th, that --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that's what I'm saying, just
postpone everything till the 28th.
MR. SCHMITT: The question was, do you want to carry on
with the rest of the cycle today or do you just want to post --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, sure. I would like to go
ahead with the rest of the items we don't--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I was under the -- all right.
MR. SCHMITT: Just come back and talk about this one item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right.
MS. FABACHER: All right.
MR. SCHMITT: So for clarification, we can create a separate
ordinance dealing with this item on the 28th and deal with the -- the
ordinance as drafted excluding this as -- if we continue with the rest
of the amendments today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do you want to restate your
motion, make sure we've got it on the record correctly?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wow, okay. If -- okay. The
motion is to continue the discussion on the affordable housing density
bonus table until March the 28th until staff can provide us with the
analysis which I just described in some detail, and I know you don't
want me to go through that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, no.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And the section that has that affordable
housing density bonus rating system, section 2.06.03 for clarity.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Who was the second?
Page 130
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was the second.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that go along with your--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Get this taken care of. We'll call
-- is there any speakers on this particular issue?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So I'll call the question on this.
We're going to continue this portion of the LDC amendments until the
March 28th meeting and -- as Commissioner Coyle has stated in his
motion.
And 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: Passes. Okay. Let's continue on.
MS. FABACHER: All right. Thank you, Commissioner.
The next one we're going to go to is on page 5, and this is the
amendment of section 2.03.01, which was the staggered setbacks in
the Estates. And at our first public hearing, I think that the
commission did indicate that they were not in support of this
proposed amendment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MS. FABACHER: Okay. Do we have any questions on this?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions?
(No response.)
Page 131
February 28, 2006
MS. F ABACHER: Sir, would you like to vote individually or
wait till the end?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Which would be best here for you?
MS. FABACHER: I guess vote at the end.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Let's vote at the end.
MS. FABACHER: All right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Take each one of these individually.
MS. FABACHER: Great, okay. All right. Then the next one
will be on page 7, the Bayshore mixed use district overlay. And Mr.
Jackson is here, the executive director. I know we've discussed this
on many occasions. If you have maybe any questions of him or he's,
I think, presented it several times to you.
I don't know if we have public speakers or not.
MS. FILSON: I don't have any public speakers on any of the
amendments on this item.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FABACHER: Mr. Jackson, did you have anything to say?
No. Okay. Well, then sit down.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Go back. Have a seat.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Try to move this along.
MS. FABACHER: All right, great. Thank you.
Okay. Next one we'll go to is going to be on page 55, and this is
for our friends in Goodland, moving the clam nurseries from a
conditional use to a permitted use. I think the EAC and all the boards
were in favor of this one.
All right. Any questions on that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions on that?
(No response.)
MS. F ABACHER: Excellent.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FABACHER: Okay. Then I'm going to move to page 57 --
I'm sorry, 58, and this is the Gateway Triangle mixed use district.
Page 132
February 28, 2006
Same situation there. I don't know if -- Mr. Jackson's here, if you
have any questions. We've presented this one several times.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The only question I have is the front
yard build-to line.
MS. FABACHER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That stated somewhere between three to
10 feet. Maybe if Mr. Jackson can give us some clarification on why
we have such a large variance.
MR. JACKSON: Good afternoon, David -- is this on?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, it is.
MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency. The variation there for the build-to line was,
along with the architectural design, was to have a building on a flat
wall, but it would articulate for the length of the building.
And in there we give a variation because we would like to see in
some of the mixed use buildings or any new development is that they
have the opportunity to put in areas that allows for a courtyard,
extended entry, restaurant seating, a garden, something that will
embellish the building itself.
So not knowing that every building is going to be different,
every development would be different, we give them the option of --
to vary that wall to meet their needs.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Any other questions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Seeing none, please continue.
MS. FABACHER: Okay. That's wonderful.
Weare moving on now to page 101, and this is going to be the
Golden Gate downtown commercial center overlay. And I think
Michelle Mosca has presented to us on that twice now, and I think
she's worked very hard with her advisory committee out there. And I
think they're happy with it, and Michelle's here to answer any
Page 133
February 28, 2006
questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions?
(N 0 response.)
MS. FABACHER: Okay. Well, I guess it must be time to vote.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The first item would be the
definition of gap housing. Shall that be continued or shall we go
ahead and vote?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think we have--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm okay with that one.
MS. FABACHER: All right, okay. We can go ahead and vote
on definition of gap housing, section 1.08.02.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'm going to call the question.
All those in favor of the current definition for gap housing?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I thought we were going to vote
on the -- I thought prior the commission had determined that we were
going to vote on the whole package at the end --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We did.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- other than--
MS. F ABACHER: It's the end, Marjorie. It's the end.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But all together.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Oh, we're at the end, okay. Okay.
I beg your pardon then. I'm sorry.
MS. FILSON: Okay. I don't have a motion or a second on this,
SIr.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve all of the --
should we do all of the amendments?
MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Commissioner. Yes, we can
excluding the setbacks in the Estates.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MS. FABACHER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I make a motion -- oh.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Page 134
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve all the
-- all of the amendments except for staggered setbacks in the Estates.
MS. FABACHER: And excluding 2.06.03.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I will--
MR. MUDD: That's the density bonus table.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it provided we also
accept the density bonus table that we previously voted on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, county--
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. Would you also
include in your motion a finding of consistency with the
comprehensive plan?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And a finding of consistency with
the comprehensive plan.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That the land development at
these amendments are consistent with the plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And my second includes that
finding also.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I thought that we
were continuing that table --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what we did in the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's exactly what we did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I misunderstood what you said.
Please continue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those in -- all those -- we got
a motion on the floor and a second.
And all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 135
February 28, 2006
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.
MS. FABACHER: Thank you so much. And our next cycle
will begin March 17th.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. F ABACHER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Item #8C
PUDZ-2003-AR-4991:REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A'
RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO "RPUD" RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS
ROCKLEDGE RPUD - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO JUNE 6,
2006 BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next -- the next item on our agenda is item
8C, Commissioners, and that's PUDZ-2003-AR-4991, Robert
Mulhere ofRW A, Inc., representing Woodfield Builders, LLC,
requesting a rezone from A rural agricultural to RPUD, residential
planned unit development, to be known as Rockedge PUD, subject to
the approval of an affordable housing density bonus agreement
authorizing the developer to utilize affordable housing density bonus
units in the amount of 111 units at 7.5 bonus density units per acre in
the development of this project for low-income residents.
The 76.46-acre subject property is located on the east side of
Collier Boulevard, County Road 951, approximately six-tenths of a
Page 136
February 28, 2006
mile south of the intersection with Rattlesnake Hammock Road in
section 23, Township 50, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would all those that are going to give
testimony on this item please stand and raise your right hand to be
sworn In.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Starting with the disclosures
from the commissioners, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Received a phone call from Ted
Beisler.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I've had -- I have quite a few
disclosures. I met with some of the residents at Naples Lakes, I've
spoken with Bruce Anderson, I've spoken with staff, I've met with
Ted Beisler and Larry Mitchell, and that's it, I think.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I've had meetings with Mr.
Anderson, and didn't receive any other correspondence on this.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I had meetings with Mr.
Anderson, Mr. Mulhere, and the petitioner, and I received phone calls
on it, and I talked to staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met with Bob Mulhere and
Bruce Anderson, representatives for the petitioner. I've also met with
Ted Beisler, Ted Drum and Larry Mitchell concerning this item, and
also talked with staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala has an amendment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I forgot to mention that I met
also with Bob Mulhere, excuse me. Not that you went unnoticed, I'm
Page 137
February 28, 2006
sorry .
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. If you'd proceed, we're ready to
proceed.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
F or the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel
and Andress law firm on behalf of the applicant.
The Rockedge PUD is proposing to be a residential multifamily
project with a mix of market-rate homes and homes set aside for sale
to households who earn 80 percent or less than the median income in
Collier County.
I will defer to Susan Golden of your housing and urban
improvement staff on how those numbers break down based on the
size of the household.
I would point out to you that Rockedge, with its 30 percent
requirement for homes to be set aside for affordable, that's a higher
percentage than you typically find in Collier County for similar
projects. Typically it's only 10 to 20 percent of the units. In ours it
will be 111 homes out of a total of 400.
This property is located on the south -- located south of the
intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard.
Rattlesnake Hammock Road is currently being expanded to six lanes,
and your staff report states that this added capacity on Rattlesnake
will accommodate Rockedge's traffic and, therefore, the
transportation requirements of your growth management plan have
been met for this PUD.
Mr. Ron Talone, a Transportation Planner who has testified as
an expert witness before you many times, will elaborate on the
transportation aspects.
Rockedge lies on the east side of Collier Boulevard between the
new Collier Regional Medical Center hospital on the north and the
Country Camp Inn R V park on the south. So there's no question
about compatibility there.
Page 138
February 28, 2006
Most of the land in Rockedge, about 56 acres our of the total of
66, have been specifically identified by legal description in your
growth management plan since 2003 as an appropriate location for
market rate and affordable housing homeownership development.
This property is unique in that it is the only property in the entire
county that has been called out in your growth management plan as a
suitable site for affordable housing, and that special growth
management plan designation has been twice approved unanimously
by this group of commissioners. We hope that this third time will
continue to be a charm.
Now, although the growth management plan allows a density on
this property of seven-and-a-half units per acres, this PUD reduces
that allowance of the comprehensive plan to 5.23 units per acre.
Because of wetlands, frankly, a higher density was not achievable.
The Environmental Advisory Council unanimously
recommended approval and the planning commission recommended
approval by an 8-1 vote.
Now, even though Rockedge fully meets the county's
transportation concurrency requirements and must continue to do so
in order to be able to receive building permits, as an added safeguard,
the planning commission imposed, and my client agreed, to phase the
project over a three- to four-year period to coincide with planned road
improvements in the surrounding area.
If road capacity continues to exist and concurrency is met at the
time of building permits, my client has agreed that no more than 250
units can receive certificates of occupancy before 2008.
All of the 111 below market-rate units would be constructed in
the first phase and included in the cap of 250.
In 2008, again, if concurrency is first met, then certificates of
occupancy are limited to an additional 75 units.
And in 2009, again, if concurrency is met, they can get
certificates of occupancy and building permits for the final 75 units.
Page 139
February 28, 2006
I assert to you that that is a belt and suspenders approach to
assuring that there's adequate capacity on the surrounding road
system.
In light of your recent discussion on the prior item, I want to ask
Mr. Mulhere to address the ratio of bonus units to market rate units in
this project, and then I'll ask Mr. Ron Talone to come up here and
address transportation, and then the three of us will be available to
answer any question that you may have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon. For the record, Bob
Mulhere with RW A. I think in particular to Commissioner Coyle's
comments on the previous LDC amendment and the ratio of bonus --
and I think some other commissioners also expressed some concerns
or interest in determining whether or not that was a viable ratio -- I've
actually been thinking about this issue.
And when I first thought about it, I was thinking about the total
density on this project which is 400 acres -- or units. Then I realized,
that's not a fair comparison because the urban residential fringe
immediately across Collier Boulevard from the urban area, without
the comprehensive plan amendment that you approved, would only
allow 1.5 dwelling units per acre, but would allow that 1.5 dwelling
units per acre. So that's really not part of the bonus.
And so I think if you subtract that 112 units based on the total
project size of 1.5 units per acre, you're left with 288 units, and that's
really what you ought to be thinking about in terms of the ratio of
affordable to bonus units, that those 112 are not bonus units.
So you've got 111 low income housing units and 288 market-rate
units as a bonus, and that is about one low income housing to 2.5
bonus units. I think that's a very favorable ratio.
F our years in the process, significant costs -- in fact, part of the
reason that this project is larger than the original 56 acres that you
approved as part of the comprehensive plan is because we actually
Page 140
February 28, 2006
had to buy an additional 20 acres of property to address water
management preservation and listed species concerns.
And as it turns out, we're probably not going to be able to
address those concerns fully on site, and we will have to purchase
off-site land to mitigate for panther impacts. I'm not sure how much
that will cost, but it's estimated to be in excess of a million dollars at
this point in time.
So I think that the direction that the board suggested relative to
the land development code amendment is probably very good, but I'm
very confident that this ratio will fall into a very favorable ratio. You
don't have people banging down yours doors to build affordable
housing, especially proximate to employment. And there will be a
beneficial transportation impact associated with the location of this
proj ect.
And with that, I'll ask Ron Talone to come up.
MR. TALONE: Good afternoon. My name is Ron Talone. I'm
with the transportation firm, David Plummer and Associates.
We prepared a traffic impact statement in accordance with the
county's adopted TIS guidelines. The TIS was reviewed and
approved by the staff. The staff found it sufficient. And the staff --
based on the conclusions of our traffic study, the staff has -- agrees
with those conclusions and has recommended approval for the
project and has found the project consistent with policies 5.1 and 5.2
of the traffic element of your comprehensive plan.
The project is 400 multifamily units. Our traffic trip generation
estimate is that it would generate approximately 188 total p.m. peak
hour trips. That's a relatively low traffic generation.
In a second I will get into the current traffic conditions in the
area, and then also what we can see in the future.
I do want to make as an aside a comment on the location of these
affordable units in close proximity to Edison Community College and
the new hospital in the corridor, and we think that's -- it's beneficialp
Page 141
February 28, 2006
with that close proximity because the hope is that some of the people
that will be working at those facilities will elect to obtain their
housing within this development and, therefore, reduce their trip
lengths, so that rather than having to travel long distances from other
areas, perhaps Golden Gate Estates or perhaps even Lehigh Acres and
Lee County, that we may be able to reduce some of those longer trips
for work trips.
According to the county's AUIR, Collier Boulevard at four lanes
will operate at LOS-D, level of service D, which is at the standard,
and that's even with the trip bank trips included.
As you know, there's a scheduled six-Ianing of that project. The
AUIR estimates that the level of standard service will be C, which
will be above the standard with that improvement in place.
We used the travel model assignment, the adopted Collier
County model, to project traffic conditions. And one of the things we
looked at, because our horizon was 2010, was that there are a number
of scheduled road improvements during that five-year period that will
alter travel patterns and improve the situation in this corridor.
And I thought it was important to take a minute to go over that
because we know there's some concern among residents in the area
about the potential impacts of this project.
First looking at the map I've provided, this shows the scheduled
improvements. It doesn't look like the colors show up very well, but
basically the improvements -- okay.
We know about Collier Boulevard being widened to six lanes in
the next couple of years. Rattlesnake Hammock Road, the contract
has been let, so that improvement will be underway shortly.
But I also want to point out the significance of the improvements
at the I-75/Golden Gate interchange and the six-Ianing of Golden
Gate, and also the improvements on Santa Barbara Boulevard and the
extension of Santa Barbara down to Rattlesnake. Those
improvements will alter travel patterns in the area.
Page 142
February 28, 2006
And what I mean by that is, today a lot of people, without
having the Golden Gate interchange, a lot of people continue down
onto Collier Boulevard and continue south on Collier Boulevard.
With the new interchange and the improvements to Santa
Barbara, they will have the option of getting off at the new
interchange, cutting over to Santa Barbara, and then continuing south
all the way down to Rattlesnake, taking a lot of the traffic today that
would continue south on Collier Boulevard and giving it a different
way of coming down into the area.
Also we have improvements offour-Ianing of County Barn Road
that's scheduled to begin within the next year.
Also, another thing that will be beneficial to the corridor in
general is the improvements in the Lely development. They are
preparing to extend Grand Lely Drive north to Rattlesnake and to
extend Lely Cultural Parkway west to connect with that new road.
What this will do is, it will allow Lely residents, which now are
forced to go out onto Collier Boulevard to go north, it will allow them
to go north directly to Rattlesnake and then continue north on either
the Santa Barbara extension or County Barn Road, so that's going to
allow some of the traffic now that has no choice but go out to Collier
Boulevard -- it would give it an alternative so they don't have to do
that.
Another thing that's not shown on this map is down at the
41/Collier Boulevard intersection. As you know, there's a developer's
agreement -- developer contribution agreement for six -laning
north/south through that intersection. We think that will certainly
help provide some relief.
The intersection already has actually the pavement down for the
fifth and sixth lanes north/south through that intersection. It was
striped out though because the six lanes north/south didn't continue
far enough. But with that developer's agreement, it will allow
continuity through that intersection and improve the operations.
Page 143
February 28, 2006
So there's another -- there's a number of improvements that we
think will alter travel patterns. And to further demonstrate what the
effect of some of those improvements are, I've taken a look at the
three main roads that -- the north/south roads, we're talking about a
corridor -- north/south corridor just south of Rattlesnake Hammock
Road.
And what we have here is Collier Boulevard, the gray is the
existing capacity. The green is the added capacity. Then we have the
added capacity of Santa Barbara being four-Ianed and extended, or
extended as four lanes. And here we have County Barn's existing
four-lane capacity, or two-lane capacity and the six-lane capacity.
What this is showing is that the north/south capacity in that
corridor is going to be more than doubled by the improvements
planned in the next two to three years.
And my last graph shows that further in on the right what I've
shown is the combined capacity of those three roads here in gray
today, and this will be the combined capacity after those
improvements are completed. And again, that more than doubles that
north/south capacity in that comer.
On the left side, these are the AUIR volumes. The green is the
AUIR volume that is shown as trip bank trips. So that's what's
identified as vested in permitted trips in the AUIR.
And this line here is our contribution to the traffic. It's shown as
a solid line because the additional trips are -- aren't significant
enough to show a different color.
So the point I'm trying to make is that the capacity being created
by those improvements that I've pointed out are -- will far exceed the
additional traffic that we can expect over the next few years.
I'm going to continue with -- like I said, we looked at -- we
projected traffic volumes out to 2010 and found that the project does
not have a significant impact on any of the roads and that none of the
roads will operate below the level of service standard. They're all
Page 144
February 28, 2006
expected to meet the county's adopted standard.
In addition, the project will create or generate 1.5 million in road
impact fees that the county can use however they see fit towards
making any improvements in toward this corridor that are needed.
I'm available to answer any questions you have at this point.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions you have at this
point?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, you can continue on.
MR. TALONE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe it's staff's turn now.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Good afternoon. My name is Mike DeRuntz.
I'm a Principal Planner with Department of Zoning and Land
Development Review. You all have a have a copy of the executive
summary and staff report. The staff has reviewed this application.
And --
MR. MUDD: Can you get that off, Mike? I think that has to do
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's the excavation site.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't want to go through that
agaIn.
MR. DeRUNTZ: We don't want to go through that again. All
right.
MR. MUDD: Go to the next one. You had it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Some things just don't want to
go away.
MR. MUDD: Page it forward. Now go back to where you were.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there anybody from IT in here?
MR. MUDD: Okay. Let's go to the visualizer and we'll use that
map.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yep, sorry. It was in there. I don't know what
Page 145
February 28, 2006
I did with it.
The staff has reviewed this application and has found it -- that
it'd be consistent with the growth management plan, that this area was
identified as an amendment in 2003 for -- to increase the density of
that area to an additional six, for affordable housing units.
Transportation element has been addressed. They've looked at
the TIS, and it's found to be consistent and it meets policy 5.1 and 5.2
of the traffic element.
The housing element also has been -- the staff has reviewed this
and has found this to be also consistent with the growth management
plan.
On the site in the exhibit, you can see that there are some areas
here that are shaded in gold. These are archaeologic sites, and they
have been identified and preserved, and will be identified in an
easement area. And the element has also been identified to be
consistent with the growth management plan.
This has been reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council
on December the 7th and unanimously approved.
There was a neighborhood information meeting on February
19th, '04. At that meeting there were some concerns about water
management, buffering, and, you know, access, onto Collier
Boulevard and the use of the existing road.
The -- each of these items were addressed, in the proposed PUD.
The -- the developer has been working with the residents for their
access onto Collier Boulevard.
They are providing a separate lane for those properties that are
north of the -- of the PUD for individual access. They are also
providing for future access to the property to the north which adjoins
the hospital property, and also an access to the south for future access
to property to the south.
The property as far as the stormwater management basically
breaks into two directions, both east and west approximately where
Page 146
February 28, 2006
the power line easement dissects the property. And the property west
of the power line drains towards Collier Boulevard, and the property
to the east of the power line drains to the east. And so the property
draining to the east goes through the preserve areas, and that area to
the west of the power lines goes into the existing canal that parallels
951.
And the staff has also reviewed this as it relates to compatibility.
They have found that the 400 multifamily units would be compatible
with the existing uses in the vicinity. There are other PUDs in the
area, and density is compatible with what's existing.
The -- they've also -- the planning commission had incorporated
two conditions when they reviewed this at their November 3rd
meeting -- or excuse me -- yeah, at the November 3rd meeting, one
was that the minimum area, the square footage of each of the
dwelling units, would be 1,000 square feet, and number two is that--
the phasing that was mentioned previously, and both of those items
have been incorporated into the PUD document.
If there's any further questions, comments, I'd be more than
happy to try to address this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, I believe the planning
commission heard this on January 19, 2006.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I still have to declare other
things. I'm so sorry. I forgot I spoke to a couple planning
commissioners on this subject, to Ken Drum, to our transportation
department, and I even received a little bit of mail. I'm sorry I didn't
declare that earlier.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions? If not,
I believe we have some public speakers on this issue.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have four speakers. The first one is
James Pusateri. He'll be followed by Larry Mitchell.
Page 147
February 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. PUSATERI: Mr. Chairman and commissioners, my name's
Jim Pusateri. I'm a resident living close -- near 951 and near the
Rockedge, the proposal.
Less than a year ago this board turned down a request for an
increased density on this PUD which was the San Marino PUD
because of the adverse effect it would have on an already-taxed road
and the welfare and safety of the members of the public traveling over
that road.
I submit to you that nothing has changed that would justify
reversal of the position you took to the San Marino PUD. The roads
leading to the area impacted by this application are as busy or busier.
The improvements to them have been delayed. We are just
beginning stages of building a six-lane at Rattlesnake Hammock; 951
improvement is scheduled to begin late this year, hopefully; County
Barn and Santa Barbara, Polly, the extension there, has not begun. So
for the next three or so years, depending upon when all these proj ects
begin, there's going to be road construction surrounding this area.
I mean, it's not like there's just one road being constructed. The
whole area of feeders and major thoroughfares there are being -- are
going to be under construction for the next three or so years.
And it's not this PUD that I have an objection to. It's the timing
of the buildout of the PUD compared to the buildout of these roads
that are surrounding it.
To put additional traffic on these roads, which are congested at
this time without the construction being on them, might be
objectionable, but with the addition of the construction that's going to
be on all of these roads, it's going to constrict them even further, and
to put additional traffic through a density bonus at this time simply
doesn't seem rational or reasonable to me.
If the -- if it's -- if these residential projects -- well, in addition to
the buildout of the roads, Lely has two developments being built
Page 148
February 28, 2006
along 951 , Verona Walk on the east side of 951 is still developing, the
EOC may be built nearby. The hospital is being completed. There are
other commercial and residential developments currently being built
in and around Rattlesnake Hammock with its intersection at 951.
All of this is going to put additional traffic on the roads at a time
when the roads aren't capable of additional traffic because of the
construction.
This PUD came up as the roads were being completed, and if it
was shown that the capacity of the roads at that time was sufficient to
handle the PUD, I'd have no particular objection to the PUD. It's just
at this time the timing is not good. And I ask you to deny the density
bonus here along this congested roadway, as you did the San Marino
PUD less than a year ago. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Larry Mitchell. He'll be
followed by Jan Goldsmith.
MR. MITCHELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Larry Mitchell. I'm a member of the external affairs subcommittee
of the long-range planning committee of the Naples Lakes Country
Club. And the reason we have a long-range planning committee is
that we find ourselves surrounded by road construction or planned
road construction on 951 and Rattlesnake Hammock, and our
community is located on the northwest comer of the intersection of
Rattlesnake and 951, six-tenths of a mile from the proposed
development.
I don't want to take your valuable time in repeating what Mr.
Pusateri has mentioned, but clearly you've got nearly a half a dozen
major roadways under construction, and all at one time, plus you
have two new major facilities that implicate the public health and
safety, and those are the hospital and EOC, which will also be
coming on-line at the same time, which will also stimulate additional
traffic patterns that were not discussed by the applicant's expert.
So you have a situation in flux, and it strikes us, as the
Page 149
February 28, 2006
community closest to this development, that it really raises an unsafe
condition. All of us are familiar with what happened on -- what has
happened on Immokalee Road, and I submit that with the intersection
of Rattlesnake and 951 under construction along with the feeder
roads, County Barn and Santa Barbara pouring into Polly, that you
have an intolerable situation. Enough said about that.
A couple brief comments about the density bonus. Whether it's
two-and-a-half units or five units, what's not being discussed here is
the value of the bonus to the developer. I did a quick
back-of-the-envelope calculation. And if the developer today has a
right to build 112 units, assuming the market value of each of those
units was a million dollars -- a generous assumption -- but a million
dollars each -- it's conceivable that that's possible -- that would be
112,000 -- is $112 million in revenue generated by a project given
current zoning.
The developer proposes 111 affordable or gap units at
approximately 225 to $250,000 apiece, and 289 units at about
$650,000 each and I got those figures from our informal discussions
with the developer.
That adds up to a total retail value of the proj ect of $212 million,
as compared to what the developer's present entitlement is and its
market worth, estimated to be $112 million.
So in effect, by granting the density bonus, you're affording the
developer $100 million in additional sales potential with whatever
attendant profit there's to be earned.
And the public interest question, it seems to me is, is the
increment afforded the developer in the way of a bonus measured in
dollars, not in units? Is that an appropriate incentive given the 111
units?
If I might have another minute.
Couple other minor points. At present, as I understand the law
in Collier County, there's no provision to require the residents of these
Page 150
February 28,2006
affordable units to work in the county. And since what we hear
about in the press is that the units are there to afford employment to
those who work in the county, it strikes me that even though you
might afford the developer this arrangement and these units may be
built, indeed, there's no assurance, from the public interest standpoint,
that, in fact, these people will work in the county.
And the final point I wanted to make is that I'm a former resident
of Montgomery County, Maryland, and for more than 30 years there,
they had an affordable housing program that simply required that any
subdivision of 50 units or more allocate a certain portion of the
dwelling units to affordable housing. And for -- you know, for future
purposes, that might be a model to consider. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Jan Goldsmith.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Good afternoon, Mr. Commissioner -- or
sorry, Mr. Chairman and fellow commissioners.
My name is Jan Goldsmith, and I am here as the Chairman of the
Board of Trustees for Seacrest Country Day School.
I have been asked several times to step before and present to
you, and I've never felt it necessary. I am here today because I'm
representing two very important things to me. It is the quality of life
and the education of the children in this community, and for the first
time in the 10 years that I'm living here, I am here on behalf of what
you may consider an oxymoron, and that is two honorable
developers.
I've been raising money in East Naples to build an incredible
school for the last 10 years. I've raised $9 million to create an
incredible educational facility for, right now, 500 children. Seven
hundred thousand dollars this year was given away in financial aid so
that 25 percent of our population can come to this school. We give
out more than 30 percent greater than the national average of
financial aid to these children.
Page 151
February 28, 2006
Weare now in an endeavor of building a high school -- and I
know you are aware of Seacrest Country Day School's high school's
plans. It has been a long, hard-fought battle.
We now have children who are currently being educated in very
little portables, for lack of a better term, and we will walk the walk
that we need to to see this through.
In the last six months, we've been noticed by individuals at
Harvard and in other universities across the United States for a
visionary educational pursuit, and that is that we are actually
educating the whole child.
This is a school that is moving into the community and
recognizing that, indeed, all children deserve the right to an
outstanding education, and you don't need to get good grades in order
to be successful in life.
In order for this to happen, I need great faculty members, and we
have been able to attract, right now, some of the most incredible
faculty out of New York. We have an adjunct MIT professor who is
now heading up our science department. We've been able to attract a
professor from Chapin School, who has agreed to head up our English
department. We have a musical professional who is also out of New
York and who has taught at an incredible school.
My issue is, I can't find a place for these individuals to live.
Their families can't afford to come down here.
When we pay these teachers, we are, unfortunately, under the
challenge of trying to come up with enough money whereby there's
money to give the children so that they can come to the school and
yet create jobs whereby our faculty members can afford to live within
proximity to County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard.
I've spoken to many developers over the years trying to come up
with alternatives that I can -- may I have one more minute, please?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, ma'am.
MS. GOLDSMITH: -- that would give my faculty members a
Page 152
February 28, 2006
sense of dignity and pride in coming down to this incredible place
that we call home, a great place to live and bring their families down.
These two gentlemen have been more than willing to work with
us, to work through the issues, to make these housing units available.
They have said that they would give us a percentage of these units
for these faculty members.
And I know increasingly, because of individuals who've moved
in trying to work at the hospitals, it's just not possible.
This is a dream that we are making a reality for the children.
These are, indeed, high-end faculty members who want to come down
and make this a better place to live.
I understand traffic is difficult. I drive from downtown Naples
to Seacrest Country Day School four and five times a day but indeed,
this is paradise. People want to live here. And I'm thrilled to be
working with these gentlemen to try and create a home for people
who want to make this a better community.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions?
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll close the public hearing at
this time.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to call Don Scott
up, if I may.
Mr. Scott, you've seen the petitioner's graphs as far as the surplus
road capacity, and you heard the concerns of the members of the
community that border on 951. Could you enlighten us to where
we're going with this as far as the actual capacity what we could
expect if this project went forward with the phasing in that they're
talking about?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah. Don Scott, Transportation Planning.
Page 153
February 28, 2006
I would state it a little different than the petitioner did in the
sense that the issue today is consistency, not concurrency. They are
consistent based on all the improvements that we have. Essentially
looking out five years; do you have projects in the five-year time
frame that give you capacity to let the project go forward?
And, yes, we do have a lot ofprojects that are in the five-year
work program that resolve the issues in that area.
Now, one of the things I think that Bruce said at the beginning
was that -- concurrency, but it's not concurrency today. Did we have
some trips, based on the AUIR at the time? Yes, we did. Now,
obviously someone back in the office right now might be putting
some more trips in there.
So based on when they get the site planning, that remains to be
seen if the project is still within a two-year time frame. And
obviously we had a lot of discussion during the AUIR as to when
those proj ects are going to be -- are they two years out from now or
not? That's why I have a consistency -- saying that it's consistent
today.
Now, I can't answer you whether they're going to get
concurrency until the time frame that we're reviewing it at the site
plan stage.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But if we went ahead
today and if we were to grant approval of this, will we box ourselves
in if all of a sudden our road problem came unraveled or fell apart for
any particular reason?
MR. SCOTT: I think a couple of things, you know, from a
question mark standpoint is, where do we end up where the project's
in the CIE, is it still within a two-year time frame, and do I have the
capacity left at that level? That's what we'll determine at that time.
So yes, at some point, if we're saying that now the project's further
out, based on when they submit for site planning, we still might be
holding them up until it's within the time frame.
Page 154
February 28,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we'd still have the ability to
hold them up if we don't have the roads coming on at the rate we're
looking for?
MR. SCOTT: Now, that remains to be seen as to whether that's
within two years or when a contract is made, based on what we talked
about during the AUIR.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder, do you have
anything else you wanted to add to that or --
MR. FEDER: No. I did want to clarify, you've got four major
proj ects in the area. Again, based on, as Don pointed out, the
discussions relative to the AUIR, what I'll give you is basically based
on production schedule, not necessarily where they're going to end up
in our work program as we stand right now.
You've got County Barn, you've got 951, 41 to the canal, Santa
Barbara and Rattlesnake Hammock. The first that will come on-line
is Rattlesnake Hammock because it's under construction as we speak.
That's slated to be done by the summer of 2007.
County Barn will then come on-line fall of 2009, assuming that
it's let -- 2008, excuse me, assuming that it's let this fall, as we look
right now in production, that we should be able to do.
County Road 951 is looking to be let for bid in September of this
year, but with some issues we have in permitting, we're looking at,
rather than hitting three seasons, possibly looking at starting up in
spring of 2007. If we do that, then we're talking spring of 2009, the
completion of 951 section. The Santa Barbara extension, August of
2007 letting; August 2009 completion.
So you've got basically summer 2007, Rattlesnake Hammock;
fall of 2008, County Barn; spring of 2009, maybe a little bit earlier,
but about spring of 2009 for 951; and August of 2009 for the last
section of Santa Barbara.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me rephrase the question a
little bit differently. For the schedule that you see, with the phasing
Page 155
February 28, 2006
in that they're planning it do, does any -- the schedule itself give you
anything as far as great concern? Do you think the schedule should be
farther out, or do you think this is doable?
MR. FEDER: I think the phasing in is a major assist, especially
with the affordable housing up first. I wanted to give you an idea of
the schedule of the projects.
And as Don was pointing out, if we don't have those proj ects
shown but continue the production within the first two years, then
concurrency issues would address, especially if they're out in the
fourth and fifth year, and then we'd have to see what other issues we
face at that time. But we'd continue the production schedule. They
do have a phasing schedule based on the recommendation at least
from the planning commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All right. I have other
questions of other staff members, but why don't you let
Commissioner Fiala go forward, and then I'll come back.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I've got some questions, too. This
is for Norm Feder or -- either Don Scott.
As you see right at this point in time, if we were to okay this
project because of the 111 affordable housing units which are going
to come on-line first, how much of an impact is that going to be on
951 in that general area?
MR. FEDER: Again, every housing unit generates trip. The
issue is the length of trip and how much of an area it will impact.
That section of 951, as I said, could be as late as spring of 2009
before it's fully six-Ianed. And assuming they could get the go-ahead
on the different phases, the initial phase, there is capacity out there, as
Don pointed out, to some degree, but we would need the six-Ianing
for the full proj ect and for other issues in the area, depending on how
they come on-line as they come forward for concurrency
determination.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So what you're telling me, the
Page 156
February 28, 2006
111 units, there's capacity for that; is that right?
MR. FEDER: As it stands today, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And then the other remaining
units that are going to be built, that would be up to what we have as
far as traffic concurrency, and they wouldn't -- there wouldn't be any
permits issued if they didn't meet concurrency; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: Again, acknowledging by our growth
management plan, that if I have a program within the first two years, I
count that capacity. Other than what we're doing right now in moving
production, I believe the answer is yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. My next question is, we're
presently working on Rattlesnake Hammock.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's your best guess -- and I know it's
just only a guess -- but when do you think that the improvements will
be completed at that point?
MR. FEDER: 2007, summer of2007 we'll be completed with
Rattlesnake Hammock. It will be the first of the four completed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think you've answered my
questions.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you know how many units are
already approved in this particular corridor and how much
commercial is already approved that have not been built but are
scheduled to come on-line?
MR. SCOTT: There's -- I don't have them in front of me, but
obviously there's a lot in Lely with Ole (phonetic) that's up front that's
already approved and sold out. Verona Walk keeps developing. The
hospital, some of the other commercials kind of tenuous at this -- you
know, based on concurrency, and there's some other things moving
forward, but there's quite a few units.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we -- when you say that there's
Page 157
February 28, 2006
capacity now, is that figured on the one-seventh equation, where you
only figure one-seventh of the developments there?
MR. SCOTT: It's based on two-sevenths, but not all
seven-sevenths.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I seem to remember -- but I
could be mistaken here. I seem to remember that you had said back
about a year ago that with all of the development approved but no
possibility of expanding C.R. 951 any further than we can, that it's
scheduled to fail by 2012. Is that still the case? Especially with the
Davis Boulevard now being yanked out from underneath us.
MR. SCOTT: Well, let's take the first one first, County Road
951. That was based on -- strictly on trends, but not with the model
of Santa Barbara extension and Rattlesnake. So that does buy some
more time from there.
Obviously you know we're working on the other north/south
road east of 951, pieces of it at the moment, trying to work towards
the whole, but that's still a question mark.
As for Davis, the issue with their project specifically is, how far
do you look lengthwise based on our rules, and they don't affect
Davis at the level that you would look at it. But, of course, there
would be trips moving up that way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, because all of this
construction going on on the other four roadways, the traffic is going
to try and find some way out. It will be Davis, except that -- well,
the intersection there at Davis and 951 is just terribly failing as it is. I
think the state called it the most failing intersection that they have in
their system in this district, and, of course, with Davis Boulevard,
we're going to have some problems there anyway.
MR. SCOTT: Well, we're moving forward with the 951, up
north of 1-75 and have had discussions with FDOT about widening
Davis as part of that.
But obviously, as you heard on Friday, when they were asked
Page 158
February 28, 2006
directly how much money are they bringing back to the table, at this
moment we don't know. And I don't believe, based on the project
cost, that one thing alone is going to do that. I think it takes all three
of us, developers, us, and FDOT, to restore Davis at this point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to ask you a really difficult
question. If you figured the capacity, the road capacity, figuring in
the expansions and everything, with six -sevenths of the
already-approved development, would that road still be able to
accommodate six-sevenths?
MR. SCOTT: If six-sevenths of Lely and Fiddler's Creek is in
there, the answer would be no based on the four-lane. I don't know
offhand based on the six-lane, but I will qualify that in the sense that
I think Fiddler's Creek will probably build out to what they are
approved. But, Lely, I don't think will build out to the top level of
their approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the other ones in that area that
are also -- I know we've approved a lot of them right in that area --
MR. SCOTT: There are other ones in there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that aren't -- haven't even started
digging, but they will be too, especially with the hospital coming
on-line. They're going to want to -- there's a lot of units already
approved there that they're going to want to get built for the hospital
and as well as commercial with the medical.
I'm just really worried about that road, and it's -- it bothers me. I
think -- I think that's all I had to -- oh, if we had an interconnection --
and I realize I've talked with the developer on this a lot of times, and
he doesn't own the land there.
But if we had an interconnection between this and the hospital so
that people could get out at the light, would that help traffic on that
road any?
MR. SCOTT: We have that outlined with them as to where that
could take place. We need some help from FP &L to make that
Page 159
February 28, 2006
possible. I don't believe that -- I believe that will happen to get out at
Rattlesnake.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to address some
questions to Denny Baker, if I may. Boy, staff's earning their money
today, I tell you that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what they're getting paid for.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Baker?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's why they get the big bucks.
MR. BAKER: No comment. Yes, sir, can I help you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you get these answers right,
you can take the rest of the day off after six o'clock.
Denny, the idea about this affordable housing element that
they're talking about, would this be a tremendous bonus? Is it the
right place that we're looking to place it or they're looking to place it?
Give us a little insight into what we're actually talking about
here with this. Is it -- what kind of a plus is it or what kind of a minus
is it?
MR. BAKER: Well, I know that in conversations with Cormac
-- and Cormac is being -- has spent a lot of time with the developers
here -- he came away with a very optimistic opinion about these 111
units. Obviously it's more units than is required, and the location of
the units themselves are very beneficial in the sense that they're very
close -- we anticipate being very close to the working environment,
so the trips would be quite short, we believe, for the majority of these
111 units.
Beyond that, it's really speculation, Commissioner, as to the
benefit to the community. Obviously we need these units. We all
know that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: These units that we're talking
about, the affordable units, what range does this fit? Does this fit the
Page 160
February 28,2006
MR. BAKER: This is the 80 percent and below.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that would be--
MR. BAKER: Susan has a chart here she can put up and you
can take a look at.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So a family of four, $55,000 a
year. That's about what a deputy earns, right?
MR. BAKER: Yes. We have a chart -- we have a chart here.
For example, 80 percent of median income, a teacher, a deputy, a
professional, for a family of four, would earn approximately, we're
estimating, $56,000, which would entitle them to purchasing power of
a home of $168,000 home, and I don't know what the pricing is
specifically on these type units, but, perhaps, Mr. Mulhere can --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When they say 80 percent, help
me with this. Do they mean up to 80 percent or do they mean right at
80 percent?
MR. BAKER: Up to 80 percent. We have in our chart here --
Susan, if you would put that up, please. We have a chart here that
shows the 80 percent, 60 percent, 50 and 150, and what the earnings
would be and what the purchasing power would be of combined
income for a family of four. And you can see the type of locations or
employment that goes along with that income.
MS. GOLDEN: A single-person household at 80 percent of
median would potentially be earning 39,100. Those are our starting
teachers, deputies, young professionals in entering the community.
And then the family of four at 80 percent of median, as Denny
indicated, would be around the $55,000 range.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would that be just one working?
You were talking about a sheriff's deputy, and you gave this figure.
Does that mean one person working in the family of four?
MS. GOLDEN: Well, that would depend on the family of four.
The one person category is this first one, an income of 39,000 for a
Page 161
February 28, 2006
single individual. The family of four could be a single parent with
three children, again, someone in the professional field.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But only one person working?
MS. GOLDEN: No, it could be two.
MR. BAKER: Or it could be two people with that combined
Income.
MS. GOLDEN: It could be two people.
MR. BAKER: With a family of four. Either way, the combined
income would not exceed that number.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: These are owner -- they would
own these houses?
MR. BAKER: Yes, sir.
MS. GOLDEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much.
MR. BAKER: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think affordable housing that's
being offered is extraordinary. I don't know whether it's the right
figure or not, but it certainly is far more than anyone else I know of
who has volunteered to provide affordable housing.
But I really wish you were coming before us later this year.
There are, in my mind, too many uncertainties at the present time.
One of those is that just earlier today we had hoped to have a table
approved which would provide us some guidance about what is the
appropriate ratio of market units to affordable housing units, and we
didn't get that. We're not going to get it until March the 28th,
hopefully.
The other thing is that I do not have the same level of confidence
in our ability to complete the road network that our transportation
department has, and I believe I'm right.
We have already seen a major project deprived of funds and
postponed for an indefinite period of time. We have seen contracts
Page 162
February 28, 2006
come in 70 percent over our estimated amounts. We did not issue
those contracts. They were delayed. We are seeing circumstances
where only one person bids; maybe no one bids on some of these
contracts.
So when we talk about letting a contract in the fall of next year
and having it completed by the next year or of 2008, that, in my
estimation, is pure speculation. None of us can be sure that will
happen. If we proceed with rezoning, in my mind we're creating an
obligation to provide infrastructure, and I don't know how we do that
under the current circumstances.
Furthermore, we've talked about concurrency. Concurrency is a
good way of getting around my problems here, but we don't know
what concurrency methods we will be using in a year or two years
because of the new growth management law.
The new growth management law essentially will gut our
concurrency management system, and I do not know -- and I don't
think anybody in this room knows -- what the proportionate fair share
program will do to us with respect to projects such as this.
So I like the idea of providing the additional affordable housing,
but there remain a lot of questions.
We're told in this executive summary that an affordable housing
agreement is made part of this particular document. I could not find it
anywhere in my paperwork here in my packet.
I don't know what level of home is going to be created here. I
don't know how many of each level of affordable housing home is
going to be created. Consequently, I can't determine whether a ratio
of 2.5 to 1 is an appropriate amount.
It's clear to me that one should be able to build a 1,000 square
foot affordable house selling at 250- to $300,000 without taking a
loss, and I don't understand yet why we should grant two-and-a-half
market-rate units to encourage the private sector to build one
affordable housing unit in that area.
Page 163
February 28, 2006
And if you were here earlier today you might have heard me say
that the private sector has a bigger responsibility in creating
affordable housing than does the government. The government did
not create the affordable housing problem. What created the
affordable housing problem is high prices for land, high prices for
construction, and a desire for builders to pull the most profit out of a
project. I've got nothing -- no problem with that. That's the capital
system.
But in return when we have a crisis, I think that builders should
be building affordable housing units without too many bonuses. And
so my position essentially is that there are too many uncertainties for
me to make a decision. I wish you were coming later in the year
when we've sorted out some of this stuff, and I'd feel far more
comfortable with it. And I don't know if you want to respond to that,
Mr. Anderson.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just -- I've got some questions, sir.
MR. ANDERSON: I wanted to ask what time frame you were
thinking of.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think certainly by the fall we
would have a lot of this sorted out. By the end of May we should
know what this growth management plan's going to do to us. I know
our glitch amendment is not going to pass. I think everybody's
recognized that it will not pass, so we cannot get relief legislatively,
but we'll certainly know what the legislation -- what the legislators
have done by the end of their session in May.
And then we will also have the benefit of going through this
process and trying to determine what an appropriate conversion table
is for affordable to market-rate units, and it would be helpful for us to
take some more time to solve some of these problems.
We need to get a handle on whether or not we're going to have
people building on -- bidding on building our roads. We don't really
know. We have to know where the fill is coming from and how
Page 164
February 28, 2006
much the concrete's going to cost and the asphalt. And I have a very
uneasy feeling about all that.
We owe our residents, and the developers, to have the
infrastructure available for you. And, quite frankly, a lot of that has
been taken out of our hands right now, and we need to get control of
it again, and I hope to do that before too late this year.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a couple of questions in regards
to affordable housing. Were these units going to stay in inventory as
affordable housing units, and for what time period were they
scheduled for?
MS. GOLDEN: Susan Golden, for the record. Each of these
owner-occupied units would be restricted for 15 years. That would
run with each individual unit. And there would also be a cap on the
amount of appreciation that they could earn during that period of
time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I really think this was a good program
as was brought out earlier, that 2.5 units per -- or one housing unit per
2.5 units, that's pretty substantial. We haven't had anybody else
come before this Board of County Commissioners in regards to
offering that. So hats off to these people, the developer here, and I
hope that we can come to some kind of resolution, because I feel that
we have safeguards put in place, whether the roads are put in place,
whether the roads are in place or not. They sure can't get a building
permit.
At least we'd get the 111 units of affordable housing, and I think
that's probably the most important thing, especially with the new
hospital coming onboard.
And, of course, as this young lady came before us in regards to
schoolteachers and also first responders that we need here in Collier
County, such as sheriff deputies, EMS, and so on, and firemen, I
really think that we shouldn't be cutting our nose off to spite our face
here.
Page 165
February 28, 2006
I believe that if we have a shortcoming in our road system, we've
got a -- we've got a mechanism that we can put in place, and that is
not issue any more building permits if it's failing.
So I hope that some of my commissioners will look at this with a
close eye here so -- because I think this is something that we really
need to address.
Commissioner Henning, I think you were next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I'm correct, this needs a
superma j ori ty?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I don't see it going
anywhere. And we've recently been hearing the concerns about
what's happening in Tallahassee and the uncertainty whether Mr.
Feder can build the roads or not. You know, this is really
inclusionary zoning.
But if we're going to do that, being that it takes a supermajority,
why waste everybody's time? You know, why don't we just say, we're
not going to do any zoning till after the election -- in the fall, I'm
hearing, and let's -- let's ask the county manager to layoff some of his
staff members, because we're going to have a lot less workload.
I mean, let's do it right. I mean, if we're just going to table all
this stuff, let's get rid of some of the -- what would be excess fat in the
government, and say, you know, take a break, and let us do the other
business, and maybe Mr. Feder will get the roads done.
I mean, it's just -- you've got plenty of staff members here today,
and we're wasting their time on these afternoon sessions if this is what
we're going to do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, Commissioner, I think that one of
the comments that was made by one of our other commissioners
down at the end was that -- maybe looking at this at the end of May,
because we'd have maybe a better picture of what's going to take
place in Tallahassee. Maybe what we ought to do is see if the -- if
Page 166
February 28, 2006
they want to continue this.
Myself, I'd like to see this pass today because I think that we
have a great opportunity here in regards to addressing affordable
housing needs, especially in the areas of a hospital and first
responders and schoolteachers, but that's just my feeling, and I'm just
one person that's sitting on this board.
So I'm not sure if we want to wait till after fall. Myself, I think
that we're going to have some type of guidance here, I would think,
shortly, after the legislative session, which should probably end by
the end of March.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I stand with Commissioner
Coyle on that. I think this is a great project. I don't think anybody
has denied that. I just don't think we know what's going to happen to
us here, in Tallahassee, and to our road system, dependent upon what
happens in Tallahassee with all of these issues.
And I would think that if the developer would be willing to wait
until May, that's only a couple months -- tomorrow's March 1st, to
reconsider this, I think -- I think that that would work really well on
our behalf.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I hear everybody, and I
tell you something, it's a mixed message that I'm hearing. Obviously
we'd come up -- if we were forced to vote on it, it would be 3-2, so it
wouldn't be a supermajority.
So I mean, the only option left would be to continue it. I don't
think we're going to get anyplace as far as continuing it. We've got
an excellent staff that has delivered for us numerous times before.
They have built the roads when they said they're going to build them.
Whatever the state legislative body's going to do, the state legislative
body's going to do, and we're going to have to work around it in the
end. We know that. I mean, realities are realities.
Page 167
February 28, 2006
We've got a housing project that is very much needed, but it's
needed so bad that I'm not going to jeopardize it by making a motion
for approval because I know how it's going to turn out, at least I'm
just about dead certain.
I'm going to make a motion for a continuance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that's--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's up to you, Mr. Anderson.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's the -- that's the prerogative of the
petitioner here if they want --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, he had a motion, so I had to
second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But he can go along
with it or he can force it to a motion, and then you'll have to start over
from scratch.
MR. ANDERSON: How long a continuance are we talking
about till?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As short as possible. I'd say--
if the rest of this group says May would work, then I would say May.
If they say May won't work then I'm going to move for something
longer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd say May.
MR. MUDD: 23rdofMay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It doesn't -- the legislative session
isn't over until the end of May, so you'd have to -- I would suggest
June. I'm not interested -- I'm not interested in being unreasonable
either. But at least at that time we'll have a better handle on what's
going to happen to us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I make that June.
MR. MUDD: June 6th.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: June 6th.
MR. MUDD: That's the first meeting.
Page 168
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does that work?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: June 6th?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, remember--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. We--
MR. MUDD: We've got the first and third, remember?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. That will-- that will work
for me. I just have to comment on the statement that was made that
the staff has delivered on all of the road projects on time. That's not
true.
The Davis Boulevard, Collier County -- or Collier Boulevard
intersection has been scrapped for a long period of time, and it has
nothing to do with our staff. The funding was withdrawn by the
state. We have no control over that.
So bad things have happened to us, and we can't correct it, so we
have to take that into consideration when we're making long-term
decisions like this. But June 6th looks good to me, and I would
support that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion and a second
to continue this item until June 6th.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any speakers on this issue?
Oh, I guess we took care of that, right?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We closed the public hearing, okay.
I'll call the question. All those in favor of the continuance of
this, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 169
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. It's unanimous.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Break time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Break time for our court reporter, and
please, if we could be back by 4:26. We're in recess.
(A recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. We're back from
recess, and we'll start off with item F, I believe.
Item #8F
RESOLUTION 2006-49/DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2006-01:
VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IS
REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF THE DRI DEVELOPMENT
ORDER BUILD-OUT DATE TO ALLOW COMPLETION OF
ONGOING AND PLANNED CONSTRUCTION - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: 8F. This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members. It's DOA-2005-AR-8113, Michael Saadeh of the Vineyard
Development Corporation as owner and agent is requesting an
extension of the DRI development order buildout date from May 7,
2005, to May 6, 2010, to allow completion of ongoing and planned
construction plan for the Vineyards of Naples DRI.
The subject property consisting of 1,930 acres is located along
1- 7 5, bounded by Pine Ridge Road to the south, Vanderbilt Road to
the north, and Airport-Pulling Road to the west, and Logan
Boulevard to the east, within Sections 5 and 8, Township 49 south,
Page 170
February 28, 2006
Range 26 east, also a portion of Section 6, Township 49 south, Range
26 east, and a portion of Section one, Township 49 south, Range 25
east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Now anybody
that -- all participants that are going to be addressing this issue, please
stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Disclosures from the
commissioners, starting with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I talked to Mr. Saadeh.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I talked with Mr. Saadeh also.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just -- I just talked to staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I had a telephone call from Mr.
Saadeh.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Proceed.
MR. SAADEH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Michael Saadeh. I'm the president and chief executive officer of
Vineyards Development.
We're here today on our minor extension for the completion
date, the buildout date. The Vineyards DRI DO dates back to
1984/85. I think the final order was adopted sometime in '85.
At the time we were requested to pick an arbitrary time line of
when we think the construction would be completed.
The time line was 20 years was selected. You know, that's as
close to a crystal ball as we had. We were notified by staff last year
sometime in the summer months, July, August, that the -- at the time
we filed the annual monitoring report, that our DO buildout date is
Page 171
February 28, 2006
nearing expiration. It needs to be renewed.
So we looked into the process. We contacted DCA, and they
gave us no objection to the renewal and rendered an opinion that it's
an unsubstantial change to the DRI.
We did the same with South Florida Regional Planning Council.
We got the same blessing. We took the paperwork, brought it to the
county, met with staff on several occasions, prepared the paperwork,
and here we are. It's just merely a technicality.
A few things I'd like to mention is the development of the
Vineyards, as you see it on the wall. East and west of 1-75 is better
than 95 percent complete. The last remaining four projects have all
been permitted. Construction activity has been ongoing. So it's just a
matter of extension of timeline. And all the agencies combined,
including your staff, rendered the extension as insubstantial, and here
we are.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. What's your best guess that
you'll be finishing this proj ect up within--
MR. SAADEH: Probably three years, and staff suggested, along
with DCA staff, that we ask for the four years and 11 months, and
you know, 29 days. Just shy of five years, so we put that date in on
the safe side. That's it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there
anything from staff on this?
MS. DESELEM: Hello. For the record, Kay Deselem, principal
planner. You have the executive summary in the staff report, and all
the backup documentation. I don't have anything as far as a
presentation to make. Mr. Saadeh has summarized what's going on.
I will just say that staff is recommending approval of the
petition.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Do we have any
public speakers on this?
Page 1 72
February 28, 2006
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
and a second.
Is there any other discussion before we call the question?
(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.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I believe it passes, 5-0.
MR. SAADEH: Thank you very much. Have a great afternoon.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that -- Michael, you want your
picture?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Who was the pilot who was
flying that airplane up-side down when they took that picture?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It was Coyle, up-side down.
MR. SAADEH: It was London Aviation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, that explains a number of
things.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2006-09: AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, TO REFLECT
Page 173
February 28, 2006
THE AMENDED RATES SET FORTH IN THE COLLIER
COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE
UPDATE STUDY -ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 8D. This item was continued from the February 14,2006,
Board of County Commissioners 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, which is 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 adjusting to the
emergency medical services impact fee rates; and providing for a
delayed effective date of April 3, 2006.
And Ms. Amy Patterson, your Impact Fee Coordinator, will
present.
MS. PATTERSON: Hello. For the record, my name is Amy
Patterson. I'm your Impact Fee Manager from Community Develop
and Environmental Services.
I'm going to be brief, because I have with us Steve Tindale and
Nilgan Camp (phonetic) from Tindale Oliver. They're the consultants
that worked on this study.
I just wanted to get on the record for a minute and let you know
this item was continued from the last board meeting on the 14th
because of a small error that was caught in one of the spreadsheets.
And when we say error, I always like to explain whether it was error
-- what type of error it was.
And in this case it actually is an error that created -- that caused
the fee to increase by an average of about $2 dollars per the land use
Page 174
February 28, 2006
categories, so that we're clear that this wasn't a reduction in the fee
that was generated by this error. It actually was an increase in fees.
And second, when we're comparing the increases that -- there's
two ways that we go about doing this, and that's the increase as
comparing one EMS impact fee to another. The percentage of
increase that is generated by that. So a single-family home has a rate
of $93 versus the new rate of $100. That percent of increase is one.
But then we do another comparison, and that's the effect it's
going to have on the average single-family home or office or retail
establishment.
And I just wanted to be clear that the percent increase between
just comparing two fees of the same type may be larger, but when
you apply it to the whole -- all of the impact fees that are assessed
against the development, the increase is not nearly so great. And
we've given you some slides in your package that show what is the
overall effect to development.
And with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Tindale for his presentation
and your questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman -- and correct me if
I'm wrong, but these -- this is an update to an impact fee which was
calculated in the year 2000.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's all it is, yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the increase for residential,
per residential unit of 2,000 square feet, is barely $1.62 or so per year
over the past five years. I don't think that's a big increase. I think it's
very reasonable. I would make a motion that we approve it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't -- why don't we wait till we
get this on the record from Mr. --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He doesn't need to give a
presentation.
Page 175
February 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Unless we have some questions. I
don't have any questions. I know --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I just -- if the board
would follow. Page 30 of 38, and on the bottom it says page 18.
It's a building cost index table. And if you look at it, my
perspective, it doesn't really track what we're experiencing here in
Southwest Florida with the cost of the buildings. I know that at one
time we were at 1 OO-and-a-half square foot, and now we're like
two-and-a-half(sic) a square foot -- $250 a square foot.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Some of it's 300, I thought.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I would like to give our
staff direction to create -- to do a study to justify the true cost of
construction in Southwest Florida.
And my understanding -- Mr. Tindale, you correct me if I'm
wrong -- that's something that you can use as long as there's been a
study. And this is based upon a national study. Am I correct?
MR. TINDALE: Yes, I think you're wanting to make this much
more sensitive to your geographic area, rather than just adopting the
E&R, which can be done. The answer's yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Can you give us some more
insight into this, because I want to make sure we get some of this on
the record.
MR. TINDALE: I guess the basic example is -- and we're
having these changes all over the world here in the last six months or
year, up in the northeast and the rest of the United States, and they've
been averaging eight or 10 percent changes in some of these things.
You take the sun belt and others areas that's been hit, and we've
been running 40 percent changes with certain type of facilities, and in
Florida, some of them at 70 percent.
So the national numbers over the last six months to a year have
Page 176
February 28, 2006
not been as reasonable as they have been in the past as an indicator.
So I think indicating we could take some local -- either southeast or
the sun belt numbers or something more specific to do the indexing in
the future because of that concern.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now my question is, if we do something
of this nature and you have a dual rational nexus, will it stand up in a
court of law in regards to a regional area and an impact fee because it
may be substantially higher than the national average?
MR. TINDALE: Well, there's always two components. One is,
you ask the engineer and the economist, is it correct, and you ask a
lawyer to check whether you can do things this way. And I'm the
engineer, and we have a lawyer onboard, and I think the answer both
legally and technically is yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's my biggest concern is--
so that we have -- we're protected, and so that when we're challenged,
we have a great argument in regards to making sure that we protect
the impact fees.
And so maybe what we need to do is have this sent back to staff
to readdress -- and how long would it take you to --
MR. TINDALE: What I would recommend you do is adopt the
ordinance --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: As it is today.
MR. TINDALE: -- with the recommendation to come back to
modify that item. And I can assure you that when we come back to
modify that one item, it will be conservative enough that you'll be
very comfortable that it's more realistic than what you're doing now,
but is not ever going to overestimate the cost where you have a
problem.
So I'd recommend you adopt the ordinance and all the
recommendations with a recommendation for you to come back and
adjust that -- the indexing portion of the ordinance as a separate item.
But I mean, if that's -- I think that's what the county staff wants.
Page 1 77
February 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we've got two ordinances that are up
for a vote today, so we may have to look at both of them.
MR. TINDALE: Both.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's -- we need to do it
for all of our capital improvements of exactly what we're
experiencing here. That's what the study should focus on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I have one more.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the other thing that I have
noticed, and we -- do we have a consensus on that? You want to do a
study?
MR. MUDD: Yep. I think there's enough nods that says we
need to come back with a study.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other thing I have noticed
is land values. I find it difficult that we're applying, you know, the
coastal to areas that are not coastal. And I just -- I would hope that
we can set up zones for all of the impact fees when they do an
evaluation of land and to try to hit the true cost of the capital
improvement that we're making.
Now, Jeff Page is going to construct EMS stations in the -- in the
highest priced area in Collier County over the next five years. But
the basis upon the impact fees is a variety of a sampling throughout
Collier County. Ifwe set up zones, then we can hit the target a little
bit better. Do you follow where I'm coming from?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes,
MR. TINDALE: If I can make a quick response. For EMS,
what we did is took the 10 sites you're getting ready to build, and I
think six or seven of those 10 sites were in the two most expensive
zones, and we weighted the average land value. So we did consider --
I think the range from 100,000 to 400,000, and your average per acre
cost for using is three something, because we weighted the actual
Page 178
February 28, 2006
location of the EMS locations you rejected, so we did consider the
more expensive direction you were headed by the actual location of
your EMS sites. We did adjust that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine, but we have a parks
and rec. impact fee coming up, and I have a lot of problem with that
because you're taking properties within areas of appraisal that we
will never put a park in, so --
MR. TINDALE: I didn't do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I'm thinking if you have
zones, then you can hit that target a lot better.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, the problem is, I think the zones
are going to escalate quicker than we really anticipated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, those zones need to be
updated.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It's the updating I want to
discuss a bit. I was surprised to find the statement in here that there is
no adjustment to the fee schedule during the three- to five-year
review, periodic reviews. And I thought we had agreed that we were
going to index--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Living index.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- these fees every year and then
have an update such as this periodically. What happened?
MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. This fee, when it was
adopted in 2000, did not -- it was actually prior to the consolidated
impact fee ordinance, and then prior to the direction to develop the
indexing. And this is one of the ones that we were moving forward
with to develop that indexing, but unfortunately we had a situation
with the first consultant that was selected, so that's where you see that
long gap in time. It wasn't that we weren't wanting to index, but we
were in the study index for all of this time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So this statement isn't typical of all
Page 1 79
February 28, 2006
of our impact fees. We are indexing all of the others, I presume,
except for the other one we're going to consider, because it follows in
the same category as this one.
MS. PATTERSON: I believe we have three left that do not have
indexing, and that's because they're in some state of study.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That answers my question.
Thank you.
MS. PATTERSON: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe we had a consultant, and the
consultant wasn't --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, wasn't producing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- wasn't doing the job, and we got rid of
the consultant, if I remember correctly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I want to just reaffirm
where we are at this point in time. We're talking about a study, which
I'm fine. I see we gave some direction to staff on. But we're still
going ahead to vote on these particular --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're going to vote on these two and
get these taken care of and then --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As far as the zones go -- and I
know we haven't directed staff to look at that, but I got a little bit of
concern. I mean, the EMS -- taking EMS as an example. The
personnel get paid the same in Immokalee as they do in downtown
Naples. I don't think there's a difference in pay scale.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Land prices.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm just addressing land
pricing, Commissioner. And if you -- if you think about it --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that could work for roads,
too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we do that for -- we do
that for roads.
Page 180
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we've got zones for
roads, that's right, we do. We've got five zones.
MR. TINDALE: You don't vary the fee by zone though. I think
there's two different questions where you're going to properly do the
estimates of land cost by zone to come up with an average for
countywide fee, or whether you really want to start getting into
variations in fee by districts. I'd be very careful when you have
countywide EMS services with call-up and what we've done and start
varying the fees by district. Be very careful of that.
I've done that in the mid '80s, and it gets to be a real problem
because you have credits and tax bases. And if you do have a credit
and you start using taxes, as the more valuable land got a higher
credit than the lower valuable land, there's the demand variation by
district.
And you have a countywide service here that uses a call-up
process that makes it very defensible. And we were very careful in
making sure we didn't use an average land value and find out you're
buying EMS stations in very expensive areas. We adjusted the land
cost by the specific direction you're going in your plan to make sure
the average cost in that fee is going to be enough to deal with the land
acquisition.
So I think there's two different distinct questions about properly
estimating the land values based on where you're going to build and
coming up with an impact fee that varies by district. Real, real
headache to have five sets of impact fees with five different sets of
demands and credits and costs. It's five studies at that point in time,
and there's some real issues about what comes out of that.
In transportation, you see, it reverses. You come up with very,
very expensive urban transportation fees and very cheap rural fees
because land's so cheap, but there's no tax base out there to pay for
transportation, so you had to do a credit -- and it gets convoluted, I
can tell you. So I would suggest that you may have some ordinances
Page 181
February 28, 2006
that need to be more sensitive to your land purchases. I feel these
ordinances which are countywide did use the proj ected location of
purchasing and have some reasonable land estimates in them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Call the question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was just voting on the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I -- you wouldn't have this
answer, Steve, but our staff would. It says we have 10 EMS sites that
weren't considered for EMS to build buildings on. Is it not working
that they're co-sharing with the fire departments?
MS. PATTERSON: Jeff Page is going to come up and answer
that question. If I can provide some insight, I can weigh in also.
MR. PAGE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jeff Page from
emergency medical services.
We do try and cohabitate with a number of our sites. There are
some districts that historically have not participated in that idea.
We've met with school board officials. We're look at some land,
co-habitating with them on their sites, the same with the sheriff's
office, and we'll continue to do that. But I think historically -- in the
impact fee study, Amy, we had how many? Yeah, I think six that
were going to be independent sites and three cohabitated stations for
the future, six to four.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amy, you and I talked about
the issue about evaluation of lands. Would it be a helpful tool for the
overall impact fee calculations when they're updated?
MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. I--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it be helpful to have
zones of appraisal studies when you consider all the impact fees?
MS. PATTERSON: I think that that -- having that useful
information would be very helpful, because that takes -- I think it
Page 182
February 28, 2006
makes more accurate predictions of the -- and actual costs of the
land.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, that's the only
reason I brought it up, and I think you'll see it in the parks and rec.
impact fees later on.
MR. TINDALE: We did that. And if you had one person did it,
we, on our studies, took on that responsibility. We did by geographic
area, one-acre, three-acre, five-acre, according to what we were
buying, whether it was an EMS site or a fire site, and we did an
analysis by every area by size of tract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For this one, yeah, I
understand.
MR. TINDALE: So I mean, having that done countywide would
be useful probably to everybody if we wanted to do that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. TINDALE: -- one time for all the fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess there's no interest.
Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Sir, I guess what -- I guess what I need, direction
from the board, if we're going to give it, just make sure that staff --
make sure that the land prices are weighted, and they're as realistic as
they possibly could be for the future sites that they have in that --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: They're going to change periodically.
They're going to change yearly.
MR. MUDD: I believe that's what Commissioner Henning's
basically getting at. And we'll take that direction, because that gives
us the most realistic fee we could possibly get.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And that's all I'm --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And they're going to have to be updated
on -- almost on a yearly basis, because the land prices will change on
a yearly basis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, Amy and I were
Page 183
February 28, 2006
talking about, go by the property appraiser's estimations of land
values, which he does anyways geographically.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would it help if we -- if we saw
how these figures were derived from, I mean, to see that they're not
choosing three properties in Port Royal or something?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seriously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, exactly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Is there a way to do that so
that we see that these properties are--
MR. TINDALE: You're asking a question or how we did it?
You'd like to see the report, we can provide that, to show you how we
-- the details we went into, each district by size, at least for this
report, how we went through that process, if you'd like to see that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And use that for all of our--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For all of them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: For all of our figures in regards to
impact fees.
I need a motion on this particular item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
MS. FILSON: No, we have a motion and a second, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We do already?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We've covered so much ground
here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've already voted on it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And could you refresh my memory who
the --
MS. FILSON: Yes. Commissioner Coyle made the motion.
Commissioner Fiala seconded it.
Page 184
February 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
by Commissioner Coyle and seconded by Commissioner Fiala to
increase the impact fees as they're stated here with direction for them
to go back and look at addressing this issue in a more defined
manner.
Is there any further discussion on this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, we're going to call the question.
All those in favor of increasing the impact fees, 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: Motion carries.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Majority.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2006-10: RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND
SCHEDULE FIVE OF APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS TO REFLECT THE
AMENDED RATES SET FORTH IN THE IMPACT FEE STUDY,
PROVIDING FOR THE INCORPORATION BY THE COLLIER
COUNTY 2005 FIRE/RESCUE SERVICES IMPACT FEE RATES-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is item 8E. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Page 185
February 28, 2006
Commissioners adopt an ordinance amending schedule five of
appendix A of chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, which is 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 2005 fire/rescue services impact fee
update study, establishing a methodology for the annual indexing
adjustment to the fire impact fee rates; and providing for a delayed
effective date of May 15,2006.
Ms. Amy Patterson, your Impact Fee manager, will present. I've
been having trouble with managers and coordinators today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did she just get promoted, or have
you been --
MR. MUDD: No, she corrected me.
MS. PATTERSON: It's okay. I'll answer to any name. It's fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle. And
we have Commissioner Fiala who has some questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a comment.
MS. PATTERSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a comment. I found it a little
confusing in -- where they were showing the calculations and what it
was and what it's going to become. And then on page 3 it says
something about a percentage, only 14 percent of the current total
impact fees. That's a little bit misleading because it actually was 290
percent increase. And so when you read that -- same with on the
other one where it says 3 percent increase, it really is like 212
percent. So I would think that if you're going to do that, spell it out
how much of an increase it is. Thank you.
MS. PATTERSON: Sure. And I can show it -- I can show it
Page 186
February 28, 2006
both ways. Because like I explained for EMS, sometimes it's really
concerning when you see a 290 percent increase, but then when you
compare it to everything that they're paying, it's really not that -- that
much of an increase to the--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But being that we're only
discussing this one.
MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's where I felt it was a little bit
misleading.
And as we're just talking, just before we go to the vote here,
from here on in, when we get these impact fee increases, we're going
to use the -- you're going to let us know with our paperwork how
those figures were derived, I mean, from what areas we were
studying?
MS. PATTERSON: Correct, for all of the new ones going
forward. Now, you're going to see a -- you're going to see at least one
more that was -- is already complete, and that one actually is
different than anything else, and I'm not even going to go over that
bridge now --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: But it has a land study associated with it,
and I know we'll be discussing that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, is that in your
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The motion to--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that we do an evaluation.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I -- Mr. Tindale has -- we just
need to make sure that he gets a chance to explain the impact fee. He
just provided a piece of information to me that I'm not too sure is in
the executive summary.
MR. TINDALE: I think -- and again, I think it's -- I hate to use
Page 187
February 28, 2006
the word mistake, but we probably should have been much more
direct with our last summary.
We got a per square foot cost of the homes, the single-family
homes. We should have taken that per square foot cost and multiplied
by 2,500 square feet and showed you the change, because you're
doing it on a unit basis now, and going to per square feet.
And the number is dramatically different for these two districts
in the -- for the single-family homes. And I think you need to know
that. It wasn't something we did deliberately, but we probably should
have been aware of what we're doing.
And I guess -- what page is the -- you don't have the -- I thought
we handed out all the -- oh, okay. I guess I'll have to go to it then.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So you were basing this on what, a
1 ,500-square- foot home?
MR. TINDALE: Your average home is, I think, about 2,500
square foot, isn't it?
PATTERSON: Not in that district.
MR. TINDALE: No? Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: Different than the countywide average-size
home, Isle of Capri and Ochopee we had specific conversations with
those fire chiefs on the sizes of houses that are being constructed, and
the average home ranges between 12- and 1,500 square feet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: They're smaller?
MS. PATTERSON: They're smaller homes. And in your
package I did provide to you what the per square foot cost is. But
what you didn't have was the side-by-side comparison. And that's
what -- he's going to show you something for a much larger house,
but --
MR. TINDALE: Well, no, that's okay. We'll take it -- we'll take
these two. Here's Ochopee. You need to take this 70 cents a square
foot and multiply it by 1,500 square feet, okay? And now you're
hitting a thousand dollars. What's 70 cents time -- no, it's less than
Page 188
February 28, 2006
that. No, it's a thousand bucks, right?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, it would 40. So you're going from
289 to a thousand for a single-family home of 1,500 square feet.
That's a fairly dramatic change, and we just want to be sure that's --
CHAIRMAN HALAS : Was there a cap on the size of the
house? Let's say --
MR. TINDALE: Yes, 4,000 square feet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Four thousand square feet is the cap. So
somebody could build a 6,000 square foot house same -- okay.
MR. TINDALE: The 70 cents times 4,000 would be $2,800,
your cap. And it's legitimate because the demand and people level off
significantly at that size. So that's the one number.
And then the second number is the four -- which is the other
district, would be 41 cents times that 1,500. We're talking about
$600. So we're doubling the fee.
And I'll very briefly tell you what's going on here. You've got
very small districts with very few people, and a very -- a very
significant asset. So the dollars you've created per person in these
districts in terms of an asset's very high.
And what we did is said, we're not going to build another station.
We're only charging for equipment and the things inside the
buildings. We're not charging for building a new building or land,
and still coming up with these fees because the asset is such a
significant asset for such a small group of people, who have been
very conservative.
The fee -- you know, the actual fee, if you're in a high growth
rate, it could have been 2- or $3,000, because that's what -- you've
created that asset there. You've created a fire station for like 3,000
people, and the average is usually like 10,000.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And then when you go out and buy a
fire truck for those added people that you're putting in there --
MR. TINDALE: A couple, $300,000 just for a few people. So
Page 189
February 28, 2006
it's a pretty high fee for an area that's pretty well built out that's going
to not have a lot of permits and does generate enough revenues to
add some equipment. So it's -- I mean, besides being legal, it needs to
be logical, and I think it is logical. But we wanted to be sure you
understood that the fees are dramatically going up, but they're still
very reasonable in terms of the service delivery, the fire stations you
have per person, and what you're going to do with the revenues.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, we'll call-- any speakers on this?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Ifnot, we'll call the question on
this. The motion was made by Commissioner Henning, and I believe
it was seconded by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor of increasing this impact fee, 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. Thank you very, very
much.
MR. TINDALE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm glad we put that on the--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, excuse me. He just whispered in
my ear, and I thought it was important. I'm sorry to interrupt.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, no, that was great. We needed to
put that on the record. It was good.
Page 190
February 28, 2006
Item #llB
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS : DAVID
JACKSON - LDC AMEDMENTS FOR THE
BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y OVERLAY
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public comment
on general topics again.
MS. FILSON : Yes, sir. I do have one additional speaker.
David Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, the Collier Community
Redevelopment Agency.
Chairman, I'm here -- as I sent a correspondence to all of you
earlier -- and I didn't feel it was appropriate during the public hearing
process for the Gateway and Bayshore overlays to bring up the topic,
so I'm bringing it up at this time -- if the board would consider
tasking or asking the manager and his staff to execute or to
commission a special session for the LDC amendment for the
Bayshore and Gateway overlays.
Through our -- we're not perfect, and we didn't quite get our
overlays perfect, and we know that, and we'd like to work on some
kind of a deviations language to put in there, the language yet to be
determined, to be fully staffed through the staff there, and to get done
in special session. We'd like for this to move along rather quickly.
And if it's a single item issue, I think we can get through rather --
all the public processes rather quickly and be done before your
summer hiatus -- I guess in August you take some time off -- to get it
done and codified into legal language by that time.
So if you would consider doing that, we'll work diligently with
the staff to get that language all done and get through the process and
done posthaste. And I think it will help.
And one of the reasons for it is because, in our area, it's infill.
Page 191
February 28, 2006
It's redevelopment. And we've found -- and I've already had a few
property owners show me their property and say, what about this?
And then we go, well, I can't think of everything, but you're right.
You need to be able to at least discuss it on some level rather than a
cookie cutter box item that not everything fits into, because
everything we have is an odd shape, just about.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So what are you looking at? Before June
then or --
MR. JACKSON: Well, I'll leave it up to the manager and his
staff to figure that out, but there would be a special session to go
through the process, since it's a single item, to be done by the end of
June, July, whatever the last -- your last meeting is in the summer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe we could do it before an
MPO meeting, do it an hour early.
MR. MUDD: Well, I think -- I think there's a couple of things
that you've got to address when you talk about a special session.
Who's going to pay for it, okay? Is it coming out of CRA funds?
We're going to have to come out with -- you know, that staff time and
everything that's required on a special session. This just isn't a -- this
just isn't something that you bring up.
Now, the other thing I will say is, you also have an LDC cycle
that's going on during this time, and as it was mentioned by your
LDC coordinator here just a little bit earlier, you're going to start
your whole session again in March.
And you're going to have an opportunity, if you want to take this
particular item -- and as it goes through and it starts going to the
planning commission you could -- you could use this as an LDC in
process, okay, so that it -- the staff could start using it in July, and
basically get the same effect that Mr. Jackson is basically talking
about with a special session and do it within the LDC cycle that
you've got that's coming up.
I would -- I would -- from a staff perspective, I think you can get
Page 192
February 28, 2006
the same things done without having to charge him a fee, which
won't be cheap, I don't believe, for a special cycle, and you get it all
done. And I think he gets the same thing, by July you get the same
product, the staff has got the ability in order to make that
determination.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's my next question was how much
we were -- how much monies does he have left in his CRA if we --
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, it's not based on what he's
got left. It's what Mr. Schmitt would have to come back to this board,
do some math to figure out what the cost of the special cycle will be,
and then have to come back to the board and get your approval for
that particular item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That could be millions of dollars.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
What do you need, just three nods on this, or do you need a
motion?
MR. MUDD: Well, he's got a point, you know. They would like
to have staff have the ability to make a change, okay, where we don't
have that ability right now in our land development code, okay, for
the Bayshore Triangle overlay area.
I believe you can incorporate that and get it well on its way and
then be able to use the legislation in process kind of category in order
to take it and start having staff take a look at that during the summer
months in order to implement it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, I think you
were next up to bat.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I think it's great exercise
to give our staff some flexibility to make decisions over in
community development. It might work out. And heck, we might be
able to do it more in our code.
But Mr. Jackson, I -- I think you're trying to fit a need of a
property owner, and I don't know what that need is. But my only
Page 193
February 28, 2006
comment is, you're going to probable find a lot of needs out there
that the overlay's not going to fit, and I hope that we don't get --
amend it every time it doesn't fit a property owner's needs. And I'm --
I want to look at what you want to do. I'm very much in favor of
bringing it in on this present cycle that we're going to be working on.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. I'm not here representing any single
property owner or development or proj ect. There are multiple
properties out there that have been cited that there could be a problem
if there was ever to be anything done in the future on it.
So all I'm asking is that we have the opportunity to look at some
language to find a way that we can push responsibility and empower
some of the staff to also be able to work on things so we don't have
to come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a long process
every time. That makes sense.
And we can always take this language and ride it relatively tight
and run it through the first year and see how it works. And if it
works, we can either loosen it up or tighten it up. But I'm not
looking to have this to be the wild west where anything goes. It still
has to make sense, and the county staffhas got to be able to embrace
it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I think, David, what
you're really referring to is some of the properties that are so old and
are cut up in pieces.
As you kind of mentioned before, we had -- we had an instance
where the property was supposed to have, according to our land
development code and our growth management plan, have so much
parking and was supposed to have so much water storage, and was
supposed to have so much landscaping, except once you put all of
those things on the property, there was no room for a building. And
-- but -- and our -- Joe Schmitt was saying, my hands are tied. This is
Page 194
February 28, 2006
what the land development code says. I can't do any more because
there are no accommodations in the LDC and the GMP for
redevelopment.
And so that's what you're trying to address, because this area,
especially, is a redevelopment area. It's going to hit -- it's going to hit
Golden Gate City as they try and redevelop into a downtown area as
well. It will hit other areas. But I think it's important that we address
it and get to it quickly.
MR. JACKSON: All right. And I'm -- I'll admit, I don't -- I'm
not familiar with the process that the manager has brought forward.
But if it will effect the same result that we can get something that we
can work with into the language and it's legal and binding that we can
work with before the August recess session, I would be more than
willing to work through that process. I was not aware of it before.
Special session was the only language I knew.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Joe Schmitt, can you give me some
ideas? Obviously you must have had some discussions here in
regards to what amendments need to be addressed. Can you give us
some -- enlighten us a little bit in regards to what's going on?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community
Development/Environmental Services Division Administrator.
As Mr. Jackson's aware, we've been working on this overlay,
David, what, for 10, 15 months now probably? And the contractor --
and it has been a partnership of pain in some ways, and a partnership
of success.
Late in the process we identified a need for a deviation process,
administrative review process, and that's what this was going to
provide.
The particulars of how we would do it, we don't want to get into
that. It would be -- there was some discussion on how we would
apply it. But what David's looking for is a special cycle. There are
problems in the special cycle.
Page 195
February 28, 2006
If we have a special cycle, I need to come back to you in an
executive summary of some form so you can approve the times and
dates of those meetings, because they're different than what's
prescribed in the LDC. You have to have at least one public hearing
with the planning commission after 5 :05 p.m., and normally it's two
meetings with the Board of County Commissioners after 5 :05 p.m.
Special cycles we normally do integral to some other type of
meeting, and we would have to -- I would have to come back and
have that -- you would have to approve that in some schedule. So if
you direct a special cycle, I would have to look at dates to do that.
But as Mr. Mudd said -- and that's why I was going back. I just
wanted to relook at the schedules of when we're going to have these
amendments before the board, and before -- or before the planning
commission and the board, but the county attorney has opined in the
past, you could deem this legislation in progress.
We could apply those rules, once we have an agreement of best
-- how they're going to be proposed to you, but they -- actually we
could not approve a proj ect until you finalized the LDC, or if we did,
it would -- it would be at the point where the developer is proceeding
at risk because you may not approve these -- this deviation process as
described, so there is some risk.
And I'm not sure of this one particular project or two, what the --
the expediency is as far as time element. Are we looking in -- is it
going to be critical that something be locked in concrete, defined and
approved prior to -- prior to the -- say, the first of September?
MR. JACKSON : Well, again, I'm not -- I'm not specific --
project specific. Even though the -- it was cited to us by a specific
project.
I'm looking for language that will help every piece of -- every
parcel that has a problem of developing under the overlays in my
entire area, all 1,700 acres. And there's going to be some of those
that are pop-ups.
Page 196
February 28, 2006
I had a gentleman call me the other day, he says, look, I've got
this property, what happens if it blows down? When I rebuild it, do
you want this kind of a factory thing right up on the road? And I
looked at it and I go, no. So I mean, we've got to be able to have a
way to said --
MR. SCHMITT: I don't know if I really answered your
question. I tried to preface --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, because I was --like Commissioner
Henning brought up, this isn't developer specific in regards to these
problems.
MR. SCHMITT: I do not know if it's developer specific. I
know it's -- there's -- as David's pointed out, there's issues that have
been brought up that now are identifying. As Commissioner Fiala
alluded to, redevelopment creates problems in trying to apply the
code.
We thought we addressed everything in this overlay to deal with
the desires of the CRA to foster and promote redevelopment, and
some of the criteria certainly does that. There are now questions
about a deviation process.
I guess the real issue is the timing. Can it -- can it not be part of
this cycle going on? We have basically legislation in progress. I
would have to look to the attorney. Would it have to be actually
codified in an amendment and approved by the board as an LDC
amendment before we could actually approve a site plan or a project,
or would that developer proceed at their own risk prior to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Like that -- he's got his own risk coming
in for a variance.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, can you give us some
direction on this before I go to my other commissioners here for
questions?
MR. WEIGEL: I think so, Commissioner. Thanks for the
Page 197
February 28, 2006
opportunity to respond.
It's -- the concept zoning in progress, and typically that comes
into play. It's defined in case law. But it comes into play when the
board has given it a rather definite indication of what it is they
attempt to achieve through a zoning change, and it's -- you're really
essentially waiting for the process and the hearing to come for
adoption.
In this particular case it sounds to me like aspects of deviation
from the land development code are still a little bit amorphous, they're
cloudy. We don't know what those deviations might be, and we don't
know if the board would approve those deviations. So I don't think
that this subject matter lends itself to a zoning in progress type of
opportunity for development to go forward because these deviations
are yet to be articulated, to be identified, and also endorsed by this
board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just a fast question about
timing. If he wanted a special session, but as long as we're starting
another session in March anyway, there wouldn't be any time saved
actually, would there, other than maybe a couple weeks?
MR. SCHMITT: Unless I come back to you and you approve
dates as David suggested. We would, at a minimum, be required to
have one hearing before the planning commission. I could do that
integral -- or integrated to any type of planning commission, as long
as you approved, or planning commission meeting. And then,
likewise, similar to what we did today, you heard LDC amendments
during the regular meeting today . We would do a similar type of
acti vi ty .
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But what I'm saying is, whatever he
wants to do, we can just tuck it in under the March 14th, right, or the
March 17th or 16th, whatever.
Page 198
February 28, 2006
MR. SCHMITT: Well, ma'am, but that -- you will not see those
amendments till late fall, October before the final approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
MR. SCHMITT: They have two hearings before the planning --
well, they go before the DSAC. Usually the EAC, the DSAC, two
hearings before the planning commission and two hearings before
Board of County Commissioners minimum.
We're putting those amendments together now . We'll begin the
administrative staffing process, and then the public hearings. And I
recall the date is October 28th or whatever by the time you actually
approve in your final hearing.
Now remember, now I'm going to add on to this. People
complain all the time about the code always changing, and we've--
because of this LDC process, we've had to bump it. And everybody's
complaining, you're changing it too much, but then out of the next
sentence, but I only need this one thing changed, or I only need this
one thing changed and --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we take this through the
normal process, if we can incorporate it, even though it may not come
back till fall? At least we'll try to get it right. Take this time and get
it right.
MR. SCHMITT: Frankly, Commissioner, that's my
recommendation, and that was my recommendation to the manager.
Though I understand the expediency of the district. And I'm subject
to your desires. I'll come back to you with a special cycle if you so
direct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. What I think we ought to do is take
this through the normal process and make sure that we get it right as
we're working through the process. That's my feeling.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that's all right. He just asked
for a time to meet. I thought that was a fairly simple request. You
Page 199
February 28, 2006
know, I don't know what all the conversation's about. But,
nevertheless, I guess we just want to make it complicated.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. That's really all he asked for
was a time to meet, and I was suggesting an hour before --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just suggest that we, as a
Board of County Commissioners, say, find the time to get it done and
get it done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, the problem is, who's going to pay
for it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You guys worry about the details.
MR. SCHMITT: I will come back in the executive summary
and propose dates for a special session, or special cycle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you give him the costs
associated with that. He can make a decision as to whether or not he
wants to do it. If he doesn't want to do it, you can suggest another
time. Work it out.
MR. SCHMITT: Your desires. You tell me.
MR. MUDD: Have I got three nods?
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, can we do that? I mean, at least
CHAIRMAN HALAS: As long as --
MR. JACKSON : We'll get that data for you --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifwe have a special cycle, you're going
to pay for it then.
MR. JACKSON: Well, yes, sir. I have to go to my advisory
board and then I have to go to my CRA board, but still, we can do it if
we feel that it's important.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The only thing is, I don't want to see
this come back continually, and we end up with special sessions all
the time instead of making sure that we go through this systematically
and take care of the problems that you've found already and address
them together and not individually.
MR. JACKSON: Well, yes, sir, I understand. And we have no
Page 200
February 28, 2006
desire to be coming back to the house of pain. We don't want to go
there any more than we have to.
MR. MUDD: And Commissioner, let me tell you something,
you're going to delegate to staff some things that we used to have to
come to you for approval on, and I'm going to tell you, it's a slippery
slope. And we'll take a look at that. But once that gets to the DSAC
and other people start figuring that out, they'll go, oh, delegate the
staffmore often because we don't want to come back, what'd you call
it, house of pain?
MR. JACKSON: House of pain.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And so, you know--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All we're saying is --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're going to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Decide a time to meet.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not delegating a blasted
thing to you. We're just saying knock off all the conversation and
complications and get a time to meet. End of story.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, I need a motion to come back for a
direct -- to come back to you with a special cycle, and I'll do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The deputy at the end of the
table, hello? Can I borrow your gun?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But he's -- but right now he's just
asking for a time to meet, not a special cycle.
MR. SCHMITT: No, he was asking for a special cycle. I would
have to come back and propose those dates to you in an executive.
Am I right, Mr. Jackson, you want a special cycle?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we've given guidance to
staff to come back with a time.
Page 201
February 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You don't need a motion for a special
cycle here?
MR. MUDD: No. We'll have to come back and do that on a
regular agenda, okay?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. So you just want -- you got--
MR. MUDD: We'll have Mr. Jackson figure out the--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You just need direction? You need three
nods at least?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep, yep.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Do we have any more public comment, Ms.
Filson?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Manager?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just one thing. I did -- I did talk to
all the commissioners yesterday, and talked to them about the joint
City of Naples/Collier County meeting on the 7th of March. Ms.
Wight is working on you're read-ahead packets right now. The
subjects that I talked to each commissioner about are on this slide.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Attorney?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I raise a question about one
item here?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jim, after we talked, it -- excuse
me -- it seems that emergency preparedness, particularly if it has
Page 202
February 28, 2006
anything to do with hurricane preparedness, might be better done in
June or something, right before the season starts. Would that have
more impact? Would that be more relevant?
MR. MUDD: Well, sir, if you're going to -- and I think this is
going to talk about things that went well, things that we need to do
better.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who cares?
MR. MUDD: Sir?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, we've already talked about
the things that went well. Why don't we just talk about what we're
going to do for the next one?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think that's what they're going to
do, things -- loopholes.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I think they're going to talk about what
things we can do better together and those kind of items.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. I mean, a review of the
last year isn't going to be helpful to us. But if we're going to focus on
what we're going to do for the upcoming year and how the two
governments can work effectively together, that would be good,
because it seems to me it would have more effect --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or maybe it wouldn't, I'm not
sure. You tell me if I'm wrong -- would have more effect to do it in
June than to have it -- do it in March?
MR. MUDD: Sir, if there's anything that needs to be changed,
okay, to take any kind of operating procedures and things like that,
trying to get it done in June, to start working events in June, might be
-- might be too quick.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: This gives us enough lead time in order to get
those things done if there's anything extraordinary that both
governing bodies want to give guidance.
Page 203
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there anything that the City of
Naples wants to brief us on and tell us about?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And there's going to be -- or Chief
Moore is going to talk about the perspective from their side, then the
two managers will start talking about some things that we can do
better.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Count Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir. I'd like to make our lives easier, or at
least make the offer to make our lives easier relating to affordable
housing fees, donations, and all that goes along with that.
I've provided the board previously information in regard to an
offer by our currently retained counsel, the Nabors Giblin Firm,
relative to adopting -- creating an affordable housing mitigation fee,
which could include affordable housing, gap housing, and could be
coordinated with inclusionary zoning as well.
I don't know that I'm looking necessarily for nods at this point in
time, but my thought is to work a little bit in the next few days with
Jim Mudd, with whom I've already spoken, Cormac Giblin, Denny
Baker, and come back to you with an executive summary proposal so
that -- for a program for the staff with the outside expertise to bring
something back if you'd like in that regard so that we go beyond the
area of an era of voluntary donations and consider a fee arrangement
that's based upon data and a methodology that could have a uniform
application to everyone.
So my thought is, I'd put something together and bring it back to
you at the next board meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Anything else?
MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll start with Commissioner Coyle.
Page 204
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I have something. How
would the commissioners feel about bringing in the Barron Collier
girls basketball team for an award or resolution for winning the state
championship? They--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: A proclamation would be nice.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. We might want to schedule
that on the next meeting and recognize them. That's a significant
achievement, I think.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we -- as long as we're doing
that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not the curling.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the Lely High School's not --
debate team, they won in the court system. I just read about it in the
paper, regional -- regional awards for doing something through the
court system.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mock court?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mock trial.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mock trial. I don't know anything
about it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Honor two of our high schools on --
if that would be all right. I think that's a great idea.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Couple of proclamations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Kudos.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner
Halas. I just wanted to tell staff that I know this has been a trying
day, but we appreciate you and we love you for everything you do.
To my houseguests that have recently come to visit, Jack, Joan,
Page 205
February 28,2006
Beau and Helen, welcome. Jack, get out of my chair. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I've asked if Jeff could give us
just a little bit of an update on Diamond Shores because today was the
eviction date, and I was wondering if anybody was able to stay and if
we could transfer title, and so I just asked Jeff if he'd just give us an
update.
MR. KLATZKOW: For the record, Jeff Klatzkow. Trying to be
brief, given the time of day. I met yesterday with the attorneys for
the two principal owners of Diamond Shores. Diamond Shores is a
condominium (sic) unit, but the vast majority of the units are owned
by two individuals either in their personal names or by corporate
entities.
And the understanding we have is that we will be meeting with
the owners in the very near future at Diamond Shores with
representatives from code development. We will be doing a visual
inspection of each and every one of the units, we'll ascertain which
units can be repaired, which units are beyond repair and need to be,
unfortunately, shuttered, and hopefully we'll be able to get, in a
relatively quick manner, the units to be put back into good repairs so
that they can be used by the residents.
And the owners have told me that, you know, with the exception
of people who are not paying, that they intend to not continue with
evictions. Whether they do this, we have no control over it. But it
looks like we're making substantial progress in that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question about that?
Are we considering waiving any fees or any fines?
MR. KLATZKOW: I could not do that, sir, because that would
have to come to the board. The liens are owned by the Board of
County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you very much. My
Page 206
February 28, 2006
point is that it is the owner's responsibility to get those units into
proper condition, that we shouldn't be subsidizing it. And if we've got
-- if we've got fines levied against the owner, we should demand that
he pay those fines and continue paying them until he gets it fixed up.
MR. KLATZKOW: Understood.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Jeff. That's all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. In June I think we're
going to see a lot of public petitions come through for rezones or land
use items. My concern with that is that's the month that we do the
budget stuff, and we're not going to -- now I'm hearing that we're not
going to get all of the information that we need in a timely basis to
feel comfortable about the budget.
And I mean, I'm willing to work two days on our -- the month
that we adopt our mileage rate, but I'm not willing to clog up June,
okay? The budget process is very important. And I think we all
need to spend our time when we make recommendations to our staff
on a budget. So that's one thing.
And then the next thing, I just want to take back a time when my
friend Commissioner Fiala and I were just freshman commissioners,
and there were only two roads under construction in Collier County
that I remember.
But since then, since then, we have done a major north/south
roadway, Livingston Road, that was proposed for a two-lane, but
there was foresight to take it out to its maximum, and what a blessing
that is.
We have Golden Gate Parkway improvements on there, taking it
from the interchange -- no, I'm sorry -- from Santa Barbara all the
way to Goodlette Road with the foresight of not just retrofitting
because the interchange is coming in, making improvements all up
and down that corridor to make it compatible to everybody. We have
made a lot of strides in our transportation department in the last five
Page 207
February 28, 2006
years.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Huge, huge.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Huge.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Huge.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's not going to stop, and
it's all due to Norm Feder coming to Collier County and making a
difference.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And his staff. The other thing, too,
Commissioner, just -- that this Board of County Commissioners have
-- has really stepped up to the plate and has supported the efforts that
need to be done to address growth here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And when asked, we do. And
I'm confident that the board is going to make good decisions under
the guidance of Norm Feder. And I'm going to work to try to find
him available material so he can build all the roads that he wants,
above ground or below ground or whatever he needs.
So that's the most important thing that we do here in Collier
County, you're going to hear from our residents, is build the roads,
and we've got the right person to do it. So thank you, Mr. Feder.
No, I mean it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got -- I think we've got a pretty
good staff here when we address all the issues of growth, not only
roads, but as you remember not too long ago we had some serious
problems with making--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sewers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With the landfill stinking.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The landfills and wastewater, even
drinking water. So I think we've made some great strides, and not
only -- we've given staff that ability because, as Board of County
Commissioners, we've been here and making sure that we give them
Page 208
February 28, 2006
the tools and the money to address those needs, and that's very
important.
I'm going to finish up by saying that County Manager Mudd and
myself and Debbi Wight will be flying to Washington. As you saw
on our last agenda we had on February the 14th, that we had eight
items that we're going to go to Washington and work with our
lobbyist there, and hopefully we can bring home some bacon and
make sure that we take care of the needs -- the growth needs here in
Collier County.
That's going to be issues addressing flood control. It's going to
be issues addressing transportation needs, interchanges, and also
we're looking at some issues out in Immokalee to make sure we can
address our community center there. So we're going to be busy. It's a
two-day whirlwind trip, and we're hoping that we're going to be
successful.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for doing it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, could I just make a
quick comment?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning has raised
a good point about a potential flood of rezones after Mayor early
June, and I understand that my stance on rezones is largely, perhaps,
responsible for that, but I need to ask a question.
I don't want to see that happen either. Why, when the pipeline is
so full of developments that have already been rezoned and are
waiting for construction, would we want to rezone anything more
anyway unless there is an overwhelming public benefit?
So I don't know why we wouldn't want to discourage people
from even scheduling a rezone unless they've got a really
overwhelming public benefit that they can provide.
And so, that's one way to make sure we're not flooded with
petitions after this legislative session.
Page 209
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what's the public benefit?
I don't understand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We had two today and we
voted them down.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yes, we did, and I'm going to
continue doing that, because I don't think we can handle the ones that
are in the pipeline right now. Why do you want to clog it up with
more?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's based upon our
growth management plan, and our staff guides us whether it conforms
to it or not.
Now, I think what you're saying is, let's do a moratorium until a
certain time, not have any rezones. Well, no, it isn't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not a moratorium.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you're absolutely right.
The people have a right to petition their government.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They have a right to petition.
They don't have a right to get it approved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's true, but it -- I
mean, I think we base it upon our land use laws. And when our staff
says that it complies with that, then -- and I'm hearing public benefit
-- doesn't meet a public benefit, but I'm not sure what that -- what
you're looking for. And I think it's important for us to understand, as
your colleagues, and the general public of what you consider public
benefit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think if you're building a school,
if you're building a library, a museum, if you have extraordinary
benefits with respect to affordable housing, I think those are reasons,
and that is the only reason that I would consider -- reconsider the one
that came before us today in June; otherwise, I will continue my
policy of not approving a rezone until we clean out the pipeline a bit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we had one today in regards to
Page 210
February 28, 2006
where a developer was going to come in front -- or came in front of us
and was looking at building 111 units of affordable housing first
before he did anything else, and I hope that our checkbook
concurrency does work in regards to addressing the transportation
issues, but --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it won't work on the new
growth management plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm sorry, but I really do
have to interject my opinion here. We went through a lot of trouble
to come up with our management plans, with our land development
codes. We've been working on it for years. We lay it out, hired the
very best. And you just acknowledged him, Norm Feder, when it
comes to roads.
He gets up there and he explains exactly where we are with the
roads, and the fact that he has been able to deliver most of the time,
occasionally something happens at the state end that we don't get the
money for one reason or another, but he's been -- he's been very
successful with bringing the roads across.
We've got all the rules and regulations, we've got
recommendations from the people that we put on the planning
commission, what to do, we listen to everything, and then we trash it
every single time.
I'll tell you what I'm going to suggest to the building community
and to the community in general, pull a moratorium. Get the Goddarn
moratorium in place there so people know where they stand, and then
we're forced to come up with a solution.
By skirting the issue and just saying, we're not going to go into a
moratorium, we're just going to go into a slowdown, we're going to go
into this, that is a moratorium. There's no ways around it. We're
forcing the area into a moratorium. Let's get it over with, declare a
Page 211
February 28, 2006
moratorium, then come up with a plan to get out of it.
If you have no confidence in what staffs put together, along with
the planning commission and all the study groups that are out there,
everything they have produced is for naught, then let's plan a
moratorium and go from there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think one of the areas -- and
Commissioner Fiala, I just want to get this off of my chest -- is the
fact that when all those transportation dollars were pulled away from
state projects, and now we look at -- that we had a windfall of sales
tax, I really think that the governor needs to take a serious look at that
and re-establish the transportation dollars that were pulled since we --
he's found that we've done so well with sales tax and the people
buying goods to repair their homes after hurricanes, and I think that's
where we really need to really address the issue, and I think that
would help alleviate some of the problems that we're running into as
a Board of County Commissioners here today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One of the confusions, I think we
all feel really is, we don't know. We don't have a complete picture in
front of us every time we vote.
We -- we're told how much capacity is left on the road, but we
don't even know all of those things that are approved. I would love to
see something that shows every development that has been approved
and how many units, every commercial piece of property that has
been approved but not yet built but we know will make an impact and
how much of an impact it would make.
I think if we could see the whole picture instead of this
piecemeal glimpse we would have a much better insight as to where
we should go from here. But right now we all know there's a lot
been approved and a lot not built, but we don't really know where it
IS.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the checkbook
concurrency --
Page 212
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but that only gives us
one-seventh of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, if you want it
tighter, change the law. I mean, if you don't feel confident in our
process, then we need to -- we need to change it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not saying not confident, but I
just meant we need the whole picture.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uncertainty then.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you need the uncertainty,
because our -- the recommendations from our staff and the planning
commission is based upon the growth management plan, so -- and,
you know, what I would like to do, and I think it's appropriate for all
of us to understand -- and I still am under the premise that we can be
tougher, this growth management plan.
And we have a retainer from a law firm that does a lot of work in
the State of Florida, in Tallahassee, that works with growth
management, DCA and all those others. They know.
Nancy Lanan knows when we adopted the fringe in the eastern
land, we had Nancy Lanan and Marti Chumbler here.
Let's get them down here and see what we can do. I know
there's a lot of fear, but I feel confident in having home rule, that we
have a lot of latitude in what we can do. But if not everybody feels
assured of that, I think it's time to get somebody down to tell us what
we can and cannot do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, the other thing, too, even though
we've got a lot of the --a lot of stuff out there, too, that doesn't mean
that they -- that everybody can build. It's basically, yeah,
everybody's approved to come to the dance, but if the dance hall gets
filled up, guess what, you're not going to be able to get into the dance.
And I think that's part of our checkbook concurrency system that
we've got -- we've got set up here.
Page 213
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That leads me to a question.
Who here does not believe in checkbook concurrency?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's the answer. Either we're
doing it right or we're not. If we can't rely on checkbook concurrency
to take care of the problem, then we have to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not saying -- I'm just saying I
wanted to see a whole picture of what it looks likes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we got that picture several
times now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: At MPO we got that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I guess -- I guess I'm not explaining
myself clearly. I'd love to see a map to show everything that's already
built, you know, in one color, and everything that's approved but
hasn't been built in another color to see what we have left in there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Jim Mudd, haven't we
had graphs like this already? I can remember something in the recent
past. We had the unbuilt capacity that was still hanging out there.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we've got that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got that. We've had it in
front of us numerous times.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm not -- Donna, that's
why I'm so confused on this. You know, the issues that you keep
bringing up, we've already got into place. We've got checkbook
concurrency in place, we have a list that shows us what the unbuilt
capacity is.
They figure that into the checkbook concurrency, they figure it
into the recommendations that are given, so we find reason to doubt
what's out there continuously.
I agree with Commissioner Henning. I think he's got the right
idea. I'm for bringing in some outside counsel, not only to deal with
Page 214
February 28, 2006
our own land management, but also to be able to go over some of the
issues that are before us as far as the state goes.
I think Commissioner Coyle made a good point. There's
probably a likelihood that this won't pass, the glitch bill. But if it
does, it's going to be watered down.
Mike Davis is out there doing the very best he can, Dudley
Goodlette's giving him all the support in the world. The truth of the
matter is, we don't have a lot of support out there. Collier County's
not necessarily alone, but other people don't see the problem like we
did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd love to have Nancy come
down, along with her staff, and get them here, because they're up in
Tallahassee, and they don't know how this whole thing comes
together, and really dissect this so we have a good understanding
where it is. Let's come to grips with the fear that we have and just
face it head on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me -- let me try to clarify that.
Everybody -- well, not everybody. Some of the commissioners are
speaking as if there was no change in the growth management bill.
The growth management bill gutted our concurrency system, end of
story. There is no argument about that. Everybody has said that,
including that Thadeus Cohen in front of witnesses, two of who are
sitting in this room right now. It is a recognized fact that that's what it
did.
Now, you say the concurrency system will work. Of course it
will work if we're permitted to retain it. We don't know that we're
going to be permitted to retain it, and that's the failure of that
argument.
Now, I tried to tell this commission when the -- when the growth
management bill was introduced. I said, this is bad for Collier
Page 215
February 28, 2006
County, and people said no. Let's trust our legislators. Everything's
going to be okay.
It went through and it got passed. I said, it's bad for Collier
County. There still was no belief that it was going to hurt us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, there was some belief.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Our own staff wrote reviews and
said it is bad for Collier County, and we still have commissioners
saying, well, no, it's not really. This is an imaginary fact.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not saying it is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, but -- so let's do put it to
bed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not put it to bed. Let's face
it square on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let's face it square on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's bring them in and go
through --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, no. Nancy Lanan--
Nancy Lanan is not going to answer the question. If you have to hire
Nancy Lanan to get us a real-time concurrency system for
transportation, that's the payoff, okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I don't agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if you go to Nancy Lanan and
you say, Nancy, if you believe we can have a tighter concurrency
control system, then I want you to go to the DCA for us on our behalf
and I want you to get a real-time transportation concurrency
management system approved, and tell us what we need to do to
support you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For one year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Zero years. It ought to be exactly
like --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We tried it and it didn't work.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. Well, wait a
Page 216
February 28, 2006
minute now. If we can have a more -- a stricter concurrency
management system, why did they disapprove us in the first place?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because we wasn't financially
feasible.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that's not it. That's what they
told you. That was not it.
They determined what is financially feasible. That is the
problem. They won't let us determine what is financially feasible, but
that's where the decision should be.
When we go up to them and we tell them, this is a financially
feasible plan, they shouldn't have anything to say about it, end of
story .
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ifwe had all our backlog taken
care of, it would have been a financially-feasible plan, or if we would
have lowered the level of service on the existing roads, we would
have had no problem. That's where the--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't believe that, and we've had
staff sit right there at a table in front of two, three legislators, and say
that DCA was unreasonable when we went there to try to get a
tougher concurrency system. They said that. We've got it in the
minutes of the meetings.
So I'm not buying into that argument that DCA is going to let us
have it. I sat across the table from Thadeus Cohen, and I asked him if
we could do that. He said no. Didn't he?
MR. MUDD: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay? So he said no.
Now, let's call everybody's hands. Let's not ask a lawyer to tell
us whether or not we can do it. Let's do it. Let's go in for a real-time
transportation concurrency system. Let's ask DCA. Will you let us
have this?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What they'll do is probably tell us we
have to lower the level of service.
Page 217
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let them tell us--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- what we have to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a given as far as my
opinion. I still respect you in your opinion, but I just disagree with
your opinion on this whole issue, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What bothers me is, I'd like to get a little
more direction on the proportionate share to make sure that we
address a TCMA, and that really bothers me as far as a proportionate
share on a particular roadway. If it doesn't address a TCMA, since
we've got a couple of those areas here within Collier County in the
urban area, I have some real concerns.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They'll talk you around in circles
if all you ask is for clarification. The only way we can do this is to
say, give me a real-time concurrency management system. Put up or
shut up, that's the only way we'll solve this argument.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could -- Norm, could you shed a little
light on this for us since we're in this hot discussion and maybe being
-- the transportation expert you are.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I'll try to. First of all, I think
Commissioner Coyle is correct. If you read the specifics, our
real-time concurrency, as it's structured, without some provision,
can't exist because of the concept of proportionate share.
Now, having said that, as we try to pursue some change in the
legislation to allow us to keep what I think is a very good system that
we have, if we're not successful there -- and I think we wait to find
out if we're successful -- then we can go back to proportionate share
and structure that thing based on home rule to give us some
opportunities that won't be quite the same as what we have today if
we're not allowed to keep that, but under proportionate share, you can
go after the backlog as well as the actual needs of the capacity of that
proj ect.
Page 218
February 28, 2006
What I mean by that, if you have a project out in the fifth year,
and under the state's provision you're able to come in and say, okay,
I'm affecting X segment of roadway but you've got a construction
project in the fifth year, your proportionate share needs to be
developed in a manner and enough of a zoning that they can't just
pay their proportionate share on that one construction project, but
rather have to pay a proportionate share for all the other needs.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's in a TCMA?
MR. FEDER: Then they get to decide if they're ready to pay
that level. And if they're not ready to pay that level based on your
proportionate share, then they can't pay a proportionate share and go,
and we're closer to what our system is today. If they can pay it, well,
it depends how we structured it, sir. And maybe we'd be happy if
they were willing to pay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. FEDER: So I'm saying, I think we have some options, but I
do agree with Commissioner Coyle that with proportionate share in
there -- which appears from what I'm hearing out of DCA and the
governor's office even in recent meetings -- they're not willing to give
up, but I guess we'll find out.
If they don't give up proportionate share, that does allow pay and
go, depending upon how we structure proportionate share, and I think
that's what we're going to have to look in our home rule if we're not
successful in getting them to allow us to maintain our system or some
parallel system that we find to be real-time, then we need to make
sure proportionate share doesn't undercut our ability to have a system
that is generally real-time concurrency.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're covering -- when you say that,
you're commenting on -- also talking about TCMAs then, too, right?
MR. FEDER: Yes, in all of our system. We'd have to rethink
the whole thing. And I understand right now what we're trying to do
is ask that we be able to maintain what is probably one of the most
Page 219
February 28, 2006
stringent, but nonetheless a very viable system that was just getting its
feet under itself and starting to work.
And people said, why'd you approve that? That was something
well before the system came into effect, and it was starting to work,
and then all of a sudden we have this issue, which predominantly, it's
the proportionate share portion of that, which I understand, a lot of
people don't want to give up, to allow someone security of being able
to pay and go.
That's probably the one that we need to most figure out how we
can work with that locally if we're unable to get the ability to
maintain our system or something close to it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So can I ask a question then? As
long as we're talking about pay and go--
MR. FEDER: As long as you understand that I don't have all the
answers, but yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, I need to understand a
little bit. Right now we have the security of concurrency kicking in if
a road can't accommodate the traffic generated by a certain
developer, whatever.
MR. FEDER: As long as that construction's not in the first two
years, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But with this proportionate
share or pay as you go, they just pay their money to build the road
and they build regardless of whether the road is completed or not, or
we can get that road built in the time that they're completed? They
can just build? That gives them the privilege to do that?
MR. FEDER: There is technically that possibility, depending
upon -- first of all, there's a model proportionate share ordinance.
What role that model takes and how much flexibility we have from
that becomes very important.
If we're able to develop a proportionate share that doesn't allow
Page 220
February 28, 2006
them just to take -- first of all, it has to be a construction phase within
the five years of your improvement program. Then, again, you have
to have improvements identified to meet your level of service. That's
sort of the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Catchall.
MR. FEDER: -- dual edge of the issue, okay? So if it's within
your five years, then theoretically a proportionate share can be paid.
Now, the issue is, what is a proportionate share? As I
understand it, proportionate share is not only for the capacity for what
you're creating as demand, your proportion of that, but is also a
proportion of making up all the backlog that exists, depending upon
how specifically structured or allowed to be structured.
Did I answer your question, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me just say that an
ordinance is something that does not have to be approved by
Tallahassee. It stays here and it's a local control, whatever the board
wishes.
MR. FEDER: The only thing I could add to that--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We can just do our own thing.
MR. FEDER: I'll defer to legal on that. But one thing I will say,
you've got a model proportionate share ordinance. And that's why my
caveat is, you need to make sure that if we're very vastly different,
are we going to be able to uphold that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's a model?
MR. MUDD: The model proportionate share ordinance was
developed by the Florida Department of Transportation with a whole
host of other folks that were put together, and they just basically sent
that out as of yesterday, that everybody got a copy.
Now, I'm not -- the preliminary review of this model that I just
saw -- and I'm not saying -- and they might say everybody's got to
enact the model. The model that I read yesterday doesn't let us make
Page 221
February 28, 2006
the thing so ominous that nobody's ever going to take it.
What Norman just described to you is you make your -- you
make your proportionate fair share so painful, okay, that nobody in
their right mind -- painful monetarily -- that nobody in their right
mind will take it, and, therefore, if they don't take it, then your
two-year concurrency's still intact, okay?
And I believe there's going to be a whole host of people after
we've had this discussion today, okay, that are going to make sure
that that doesn't happen.
And so, you know, if we had the thought, I'm not too sure it's
still going to be a thought after this is over. I will just tell you, the
model that I read yesterday doesn't let you pay for past sins. It's only
what that particular development has to do with that particular
segment in the future.
MR. FEDER: And even not making it so ominous, you can go
to backlog and that's the question that we'll have to see in the model
ordinance and how it's structured. But what I'm saying is, we do have
to wait for our options.
The first question is, is the legislature going to allow us to keep
the system that we have today?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I would say, let's ask our
delegation to pull the glitch, because, what I'm hearing, it's not going
to happen.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And why don't we just proceed
with a proportionate share ordinance so we can keep the concurrency
system as it is today?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because that is not correct. If you
proceed with proportionate share, you do not have a concurrency
system. And I will tell you with almost complete certainty that the
proportionate share scheme in this growth management plan was
designed to eliminate impact fees, end of story. That's the purpose of
Page 222
February 28, 2006
the proportionate share system, to take --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Circumvent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- take away impact fees.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Circumvent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's where it will go
ultimately. Now, the model proportionate share ordinance was
prepared under contract by the transportation management
department at the University of Florida, and it is not likely to produce
the result we would like to have.
There are many questions that have not been answered about
that, and it does have to be submitted to DCA for approval. So we
can't necessarily put onerous provisions in there and get away with it
because DCA is going to control every step of the way. Because
that's going to become part of our growth management plan
provision and it is subject to their approval.
Furthermore, there is a possibility that the state Department of
Transportation might be involved in the approval of that process,
because they're the ones who have to implement the fair share
ordinance first. They're the ones that are required to implement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I apologize if I misspoke,
because obviously the -- your perception of what I said is not what I
meant. I said, why don't we prepare an ordinance to fit our
concurrency of what we want, okay? And like the county manager
said, make it so painful so that we stay within our concurrency
management plan that we all adopted.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would be happy to see somebody
draft that. I don't think it can be approved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Until we find out what DCA's going to
do, I think, first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I'd be happy to give it a shot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I think -- you know,
Page 223
February 28, 2006
working with government as a business person, you try to work with
the law by making it as less painful as possible. And if we can stay
whole, let's try it. Let's try to stay whole and create an ordinance, a
local control ordinance, to get where we can get to have our
concurrency.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's why I proposed the action
that this board took with respect to the preparation of the AUIR in the
capital improvement plan. If they don't have anything in the first two
years for construction that they can hang their hat on, they can't use
proportionate share, so that's why I'm suggesting we not put it in
there until it's absolutely certain. That doesn't mean we don't plan for
it.
We try to get it done as quickly as possible, but if it's not in the
capital improvement plan in the first three years, they can't use
proportionate share, and that's why I propose that. And it is a way to
get around this problem and to solve it, but it's messy, and it requires
enough votes on this commission to -- and the understanding and
support of it, to get it done.
But we have at least approved that as a strategy, and the staff is
moving in that direction. I hope we will continue on that path,
because that's exactly what you're asking for, is to find a way to do
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the thing is, is how do we
dedicate funds to something that's not in our two- or three-year plan?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because you can't stop building roads.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where do you get the grant
money? You can't get the grant money if you don't have it in your
plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then as it was --
understanding in our staff is, we're doing a -- I think it was a rate of
growth or for a moratorium. You're preparing to -- no.
MR. WEIGEL: No direction.
Page 224
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've been throwing arrows at
this target for quite a while. I get kind of confused at what we're
doing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What I'm really worried about is that we
get ourselves in a situation that was just brought up briefly here about
not being available to have grants because we don't have anything in
our AUIR or our EAR report, and we sure don't want to get back in
the same mode that we were a few years ago where we didn't build
any roads, and I'm really concerned in the direction that we're going
at the present time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I share your concern, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What grants have we lost? What
grants have we even received for a road?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Collier Boulevard is one. What
was the other one?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We lost $30 million on that deal.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's why we're going to Washington
to try to get some more grant money in regards to interchange
improvements and opening up interchanges, and I just hope that we
don't get ourselves in a box here where we're not going to be eligible.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder, could you enlighten
us on what the process is as far as receiving these grants?
MR. FEDER: We've got a couple of things for the MPO
process, and we'll work through them. We'll get the direction from
this board, and then we'll try to work through them.
Some of the grants, depending upon what we go for, we may
have to show them once we get the grant. There's some we may have
some difficulty if we're not showing the construction phase to match.
So we're going to have to sort through those issues as well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What kind of money are we
talking about?
MR. FEDER: The other thing I will point out to you -- and I'm
Page 225
February 28, 2006
not trying to complicate matters, but if we don't show the construction
phases, we still move on production, bringing production and
construct this as we anticipate as best we can to deliver, as I
understand what we're trying to do right now.
One concern that we're going to have is as we submit that, we're
going to probably have to lower our level of service until we bring
that construction in, because then it won't be found to be cost
feasible.
Part of the 360 provides that you have to have the projects that
will maintain the level of service that you establish as a body. So it
may need to lower the level of service not to show those construction
phases until the fact they're produced and ready to be brought forward
to construction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Still haven't got the answer on
the grant money.
MR. FEDER: On the grant money, I can't tell you totally that if
I don't show construction phases I'm going to lose grant money.
We've gotten some grant money recently. There's trip funds out
there where you have to show matching. So if we're going to go after
it, I'd have to show that I'm going to commit that construction
dollars. I don't know if I have to show it until I get it, to be honest.
So I'm not sure what the implications would be. I don't think we
are talking about shutting down shop and saying we're not going to do
anything. Whether or not showing a construction phase in that first
year to get the grant in the first year is required, I guess we'd come
across that bridge when we have to and bring that up to you at that
time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: PD&E funds are considered
matching, right? You've got PD&E funds programmed?
MR. FEDER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's considered matching funds.
MR. FEDER: Any of the phases. But when you get to the
Page 226
February 28, 2006
construction phase -- but then if we have to, then we'd come to you
and ask if we add that into that program in the first or second year, I
guess.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're not going to lose any
money.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that we have some tools
that we can use to have the concurrency plan, and we need to try to
utilize as many as we can.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what we're trying to do.
That's what I mean by that AUIR and not putting construction in the
first two years. Those are the only tools you've got left.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- and I think the
proportionate share that we can -- ordinance that we can do that. But,
you know --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The question--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- preparing for this agenda
item knowing that it's infertile to even do that, or staff preparing for it,
I just think that we need to find more efficient ways by just saying
that it doesn't fit what we think is good for the community, and if we
can try to be more efficient with our agenda item, and it has some
certainty in the community, it would sure make it easier for a lot of
people, including ourselves.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, can I make a suggestion?
Let's go back to your suggestion that we try to get a real-time
concurrency system from DCA. Let's ask them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that was your
suggestion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't want to have a real-time
concurrency system for transportation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I didn't -- it won't work.
Yes, I do, but it won't, because we -- we still have some backlog.
And if we were all caught up on our roads, I don't think that would
Page 227
February 28, 2006
be an issue, or if we lower the level of service on our existing roads,
and that isn't what our community wants to do, I think it would pass,
pass the muster of the department of community development. But
we all want real-time concurrency.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The question I have for Norm Feder, or
any other staff member, what's your best guess this, supposedly,
model that's now going to be presented, how quick do you think it's
going to get through DCA so that we can get on with our lives here
and figure out what we need to do to address the shortcomings?
MR. FEDER: Again, I must confess, I'm not the expert here, but
I'll tell you what I have heard or what I do know and then you can go
with others (sic).
Essentially on the proportionate share, we just got a copy of
what came out of the model ordinance. There's more to be looked at
there. The inference on this from the state has been that they're
developing the requirements but leaving it to the locals to implement.
If that were the case, then I'd feel more comfortable, but I don't
know if that's going to be the case.
The other thing I'll point out to you, and I think Commissioner
Coyle touched on it a little bit, but actually you have to give a credit
for impact fees, so proportionate share would be something above
your impact fee process.
But what is interesting is proportionate share also represents the
state finally getting that impact fee they've also wanted and never
could do at the state level, because the other part of proportionate
share, and that's why Florida DOT did the model, is agreements with
the state that you have to get into on state facilities and what the
impacts are there, so they get to say something about it as well.
So there's a lot of things we still don't know about proportionate
share. But the only thing I was trying to point out is, that is the thing
that undercuts our real-time concurrency. The question is, do we have
any flexibility in what we do with proportionate share?
Page 228
February 28, 2006
Again, not to try and undercut our options there because
everybody's going to be out in front and talking about them if we ever
do anything if, in fact, we don't get the ability to stay where we are.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's your best guess that we'll
get something addressed so that we -- at least we can come up and see
if we can come up with something that's countering proportionate
share?
MR. FEDER: I think the thing was brought up regarding
bringing in somebody extra, like Nancy Lanan, who got involved in
this process. I think Florida DOT has expressed interest to come
down. Now, that's a mixed bag, but we ought to take them up on it
and see what they have to say about it.
I think that staff can look at this model ordinance and try to
evaluate it. Again, I think we're continuing right now to try and get
the legislature to allow us to stay where we are. I don't know where
that will go, but I think that's our first step.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. FEDER: If we're not there, we do need to figure out how
we're going to work with this system. One approach, I think, is
already out there in how we program. We're going to have some
things we have to figure out there. The other one is -- and maybe in
parallel with the other thing is proportionate share, and how do we
approach that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, my question, I guess is, when do
you think this is going to be instituted exactly?
MR. FEDER: Not after the legislature leaves town, and then
there's going to be a big scramble to try and come in with
proportionate share. I believe it's due --
MR. MUDD: December.
MR. FEDER: December, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Next year, December '07.
December '06 is when the Department of Transportation has to
Page 229
February 28, 2006
implement their proportionate share.
MR. FEDER: And that's what I thought was '07. I was being
told '06.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't have to submit ours until
December '07.
MR. FEDER: That's what I understood.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What I'm looking at is, once this model
is approved, then we can start working behind the scenes to see what
type of legislation that we can enact here in Collier County to
counter some of the problems that may be before us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you see, the problem goes
back to the same discussion Commissioner Henning and I have been
having.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Unless you do something, you're
not going to get that answer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Unless you develop the ordinance,
you're not going to find out ifit will work. Unless you ask DCA,
you're not going to find out if they'll approve it, so -- and since you're
not required to submit your proportionate share ordinance or
implement it until 2007, we won't know until then what we're going
to be able to do. So I would suggest, yes, let's quit talking about it
and try something. Let's draft an ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We can't be in limbo like this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. We can't stay like
this for two years.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We can't stay like this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So let's draft something and see if
it works. If it's an ordinance, let's try it. Let's -- but I'm suggesting to
you that what we did with the AUIR and the capital improvements
plan is the way to go. But you want to try something different, let's
Page 230
February 28, 2006
give it a shot. I'm looking for ways to solve the problem. I don't
want to debate them anymore.
If you don't agree with me, then let's prove me wrong. Let's put
up or shut up. Let's get the cards on the table and let's do something.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got to do something because we
can't be in limbo like this, and we've got to move on. Life -- we've
got too many -- we've got too many issues on the table. We've got to
address a lot of growth that's coming here. We've got to come up with
some kind of a plan. And I think the best thing to do is do something
even if it's wrong. We can always come back and--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When do we start putting together a
plan? Right now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And how do we work it? How do
we get going on it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County manager, county
attorney and --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Transportation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, transportation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And our -- you might not agree
with me, but our legal staff in Tallahassee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't mind doing that, but what
I'm -- all I'm saying to you is, let's have the legal staff produce
something for us for approval rather than just telling us, oh, yeah,
you've got the right to do it. I don't want to hear that anymore. I've
heard that from as many double-talkers as I can take.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I just want to make a correction to
something that was said. You know, I'm looking at the F AC guidance
yesterday, and it says, growth management. The Florida Department
of Transportation has released the final version of the model
ordinance of proportionate fair share mitigation of development
impacts on transportation corridors.
Page 231
February 28, 2006
Last year's growth management SB 360 requires a local --
requires all local governments to adopt a proportionate share
mitigation --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This year rather than next year,
isn't it?
MR. MUDD: -- ordinance for transportation by December of
2006.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. That's right.
MR. MUDD: So it's this year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I had it wrong, sorry.
MR. MUDD: And it's this December.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's right. The Department
of Transportation had theirs in by December of2005, and we have--
MR. MUDD: We just got it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we have to get ours in by
December this year. I was one year behind, you're right, okay.
MR. MUDD: So, you know, we're in a pinch right now taking
this model, okay, and trying to adjust it. And we're -- you know,
we've already started. We've already started to review it, and we're
going to be working on the thing in order to get it locked in so that
we're rearing to go for the deadline, if not sooner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we don't know until
December whether or not what we drafted is acceptable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think there's some other
tools. Also--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's grab them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that we can
demand that all comprehensive plan amendments go to the voters.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a possibility, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, you know, it's -- I think
we all want to get to the same place, Commissioner Coyle. It's just
how we get there, and it's just been very painful the last couple of
Page 232
February 28, 2006
months.
And I agree with you, the capital improvement plan, taking those
elements out. The fear is, I see it and I hear it from Commissioner
Coletta, is, he has a heartburn that those projects are not going to get
done. That's very important to all of us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we've got control over it.
We're the ones who vote on it. So Commissioner Coletta will have an
opportunity to debate those if they come up and it looks like they're
getting delayed by -- and that's not the intent by anybody . We're not
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the eminent domain for
right-of-way takes a supermajority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, but you see, that doesn't
involve construction. As long as you don't have the construction
program for the first two or three years -- you can do all the planning,
design and engineering, the right-of-way acquisition. You can do all
of that, and you can put those in the first two years, and what that
gives you is a couple of years leeway before somebody can jump in
and say, here's my money, I'm going to go ahead and build, no matter
-- that you haven't built your road, and that's what we're trying to
stop because, can you imagine how unhappy Commissioner Coletta's
constituents are going to be if we haven't started a road out there
somewhere and a bunch of developers say, well, sorry, we're going to
build anyway because you don't have anything to say about it
anymore.
Now, that's going to be worse than a slight delay in the road.
And so, what I'm hoping is we won't have a delay but we won't
schedule it until we're certain, and that's what I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Without a contract.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When you know that you've got
the money and you know that you've got a contract to deliver on time,
that's when you schedule the construction phase, and then you knock
Page 233
February 28, 2006
it out as quickly as you possibly can.
But there is nothing to fear about that process because that puts
us in control. If we don't do that, we're no longer in control.
Somebody else is in control. And the consequences are going to be
horrendous under those circumstances.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, again, we've got to figure out how
this model's going to look when we get it approved by DCA.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll tell you, I think the current
model has mathematical errors in it, and we need to get some
engineers working on this thing. I'm not certain myself, but I'd like to
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what I'm concerned about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, Commissioner, you don't
feel that we have control by the action that we took under the AUIR?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I do. If you stick with that, I
think you've got some control.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But is your -- is your concern
about the Board of Commissioners sticking with that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep, because I get a different
argument about every time. You know, people are voting different
ways about every time, so I don't know where the board's going.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wait a minute. You're talking
about a vote on the different --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: AUIR, the AUIR or the
concurrency Issue or --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there's concerns about it,
but it's still going through the process. And believe me, I'm listening.
I'm not saying that you don't have -- your ideas aren't valid. I just
want the assurance though that this isn't a ruse to try to be able to
come up with a reason not to build.
Page 234
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why would I want to do that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I can't think of a reason,
but I lay awake at night thinking about these roads not getting built.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well-- and I lie awake thinking
about these roads not getting built and the builders going ahead and
doing the construction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I'm worried about.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's even worse.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so if -- that's the thing I'm
worried about. I've been on record as saying, I want the roads built
now. I want the roads built before we approve development. That's
what I'm really after here. And if we can get there, let's get there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're going to have to have the
money to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know that, and that's a tough
problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I better qualify a
statement I made earlier about a moratorium. The idea behind -- no,
seriously. The idea behind a moratorium is we could never allow
another developer to come through here with one of the projects and
it's going to be an automatic refusal based upon the supermajority,
then there has to be a certain amount of honesty to it, how we're going
to handle it.
Now, if we can just put everything off, pull it from the docket till
we get to May and the assurance is here enough that we can be
assured to be able to give them an honest shake for their money, I
don't have a problem in the world. But if we get to the point we can't
reach an agreement and we're down to a meltdown, I think we're
going to be forced to do a moratorium, which is going to be an
absolute disaster.
Page 235
February 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't want the moratorium
because the moratorium transfers the cost from the developer to the
taxpayer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The taxpayer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we don't want to do that. And
so what we're doing is walking a fine line to try to control this thing
so that --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Without getting --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- we don't get there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep, exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if -- you're right, we don't
want to see that happen.
But it's like walking through a mine field here, you know. So
many problems have been thrown at us by this growth management
bill that we simply don't have a clear path anymore. We've got to
maneuver through this process, and we've got to think it out very,
very carefully and make sure we don't take a misstep, because we
take a misstep and we step on one of those mines, you think the
traffic problems are bad now, just wait, they'll get way worse.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, if you want the
roads in -- and I know everybody does. But if we want the roads in
before growth, our existing residents need to pay for it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ifwe have a delay of a year or
our present concurrency, then growth gets to pay for that in the
impact fees.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We already have a lot of approved
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and vested development already
that will pay for those things so that we can get these roads built, and
Page 236
February 28, 2006
I think what we're just saying is, let all of those things take place, get
these roads built before we approve new and additional
developments.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, remember -- I don't want to
go all night with this, but --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're doing a good job.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But remember that there's plenty
of work to be done in the pipeline.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, we've got tons.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if we keep rezoning more to
put in the pipelines, then we've got all of those people in the pipeline
competing to get some share of what's left. And there's going to be a
dwindling share of capacity and we're not going to be able to
accommodate.
So all I'm saying to you is, let's deal with our backlog now rather
than making the backlog bigger.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bigger.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if we can just for a couple of
years slow it down to the point where we can deal with it and catch
up, then maybe we'll be in the position where we do have roads
before development gets approved without transferring the cost to the
current taxpayers. But if we keep filling up the pipeline and we have
that competition, then you're right, the only way we can solve it is to
throw more money at it.
But I'm saying, give us a little time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other thing is --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And let us do it right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think the other thing that we ought to
look at too is, we're just one of 67 counties, and I'm sure that there's
other high-growth counties within the -- that have impact fees, and
they're going to be addressing the same issues we are, and once they
figure out that they're going to have to slow stuff down, this may be a
Page 237
February 28, 2006
golden opportunity to actually come back and readdress the bill 360.
It may be that we're going to have to go through a period of pain
here, because I think there's going to be -- like I said, I think there's
going to be other counties that are going to be looking at this very
carefully also.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They just have to get to the point
where they understand it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think county manager and
others will tell you that not many counties in the State of Florida
really have taken as strong a stand on growth management as we
have. They don't understand it and they don't have that much to lose.
We're out in front. We've got more to lose. And we don't want to get
in the back of the pack anymore. We've been there, and I don't want
to be there anymore.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I hope not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's quite amazing.
We've been at it now for like an hour and 20 minutes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we've hashed out a lot of things.
I think we also -- this is a good opportunity for us to air our concerns,
and I think it also gives the people out there in TV Land an
understanding of some of the problems that we, as commissioners,
face on a daily basis, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And these are things, I think--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No one in their right mind is still
watching this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Anybody that likes to sit out
there and watch sausage being made has got to be a little bit sick.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, the important thing is, we're
getting to talk with one another. We never get a chance to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: True.
Page 238
February 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're out in the sunshine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we're putting our thoughts right
out in the open so we can each weigh in on them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other issues that we want
to bring forth tonight?
If not, we're going to adjourn this meeting.
***** Commissioner Coyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted *****
Item #16A1
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH JACK
ALEXANDER SNA Y FOR 4.24 ACRES AND IS LOCATED IN
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 53, UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM
(RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE) - AT A COST NOT TO
EXCEED $165.650.00
Item #16A2
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH SUNSHINE
TRUSTS, LLC. FOR 4.04 ACRES AND IS LOCATED IN
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 53, UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM
(RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE) - AT A COST NOT TO
EXCEED $161.650.00
Item #16A3
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH ANA L.
Page 239
February 28, 2006
GONZALEZ AND MARTA M. FAMADA FOR 1.14 ACRES AND
IS LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 53,UNDER
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM (RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE) - AT A COST
NOT TO EXCEED $71.150.00
Item #16A4
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES UNIT 48 TRACT 1, REPLAT, A SUBDIVISION
LOCATED IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27
EAST. COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA
Item #16A5
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF ARROWHEAD
RESERVE AT LAKE TRAFFORD BLOCK B, APPROVAL OF
THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY- W/
STIPULATIONS
Item # 16A6
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF REFLECTION LAKES
AT NAPLES UNIT II (PHASES II & III), APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY- W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A7
Page 240
February 28, 2006
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2006-02: PETITION CARNY -05-AR-8584,
ANNIE ALVAREZ, ATHLETICS/SPECIAL EVENTS
SUPERVISOR, COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT THE
ANNUAL COUNTRY JAM ON MARCH 10 THROUGH 12,2006,
AT THE VINEYARDS COMMUNITY PARK LOCATED AT 6231
ARBOR BOULEVARD - W / WAIVING OF THE SURETY BOND
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR
CEMETERY MAUSOLEUM AND CHAPEL AT PALM ROYALE,
THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY WILL BE
RELEASED TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #16A9
BUDGET AMENDMENT OF UP TO $24,000, FROM FY06 FUND
186 ADOPTED BUDGET, TO COVER A GAP IN SALARY FOR
THE IMMOKALEE WEED AND SEED COORDINATOR
POSITION. (THIS IS A COMPANION TO ITEM #16G1) - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A10 - Moved to Item #17A
Item #16A11
RESOLUTION 2006-42: RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF
BRENTWOOD TWO, (COMPANION TO PETITION
A VESMT2005-AR7203), AND AUTHORIZE ACCEPTANCE OF
A CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THIS PLAT, AND
Page 241
February 28, 2006
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO CONVEY SAID PORTION
TO FDOTFORTHE LOOP RAMP IMPROVEMENT FROM
IMMOKALEE ROAD ONTO 1-75 - NEEDED FOR THE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS AND ROADW A Y
CAP ACITY ALONG IMMOKALEE ROAD
Item #16B1
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING INCREASED GRANT
FUNDING FOR COLLIER AREA TRANSIT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $141,498 FROM THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION (FTA) 5307 GRANT - THE FUNDS WILL BE
USED FOR FLEET EXPENSE, BUS SHELTERS, BUS WRAPS,
RADIOS AND THE PURCHASE OF AN ADDITIONAL BUS
Item # 16B2
ADOPT-A-ROAD AGREEMENT ONE (1) FOR THE
FOLLOWING: GABRIEL PENA-WEICHERT REALTORS
INTERNET REALTY GROUP - NO COST IS ASSOCIATED
WITH THIS AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE SIGNS ALREADY
EXIST
Item #16B3
REPAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES FOR THE US41 FROM SR 951
TO CR92 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT
(PD&E) STUDY FROM GAS TAXES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$813,200 - TRANSFER FROM THE GAS TAX FUND TO
IMPACT FEES (DISTRICT 5)
Item #16B4 - Withdrawn
Page 242
February 28, 2006
CONTRACT #06-3905 "FIXED TERM ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
SERVICES" TO THREE (3) FIRMS AT AN ESTIMATED COST
OF $180,000.00 ANNUALLY - AWARDED TO KITTLESON &
ASSOCIATES, INC., VANESSE HANGEN BRUSTIN, INC. AND
TBE GROUP. INC.
Item #16B5
WORK ORDER FOR WALL SYSTEMS OF FLORIDA DBA
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF THREE RCP STYLE BUS SHELTERS AND ADJOINING
AMENITIES (CONTRACT #02-3349 ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION) FOR A BASE AMOUNT OF
$83,789.00 AND CONTINGENCY OF $4,189.45 FOR A TOTAL
OF $87,978.45 - TO INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY TO RIDERS
OF COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) BUS SYSTEM-
LOCATED AT THREE (3) RADIO ROAD LOCATIONS
Item #16B6
CONVERSION OF FIVE (5) DESK TOP COMPUTERS WITH
FIVE (5) LAPTOP COMPUTERS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEER INSPECTORS AT A COST OF $5,000 - TO
INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY AND COMMUNICATE WITH
OTHER STAFF WHILE EFFECTIVELY MONITORING THEIR
ROAD PROJECTS
Item #16B7 - Moved to Item #10F
Item #16B8
Page 243
February 28, 2006
TWO LAKE MAINTENANCE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS
FROM PULTE HOME CORPORATION AND THE ORANGE
BLOSSOM RANCH NORTH AND SOUTH MASTER
ASSOCIATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECORDING THE OR
BOOK AND PAGE ON THE PREVIOUSLY BOARD APPROVED
ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH NORTH 1A AND 1B PLAT MAPS
PRIOR TO THEIR RECORDATION IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
- TO RECORD THE PLACEMENT OF EASEMENTS TO
PREVENT CONSTRUCTION OVERLAYS AND DIFFICULTIES
AT A LATER DATE
Item #16C1
CHANGE ORDER #2 UNDER CONTRACT 02-3313
(PROFESSIONAL GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
(GIS) SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY) TO WILSON
MILLER, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $185,827.50 AND
APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT - TO
UPDATE AND PROVIDE TRAINING SUPPORT FOR GIS STAFF
Item #16C2
WORK ORDER CDM-FT-3593-06-02 WITH CAMP, DRESSER,
AND MCKEE, INC., FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF TAMIAMI WELL NO. 37 AND
SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR BOTH TAMIAMI
WELLS NO. 34 AND NO. 37 IN THE AMOUNT OF $483,979.00
PROJECT NUMBER 70158 - THE PURPOSE OF THESE WELLS
IS TO PROVIDE RELIABLE WATER SUPPLY FOR THE
NORTH AND SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANTS TO MEET OPERATIONAL AND
RELIABILITY NEEDS AND DEMAND IN COLLIER COUNTY
Page 244
February 28, 2006
Item # 16C3
WORK ORDER CH2-FT-3785-06-01 CONTRACT 05-3785
"FIXED TERM UTILITY ENGINEERING SERVICES" TO CH2M
HILL, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000.00 TO
PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR DESIGN OF
PROJECT MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTATION TO SERVE THE
COUNTY WIDE CAPITAL PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS
(CAPDEP), AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS FOR PROJECT NUMBER 75006 - PROVIDING
PROJECT MANAGERS WITH A MORE EFFICIENT PROJECT
DELIVERY PROCESS, AND TO STANDARDIZE THIS
PROCESS ACROSS ALL DIVISIONS IN COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16C4
WORK ORDER HS-FT -3785-06-05 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$150,000 TO HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C., AND TO APPROVE
THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO PERFORM A
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING STUDY FOR A
WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS, A
PROCESS ENHANCEMENT AND MODERNIZATION, AND A
MAXIMIZATION AND OPTIMIZATION OF THE TOTAL
OPERATION OF THE NORTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF), PROJECTS 750081 AND
750082 - TO INCREASE COLLIER COUNTY'S WASTEWATER
RELIABILITY AND MEET THE PEAK SEWER DEMANDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY'S WASTEWATER CUSTOMERS
Item #16C5
Page 245
February 28, 2006
WORK ORDER MP-FT -3785-06-05 TO MALCOLM PIRNIE FOR
THE ENGINEERING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $357,218
FOR THE DESIGN, MODELING, CONSTRUCTION PLANS,
AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT OF PROBABLE IMPROVEMENTS
AND UPGRADING TO THE EXISTING MASTER PUMP
STATION, PROJECT 73945, PROJECT 73051 - TO ANALYZE
THE AVAILABLE DATA ON SEVERAL PUMP STATIONS AND
PROVIDE DESIGN SERVICES, TECHNICAL SUPPORT,
CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
FOR THE STATIONS
Item # 16C6
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR $106,284.43 IN WATER IMPACT
FEE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND (411) AND $146,504.86 IN
WATER USER RATE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND (412) TO
REIMBURSE THE AMOUNT THAT DID NOT ROLL FORWARD
FROM FISCAL YEAR 2005 TO FISCAL YEAR 2006
Item #16C7
SUBMITTAL OF THE ATTACHED WATER SAVINGS
INCENTIVE PROGRAM (SIP) GRANT APPLICATIONS TO THE
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
(SFWMD) FOR EACH PROJECT IN PUBLIC UTILITIES
ENGINEERING DIVISIONS (PUED) CONSTRUCTION WATER
SAVINGS PROGRAM - TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT
WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Item #16C8
CONTRACT #06-3940 TO E.B. SIMMONDS ELECTRICAL, INC.
Page 246
February 28, 2006
TO CONSTRUCT THE WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS LIFT
STATION ELECTRICAL UPGRADES AND TELEMETRY
ADDITIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $263,350.00, PROJECT
73922 - TO IMPROVE THE OVERALL WASTEWATER
COLLECTIONS SYSTEM RELIABILITY
Item #16C9
DRAW OF $11,000,000 AGAINST A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
LOCAL GOVERNMENT POOLED COMMERCIAL PAPER
PROGRAM LOAN AGREEMENT; DESIGNATING THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO BE THE AUTHORIZED SIGNOR OF THE DRAW
AGREEMENT - TO CONSTRUCT WATER CAPITOL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Item #16D1
AWARD AND EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT FOR A $6,000
LIBRARY SERVICES & TECHNOLOGY GRANT APPLICATION
TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF
LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES FOR AN "ENGLISH
LANGUAGE LEARNER SHORT STORY DISCUSSION
PROGRAM;" AND TO APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT - GRANT MONEY WILL GO TOWARDS
OFFSETTING THE COST OF STAFF TIME, TRAVEL
EXPENSES. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
Item # 16D2
APPLICATION AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR A SAFE HAVEN: SUPERVISED VISITATION AND SAFE
Page 247
February 28, 2006
EXCHANGE GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $350,000 FROM
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - TO BE
USED TO IMPROVE SUPERVISED VISITATION SERVICES,
ENHANCE SECURITY AND EXPAND CENTER SERVICES
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 2006-43: AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FACILITIES AND
OUTDOOR AREAS LICENSE AND FEE POLICY - TO
GENERATE REVENUE TO OFFSET PROGRAM AND
FACILITIES COSTS
Item #16D4
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING A DEVELOPER
CONTRIBUTION OF $500,000 TOWARD THE V ANDERBIL T
BEACH ACCESS #8 PROJECT - EXPANSION OF THE BEACH
ACCESS NETWORK
Item #16D5
OLDER AMERICANS ACTS CONTINUATION GRANT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $858,413 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA
AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. -
NECESSARY FOR UNINTERRUPTED SUPPORT SERVICES TO
SERVICES FOR SENIORS' FRAIL, ELDERLY CLIENTS FOR
THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1,2006 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,
2006
Page 248
February 28, 2006
Item #16E1
REPORT AND RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED
AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004-15 FOR THE FIRST
QUARTER OF FY 06 - TO SETTLE CERTAIN DAMAGES
CLAIMS AGAINST COLLIER COUNTY
Item # 16E2
FREEDOM MEMORIAL PARK MONUMENT APPLICATION
FROM THE AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR HUNGARIAN
YOUTH AND CULTURE, INC. - TO PLACE A MONUMENT
WITHIN THE MAIN GOVERNMENT COMPLEX NEAR THE
NORTH PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE
Item #16E3
THE CITY OF EVERGLADES AND THE COLLIER COUNTY
SCHOOL DISTRICT TO RECEIVE DONATION OF SURPLUS
COUNTY ASSETS AUTHORIZED FOR SALE IN THE PUBLIC
SURPLUS PROPERTY AUCTION SCHEDULED FOR MARCH
11.2006 - FOR THE DONATION OF 5 VEHICLES
Item #16F1
PAYMENT FOR ONE-HALF OF THE INST ALLA TION OF AN
EMERGENCY TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR THE NEW EMS
STATION #22 ON BA YSHORE DRIVE AND TO APPROVE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $73,778.25 - TO
ALLOW EMERGENCY VEHICLES SAFE AND TIMELY
Page 249
February 28, 2006
ACCESS TO BA YSHORE DRIVE
Item #16F2
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN FORMS FOR THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (NACO) ACHIEVEMENT
AWARDS - SEE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR DESCRIPTION
Item #16G 1
(CRA) EXPENDITURE OF UP TO $24,000, FROM FY06 FUND
186 ADOPTED BUDGET, TO COVER A GAP IN SALARY FOR
THE IMMOKALEE WEED AND SEED COORDINATOR
POSITION (COMPANION ITEM #16A9) - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16G2
SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) AND
GRANT APPLICANTS WITHIN THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA ($40,000)
- INCENTIVE FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO INVEST IN
THEIR PROPERTY
Item #16H1
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
HENNING TO ATTEND, AS AN EXECUTIVE BOARD
MEMBER, THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL
STEWARDSHIP ALLIANCE MEETING AT THE COLONY BAY
CLUB IN BONITA SPRINGS ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2,
Page 250
February 28, 2006
2006; $49.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Item #16H2
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
HALAS TO ATTEND THE VETERAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT VOLUNTEER LUNCHEON ON FEBRUARY 16,
2006 AT THE ELKS LODGE; $15.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Item #16H3
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
HALAS TO ATTEND THE NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
50TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION ON MARCH 4,2006 AT
NCH; $30.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS'
TRAVEL BUDGET - SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Item #16H4
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FROM COMMISSIONER
HALAS TO ATTEND THE MARINE CORPS LEAGUE OF
NAPLES PRESS DAY LUNCHEON ON MARCH 15, 2006 AT
THE ELKS LODGE; $15.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Item #16H5
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FROM COMMISSIONER
Page 251
February 28, 2006
HALAS TO ATTEND THE GULF CITRUS COUNTRY GALA ON
MARCH 18,2006 AT LABELLE CIVIC CENTER; $50.00 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS ' TRAVEL BUDGET -
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Item # 16H6
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA TO ATTEND THE MARJORIE STONEMAN
DOUGLAS FESTIVAL'S HIGH TEA BUFFET ON FEBRUARY
20,2006 AT EVERGLADES CITY; $10.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Item #16H7
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA TO ATTEND THE MARINE CORPS LEAGUE OF
NAPLES PRESS DAY LUNCHEON ON MARCH 15, 2006 AT
THE ELKS CLUB; $15.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE
Item #16H8
APPOINTMENT OF A BCC REPRESENTATIVE ON THE
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING
COUNCIL AS A DESIGNEE - COMMISSIONER COYLE
APPOINTED
Item #1611
Page 252
February 28, 2006
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 253
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 28,2006
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) January 14, 2006, through January 20,2006.
(2) January 21, 2006, through January 27, 2006.
(3) January 28, 2006, through February 3, 2006.
B. Districts:
(1) Naples Heritaoe Community Development District: Schedule of
Meetings for Fiscal Year 2006.
(2) Port of the Islands Community Improvement District: Minutes
of October 28, 2005; Agenda of October 28, 2005; Minutes of
November 18, 2005; Agenda of November 18, 2005.
C. Minutes:
(1) Collier County Citizens Corps Advisory Committee: Minutes of
January 18, 2006; Agenda of January 18, 2006.
(2) Collier County Contractors' Licensinq Board: Agenda of
February 15, 2006.
(3) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee: Minutes of
November 21,2005; Agenda of January 24,2005; Agenda of
March 21,2005; Agenda of May 23,2005; Agenda of July 25,
2005; Agenda of September 26, 2005; Agenda of November
21,2005.
(4) Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of February
14, 2006; Minutes of January 10, 2006.
(5) Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee: Agenda of
February 6, 2006; Minutes of August 1, 2005; Minutes of
:: DATA \Melanie\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\2.28.06 Misc. Corresp.doc
August 15, 2005; Minutes of August 29, 2005; Minutes of
September 7, 2005; Minutes of October 3, 2005; Minutes of
November 7, 2005; Minutes of November 21, 2005; Minutes of
December 5, 2005; Minutes of December 19, 2005.
(6) Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Agenda for
December 15, 2005; Minutes of December 15, 2005.
(7) Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes
of January 18, 2006; Agenda of February 15, 2006.
(8) Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of January 19, 2006; Minutes of January 19, 2006.
(9) Collier County Library Advisory Board: Agenda of January 26,
2006; Minutes of December 14, 2005.
(10) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board: Minutes of
December 12, 2005; Minutes of April 5, 2004.
(11) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Agenda of January 18,
2006; Minutes of December 21, 2005.
(12) Pelican Bay Services Division: Agenda of February 1,2006;
Minutes of January 4, 2006.
(13) Collier County Plannina Commission: Agenda of January 19,
2006; Minutes of December 1, 2005; Notice of Cancellation of
the February 2, 2006 meeting; Agenda of February 16, 2006.
(14) Productivity Committee: Agenda of December 21,2005;
Minutes of December 21, 2005; Fire Impact Fee Study
Ochopee and Isles of Capri.
(a) Park Impact Fee Subcommittee: Minutes of January 13,
2006.
(15) Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of
February 2, 2006; Minutes of January 5, 2006.
D. Other:
(1) Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association, Inc.: Agenda
for Annual Members Meeting schedule for February 22, 2006.
H:\DA T A \Melanie\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\2.28.06 Misc. Corresp.doc
February 28, 2006
Item #16K1
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT WITNESS FEES AND
COSTS AS TO PARCELS 135, 735A & 735B IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. W AL-MART STORES, INC., ET
AL., CASE NO. 04-3632-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT
#66042). (FISCAL IMPACT $155.409.35
Item #16K2
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT WITNESS FEES AND
COSTS AS TO PARCELS 162 & 762 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. BEVERLY J GATTL ET AL., CASE NO. 03-
2551-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT #60027).
(FISCAL IMPACT $7,500.00: $5000.00 TO ERICKSON
APPRAISALS. INC. AND $2.500.00 TO DMA ENGINEERING
Item #16K3
STIPULATED FINAL ORDER AS TO HOME DEPOTS
INTEREST IN PARCEL 103 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. OCEAN BOULEVARD PARTNERSHIP, ET
AL, CASE NO. 04-4300-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO.
66042). (FISCAL IMPACT $2,800.00) - FOR ENGINEERING
AND ATTORNEY'S FEES
Item #16K4
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES AND COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE TAKING OF PARCELS 106 AND 706
IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. LOUIS E.
CERMINARA, ET AL., CASE NO. 05-0620-CA (COLLIER
Page 254
February 28, 2006
BOULEVARD (CR 951) PROJECT #65061). (FISCAL IMPACT
$14.500.00)
Item #16K5
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES AND COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE TAKING OF PARCELS 107 AND 707
IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. LOUIS E.
CERMINARA, ET AL., CASE NO. 05-0620-CA (COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951) PROJECT #65061). (FISCAL IMPACT
$13.700.00)
Item # 16K6
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES AND COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE TAKING OF PARCELS 108 AND 708
IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. LOUIS E.
CERMINARA, ET AL., CASE NO. 05-0620-CA (COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951) PROJECT #65061). (FISCAL IMPACT
$12.500.00)
Item #16K7
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES AND COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE TAKING OF PARCELS 109 AND 709
IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. SUSAN C.
HALLOCK, ET AL., CASE NO. 05-0646-CA (COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951) PROJECT #65061). (FISCAL IMPACT
$12.500.00)
Item #16K8
Page 255
February 28, 2006
OFFER OF JUDGMENT AND APPROVE A STIPULATED FINAL
JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NO. 146 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. ZIAD SHAHLA, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-600-
CA (VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT #63051). (FISCAL
IMPACT $8,539.00) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item # 16K9
STIPULATED ORDER TAXING EXPERT WITNESS FEES AND
COSTS AS TO PARCEL 177 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE
DISTRICT, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-2218-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD
PROJECT #60018). (FISCAL IMPACT $11,500.00) - STAFF TO
PAY THE SUM TO ROETZEL AND ANDRESS TRUST
ACCOUNT
Item #16K10
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE WITH J.C.
DRAINFIELD REPAIR, INC. ARISING OUT OF VIOLATIONS
OF ORDINANCE NO. 2003-18, THE INDUSTRIAL
PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 1 7 A - Moved from Item # 16A 10
RESOLUTION 2006-44: A VESMT2005-AR7203 TO DISCLAIM,
RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE
PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THREE 30 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF
WAY RESERVATIONS AS RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 313,
PAGE 41, O.R. BOOK 342, PAGE 192 AND O.R. BOOK 1048,
Page 256
February 28, 2006
PAGE 1968, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA (COMPANION TO FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF
BRENTWOOD TWO) - W/ STIPULATIONS
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:20 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
~~~~
FRANK HALAS, C aIrman
ATTEST: .
DWIGHTE. B QCK, CLERK
BY:~. k
These minutes approved py the Board on ~ ~ I J.(5[{-"
as presented / or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 257