BCC Minutes 03/14/2006 R
March 14, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, March 14, 2006
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting
as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of
such special district as has been created according to law and
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m.,
in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government
Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Frank Halas
Jim Coletta
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Derrick J ohnssen, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
L-,
-::
AGENDA
March 14, 2006
9:00 AM
Frank Halas, Chairman, District 2
Jim Coletta, Vice-Chairman, District 5
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
Page 1
March 14, 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 IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Robert Hinklin, East Naples United Methodist 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. February 8,2006 - BCC/LDC Meeting
C. February 14,2006 - BCC/Regular Meeting
D. February 22,2006 - BCC/District 2 Town Hall Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards
1) 5 year Recipient:
2) Robert Slebodnik - Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory
Committee
4. PROCLAMATIONS
Page 2
March 14, 2006
A. Proclamation designating March 13 through 17, 2006, as the 27th
Anniversary of the Know Your County Government Week. To be accepted
by Stephen Edlund, Barron Collier High School, and Callie Garrett, Naples
High School.
B. Proclamation honoring the NCH Healthcare System, its staff, physicians,
Board of Trustees and its volunteers on its 50th Anniversary of providing
excellent medical services and care to the community. To be accepted by
Edward Morton, CEO and Allen Weiss, M.D., President.
C. Proclamation designating March 14,2006 as The Copeland Workforce Day.
To be accepted by Pastor Gilmore.
D. Proclamation recognizing the FlaW ARN crews from the City of Punta
Gorda, the City of Tampa, Hernando County, Pinellas County and the City
of Bradenton be recognized and their invaluable assistance to the citizens of
Collier County in our recovery from Hurricane Wilma. To be accepted by
Jim DeLony and George Yilmaz.
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Peter Gaddy to discuss transportation options for
the Estate's area.
B. Public Petition request by Raymond Paull to discuss a two-month extension
for Waterside Shops Work Restriction Exemption.
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 to be heard at 2:00 p.m. ADA-2005-AR-8497, The Vanderbilt
Beach Property Owners Association, Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association
and Vanderbilt Beach Zoning Committee appealing and administrative
decision specifically asking to overturn the granted administrative variance
(A V A-2005-AR-782l) for property located at 316 Flamingo Avenue.
(Appellant's Hearing Exhibits are on display in the County Manager's
Page 3
March 14,2006
Office, 2nd Floor, Building F, Collier County Government Center)
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. V A-2005-AR-86l6,
Daniel Hamilton, represented by Davidson Engineering, requesting a 2.5-
foot after-the-fact variance from the required 37.5-foot front yard setback for
a corner lot in the (E) Estates zoning district to permit a single-family home
that is currently under construction. The subject property, consisting of 2.58
acres, is located at 4625 30th Avenue S.E., in Section 28, Township 49
South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners adopt an Ordinance amending Schedule Three 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, Park Impact Fee
Update, prepared for Collier County, Florida, updating the methodology for
the annual indexing adjustment to the Park Impact Fee Rates, and providing
for a delayed effective date of May 15, 2006.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Animal Services Advisory Board.
B. Appointment of member to the Tourist Development Council.
C. Confirmation of appointment of member to the Contractors Licensing
Board.
D. Appointment of member to the Historical/Archaeological Preservation
Board.
E. Recommendation to approve a resolution supporting the proposed
Permanent Protection for Florida Act of 2006, as proposed by U.S. Senators
Mel Martinez and Bill Nelson, which protects the State from the threat of
offshore drilling. (Commissioner Coletta)
Page 4
March 14, 2006
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. To review the written and oral reports
of the following Advisory Boards and Committees scheduled for review in
2006 in accordance with Ordinance No. 2001-55: Affordable Housing
Commission, Black Affairs Advisory Board, Collier County Citizen Corps,
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee and Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Board. (Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the County
Manager)
B. Recommendation to approve the Project Agreement with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service in Support of Hurricane Wilma Recovery
Efforts in Collier County, and approve a purchase order to Crowder-Gulf,
Inc. in the amount of$1,215,000.00 plus a 10% contingency of$12l,500.00
for canal debris removal for a total of$1,336,500.00 and approve a purchase
order to R.W. Beck, Inc. in the amount of $86,982.00 for monitoring of
disaster generated debris management plus a 10% contingency of $8,698.00
for a total of $95,680.00 and approve the necessary Budget Amendment.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
C. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation to approve contract
for RFP #05-3770, "Design-Build" services for capacity improvements to
Immokalee Road from immediately east of 1-75 to 2,000' east of CR 951
Collier Boulevard", County Project No. 69101. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
D. Recommendation to approve the associated expenses not to exceed $5,000
while Collier County hosts the Southwest Florida Consortium Legislative
Day in Tallahassee on March 23,2006 which includes providing breakfast
and lunch to County Commissioners and staff of participating counties and
municipalities. (Debbie Wight, Assistant to the County Manager)
E. That the Board of County Commissioners adopts budget policies as detailed
in the attachments to this Executive Summary, establishes June budget
workshop dates and September public hearing dates. (Mike Smykowski,
Director, Office of Management and Budget)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Page 5
March 14, 2006
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Ave Maria University Multi Purpose Facility at the
Vineyards.
2) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Reflection
Lakes at Naples Phase 3H, approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security
3) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Reflection
Lakes at Naples Phase 31, approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
4) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Bristol
Pines Phase I, Tract X-I, Tract R and Tract R-l, Replat.
5) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Copper
Cove Preserve, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
Page 6
March 14,2006
6) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Olde Cypress, Unit One.
The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained.
7) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Olde Cypress, Unit Three.
The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained.
8) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Reflection
Lakes at Naples Phase 3J, approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
9) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Reflection
Lakes at Naples Phase 3K, approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
10) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Reflection
Lakes at Naples Phase 3G, approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
11) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager or his designee to
submit a grant application to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) Bureau of Invasive Plant
Management (BIPM) administered through the Southwest Florida
Invasive Species Working Group for contractor services to remove
invasive exotic vegetation from the Conservation Collier Watkins-
Jones Property. ($21,000)
12) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager or his designee to
submit a grant application to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection Bureau of Invasive Plant Management
(BIPM) for contractor services to fund invasive exotic vegetation
removal on the Conservation Collier McIntosh Property. ($50,000)
Page 7
March 14, 2006
13) Recommendation to approve an impact fee reimbursement requested
by PJM Limited Partnership, LLLP totaling $212,114.56 due to the
approval of affordable housing impact fee deferral agreements.
14) Recommendation to approve a Contract Amendment, to contract
number 04-3682 Consultant Services for Impact Fee Studies-Law
Enforcement with Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Incorporated, in the
amount of $6,900 to provide for required updates to the cost and
credit components of the impact fee study.
15) Recommendation to approve and execute a Lease Agreement with
CPOC Realty, LLC for office space to accommodate the Housing and
Grants Section of the Operations Support and Housing Department at
a first years annual cost for rent and common area maintenance fees of
$70,957.76.
16) CARNY-06-AR-92 1 1, Peg Ruby, Marketing/Special Events
Coordinator, Collier County Parks and Recreation Department,
requesting a permit to conduct the annual Eagle Lakes Community
Park Spring Fest on March 30 through April 2, 2006, at the Eagle
Lakes Community Park located at 11565 Tamiami Trail East.
17) CARNY-06-AR-9285, Ellen Barkin, Community Center Supervisor,
Collier County Parks and Recreation Department, requesting a permit
to conduct the Golden Gate Community Festival on March 23 through
March 26, 2006, at the Golden Gate Community Center, located at
4701 Golden Gate Parkway.
18) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Canterbury Facility - Ave Maria University at The
Vineyards.
19) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Quail West Phase 3 Unit 4.
20) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Quarry
Phase 2, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
Page 8
March 14, 2006
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3899, Livingston Roadway
Lighting Maintenance Contract, to Kent Technologies, Inc. ($86,000)
2) Recommendation to approve an agreement to construct a sound
attenuation wall and authorize the acceptance of temporary
construction easements necessary for construction of the sound
attenuation wall as part of the four-lane expansion of County Barn
Road from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Davis Boulevard. (Capital
Improvement Element No. 33, Project No. 60101). Estimated fiscal
impact: $340,000.00, which will be included in the cost of
construction which will be presented to the Board as part of the
executive summary for the bid award.
3) Recommendation to accept the conveyance of right-of-way via
quitclaim deed which is required for intersection improvements at
Davis Boulevard and Lakewood Boulevard, Project Number 60016
(Fiscal Impact: $527.00).
4) Recommends Board's Approval of Adopt-A-Road Agreement (1) for
the following: Remembrance of Carmen Sarmiento.
5) Recommendation to approve a new Staff Services Agreement between
Collier County Government and the Collier Metropolitan Planning
Organization.
6) Recommendation to approve a sole-source purchase of Cartegraph
computer software licenses and implementation services for asset
management for the Collier County Transportation Division Traffic
Operations Department. Fiscal Impact: $93,100.00
7) Recommendation that the Board approve and authorize the Chairman
to sign (1) a Landscaping Installation and Maintenance Highway
Agreement (Agreement) with the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) for median and roadside landscape
improvements along US 41 North, between Immokalee Road and
Wiggins Pass Road; and (2) a FDOT -required Resolution evidencing
that the Board has approved and authorized the Chairman to sign this
Page 9
March 14,2006
Agreement.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the county has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1991
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $30.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
2) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1992
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $30.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
3) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1993
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $50.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
4) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1994
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $110.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
5) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1995
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $90.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
6) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1996
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $120.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
Page 10
March 14,2006
7) Recommendation to approve a change order in the amount of
$77,768.52 to Contract 04-3680 with Belair Builders, Inc. for
installation of Collier Boulevard (CR-95l)/Vanderbilt Beach Road
(CR-862) 16 Force Main, Project Numbers 73085 and 73086.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase to
acquire a residential lot for expansion of the Countys Bayview Park at
a cost not to exceed $252,700, Project 800601.
2) Recommendation to recognize additional revenue and approve a
budget amendment for an additional $19,592 authorized by the State
Aid to Library Program for Collier County Public Library.
3) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a grant application to the
Florida Department of State, Division of Library and Information
Services for $9,980 for "Assistive Equipment for Vision & Hearing
Impaired Patrons."
4) Recommendation to approve extended hours of operation and a noise
abatement policy for Caxambas Park.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
2) Recommendation to award Bid No. 06-3943, Employment Physicals
& Drug Testing to Anchor Health Centers, Inc. in the amount of
$35,000.
3) Recommendation to approve and execute a Lease Agreement with
Senator Mel Martinez for use of office space at the Government
Center for an annual rent of $4,248.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approve Budget Amendments.
Page 11
March 14,2006
2) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a Florida Emergency
Medical Services Matching Grant Application and Grant Distribution
Form for the Power Cots Program in the amount of $293,384.00.
3) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a Florida Emergency
Medical Services Matching Grant Application and Grant Distribution
Form for the Stair Chair Program in the amount of $64,948.10.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve the creation of one 0.5 full time
equivalent (FTE) employee for the Marco Island Executive Airport.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the Gulf
Citrus Best Management Practices kickoff event on February 1, 2006
at A Duda & Sons in Hendry County; $10.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Halas travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence to file for record with action as
directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
document for Tenth Year State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
(SCAAP) Grant Funds.
2) Recommendation That The Board Of County Commissioners
Approve The Attached Agreement Authorizing The Collier County
Sheriffs Office To Have Traffic Control Jurisdiction Over Private
Roads Within The Indigo Lakes Subdivision.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Page 12
March 14,2006
1) Recommendation to approve the Offer of Judgment in the amount of
$12,000.00 as to Parcels 124 and 724 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Richard D. Lyons as Trustee of Land Trust No. 11304, et
aI., Case No. 04-3779-CA (Immokalee Road Project No. 66042).
(Fiscal Impact $2,800.00)
2) Approve an Extension of Time to Conclude F.S. Chapter 164
Proceedings and Approve Stipulation for Extension of Time in
Reference to the Inverse Condemnation Lawsuit of Bernard J. and
Helen R. Nobel, and Vincent D. Doerr vs. Collier County, in Case No.
05-0064-CA for further attempts by the Staffs of the South Florida
Water Management District, The State of Florida Division of Lands,
and the County to reach an Agreement in the Matter.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL P ARTICIP ANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation that
the Board of County Commissioners approve Petition SNR-2005-AR-8899,
by Beazer Homes, represented by Scott Osmond, requesting a street name
change from Inlet Cove Court to Blossom Court for property in Valencia
Lakes Phase 7-A, located within Sections 22 and 23, Township 48 South,
Range 27 East.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 13
March 14,2006
March 14, 2006
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
The Collier County Commission is now in session.
Would you please rise for the invocation this morning by
Reverend Robert Hinklin, East Naples United Methodist Church,
followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
REVEREND HINKLIN: Which side?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Either side, sir.
REVEREND HINKLIN: Let us be in an attitude of prayer.
Almighty and everlasting God, we pray your blessing to be upon
the proceedings of this day, the business and the business that occupy
our lives. We pray your special blessing to be upon each of the
commissioners as they make the decisions that help govern our
community. We pray your blessing to be upon them, as they may
have the wisdom and the discretion and discernment to learn from
many commissioners of times past and to learn of the will and desire
of the community which they serve.
We pray your blessing to be upon those who protect and serve
our community here. We pray your blessing to be upon those who
respond to tragedy and distress, upon all those who provide the
municipal services that we, as a community together, may help make
this the beautiful place that Collier County continues to be, a place of
sunshine, of desire and hope. Guide us and strengthen each of us as
citizens as well.
In the name of God we pray, in Jesus Christ. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. In the midst of
our audience this morning we have a group of young adults that are
involved with the 4-H here in Collier County, and they're here today
to actually see how government is -- presides over issues of land or
Page 2
March 14,2006
other issues and contracts of what makes the government run here,
and we're very pleased to have each of you children -- or each of you
young adults here today.
At that, I'll turn this over to the county manager for any updates
or changes in the -- today's agenda.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just in case -- that these young
adults are looking a little bit older, could I please have a show of
hand of those folks that are here today with that group? Come on,
guys. There you go. There they are. Thank you.
Item #2A
CONSENT, SUMMARY AND REGULAR AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
The -- Commissioner, the agenda changes for the Board
of County Commissioners meeting for March 14, 2006.
The first item is to continue item 16B5 to April 25, 2006, BCC
meeting. It's a recommendation to approve a new staff services
agreement between the Collier County government and the Collier
Metropolitan Planning Organization and that continuance was at
staff's request.
The next item is to move item 16D4 to item 10F, and that's
a recommendation to approve extended hours of operation and the
noise abatement policy for Caxambas Pass; that move was at
Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is to continue indefinitely item 16G 1, and that is a
recommendation to approve the creation of one-half full-time
equivalent FTE employee for the Marco Island Executive Airport,
and that was at -- that's at staffs request.
The next item is to move 16J2 to 13A, and that's a
Page 3
March 14, 2006
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the attached agreement authorizing the Collier County Sheriffs
Office to have traffic control jurisdiction over private roads within
the Indigo Lakes subdivision, and that's at Commissioner Coyle's
request.
This next item is not on your sheet, and I was just informed of it
at about five minutes to the hour, that's why I was just a little late
coming up here, and that's to indefinitely continue item 16A6, and
this was a good catch on Commissioner Henning's part yesterday
when I met him, and the staff's been doing research last night and this
mornIng.
And 16A6 is a recommendation to grant final approval of the
roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Olde Cypress, unit one. The roadway and drainage improvements
will be privately maintained.
And the reason for that continuance is the drainage for Logan
Boulevard is in that unit one acceptance, and that - and they're
supposed to accept the drainage off that road in that particular thing,
and those particular items are not worked out in finality yet, so we
want to continue this item indefinitely until that -- until they are done.
And I'm sorry for the inconvenience of not having this printed on the
sheet.
There's a couple of notes. Item 7 A. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members, and that sentence was omitted on 7 A, but I'll
read it again when we get to that particular item.
Next item is 7B. It's -- the resolution of this item was omitted
from the printed agenda package. That resolution has been given to
commissioners since that time and copies have been made available.
There's copies in the BCC office and in the County Manager's Office
in addition to what was already distributed.
Page 4
March 14, 2006
Next item is item 16El. The report cover period is January 20,
2006, through February 17,2006, instead of what was on the
executive summary that had a year 2005 on it, and that correction is
at staffs request.
And with the board's indulgence, I'll just talk about a couple time
certains that we have today, and we have a number of them.
First item is item 7 A, and that's to be heard at two p.m., and that
has to do with the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association
and Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association and Vanderbilt Beach
Zoning Committee appealing the administrative decision specifically
asking to overturn the granted administrative variance for the
property located at 316 Flamingo Avenue.
The next time certain item is item 8A, to be heard at one p.m.,
and that's a recommendation the Board of Commissioners adopt an
ordinance amending schedule three of appendix A of chapter 74 of
the Collier County codes and ordinances, and it's basically the park
impact fee rate update -- excuse me - annual indexing and update on
the park impact fees.
The next time certain item is item lOA, and that's to be heard at
11 a.m., and this is to review the written and oral reports of the
following advisory boards and committees scheduled for review in
2006 in accordance with ordinance number 2001-55, and those
commissions and advisory boards that you're going to be hearing
from today at -- starting at 11 o'clock, are Affordable Housing
Commission, the Black Affairs Advisory Board, the Collier County
Citizens' Corps, the Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory
Committee, and the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
Next time certain item is item 10C, to be heard at 10 a.m., and
that's a recommendation to approve a contract for RFP number 05-
3770, design-build services for capacity improvements to Immokalee
Page 5
March 14, 2006
Road from immediately east of 1-75 to 2,000 feet east of County
Road 951, Collier Boulevard. It's county project 69101.
Next time certain item is item 10F, to be heard at 3:30 p.m., and
that's a recommendation to approve extended hours of operation and
the noise abatement policy for Caxambas Park.
And the last time certain and the last item that I have on my sheet
is item 13A, to be heard at four p.m., and that's a recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached
agreement authorizing the Collier County Sheriff's Office to have
traffic control jurisdiction over private roads in the Indigo Lakes
Subdivision, and that particular item was brought forward by
Commissioner Coyle, and the time certain was to let the sheriff know
that -- when it could be heard on the board's agenda.
That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: I think the county manager's covered it all,
thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll start with ex parte from
the commissioners today in regards to the approval of the regular
agenda, consent agenda, and the summary agenda, and we'll start
with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no further changes to the
agenda, and I have no ex parte disclosures for the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I also have no changes to the
agenda and nothing to disclose on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have no changes that I need to make on
the agenda, and I don't have any ex parte on the summary agenda.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no changes to the
Page 6
March 14, 2006
agenda, no ex parte. And I just wanted to remind my fellow
commissioners that I have to leave here at 10 to 10 to be over at
the Canvassing Board. By law one of us must be there, as we now
are working on the Marco Island election.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're going to be back by two,
I hope?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. I'll be back. I shouldn't
be gone long.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who's going to win?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No changes to today's agenda,
and I have no ex parte on today's summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion for the approval of
today's agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle for approval and a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
All those in favor, signify -- 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: Passes unanimously.
Page 7
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
March 14.2006
Continue Item 16B5 to ADril25. 2006 BCC meetina: Recommendation to approve a new Staff Services
Agreement between Collier County Government and the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization.
(Staff's request.)
Move Item 16D4 to Item 10F: Recommendation to approve extended hours of operation and a noise
abatement policy for Caxambas Park. (Commissioner Fiala's request)
Continue Indefinitelv Item 16G1: Recommendation to approve the creation of one 0.5 full time equivalent
(FTE) employee for the Marco Island Executive Airport. (Staff's request.)
Move 16J2 to 13A: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached
agreement authorizing the Collier County Sheriff's Office to have traffic control jurisdiction over private
roads within the Indigo lakes Subdivision. (Commissioner Coyle's request.)
Note:
Item 7 A: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. (Staff's request)
Item 78: The Resolution for this item was omitted from the printed agenda packet. Copies have been
made available. (Staff's request.)
Item 16E1: The report cover period is January 20, 2006 through February 17, 2006. (The report date as
shown in the executive summary stated 2005.) (Staff's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 7A to be heard at 2:00 D.m. ADA-2005-AR-8497, The Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association,
Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association and Vanderbilt Beach Zoning Committee appealing and
administrative decision specifically asking to overturn the granted administrative variance (AVA-2005-AR-
7821) for property located at 316 Flamingo Avenue.
Item 8A to be heard at 1 :00 D.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance amending Schedule Three 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, "Park
Impact Fee Update, prepared for Collier County, Florida", updating the methodology for the annual indexing
adjustment to the Park Impact Fee Rates, and providing for a delayed effective date of May 15,2006.
Item 10A to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. To review the written and oral reports of the following Advisory Boards
and Committees scheduled for review in 2006 in accordance with Ordinance No. 2001-55: Affordable
Housing Commission, Black Affairs Advisory Board, Collier County Citizen Corps, Forest lakes Roadway
and Drainage Advisory Committee and Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
Item 10C to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation to approve contract for RFP #05-3770, "Design-
Build" services for capacity improvements to Immokalee Road from immediately east of 1-75 to 2,000' east
of CR 951 Collier Boulevard", County Project No. 69101.
Item 10F to be heard at 3:30 D.m. Recommendation to approve extended hours of operation and a noise
abatement policy for Caxambas Park.
Item 13A to be heard at 4:00 D.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
attached agreement authorizing the Collier County Sheriff's Office to have traffic control jurisdiction over
private roads within the Indigo lakes Subdivision.
March 14, 2006
Item #2B, #2C, and #2D
MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 8, 2006 BCC/LDC MEETING;
FEBRUARY 14, 2006 BCC REGULAR MEETING AND THE
FEBRUARY 22, 2006 BCC DISTRICT 2 TOWN HALL MEETING
- APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
I need a motion for approval for the February 8, 2006,
BCC/LDC meeting; February 14, 2006, BCC/regular meeting; and
February 22, 2006, BCC/District 2 town hall meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion for approval
of those meetings by Commissioner Coletta, and second by
Commissioner Fiala.
All those approve -- all those for approval, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries unanimously.
Item #3A
PRESENTATION OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SERVICE
AWARD TO ROBERT SLEBODNIK - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to service
Page 8
March 14, 2006
awards, employee and advisory board members, and we have one __
one award, and that's for advisory committee service awards, and
this is a five-year recipient.
Would Mr. Robert Slebodnik for the Lely Golf Estates
Beautification Advisory Committee come forward? And he's served
five years on this particular advisory board.
And everybody out there, including our junior political science
maj ors out here, need to understand that this is significant. Members
of the community volunteer their time in order to serve on advisory
boards so they can help out their government. So it doesn't stop just
when you're young. It keeps going as you go through it. So I'd like
to have everybody thank Mr. Robert Slebodnik with a round of
applause.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Robert, thank you so much.
Okay. Robert, we'll have you stand right here in the center so we
can get a picture of you.
Thank you very much.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 13 THROUGH 17,
2006, AS THE 27TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE KNOW YOUR
COUNTY GOVERNMENT WEEK - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to proclamations.
And the first proclamation is 4A. It's a
proclamation designating March 13th through the 17th, 2006, as
the 27th anniversary of Know Your County Government Week, to be
accepted by Stephen Edlund of the Barron Collier High School, and
Carrie Garnett (sic) of the Naples High School.
Page 9
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's Callie, isn't it?
MR. MUDD: Callie, excuse me. Okay. Would you please
come forward. Come on, come on. Everybody come on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Why don't we get
everybody up here. All of you want to come up here?
MR. MUDD: Come on, everybody. Let's take a group picture.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. We'll shake your hands
after all this is over, okay? Otherwise, we're going to be worn out by
this.
Everybody all set? I hope you understand that it's going to take
more than just one week to understand your government.
We've been at it for years, and we still don't understand it.
Nevertheless, I'm going to read this proclamation for you.
Whereas, county government is a complex and multi-faceted
process which affects the lives of all residents of Collier County; and,
Whereas, an increased knowledge of how various aspects of
county government work can enhance an individual's quality of life
in Collier County; and,
Whereas, it is desirable for all county residents to be
knowledgeable of the county's government and how it works; and,
Whereas, the League of Women Voters of Collier County,
Collier County University Extension 4-H Youth Development, and
the Collier County public schools have co-sponsored the Know Your
County Government teen citizenship program for 27 years.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of March
13 through 17, 2006, be designated as the 27th anniversary of the
Know Your Government Week (sic).
Done and ordered this 14th day of March, 2006, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Frank Halas,
chairman.
Page 10
March 14, 2006
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. A motion's been made to accept
this proclamation, 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 sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Unanimous.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, where's Callie and
Steven? Okay. There. You can hold that out front there so -_
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Take that orange tag off of there
maybe.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Now everybody has to smile.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do each one of them have to read
our agenda packet?
MR. MUDD: They had to.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: And I believe we have comments, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Would you please go ahead.
MR. EDLUND: Good morning. I'm Stephen Edlund.
MS. GARRETT: And I'm Callie Garrett.
Before we start we would like to give a round of applause
to Mr. Randy Riner, who has been with this program since 1991 and
is now leaving Collier County.
(Applause.)
Page 11
March 14, 2006
MR. EDLUND: Throughout the past three weeks, we have
fulfilled a both exciting and educational itinerary by visiting the
property appraiser's office, the sheriff's department, the supervisor of
collections, the tax collector's office, the wastewater plant, Collier
South Water Treatment Plant, the county landfill, domestic animal
services, Collier County Museum, Immokalee High School,
University of Florida's IF AS (phonetic) Extension Office, the Collier
County Health Department, the emergency -- and the emergency
management services.
Some of the things we learned about the program included the
history of Collier County through the Collier County Museum, the
future growth of Collier County, the importance of recycling due to
limited landfill space, the future attractions coming soon to Collier
County such as the North Naples Regional Park, the importance of
Immokalee and its international presence in trade practices,
Immokalee's diverse population, and the transportation issues of
Collier County and their solutions.
MS. GARRETT: And this was all because of you. We wish to
thank the county commission, the county manager, and all the
division and department heads, the constitutional officers, and adults
from Collier County University of Florida IFAS Extension 4-H
Youth Development Program, Collier County League of Women
Voters and Collier County public schools who have worked together
to make the Know Your County Government program possible.
Thirty-one high school students from throughout the county
are participating, representing Naples, Barron Collier,
Immokalee, Gulf Coast and Corkscrew Christian School.
MR. EDLUND: Today we are also looking forward to visiting
the courthouse to meet the clerk of courts and be in an actual court
proceeding, in addition to eating lunch with our county
commissioners this afternoon at East Naples Methodist Church.
Page 12
March 14, 2006
MS. GARRETT: We learned that Collier County is facing
many challenges. One that goes without saying is growth. Our
population is exploding, but because of you, Collier County meets
these challenges.
The landfill has greatly improved its recycling program, which
makes more room for more trash for more people. Also, our water
treatment plant is faced with the challenge to supply thousands of
people with water during our infamous hurricane seasons.
Another challenge that was met was the need for youth activities.
Weare pleased to hear that the new regional water park, Sun and Fun
Lagoon, will be opening this summer.
The need for new and better roads is being met. The health
department is keeping our county beautiful, safe and clean, and
you're working on making more affordable housing.
MR. EDLUND: In addressing the board, we are able to add
another learning component to our learning process.
MS. GARRETT: Again, thank you for this opportunity to take
part in this program and for your support.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to say, we're looking forward
to enjoying lunch with you, and each of us commissioners will be
sitting at different tables along with the county manager and assistant
county manager, so that these young people can ask us any particular
questions they like about government.
I think all of us look forward to this day every year that is upon
us in regards to young adults getting involved in government, and
hopefully some of these will be our future leaders in the next few
years. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
Page 13
March 14, 2006
PROCLAMATION HONORING THE NCH HEALTHCARE
SYSTEM, ITS STAFF, PHYSICIANS, BOARD OF TRUSTEES
AND ITS VOLUNTEERS ON ITS 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF
PROVIDING EXCELLENT MEDICAL SERVICES AND CARE
TO THE COMMUNITY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next
proclamation. It's a proclamation honoring Naples Community
Hospital Healthcare System, its staff, physicians, board of trustees
and its volunteers on its 50th anniversary of providing excellent
medical service and care to the community, to be accepted by Mr.
Edward Morton, CEO, and Allen Weiss, M.D., president.
If they could come forward, please, and anybody else that
came to help.
MR. MORTON: That's it. We're it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm kind of fortunate that I get to
read this, because I graduated from Naples Community Hospital.
Thank you so much. Thanks for all you've done for our community.
Let me read this proclamation.
Whereas, in the early 1950s, Naples lacked an essential
ingredient of a growing town, a medical facility designed to meet
the needs of the people. Through the foresight, wisdom and
generosity of a group of concerned citizens who banded together
and pooled their private funds, the city's first hospital was
incorporated in 1953 as a nonprofit organization known as Naples
Memorial Hospital; and,
Whereas, in 1956 this hospital, which it changed its name to
Naples Community Hospital to better reflect the mission of
Page 14
March 14, 2006
providing for the comprehensive health care needs of the residents
and visitors of the area, was opened to the public with 50 beds and 10
bassinets, and,
Whereas, 50 years later, following the addition of a second
hospital to serve the cities in the northern part of the county, as well
as the establishment of many affiliated medical services and
partnerships with 500 premier doctors, the NCH Healthcare System
continues to serve the needs of the community by providing quality
and innovative medical services.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that we take pride in
honoring the NCH Healthcare System, its staff, physicians, board
of trustees and its volunteers on its 50th anniversary of providing
excellent medical services and care to the community.
Done and ordered this 14th day of March, 2006, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Frank Halas,
chairman.
And, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could we have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Great, wonderful.
All those in favor of this proclamation, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I won't even go on the other part. Thank
you very, very much. And I just want to say that last week they had
their observance of the 50th anniversary, and I was so glad to be
there, and it was a great program. Thank you very much, Ed.
Page 15
March 14,2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you grew up with that hospital.
MR. MUDD: Could we get a photo?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Do you want to
say a few words, Ed?
DR. WEISS: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Do it over by -- do it over by the mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go to the mike over here, sir.
MR. MUDD: Then we'll get you on camera and everything
else.
MR. MORTON: If you don't mind, we'll both probably just
take a minute. One, I would like to thank people from 50 years
ago, 53 years ago. Some of us forget, I think, especially young
people, that many years ago, some people had a dream, and that
dream was that health care could be brought to this community, by
the community, owned by the community, and maintained by the
community.
And the NCH Healthcare System is locally owned, locally
operated, has not changed in its 50 years as a not-for-profit system,
which returns everything back to the community in the form of, we
think, high quality services.
And it's our privilege to represent the community, the 4,000
employees, our wonderful medical staff, our volunteers, and all of us
that are associated with NCH. It's a real privilege, I think we also are
reminded that both Dr. Weiss and I have the privilege of being here
with you, but we really accept this on behalf of those thousands of
people over the last 50 years that have toiled and serviced to this
community through NCH, thank you.
DR. WEISS: Fifty years, obviously, exceeds the life-span of
many organizations. If you look at the standard for 500 (sic), most of
them don't last 50 years. I'm hopeful that 100 years from now, many
of you sitting in the room, the young people in particular, will take an
Page 16
March 14, 2006
advantage of having hospital care in this community and contribute to
the community much the way the people 50 years ago contributed to
allow us to be here. The legacy of one generation to the next allows
this to continue uninterrupted for everybody's benefit. Thanks very
much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Morton, I just want to say
that the two best experiences I've had in my life was at Naples
Community Hospital when my sons were born. Thanks.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 14,2006 AS THE
COPELAND WORKFORCE DAY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next
proclamation, and this is a proclamation designating March 14, 2006,
as Copeland Workforce Day. To be accepted by Pastor Gilmore.
And I believe there's a lot of people in the audience that are from
Copeland, and I'd ask them to come forward with Pastor Gilmore.
And I'll -- as Commissioner Coletta tries to read the proclamation
-- but let me try to get the names first. The people in this workforce _
- or this Copeland endeavor, on this workforce day, are John
Archambault, Mark Anderson, Adrean Burgess, Christine Burgess,
Donzell Burgess, Edie Cavins, Reynolds Cavins, Arthur Clayton,
Wayne Colins, Della Cross, Tabitha Daniels, Joel Davis, Larry
Gibbs, John Gilmore, Randy Hausfeld, Penny Hausfeld, Edward
Allen Hunter, Gary Miller, James McDowell, Joshua McDowell,
Tony McDowell, Leon Pasiuk, Barbara Sharp, Betty Sharp, Janie
Smith, John Spell, Peter Walgamotte, Lynn Warren, and Wilbur
Vanwey.
Page 1 7
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine. Appreciate it very
much, Mr. Mudd. And I thank you for being --
MR. MUDD: If I misspelled -- if I mispronounced anybody's
names, my apologies.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
As you may know, when we had the event last year with the
hurricane coming ashore, it hit just about dead center to
Everglades City, and Copeland is a short distance from Everglades
City.
Copeland is a small, very close-knit community with very
strong family values who have overcome diversity many times in
the past and have a civic association that takes place there that is
second to none.
Pastor Gilmore is the pastor of the Copeland Baptist Church, a
small church in Copeland, a beautiful place, that not only serves the
religious needs of the City of Copeland, but it's also a civic center
and serves for the civic association and many community meetings.
This is quite remarkable what this group has done, and it's an
honor to be able to read this proclamation today.
Whereas, the community of Copeland was heavily damaged
after Hurricane Wilma; and,
Whereas, the Copeland Workforce was established, composed
primarily of those residents of the Copeland community; and,
Whereas, the Copeland Workforce has worked diligently to
restore and better the community of Copeland; and,
Whereas, the Copeland Workforce has been responsible for
vast and unprecedented improvements ranging from repairs to the
local water plant, beautification of Janes Scenic Drive from State
Road 29 to the Fakahatchee State Park, restoration and repair of
underground sewer facilities, assisted to local residents in repair and
Page 18
March 14, 2006
cleanup of hurricane dervish, and has been instrumental in building a
sense of pride within the Copeland community.
Therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that March 14, 2006, be
designated as the Copeland Workforce Day.
Done and ordered this, the 14th day of March, 2006, Frank
Halas, chairman.
And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion was made for approval of this
proclamation 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, by like sign, opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The proclamation carries unanimously.
Thanks so very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Pastor John Gilmore, would you
like to say a couple words?
PASTOR GILMORE: Yes, please. Commissioners, ladies and
gentlemen, and the Copeland Workforce, it is a privilege to be here
before you today to accept this proclamation.
You know, we see many times on the news communities and
cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, they come together
to better their community to, if you will, take it back to make
Page 19
March 14,2006
improvements. And the thing that's so remarkable in this land of
liberty and this democracy that we have here is that it's driven from
the ground up. The people themselves get together and decide that
they want to go ahead and have a better place to live, and we count it
a miracle, and we applaud them in the deed, rightly so. Well, we
have had the same sort of miracle right down there in Copeland.
I am very, very humble to be a part of it. After Hurricane Wilma
-- in fact, just hours after Hurricane Wilma, got back down to
Copeland from where my wife and I had gone to get out of the area,
to evacuate, and the first thing I saw was groups of men and wives
and trucks and trailers with chainsaws, just hours after the hurricane,
already starting to clear the property out there.
In the time since, the Copeland Workforce, as they've come to be
known, has really been instrumental in establishing a sense of pride, a
sense of community. And this is not the same Copeland that I came
to four years ago when the Lord called me to pastor the church down
there.
We are, indeed, a tight-knit family. They set aside difference,
they've come together as a community. And I'll tell you what, I wish
that you could have NBC showing what's happened down in
Copeland, because Los Angeles, California, hasn't got a thing on us.
And once again, I am just very, very humbled and very
privileged to be standing here. And this is not my award. It belongs
to the Copeland Workforce, it belongs to the residents of
Copeland. And I count them as my friends, my family, my brothers
and my sisters, and I'm just very, very proud to be down there with
you. Thank you very much.
(Applause. )
Item #4D
Page 20
March 14, 2006
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE FLA W ARN CREWS
FOR THE INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO THE CITIZENS OF
COLLIER COUNTY IN RECOVERY FROM HURRICANE
WILMA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is
proclamation 4D. It's a proclamation recognizing the FlaW ARN
crews from the City of Punta Gorda, the City of Tampa, Hernando
County, Pinellas County, and the City of Bradenton, to be recognized
in their invaluable assistance to the citizens of Collier County in our
recovery from Hurricane Wilma.
This particular proclamation will be accepted by George Y ilmaz
and Mr. Jim DeLony.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is a very important proclamation.
We had a lot of wonderful neighbors to the north of us that assisted
us shortly after Hurricane Wilma descended upon Collier County.
And I just want to thank each and every one of the people who gave
of their time to come down here and to support our efforts in getting
us back on our feet again.
Whereas, on October 24, 2005, Hurricane Wilma made landfall
in Collier County, creating severe widespread electrical outages; and,
Whereas, during the response and recovery period from the date
of landfall through October 29, 2005, the public utilities wastewater
department managed cumulatively more than 110 million gallons of
wastewater with daily flows ranging between 10 and 20 million
gallons district-wide;
Whereas, the public utility wastewater department activated
Fla WARN, Florida's Water and Wastewater Agency Response
Network, a formalized system of utilities helping utilities, to address
mutual aid during emergency situations that provided critical
resources just in time, including 31 skilled personnel, increasing
Page 21
March 14, 2006
Collier County's wastewater collection field staff by 50 percent, and
24 generators and one fuel tanker and 26 vehicles and one excavator;
and,
Whereas, the assistance of the Fla W ARN crews from the City
of Punta Gorda, the City of Tampa, Hernando County, Pinellas
County, and the City of Bradenton, the public utilities wastewater
department was able to maintain and operate field assets, including
more than 13,000 manholes maintained by only 30 overflows of less
than 250 gallons reported and responded to,
And approximately 600 miles of gravity lines and 250 miles
of forced mains kept operational with only two lateral pipe breaks
reported and repaired,
And 56,000 wastewater service accounts kept operational with
only two service backup overflow interruptions reported and
responded to, and
Over 500 wastewater lift stations without electrical power
over a 48-hour period kept operational using portable generators,
pumper trucks, controlling only 149 overflows from lift stations.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, that the assistance of the
Fla W ARN crew from the City of Punta Gorda, the City of Tampa,
Hernando County, Pinellas County, and the City of Bradenton, be
recognized, and their invaluable assistance to the citizens of
Collier County in our recovery from Hurricane Wilma be
acknowledged.
Done and ordered this 14th day of March, 2006, Board of
County Commissioners, Frank Halas, chair.
I move for -- that -- this very important proclamation, I
move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. It's been approved and seconded.
Page 22
March 14, 2006
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: Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You guys did an outstanding job,
remarkable.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And we've got a number of these
certificates to give out, so I'll let you take them.
Thank you very much, George. You guys did an outstanding
job.
MR. DeLONY: Come over here, George, and we'll take a
picture. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did you want to say a few words, Jim,
or are you okay?
MR. DeLONY: Just a thank you to the commissioners. For the
record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator. And thank you
very much for that wonderful proclamation, Commissioners. It was,
indeed, a magnificent feast of operational, I guess -- what's the
German word? You get the feel by your fingers by the folks, not only
within our county, but these folks that came from outside our county.
One story I will relate to you is, as folks are coming down 1-75
from one of these communities that you spoke to, we're on the
telephone with these folks, and we're telling them exactly where to
come into the county to process. They come in - this crew comes in.
Page 23
March 14, 2006
I don't know if it was the Punta Gorda crew or the Hernando County
crew, they come in and pull into our Shirley Street location, we throw
maps at them, we give them work orders and a lunch, and we put
them to work immediately, right off 1- 7 5.
And it tells you, effectively, how effective this particular system
that we have is in the State of Florida where the utilities help utilities,
and we're able to bring these paid -- these wonderfully professional
folks that do this every day and literally make that transition in strides
so we can get to work and protect our environment and serve our
customers.
So we ask to reciprocate. I mean, our turn will come to help out
these communities and others. I hope not this next year, but we'll just
see. And so thank you for this proclamation. We intend to take these
to these communities, to their boards and to their city councils and
make a personal appearance and thank them on a personal level.
So, again, thank you very much for this time, and we appreciate
what you're doing for us as well. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, just to illustrate
how widespread the support was to Collier County, the power in my
neighborhood was restored after five days by a crew from the State of
Tennessee. So people came from far and wide to help us during this
hurricane.
MR. DeLONY: Absolutely, sir. We had over 800 people that
are in our debris mission, for example, that were not from Collier
County, came in here and did the job. And as you know, we were
able to do that in less than 100 days. And that kind of mobilization
there sure does speak well to the American spirit in my mind. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 24
March 14, 2006
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITIONS - REQUEST BY PETER GADDY TO
DISCUSS TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS FOR THE ESTATE'S
AREA - PRESENTED AND ITEM TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE
BCC MEETING ON APRIL 17.2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is item 6A under public petitions, and this is a public petition
request by Peter Gaddy to discuss transportation options for the
Estates area.
Mr. Gaddy?
MR. GADDY: Honorable Commissioners, distinguished staff,
4-H members, and government, good morning.
My name is Peter Gaddy. I am a member of the citizens group
called the Concerned Citizens for Responsible Road Development.
This group grew up because of three events; one, the Green
Boulevard/16th Avenue proposal; two, the Vanderbilt Beach Road
proposal; and third, the failure of the county to have an adequate
transportation plan in effect for the areas north, east, and south of the
Estates.
Our goal is to seek the development of an adequate and
responsible transportation system for Collier County. This is what
we seek today.
First, place a moratorium on the construction of any new roads in
Golden Gate Estates until there is a full analysis of all alternatives,
including the extension of Wilson Boulevard to Benefield (phonetic)
Road and U.S. 41.
Second, develop a comprehensive transportation plan that will
serve the needs of future development to the north, east and south of
Page 25
March 14, 2006
the Estates that does not use the Estates as a corridor for traffic
arising out of development outside of the boundaries of the Estates.
Third, that this commission posts an open public forum to let
residents express their concerns and opinions on eminent domain and
the Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Let me tell you why our petition should be granted. Eminent
domain should only be used as a tool of last resort. Despite this fact,
the county has, in the last year, proposed three new projects involving
the massive use of eminent domain on an unprecedented scale.
These are the Vanderbilt Beach extension, the Green Boulevard
extension, and the 16th Avenue extension.
I submit that these proposals, in addition to involving the
unnecessary use of eminent domain, are poorly conceived and, in
fact, constitute the continuation of the piecemeal approach to
transportation development that has led to the current failure of our
transportation grid.
To illustrate this, let us consider the ramifications of the
Vanderbilt Beach Road. Number one, these proposed roads will
result in the largest use of eminent domain in the county's history.
Eminent domain not to widen the road, not to put a road through an
open field, not to relocate commercial property, but eminent domain
to take people's homes.
Estates residents live in harmony with nature and consider the
rural nature of their community an asset. In fact, while many people
move to Southwest Florida for the beaches, most of those who live in
the Estates move there to live in a natural environment, which they
consider better than living in a beachfront community.
Imagine the uproar if this commission were to propose the
construction of a six-lane highway along our Gulf beaches.
Number two, the dollar cost of these roads, condemning only 95
-- over 95 acres of developed real estate for the Wilson leg alone will
Page 26
March 14, 2006
be staggering. These costs will include the fair market value of the
homes and irreplaceable acreage to be taken; B, the cost of moving
and displacement; C, the cost of controversy and litigation resulting
from this outrageous proposal; and D, the cost of the loss to the
condemned of the Save our Homes cap.
Clearly, the cost involved will devastate the county's budget for
years to come and take funding away from much-needed
transportation projects.
Number three, the plan is currently constituted. It shows a
preference to take homes rather than commercial golf course
property. What kind of a message does this send to your
constituents?
Number four, the effect of these roads on coastal metropolitan
Collier will be devastating. Residents of Ave Maria, as well as,
potentially, larger developments to the north and south of Ave Maria
and possibly north Belle Meade, will use the Vanderbilt Beach
extension and the Green Boulevard extension to facilitate their entry
to coastal metropolitan Collier. This will lead to the early failure of
the existing metropolitan transportation grid.
Number five, the Vanderbilt Beach extension will start a chain
reaction of development surrounding the Estates. This chain reaction
of Biblical proportion will breed over 100,000 homes in the area
surrounding the Estates, for which no transportation plan exists.
In the absence of a plan, the county is proposing the Vanderbilt
extension, which will open up 150 square miles of land for potential
development between DeSoto Road and State Road 29. The 2030
plan does not even cover this eventuality.
Let me put it another way. Imagine a warm spring afternoon, at
which time 6,000 students from Ave Maria University decide to visit
Vanderbilt Beach. I think you might have to expand the parking
garage.
Page 27
March 14, 2006
Over the last year, the county has conducted workshops on the
Vanderbilt Beach proposal. Each of those workshops offered for
your citizens two choices, eminent domain or eminent domain.
All other choices, all alternatives, all possibilities, were excluded
from consideration or discussion in favor of eminent domain.
Last time I checked, that's not the way things are supposed to run
in America. The cavalier and un-American methodology employed
in the conduct of these workshops led to their failure, which now
requires that this commission conduct a full and open public forum
for citizens who have an opportunity to be heard and express their
concerns.
The Estates actually has a pretty good road network. Once
Immokalee Road is completed and the promised improvements to
Wilson, Randall, Golden Gate, and Everglades are in place, traffic
should move well.
Then why do we need the Vanderbilt extension? Why is it being
ramrodded through this commission? The inescapable conclusion is
that it is completely developer-driven.
The proposal before you on April 17th will squarely ask you to
condemn private homesteads to develop a six-lane highway in
furtherance of big development outside of the Estates.
How could any county commission be so cruel to its
constituents? We have a pending abuse of eminent domain, and
it's right here in Collier County. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, we've heard that.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. Yeah, I
Page 28
March 14, 2006
invited Mr. Gaddy to come, because I don't think we ever get to the
point that we have too much public exposure on what we're trying to
accomplish.
And there's one thing that I wholly agree with Mr. Gaddy on is
that public meetings, you never can have too many of them.
We've had numerous ones there, and we're going to cover that in a
few minutes.
But as far as more public meetings, what's the problem with it? I
mean -- but I'd like to see them done on the public end.
Not too long ago, I remember that a group from VanderbiJt
asked, and I got for them, the community center to hold for a public
meeting. I think that might be a good way to go. Also the civic
association is more than willing to handle different items. There's
many avenues to get there. We also have this coming before the
commission on April 25th?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Seventeenth.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seventeenth, excuse me. And
it's got a time certain, is that right, Mr. Mudd? At this time you
don't know?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's 5:05, I believe.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 5:05, yeah. So we can try to
have participation by many of our people in the workforce, and they
don't have to sit around all day waiting for this item to come forward.
And there we're going to be able to go through it in great detail.
But we're still not going to be all the way there. My biggest concern,
of course, is that there'll be a reason to put this off to some future date
and leaving everybody in limbo.
That's the biggest concern, and that's one of the concerns I'm
hearing the most from the residents, that we will have an indecision
and we won't be able to go forward or it will be delayed for some
time.
Page 29
March 14,2006
What I'd like to do at this time, if I may, with the permission of
the chair, is call Mr. Feder up to address some of the issues that Mr.
Gaddy brought up, and maybe we could go through that to see what
else we might be able to do to improve our system and our process
that would even be more or all inclusive.
MR. GADDY: Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you,
Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I don't think this is the forum to
go into what we're going to do, but if you just give a brief overview
of what we plan to do, or what you plan do.
MR. FEDER: Okay. First of all, I think the important item
Commissioner Coletta's already identified -- and for the record,
Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator -- and that is on April
17th we will be coming at 5 :05 to this board, going through all the
detailed analysis, and hopefully being in a position to have this board
give us direction on how to proceed on this and getting some closure
to the issue.
We've gone through extensive efforts in both the long-range
transportation plan, very, very extensive public involvement issues. I
feel that we have a good plan for efforts out in the Estates. We've
shared that through numerous meetings with these folks and in other
settings. We also have been focusing, as was reported, on what do we
do with this corridor, and how do we address it since it's been in prior
long-range plans as well as the current.
And in that case, obviously, you're talking about altering
alignments of a single corridor. But as was pointed out, there is a plan
in the Estates; that's why you also have the issues of Oil Well
extension to Golden Gate Boulevard, Randall, Wilson, and other
proj ects that are in the process and being developed.
A lot of the literature we've seen has inferred that you should do
the Estates boulevards, and that's where everybody expected
Page 30
March 14,2006
expansion, and we are working on all those boulevards. We're not
neglecting those. Those are needs as well.
The other thing I find interesting is, the issue is development
outside of the area of the Estates itself, whether it be Ave Maria
already approved and other CDD and Big Cypress or other
development in the area, we don't want them to come through the
Estates. That's going to be rather difficult given its geographic
placement.
But I think the key is, we're trying to define corridors where that
movement from east to west can continue in the county rather than be
faced with what I was faced with when I came here five years ago in
the urbanized area.
When I came here, the biggest issue of the day, interesting
enough, after five years of not building anything, was neighborhood
traffic calming. And the reason that that was such a big issue was,
since we hadn't done the improvements necessary in the arterial
system everybody was finding the path of least resistance, which is
through neighborhood streets that weren't really structured for their
through travel.
Interestingly enough, we're not hearing much about traffic
calming as much now in the urbanized area. Where I'm starting to
hear about it is out in the Immokalee, Oil Well, Randall area and
in places where the Estates are starting to grow even out in the
Estates.
And what we don't want to do is have a situation where all
that movement has to come through the Estates but has to find its
way on every single residential street within the Estates to get
In.
The other thing I'll point out is, the concern seems to be, oh, it's
just to help the development or the developers on issues out east.
Please understand that right now what you have is two east/west
Page 3 1
March 14,2006
facilities, Immokalee Road, being six-Ianed, which will service a lot
of that other development, but not all of it, and Golden Gate
Boulevard, which is four lanes and terminates at 951.
What we're trying to find is another east/west facility that will
get you further over to other north/south connections. And even in
the Estates right now the last two years, 24 percent increase in
average traffic volume, and then 20 percent just on Golden Gate
Boulevard, and there's been no Ave Maria, there's been no other
development out further out east.
So that demand is out there in the Estates right now. It's growing
very rapidly. And I would like to think that, in fact, what we're trying
to do is the planning so we don't end up like we have been in other
situations, like not being able to extend Livingston to the south, other
issues of that sort.
So that said, we welcome -- we've gone out to many, many
meetings. I've got a long list. I won't bore you with that. But we are
available. We'd be happy to meet with this group. We'll be happy to
meet with any group at any time on any issue, and we've done that
very repeatedly. And we are looking at a broader plan, not just this
one corridor, but it's one of the corridors in the plan, and we focussed
attention on it as well.
Did I answer your question, sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. Thank you.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION - REQUEST BY RAYMOND PAULL TO
DISCUSS A TWO-MONTH EXTENSION FOR WATERSIDE
Page 32
March 14, 2006
SHOPS WORK RESTRICTION EXEMPTION - PRESENTED
AND NOT TO BE EXTENDED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next public petition is
public petition 6B. It's a public petition request by Raymond Paull to
discuss a two-month extension for Waterside Shops work restriction
exemption. Mr. Paull?
MR. PAULL: Good morning. I'm Raymond Paull from Keene
Construction. I'm here with Max Clemis (phonetic) of -- vice-
president of construction for Keene, who's probably better equipped
to discuss.
MR. CLEMIS: Yes. We're formally requesting and respectfully
requesting an extension for off-hours work at the Waterside Shops
area from midnight to 7: 30 a.m.
The reason for this request is to help promote the safety of the
shopping public. The work that we're doing is renovation of the tile
corridor areas. During the day in the shopping areas, it's extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to isolate the public from this work. From
midnight to seven allows the opportunity for this work to progress
and be cleaned up and ready for the next day.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, I believe you've already had two
extensions that were provided by the county manager.
I've had some email from citizens that live very close in that
proximity, and I don't feel that we need to continue this any longer. I
think that the two items, or the two times that you had this taken care
of by the county manager, I think should be suffice (sic).
MR. CLEMIS: If I may interj ect, the previous two times we
were from the middle of demolition work. That work is no longer
occurrIng.
Page 33
March 14, 2006
Over the past three weeks, we have maintained and performed
decibel rating levels of the sound around the perimeter Ring Road.
Raymond's got information here if you'd like to look at it.
But I believe the last issue -- and correct me if I'm wrong,
Raymond -- was actually another construction project and not ours.
You know, in order to maintain the safety of the public at that
center, we would respectfully ask you to reconsider that. And I
understand that the issues previous to this, there was a lot more noise,
there was a lot more demolition. That is no longer occurring. This is
extreme -- this is just tile work to be done at night, so we'd like you to
reconsider if possible.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we've made that decision, and
thank you very, very much. I appreciate you coming here and
spending time with us in regards to your concerns.
MR. CLEMIS: Well, we thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is item --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Time certain.
MR. MUDD: Time certain, 10 o'clock, and that would be item
10C. Let's just wait for just a second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
Item #10C
CONTRACT FOR RFP #05-3770, "DESIGN-BUILD" SERVICES
FOR CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS TO IMMOKALEE ROAD
FROM IMMEDIATELY EAST OF 1-75 TO 2,000' EAST OF CR
951 COLLIER BOULEVARD", COUNTY PROJECT NO. 69101 -
APPROVED
Page 34
March 14,2006
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10C. It's a 10 o'clock time
certain, and it's a recommendation to approve a contract for RFP
number 05-3770, design-build services for capacity improvements to
Immokalee Road from immediately east of 1-75 to 2,000 feet east of
County Road 951, which is Collier Boulevard.
It's county project number 69101; Norman Feder, Administrator
for Transportation Services, will present.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, I'll be very brief. If you want
some more detailed information, I have Mike Green, who's done an
outstanding job as the project manager in bringing this project --
design-build project forward, as well as Jay Ahmad.
Essentially what you have in front of you is the section that was
four-Ianed some five years ago between 1-75 and 951. As you know,
the loop and the area right under 1-75 is going to be done as part of
the state's 1-75 project, but this will be from 951 to just to the east of
the 1-75 ramps.
This project is to go from four to six lanes. We went through a
very elaborate process to make sure we refined and developed a
design-build. Essentially in a design-build, although it's been labeled
in the paper as not a typical competitive selection process, it is, in
fact, that. It's got both components in there, both the design selection
under technical merit, as well as a sealed bid proposal that is only
opened after the technical evaluation, and then the two weighed
together.
In this case, that wasn't necessary since the technical proposal
showed the firms -- the team of Greenhorn & O'Mara, as the
designer, and Astaldi as the construction firm, as the top technical
proposal. As well, they came in with the lowest bid, very close to our
engineer's estimate; therefore, the weighting obviously results in
them being the top firm or top team.
Page 35
March 14, 2006
So with that, I'll open it to any questions you have. If you'd like
some more detail on the aspects of design-build, how we went
through the process -- as you know, we came to this board both in
going into the process, going out for the request for proposals as well
as the contract you previously approved as a boilerplate, and we've
met quite a few times in bringing this forward.
The good news is, as we -- if we make a selection today, we're
looking at August of next year, as I understand it, for completion of
the six-laning, and we're essentially staying within existing right-of-
way.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Feder, with all the delays
that happen on U.S. 41 with this contractor, Astaldi, and the fact that
the second bidder came in not much more than the first bidder
selected by the selection committee, wouldn't it be more prudent for
time to get this desperately needed improvement done on time instead
of picking somebody that has, historically, delays?
MR. FEDER: I guess the question is, assuming that if somebody
is late on one proj ect, therefore, they're going to be late on another.
We've been assured that they're going to put a definite concentration
on this, a team out of their east coast. They're already moving
materials over to the site, or getting ready to, based on the action
today.
We have been assured that they want to untarnish their image
and plan on being over on this coast and working, and we've been
trying to get other contractors in this area.
With that in mind, I'm sure if they're two days late, I'll be hearing
about it greatly. If they're two days early, I probably won't hear a
thing. I'll go for the two days early and not hearing anything.
But we're going to work very hard with them. They've committed
to it. They're the only ones also that have come in within the existing
Page 36
March 14, 2006
right-of-way. To go to number two, who has proposed, interestingly
enough, to buy right-of-way on the south side, and number two is the
designer that built four, five years ago with a provision for -- to allow
it to go to future six. I thought that they'd be the firm actually that
would have won out on this, whoever teamed up with them, but they
came in with the need for additional right-of-way, saying that their
design was inadequate to handle a six -lane now that they had finished
their design.
So with that in mind, you'd have to go through a right-of-way
phase, which would elongate the process at least another year; and,
therefore, they would not be faster. And I'm hoping that Astaldi will
meet their contract obligations. But there are liquidated damages if
they do not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Feder, how much more
right-of-way was the second proposal proposing that it needed to do
the job?
MR. FEDER: I will ask Mike Green, who went through the
technical proposals in more detail. But as I understand it, it was all
across the south side, which means that whatever footage it is, you
have to deal with each property owner, and that process then takes at
least a year and sometimes longer in right-of-way acquisition.
But, Mike, if you'll address that.
MR. GREEN: Yes. The Hole Montes technical proposal shows
an additional five to 15 feet of right-of-way along the entire south
edge of Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow.
MR. GREEN: Which is three-and-a-halfmiles, and there's a
lot of development that's very close to the road. We'd have a lot of
legal issues in trying to obtain that right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I guess by
accepting
Page 37
March 14, 2006
staff's recommendation -- and actually it's going to be a heck of a lot
less time and cost to construct this road than what was perceived in
the media.
MR. FEDER: Correct. And that's why we've made the proposal
to you. We feel as comfortable as we can. They've been on time in
other jobs, but the fact of the matter is, they will be held, they have
promised us that they will come in, and they have an obvious
motivation, if they are to do work in this area, to make themselves
correct or right on this project. And so that's what we're going to
emphasize.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd just like to bring up some facts that
obviously we're still working through a situation in regards to getting
done the first segment of Immokalee Road from 1-75 to Livingston,
and it's -- it's not because -- that the road builder hasn't been working
at this project.
The problem seems to be getting utilities out of the system, out
of the roadway. And as was brought to my attention, and I think
some of my fellow commissioners, where we, right now, the road is
all built and basically what we've got there is power poles that are in
the middle of the road, the road itself, and we're waiting for FP &L to
hopefully address that issue.
And obviously that's -- I think that's probably a lot of our
concerns in road building is getting utilities up; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: That is definitely correct, Commissioner, and I
hope we go beyond hope, because that's not much of a plan. We've
been working very, very hard to get FP&L's attention and action to
address the utilities there. And as you mention, it is not the
contractor. John Carlo actually built the road around the telephone
poles, so now I've got a slalom trail. We've got to get those poles out
of there, let them finish off that section of road and keep on moving.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The other thing that I just read
Page 38
March 14, 2006
in the paper this morning, that Lee County was ramping up their
road building. I believe they're going to try to put 10 additional roads
on the segment as soon as possible, building segment.
Can you tell us roughly how many road building firms that we
have down here in Southwest Florida? And obviously the
competition's going to be quite high.
MR. FEDER: Right now you have AP AC, Better Roads is doing
work with us, you have John Carlo, MCM, of course, on the
overpass, and this would bring in -- beyond AJAX, who did one
project for us -- a new firm in Astaldi.
What I will tell you is, we've got with -- this project will be the
seventh active construction project here in Collier County, with three
others that we hope to be letting later this year. So we are stretching
the industry at a time when resources are tight; very, very hard, but
nonetheless, we want to continue to move forward and to meet our
efforts to try and provide the infrastructure concurrent with the
impacts of development.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one other question. How do you
feel that the shortage of asphalt is going to play into finishing up our
road building program here?
MR. FEDER: So far it hasn't been a major problem other than
the increase in cost. There are issues that are coming out of even
Jacksonville in the binder. So far we've done well. Our folks have
ordered. We've only got two plants here in town. Both Better Roads
and AP AC. They do a lot of the actual asphalt delivery and provision.
So what I will tell you is, obviously it's not a good thing. We're
continuing -- as I said, we've got seven projects that are moving. The
major issue we have now in many respects is the utility work that has
to be done, which unfortunately ends up in surprises underneath, soil
conditions. But the major one right now is FP&L, as you mentioned.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any way that we can circumvent
Page 39
March 14, 2006
FP &L and put this out on contract so that --
MR. FEDER: Weare working with our legal right now and
going to meet with their legal. We met with them, went through
the whole process a number of times. We then brought in all the
contractors, along with FP &L. We thought that would be an
interesting way to show FP&L how important it was. That was an
interesting meeting, but unfortunately it didn't resolve anything
yet.
We now are trying to meet with their attorneys, along with our
attorneys, to evaluate what are our options to possibly try and
contract with some of the people they contract with, and then just
send them the bill.
We've got to find a way to be able to respond. And we'll
continue to work. Now, FP &L is a good firm. I realize they've
had a lot of things that are straining their attentions right now, so I
don't want to overstate that fact. But obviously it's an issue we need
to get resolved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve, Mr.
Chairman.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion to approve, and we have
a second.
Okay. Motion to approve this contract with Greenhorn, O'Mally
(sic) and Astaldi.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 40
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes. Thank you very much.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2006-60: APPOINTING SABINA MUSCI TO THE
ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9A, and
it's appointment of a member to the Animal Services Advisory
Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got a sick animal. I hope
somebody knows what to do about it. No, just kidding.
Who do we have?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there a motion in regards to filling
this vacancy on the Animal Services Advisory Board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to accept committee's
recommendation of Sabina Angela Musci.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second that.
Okay. Motion to approve Sabina Angela Musci by
Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 41
March 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries unanimously.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2006-61: RE-APPOINTING SUSAN BECKER TO
THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9B. It's appointment of a member to
the Tourist Development Council.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to reappoint
Susan Becker.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion to
reappoint Susan Becker on the Tourist Development Council, and I
believe there's some discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Really it's related to it. Is
there more vacancies coming up? I know we had quite a --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, there is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So that's going to be
advertised and coming back to us in the near future?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I've already advertised that and sent the
applicants over to staff, and we still have the currency for Everglades
City.
Page 42
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you tell us what positions
they are so that the public out there knows?
MS. FILSON: I have one vacancy for owner/operator, which
I've already advertised for that and sent the applications over, and
then the one that's recommended by Everglades City.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll call the question.
All those in favor of the reappointment of Susan Becker?
The motion was made by Commissioner Coyle and seconded by
Commissioner Henning.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries unanimously. Thank you.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2006-62: RE-APPOINTING ERIC GUITE TO THE
CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is the next item, which
is 9C. It's a confirmation of an appointment of a member to the
Contractor's Licensing Board. And I believe this is the City of
Naples --
Page 43
March 14, 2006
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: -- appointees.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Eric D. Guite. I believe he was on once
before.
MS. FILSON: Yes. His term expired in 2005, and he didn't
want to be reappointed, and they couldn't find anyone, so he called up
and volunteered to serve again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to confirm the appointment
of Mr. Eric D. Guite.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And I'll second that motion.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question.
All those in favor -- the motion was made by Commissioner
Coyle and seconded by Commissioner Halas for Eric D. Guite--
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries unanimously,
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2006-63: APPOINTING SHARON KENNY TO
THE HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION
BOARD - ADOPTED
Page 44
March 14, 2006
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9D, appointment of a member to
the Historical! Archaeological Preservation Board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to accept committee
recommendations for the appointment of Sharon Kenny.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion for Sharon
Kenny for the appointment on the Historical/Archaeological
Preservation Board by Commissioner Coyle and seconded by
Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll call the question. All the those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries unanimously.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED PERMANENT
PROTECTION FOR FLORIDA ACT OF 2006, AS PROPOSED BY
U.S. SENATORS MEL MARTINEZ AND BILL NELSON -
CONTINUED TO MARCH 28, 2006 BCC MEETING -
APPROVED
Page 45
March 14, 2006
MR. MUDD: The next item is 9E. It's a recommendation
to approve a resolution supporting the proposed permanent
protection for Florida Act of 2006, as proposed by U.S. Senators
Mel Martinez and Senator Bill Nelson, which protects the state from
the threats of offshore drilling. And that particular item and
resolution is at Commissioner Coletta's request.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commission Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to make a motion
for approval and to direct the chair to send a letter of support on
to the senators along with the proclamation, resolution rather.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you want that sent to both senators or
just our senator?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want say send it to both.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion on
this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to ask a question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there some disagreement among
our elected representatives concerning this proposal?
I've gotten the impression that there might be some
disagreement. This is a proposal that permits drilling. It just permits
it at 260 miles offshore.
I'm wondering if other of our legislators are supportive of
anything that permits drilling is the question I'm raising, and I don't
know. I really don't know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may suggest?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, you bring up a good
point. I was under the understanding there wasn't, but I'll tell you
what, I'm willing to continue the item, and we'll have staff look into it
to be able to give you that answer for the next meeting.
Page 46
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be good. I think
Senator Martinez has a good proposal, but it appears to me that there
was some disagreement with some of our other --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Senator Nelson.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Because I thought Nelson and--
MR. MUDD: They're both--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- had basically the same point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Diaz-Balart, I thought, had some
concerns about it, as did Connie Mack. And I thought we at least
should understand those before we take a position.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make -- I withdraw my first
motion and I make a second motion that we continue this to the next
meeting and we direct staff to poll the other local representatives to --
legislative delegation in Washington.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got Congressman Mario Diaz-
Balart and Congressman Connie Mack then.
MR. MUDD: I'll check with our two.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the -- to understand the
motion is to have our county manager put it on a future agenda? In
the meantime, we'll ask the house side if there's any objection to
this resolution?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, so we can duly note it at
the next meeting before we take a vote on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think we need to go on the
representative side and the senate side --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree. And that was -- I
appreciate you pointing that out, Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So does that give staff fair
Page 47
March 14, 2006
enough direction what we need to accomplish?
Okay. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Sir, that brings us to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we didn't take a motion--
vote on it.
MR. MUDD: Oh, you have to take a vote, sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. This is a vote to continue this
till the next meeting, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you have a second?
MS. FILSON: I have a motion, but I don't have a second,
.
SIr.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. We've got a motion and a
second to continue this to the next meeting until we get further
direction from staff.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. It carries, unanimous.
Item #10B
PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH THE NATURAL RESOURCES
CONSERVATION SERVICE IN SUPPORT OF HURRICANE
Page 48
March 14, 2006
WILMA RECOVERY EFFORTS IN COLLIER COUNTY -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next
item, which is lOB, and that is a recommendation to approve the
project agreement with the Natural Resources Conservation Service
in support of Hurricane Wilma recovery efforts in Collier County
and approve a purchase order to Crowder-Golf, Inc., in the amount
of$1,215,000, plus a 10 percent contingency of$121,500, for canal
debris removal, for a total of $1,336,500, and approve a purchase
order to R.W. Beck, Inc., in the amount of $86,982 for monitoring of
disaster generated debris management, plus a 10 percent contingency
on that particular order of $8,698, for a total of $95,680, and approve
the necessary budget amendments.
And Mr. Gene Calvert, your director of stormwater, will present.
MR. CALVERT: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, for the
record, Eugene Calvert, Director of the Stormwater Management
Department, Transportation Division.
This particular agreement, as noted, is with the Natural
Resources Conservation Services, NRCS, to provide 75 percent
funding for the removal of the debris in approximately 40 miles of
canals and waterways that are maintained by the county.
Earlier on during the year we've been working with FEMA to
look at some of the debris removal. Since funding has become
available through the NRCS, FEMA has stepped out. So that is to
our advantage, because we were looking at approximately $600,000
of assistance through FEMA, where we're looking at approximately
1.34 million through the NRCS.
We do plan on -- once this agreement is approved by the board,
we're looking at approximately three weeks before we issue the
Page 49
March 14, 2006
notice to proceed. It will take approximately 60 days to complete the
work.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is an advertised bid?
MR. CALVERT: No, this is not. This is a -- one of the firms
that was in our annual contract for approved debris removals. And
we had three contractors that were under that contract. They were the
only ones that were provided.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, but that particular -- but that debris removal
contract was an advertised bid in order to set it up for roads and
whatever it took from the hurricane, and we did that prior to
Hurricane Wilma coming in.
MR. CALVERT: That's correct. It was previously approved by
the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In this -- and this amount, $1.3
million, doesn't exceed the original bid; am I correct in that
assumption?
MR. CAL VERT: The original bid was based on proposals and
whether they were qualified. So we went back out and received
proposals directly for this particular project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Maybe -- well, part of
the debris removal, that was an emergency bid. It wasn't an
advertised bid originally, right?
MR. MUDD: No. What we basically did is we sent out to firms
all across the United States and the State of Florida to figure out what
firms would be qualified, okay. So it was a request for qualifications
to basically do debris removal, generator issue and things like that for
hurricanes, being prepared for and recovering from.
The contractor that did our road clearing was on there. Crowder-
Gulf did a lot of our generator issue during the hurricane and helping
us after the hurricane. Crowder-Gulf was also one of the contractors
Page 50
March 14, 2006
that complained, if you remember correctly, in the Naples Daily
News about issuing the contractor -- or issuing our work to one
contractor. They thought they were -- wanted to be part of that issue.
The -- so this is basically with those firms that were identified for
request for qualifications. The reason it has taken us so long to get
this particular item here -- it's not because we didn't want to get it
done. It's because, well, for lack of better words, the county was
jerked around.
The NRCS told us they didn't have any money and they're the
particular federal agency that does canal cleaning, is responsible for
it. They said they didn't have any money. Then it forced us to go to
the agency of last resort, which was FEMA. We were working with
FEMA. We had gone out and done all the surveys of the canals with
FEMA for this particular work.
And then just about the time we're ready to cut the contract with
FEMA, NRCS comes back and says they do have money. FEMA
puts their hands up and says, we're no longer the agency of last resort.
You have to go back to the NRCS, so the whole thing started over
again. So that's where we are with this particular item, and that's why
it's taken us so long to get it to the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I kind of lost the answer to my
question. I apologize.
MR. MUDD: You asked the question, was this -- was this bid
out as far as work was concerned. There was a request for
qualifications and proposals that was sent out prior to the hurricane
season, and this is one of the firms that were predetermined to be
qualified to do the work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. In the RFQ, it was a --
material and time categorized, because it doesn't have it in here, and I
apologize for not trying to get that information before. Is that correct,
it's a time and material?
Page 51
March 14, 2006
MR. MUDD: And this was negotiated.
MR. CALVERT: No. This was a negotiated contract for lump
sum for the complete work. I may also mention that had -- there
was three firms that are prequalified under this approved contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this $1.3 million is for --
here's the canals, go clean them up. Here's the money, here's the
canals, go clean them up.
MR. CALVERT: Under certain guidelines, yes, that's correct, to
remove the debris and take it out of it, dispose of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- and, again, I apologize
for not asking these questions prior to the board's meeting. What
are the guidelines?
MR. CALVERT: The guidelines are set out by the NRCS.
They have very strict guidelines in what can be eligible for their
funding and how much needs to be done. And in this particular case,
it's from bank to bank and anything in between will be removed, the
debris.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Gene, the particular canals were surveyed for
what work needs to be done; is that correct?
MR. CALVERT: They were. They were identified in the
FEMA -- initial work with FEMA. And then as I stated, we actually
had a narrower scope, because FEMA was not funding as much as
NRCS was. But they were all surveyed, they were identified for
debris. NRCS approved the survey and the maps for the work to be
completed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the debris that's -- the
debris was surveyed? Where's some of the cleanup areas?
MR. CALVERT: Well, for instance -- and in fact, I have
maps of many of the areas, if you're curious. Rather than
showing them all, I made them fairly small in some of these
Page 52
March 14, 2006
areas. But there are a lot of the canals in the Golden Gate
City, the Gordon River drainage areas. As I said, we have
approximately 40 miles of canals throughout the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: By the way, Commissioners,
about three weeks ago I was at Rock Creek RV park, and those folks
banded together and got out in their boats and their waders and
cleaned the Rock Creek drainage basin out there by themselves,
spent numerous of -- hundreds of hours doing that, and that was a
real privilege to recognize them for their efforts.
MR. CALVERT: It absolutely did help. We are -- do have
quite a bit more cleanup yet in the Rock Creek area, so we will be
doing some additional area, but their work did certainly help.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They just want you to hurry up
and dredge it, by the way.
MR. CALVERT: I'm sure they do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Has this been approved by the Clerk of
Courts?
MR. CALVERT: The contracts have, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, other than the fact that I
think this is a good news item that a lot of residents from Copeland to
Everglades City have been looking for for some sort of relief, and I
would suggest that we ask staff to make a news release. Possibly the
chair may wish to put a quote into it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other further discussion? Do I hear
a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta, and a second by Commissioner Coyle in
Page 53
March 14, 2006
regards to having the creeks cleaned out at the described amount of
money that was designated.
No further discussion, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
MR. CALVERT: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you so very
much.
Okay. And I think we'll take a 10-minute break. If everyone
could be back at 10:37, I'd appreciate it very much.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Board of County Commissioners'
meeting is now back in session.
Item #10D
ASSOCIATED EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $5,000 WHILE
COLLIER COUNTY HOSTS THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
CONSORTIUM LEGISLATIVE DAY IN TALLAHASSEE ON
MARCH 23. 2006 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on your agenda
is number 10D, and that is a recommendation to approve the
associated expenses not to exceed $5,000 while Collier County
hosts the Southwest Florida Consortium Legislative Day in
Page 54
March 14, 2006
Tallahassee on March 23,2006, which includes providing breakfast
and lunch to county commissioners and staff of participating counties
and municipalities.
And Ms. Debbie Wight, Assistant to the County Manager,
will present.
MS. WIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning.
MS. WIGHT: I'm here mainly to answer any questions. The
executive summary is pretty explanatory.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. WIGHT: That was easy.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion to approve the five - the
expenses not to exceed $5,000 for the Florida Consortium
Legislative Day. Motion was made by Commissioner Coyle and
seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You are aware that the
legislators cannot accept lunches or breakfasts or --
MS. WIGHT: I'm aware of that, Commissioner, and as soon as I
get the final cost, I'm going to provide to them the cost of the
breakfast and the lunch.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll call the question. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
Page 55
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries unanimously.
MS. WIGHT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Item #10E
JUNE BUDGET WORKSHOP DATES AND SEPTEMBER
PUBLIC HEARING DATES AND BUDGET POLICIES-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is item 10E, and
that's the board -- that is that the Board of County Commissioners
adopts budget policies as detailed in the amendment to the executive
summary, establishes June budget workshop dates and September
public hearing dates.
And Mr. Michael Smykowski, Director of Office and
Management and Budget will present.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski, O&B Director.
Our purpose today is to reach consensus on the policies that will
govern the development of our fiscal year 2007 budget. And, again,
we need to set the June workshop dates and the September public
hearing dates.
The September dates are particularly important because there is
an official pecking order, so to speak, in statute where the school
board has the first choice, followed by the counties, and then
followed by all the remaining municipal and independent fire
Page 56
March 14, 2006
districts, so they're looking for us to set our dates so that they can, in
turn, with their elected bodies, set their official public hearing dates.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you want us to do that right off the
bat?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. That's midway through the -- we'll
just follow through.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: But we do need to do it today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's a separate motion by itself?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The executive summary itself is broke into
three separate components. Pages 2 through 6 identify budget
policies that are recommended, specifically for fiscal year 2007.
Pages 7 through 10 of the executive summary provide standard
budget policies that we've used for a number of years.
The balancing of the executive summary then focuses on a
three-year ad valorem analysis of the general fund and the
unincorporated area general fund, just taking a look at the -- given a
certain set of assumptions, looking at what the proj ected millage rates
might be.
Finally, the productivity committee, Mr. Mudd brought the
proposed budget policies to the productivity committee for their
review and comment, and there's a letter from Janet Vasey on behalf
of the productivity committee with their recommendations that's also
attached, and we've incorporated the bulk of their recommendations
into the executive summary itself, but we did provide that as backup
as well.
With that, I'll turn to page 3 of the executive summary. The first
recommendation the county manager has for fiscal year '07 is in
regard to the general fund millage rate.
Page 57
March 14, 2006
The manager's recommending capping ad valorem tax revenue
in the general fund at a maximum increase of 16 percent and that
any increase that might be received in taxable value above the 16
percent would result in a millage rate rollback or reduction.
While there has been some recent cooling in the local real estate
market, the productivity committee noted specifically that the
assumption of 16 percent value may be somewhat optimistic.
We need to recall that the taxable value for fiscal year '07, that
the property appraiser will provide to us on June 1 8t is based on
market activity through calendar year 2005, which was the -- pretty
much the height of the local real estate market and kind of a frenzied
activity where you had properties changing hands, the same house
being sold twice in the same day, that kind of level of activity. So
we're expecting that the taxable value will still be fairly significant.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are you going to entertain
questions during the presentation, or do you want to wait till the end?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we go through it and then
entertain questions. Would that work?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Commissioner, just as a recommendation.
Given the volume of things, it might be easier to address them as
we go --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Break them down.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- unit by unit, if that's your pleasure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta had a question
then.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, actually it's not a question,
you know. It's a suggestion, you know. We're still recognizing roads
as our number one priority, and we know that the cost of roads is
increasing, and we also -- last year when we were discussing about
the Everglades interchange, we dedicated $750,000, and we were
Page 58
March 14, 2006
discussing the fact that it was reoccurring funds that would be
coming forward.
My suggestion would be, is that we try to recoup as much money
as we can for roads, you try to get even more aggressively into our
road building program to be able to move forward. In other words,
not worrying about the present cap. I think the citizens out there,
rather than saving $100 on their taxes, would love to see roads
provided sooner rather than later.
So that's a suggestion I'm going to give to the commission, and I
hope it enters into the discussion as we go forward.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one question as you're making the
presentation. Do you have any idea in regards to Band-Aids that are
going to be addressed in this upcoming legislative session in
Tallahassee in regards to what requirements we're going to have to
make?
I know that there's one requirement that's the department of
juvenile justice. I think that's well over $2 million that is coming --
that's going to be passed down to us. Do you know of any other
issues that we should be aware of as we go through this budget
process?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: One is, obviously, portability of Save Our
Homes, whether or not that carries enough momentum and the impact
of that, which is somewhat unknown because there are varying
options there whether or not that's going to be portable only if you
move within the county or if you move from one county to another.
That's one.
There are also a number of bills relative to impact fee interest,
that the impact fee interest needs to stay with the impact fee fund
upon which the interest was earned. You'll recall a few years ago,
relative to investment earnings, they are largely directed to the
general fund. That would have an impact of about $5.7 million based
Page 59
March 14, 2006
on fiscal year '05 interest earnings on impact fee funds alone, so that
is one that seems to have a certain bit of momentum obviously.
And I guess, finally, retirement rates. We -- there's a whole host
of -- they review that in a two-year cycle. The second year -- they
assume that there's a worst-case scenario when they adopt a two-year
bill for retirement rates.
The second year assumes that no surplus is applied in the
program to buy down the rates. So there's a worst-case scenario
in the second year.
Obviously the legislature has to decide it in that second year and
they annually re-up and decide on retirement rates, so the extent to
which that's going to impact us is unknown. It will probably be
determined at some point in May.
So there are a whole host of things. I don't know if Mr. Mudd
has any other comments relative to that.
MR. MUDD: I think you hit them all, Mike, at least the ones
that we know of right now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How about, is there going to be any
Medicaid requirements that are going to be pushed down from the
state down to county level?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there's two -- there's - they were
talking of a handful of municipalities and counties being the test case
in Florida for the new program for Medicaid and Medicare, and we
do not have any -- any input at this time. There's always that
possibility, sir, but I can't tell you definitively one way or the other
we'll know by May.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So the two unknowns at this point
in time are where we may have to turn over the interest and impact
fees back into impact fees and not put that into the general budget; is
that correct?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
Page 60
March 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And the other one is the
possibility that there may be some type of a limitation in regards to
impact fees themselves, is that correct, as we see the legislation --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- at this point in time? I realize that
we're a long ways away . We're probably about six weeks away or
so.
The other thing that concerns me, as I went through the
FY -'07 budget policies through nine, every year there seem to be
a segment of where there was a CRA that's open to the city, and
each year we have to put in an additional $200,000 each year; is
that correct?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The 200,000, sir, is an estimate. We
actually pay an increment to the city based on the increase in the
assessed value of the CRA district itself. So when we get the taxable
value from the property appraiser in June, he will also give us the
property values of not only the Naples CRA, the downtown 5th
Avenue CRA, but also the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA and the
Immokalee CRA, and we make those payments, again, based on that
increment, annual increment of increased value.
Obviously the 5th Avenue property in the heart of the City of
Naples is highly valuable, and its relative location and proximity to
the beach lends itself to high increases. That's been a very desirable
area. So the increases have been rather significant.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. What do you think the cash
outlay will be in two years' time for all those CRAs? Do you have
any feeling on that?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Bear with me one moment, please.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I should say the increased cash
outlays for each year.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Probably a half million dollars between
Page 61
March 14, 2006
the three of them, as a quick and dirty guesstimate.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: For each year?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So in other words, after three
years, that's increased to 1.5 million?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And that's kind of the basis for CRAs.
You set your base, and then the years afterwards the base amount,
when it was established, continues to be put into the coffers of the
counties and the cities. But after that year, any incremental -- that's
that TIF Fund, that incremental fund, that's what they use in order to
fund the improvements in that particular CRA that -- and they're
trying to change it from a blighted condition and get it back on its
feet, and that's the basis for that.
The other thing I would say to you, and that -- we talked about
anything over 16 percent on increased assessed value, and then you
had mentioned some -- some unfunded mandates that we might get
from the state and you put those down. And I believe that the second
part of this particular guidance is, the guidance to the staff and to the
constitutionals, are bring in your budgets below 12 percent so that it
automatically brings to the forefront, well, what are you going to do
with the money between the 12 and the 16 percent?
And I believe that's your safety valve in this particular guidance
based on those -- those unknowns that we have right now on the state
side of the house because of legislative impacts to the county.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. My last question is in regards to
-- the sheriff has already spent about 7.1 million, I believe, and he's
got a budget that's coming in right around 12 million. Do we
anticipate any other up-charges from that constitutional?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the $7.1 million figure that you
Page 62
March 14, 2006
mentioned is basically the result of the 8 percent increase that was
announced in January -- on January 10th to be applied to all the
salaries in the sheriffs office for his personnel.
There was -- there was an article in the Naples Daily News that
basically talked about the partial year could be absorbed by the
current budget; however, for the '07 budget, the increased cost of that
particular decision would be some $7.1 million as far as the increase.
He has provided a three-year projection at Mr. Smykowski's
office on the increases to his particular budget, but there is one
caveat, if I recollect, Michael, if you could help me, and it said that
this projection does not increase -- excuse me - does not include
increases in administrative staff, if I remember correctly.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. The clerical support
functions, dispatch and the like was not included. The analysis
tries to capture things that are relative mandates that we will have to
absorb. Positions coming off grants that we are required to fund.
If we have new facilities coming on-line, obviously it's a given
that the facility is going to open and require staffing, just like the jail
over the last few years.
So we try to limit that. But he also says, you know, over the last
few years I've added so many additional road patrol folks, at some
point that will necessitate additional support staff, either clerical,
filing, human resources staff, whatever the case may be.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other further questions?
If not we'll have -- Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to do a short
presentation, Commissioners. It will only take a few minutes. I have
new information, and I hope to give some guidance after that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you -- would you like to have the
staff get their presentation out of the way and then we'll take
Page 63
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Why don't you continue on.
We'll finish the staffs presentation, and I believe Commissioner
Henning has got something he'd like to present.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's fine. Thank you.
As Mr. Mudd alluded, the general fund budget allocations, again,
using that relative proportion, but capping increases to 12 percent so
that the board would have some flexibility between the 12 percent
level and the 16 percent level with the increase in -- assumed increase
in taxable value to address things like those mandates that may come
our way, Commissioners.
The unincorporated area, millage target, the -- top of page 4 of
the executive summary. It's recommended to maintain millage neutral
status there. The big issues in the unincorporated area are median --
the median landscaping program and ongoing maintenance thereof
and addressing roadway resurfacing and the beginnings of
construction, conversion of lime rock roads to paved roads in the
Golden Gate Estates. So the staff recommendation is millage neutral
for the unincorporated area.
Mr. Mudd is further proposing to continue to limit expanded
positions to maximize organizational efficiencies. Capping them at
no more than 25 net new positions in the county manager agency.
Again, trying to foster efficiencies, promote efficiencies, and it also
recognizes that there are a large number of existing vacancies, and
that -- we're in the process of trying to fill.
The productivity committee had a recommendation in this
regard. It's noted in the middle of page 4 on your executive summary
that any department with expanded positions would add an
organizational chart, and they would do a concurrent review of spans
of control and level of management within those departments, and
they agreed to take on those tasks and perform those reviews.
Page 64
March 14, 2006
Limitation. The next item is limitation on current service,
discretionary operating expenses to 4.7 percent, which is the CPI for
the Miami/Fort Lauderdale SMSA.
Healthcare program cost sharing would remain at the 80/20
percent. We've gotten there over a series of five years, shifting from
90/10 to 80/20. The recommendation is still that it should be uniform
across all agencies, recognizing that all county employees would be
treated equally in terms of cost sharing for healthcare premium.
Compensation administration. The proposal, again, is the
-- continue what we've termed the three-legged stool that includes a
cost of living component, a component for an awards program, and a
pay plan maintenance component. The cost of living would be 4.7
percent.
Again, that's based on the December to December change in
the Miami/Fort Lauderdale SMSA. One-and-a-halfpercent for an
awards or a merit program, and .25 percent for pay plan maintenance
for a total of 6.45 percent.
Stormwater management capital funding. You've made some
headway in this regard. This was a program area that did not have a
dedicated funding source. It was a longstanding program area that
was largely underfunded.
The board has committed to this program in the form of having a
dedicated millage that would also provide you - having a stormwater
utility provides the dedicated match that is required to match federal
or state grant funds that are available. Mr. Mudd is proposing to
continue that.
In terms of scheduling, Commissioner Halas, we had talked
about June workshop dates. The proposed dates for the board agency
and courts is Thursday, June 22nd, the -- Friday, constitutional
officers, June 23rd, and then a wrap-up schedule as needed on
Page 65
March 14, 2006
Monday, June 26th, and those -- we worked those dates with the staff
and with Ms. Filson, so those are tentatively scheduled there.
MR. MUDD: And I brought that up to the board a meeting or
so ago because we had a F AC conflict, and we changed the board
meetings to try to adjust for the F AC annual convention on Marco,
which happens to be the last week of June. And we basically have
BCC meetings on the first Tuesday and the third Tuesday of June.
So this basically tries to arrange it around.
So, in other words, when we did this, the budget workshop dates
are actually later than they were originally planned.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Adoption of the proposed millage rates is
-- the staff recommended date is Tuesday, July 25th. Weare
required by law to provide the proposed millage rates to the
property appraiser for the purpose of preparing the TRIM -- truth
in millage or TRIM notice by August 4th.
And then the public hearing dates, the recommended dates by
staff are Thursday, September 7th, and then the final hearing two
weeks later on Thursday, September 21 st. The school had first
priority, and they had tentatively scheduled September 14th for their
final public hearing date.
It's also important to note here, relative to the scheduling issues,
that the board had previously approved a resolution requiring the
clerk, sheriff and elections budgets to be submitted by May 1 st.
In terms of comparative budget data, we're, again,
recommending that. The five counties that are proposed are
Sarasota, Lee, Charlotte, Marion and Manatee.
A question had arisen as to why we were not using Palm Beach
County. We had used Palm Beach County in the past. When the
sheriff at one point was looking to appeal his FY-'05 budget Sar -- or
excuse me -- Palm Beach County was not one of the five counties
Page 66
March 14, 2006
that was selected by the governor's staff for use in a comparison at
that point.
We chose not to use Palm Beach County given that if there were
to be an appeal, Palm Beach County data would not have been
requested or required by the governor's budget office, so we felt at
that point we selected another county in lieu of Palm Beach County.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, and I'm a little bit lost.
Would that still apply to what we're doing here? Because Palm
Beach County has so much similar to Collier County as far as
demographics in the fact it's so big. I know it's more population, but
still, they have a rural population very similar to what we've got in
Immokalee, they've got a very affluent population on the coast, and
they experience a lot of the similar situations. Does that still lend
itself true as far as being challenged by the governor if we were to
use it for our own references?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, but that was logic behind why we
dropped them at one point. Because in fiscal year '05, we did a
comparison utilizing Palm Beach County. And if it's the
prerogative of the board, obviously we could add Palm Beach
County as a sixth county --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me ask you this --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- if you desire.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- because I mean, it's not
overriding importance to me that it's done, it's just I was trying to
come up with something that was more equal apples to apples rather
than apples to oranges, and I have some questions about Manatee
County as far as the likelihood that we have that much similar to
them, or some of the others. Lee County might be a better one to go
Page 67
March 14, 2006
with, but then again, too, you know, it's not quite the affluent
population that we have here in Collier.
How involved would it be for you to include Palm Beach
County? Would it require hours and hours of research, or is it
something that could be done --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, sir. We've got a fairly standardized
format that we use, and given that we've done that budget in the past,
it's an initial acclamation period to how their budget book is
structured, but we still have the data from a few years ago. So I don't
think it would be that difficult to add.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As one commissioner, I would
like to see that to be able to have a better comparison across the
board, but I may be the only one that feels that way.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have any feeling from any of the
other commissioners sitting here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, I have some
information on Palm Beach in my presentation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You might want to wait
till then.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I'll let that lie for now. If
there's an interest on the part of this commission, so be it.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'll continue. Reserves. We're, again,
recommending the two-and-a-half percent contingency in the general
fund. A two percent accrued salary savings to be utilized universally.
While attrition has grown to three-and-a-half, the market for new
employees is very competitive and complicated by the county's
relatively high cost of housing, and it is becoming more difficult,
obviously, to attract new employees and secure them at entry-level
Page 68
March 14,2006
salaries. So we're recommending continuing the use of the two
percent salary savings factor.
The productivity committee commented on that, given that both
Mr. Mudd and the sheriffs staff, you know, had commented about
their current year vacancy rates. Obviously, if we continue to
experience those, vacancy threats would be taken into account in our
salary forecast for the current year, which would provide some
carryover funds that could be reallocated.
The next item, there was -- the productivity committee
recommended strongly that each agency manager at the first public
hearing in September certify that his or her budget -- I'm reading
directly to quote -- is still an accurate representation, and all material
aspects have been tendered expenditures in FY -'07 in terms of funded
personnel, whether or not it's realistic that they can be hired, the pay
raise increase, additional newer expanded programs not previously
identified.
They were, I think, specifically concerned that the -- with the
sheriff's 8 percent across-the-board pay raise that did not go -- that
did not go to the commission prior to its inception.
Overtime limitations. We're recommending the same policy as
last year. Again, a multiplier of 2 percent by the 2 percent attrition
amount. That's fairly onerous, but it does fairly restrict the level of
overtime. And Mr. Mudd, again, is trying to put the squeeze on
departments to work a little smarter and avoid overtime where
possible.
That concludes the policies that are directly related to '07. We
do have standard budget policies relative to grant-funded positions
being added as expanded, should they be requested in a non-grant
fund budget.
The use of gas taxes, again, being committed to the road
program, that we have a self-insurance fund, that we will not fund
Page 69
March 14, 2006
non-mandated contract agency funding. Again, these are standard
policies that we've used for a number of years. I'll treat them on an
exception basis rather than -- since they have been affirmed by the
board on an annual basis for a number of years, rather than walking
through them individually.
And then the balance of the executive summary talks about the
three-year projection in the general fund with a 16 percent assumed
increase in taxable value in '07. We were slightly above the millage-
neutral level. Again, though, this is not based on actual budget
submittals. This is based on an analytical model given a certain level
of assumptions at this point. And we assumed 8 percent increase in
taxable value for FY -'08 and '09, given the current conditions in the
local housing market.
In the unincorporated area general fund, that looks fairly strong.
We were, again, recommending millage neutral, and we would have
the ability to maintain that millage-neutral status over the next three
years, for '07, '08, and '09, given the assumptions in taxable value.
And with that, sir, I conclude my presentation, and I guess I'll
turn it over to Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any questions to staff in regards
to this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, we'll go right into --
MR. MUDD: You have an 11 o'clock time certain. Do you want
to break or -- do you want to break into it, or do you want to continue
on?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll get this portion done, and I hope
that we can get this wrapped up. We have one--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I won't take up
much of your time. I have shortened my presentation. I know I'm
not going to get anywhere with rollback, but I think it's important
Page 70
March 14, 2006
for you to see this information in your deliberation.
I just think it's wrong for us to assume or base a budget on how
much increased taxable value that the property appraiser's going to
appraise. I think it should be based upon the needs of the community,
what we need to provide to the community.
But it's -- are you all set?
Okay. Well, let me go to the office, and if you want to take a
short break while we have some staff presentations -- and, again, it
will only take just a few minutes for this presentation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Can we put this off to the side,
table this for the time being, and go to the -- to our time certain?
Would that be okay with you, Commissioner? And then we'll come
right back to it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to table.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a motion to table this and a
second.
All those in favor, signify saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Let's go with the time certain.
Item #10A
REVIEW THE WRITTEN AND ORAL REPORTS OF THE
FOLLOWING ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
SCHEDULED FOR REVIEW IN 2006 IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-55: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Page 71
March 14, 2006
COMMISSION, BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD,
COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS, FOREST LAKES
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND
HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to our 11 o'clock
time certain, and this is item number lOA. This item to be heard at
11 a.m. to review the written and oral reports of the following
advisory boards and committees scheduled for review 2006 in
accordance with ordinance number 2001-55, affordable housing
comm -- excuse me -- 2005, and the listing of the different
committees are Affordable Housing Commission, Black Affairs
Advisory Board, Collier County Citizens Corps, Forest Lakes
Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee, and Hispanic Affairs
Advisory Board.
And Mr. Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the County Attorney,
will orchestrate these presentations.
MR. SHEFFIELD: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike
Sheffield, from the County Manager's Office.
The purposes of these views are for you to determine if the
advisory boards and committees continue to address the issues for
which they were established and to determine if any revisions are
necessary .
The written reports are included in your agenda packet. After
each presentation, it is requested that you make a recommendation to
either accept the committee's report as presented or to propose any
changes that you would like to see happen with that committee.
And if there are no questions at this point, I'll introduce your first
speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, please go ahead.
Page 72
March 14, 2006
MR. SHEFFIELD: Jeff Cecil, representing the Affordable
Housing Commission.
MR. CECIL: Good morning, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman.
Your report of the Affordable Housing Commission -- good morning
-- is before you.
We believe that the recent amendments made to the authorizing
ordinance have strengthened the AHC and make more achievable the
purpose of creating, reviewing and recommending policies of this
board in our collective efforts to increase the supply of decent, safe,
affordable housing throughout the county.
I want to commend Joe Schmitt, Denny Baker, Cormac Giblin,
the County Attorney's Office, and the housing staff for their work and
assistance to us during the past four years.
Weare aware of certain concerns that our focus has been limited
to housing for the poor. But, Commissioners, the AHC is concerned
about all levels of housing.
We have a Habitat representative for sure, and he's a very vocal
one, but we also have members who are concerned with employee
housing, their children's housing, housing for the disabled, and me,
I'm concerned not only for my own employees' housing, but also
housing for seniors.
Weare reviewing new ideas, new concepts, new research for
means of solving these problems created by a market that has driven
the median house price to 511,000, converted rental stock to
condominiums and made it just plain difficult for, first, our entry-
level employees, then our experienced employees, and now even
seasoned professionals, to afford the housing costs of this beautiful
paradise.
More and more of our workforce is finding that they must pay
much more than 30 percent of their earnings toward housing. And
ladies and gentlemen, that is the definition of affordable. It is 30
Page 73
March 14, 2006
percent of our annual income. If we pay more than that, then the
housing is not affordable. And if I pay $60,000 for a house and I
only make 150, I have exceeded the affordability.
The housing commission -- Affordable Housing Commission has
a mission, and each of us is proud to serve this county in our
collective efforts in the ongoing struggle to make decent, safe,
affordable housing to all of our employees, and I want to thank you
for allowing us to serve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jeff, I just wanted to apologize a
little bit. I'm sorry I walked in in the middle of this. I had to be
down in the elections office for the Canvassing Board, so --
MR. CECIL: I had just started.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I apologize. Okay.
MR. CECIL: I just started, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Next presenter?
MR. SHEFFIELD: The next speaker is Irene Williams,
representing the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, do you want to -- do you want to
have separate motions for accepting their annual reports or you want
to do that all at the end?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we'll just -- can we wrap it all
up in one motion?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's do it that way, because I think that
we're not going to have any discrepancies here.
MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Irene Williams, and I'm the chairperson of the Black Advisory Board.
We sent in a report to you, and I don't know if have you any
questions concerning it. But in 2005, we didn't have too good of a
Page 74
March 14, 2006
year because there was some tragedies that happened personally to
me, and we had problems with keeping people the board.
But we have started off in 2006, and we have a full board, and
we're excited, and we hope that we're going to reach some issues with
the black community that we can present to you that you can help us
to solve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, thank you so much, very much,
for your presentation, and I'm glad that everything is back up and
. .
runnIng agaIn.
MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you so much for --
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. SHEFFIELD: The next speaker is Walter Jaskiewicz,
representing the Citizens Corps Advisory Committee.
MR. JASKIEWICZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners, I'm
chairman of the Collier County Citizens Corps Advisory Committee.
You all have a package, packet, from last year in front of you. I
just want to add a few items to that, let you know how well the
citizens corps is doing this year.
I have exceptional praise for the Collier County Emergency
Department for outlining many of the programs we are presently
involved with, and they've been very successful.
I think the success of the citizens corps in Collier County has
really been proven this last year with the recent hurricanes that we
had. The many services that we have provided through our volunteer
organizations have been extraordinary in respect to the amount of the
taxpayers' dollars they have saved to the taxpayers of Collier County.
This year we're embarking on a program, which we have held
workshops on, and it's entitled, Getting the Message Out.
Page 75
March 14, 2006
What we're steering towards this year, in view of the news of the
hurricanes increasing this year, is to get the message out to the people
that they have to be prepared in Collier County to be self-sufficient
for at least three days before we can get assistance to them.
Now, we're trying to get this message out by coming to your
commission meetings. I believe we were at Commissioner Fiala's
meeting recently here. We had a table set up with information that
was very well received from the citizens of our community. But this
is what we're embarking on this year.
I also would like to mention that there is a tremendous amount of
support from the entire Citizens Corps Advisory Committee to seek
your support in getting the EOC established as quickly as possible in
Collier County. It's a very, very essential and needed item in this
county .
If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any questions from
commissioners? If not, thank you so much for your presentation.
MR. JASKIEWICZ: Thank you.
MR. SHEFFIELD: The next speaker is Bob Jones, representing
the Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee.
MR. JONES: Good morning, Commissioners. I understand you
have this presentation in your package, so you sort of have a
guideline of what we're doing.
I want to thank you for your assistance. This is my second time
before you giving a summary of what we're doing.
We have made, during the past three years, quite a stab at getting
caught up. Our income now is higher, and we have spent some--
over a million dollars in projects of pavement overlay, pothole
repairs, drainage and swale improvements, and we're making some
headway with the storm drainage problems in Forest Lakes.
Page 76
March 14, 2006
Our future goals include additional pavement overlay projects
and additional and continued drainage improvements. With the
assistance of an extra mill that you were helping us with last year, we
were able to keep up our progress in spite of the continuing cost
raises in all kinds of materials that we used for these projects.
And in that area, we are studying the possibility of a bond issue.
This would allow us to do the work we need to do at a much faster
pace at no additional cost based on our payout over an amortization
period over the life of the improvements, but does allow us to get it
done in a hurry, anywhere from, I think, I would guess, based on my
experience with this thing through the last several years, another year
to 18 months.
Then we could go into a maintenance mode and reduce probably
at least one mill and still amortize the project over a period of time
that it would have taken us to do it if we don't get the bond. And I
think that's the fair way to look at it for the people.
The people that are in this MSTU, unfortunately, about half are
not voters in this state. They're not domiciled here, and they are not
allowed to vote.
So when this referendum comes up, we have to work doubly
hard to get those people that have been allowed to buy properties and
pay taxes and who are furnishing all the money within that district in
its entirety through our MSTU effort to get these things done, and
they need to be done. So your continued support is important to us.
Do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any questions from staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Robert, for your
presentation.
MR. JONES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Appreciate it.
Page 77
March 14,2006
MR. SHEFFIELD: The last speaker is Ernesto Labrador,
representing the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
MR. LABRADOR: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.
I would also like to recognize the members of the Hispanic Affairs
Advisory Board that are in the audience. You do have a packet
before you, and I would like to read to you the general goals and
objectives for the years 2006 to 20007.
As established by the county Board of Commissioners, our
mission is to improve the quality of life of Hispanic citizens by
identifying and monitoring the needs and! or interests of the Hispanic
citizens; to develop and promote programs addressing such issues; to
ensure involvement of Hispanics in matters of community concern; to
support the development of Hispanics in leadership roles; and to
recommend to the Board of County Commissioners legislation that
enhances programs, raising the quality of life within Collier County
for Hispanics.
In support of the Board of County Commissioners' Mission for
HAAB, close linkage between public and private sector entities that
can provide support for the realization is enthusiastically promoted.
Concurrently a major goal ofHAAB is to develop and enhance
programs that identify problem areas which include education, jobs,
housing, and agriculture and various health issues.
These goals will be implemented by personal contact with other
organizations, both public and private, electronic mailing with the
support of the County Manager's Office, and by three direct mailings
to faith-based and secular organizations within Collier County.
Develop programs that increase the visibility of the Hispanic
population, highlighting their special interests and concerns, and
especially those that further integrate them into the greater Collier
County community through public and private programs, all activities
Page 78
March 14, 2006
and efforts to be recommended to and approved by the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners.
I do have a further breakdown on our goals, however, time
permitting -- I don't know if the time permits. If there is any
questions from the commission, I would welcome them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other questions of the
commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you --
MR. LABRADOR: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- for your presentation. Appreciate it
very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At this point in time, I entertain a
motion for approving the oral reports from the Affordable Housing
Commission, the Black Affairs Advisory Board, the Collier County
Citizens Corps, and the Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage
Advisory Committee, and also the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
MR. MUDD: Could you add the written -- could you also add
the written reports that are in your -- that are in your packet to that
oral report?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And the written reports also, that
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's contained in my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question. The motion
was made by Commissioner Coyle and seconded by Commissioner
Henning. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 79
March 14, 2006
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 much for -- all the groups for your presentation,
and thank you very much for your dedication. We really appreciate
what you're doing.
At this time I'll entertain a motion to untable or take off the table
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those in favor, signify by
saying aye, for taking this off the table.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Commissioners, Florida Tax Watch, I believe I provided you
information. It is a September 2005 release by Florida Tax Watch on
the rising property values in the State of Florida. And Florida Tax
Watch has looked at local governments using this increased assessed
values as not a windfall but actually a tax increase.
And in my perspective if we need to raise the taxes on the
citizens in Collier County, we should tell them exactly what it's for,
and I'm sure it would meet their priorities.
Page 80
March 14, 2006
But they did some comparables between all the counties in the
State of Florida on taxes levied using property taxes, local option gas
taxes, fuel taxes, didn't include MSTUs and it didn't include impact
fees in 1999, ranking Monroe County as the highest tax per capita,
highest county tax per capita.
And mind you, this is not just local county governments. It's also
school boards, all the taxing districts within -- within the counties. At
this time we ranked below the state average of approximately 550 per
capita. It was below the state average of $600 per capita.
In 2004 they released -- there's one of our comparables, Sarasota,
in the recommendations. There's another comparable. Lee County,
number six, taxable per capita. There's our Palm Beach County,
Commissioner Coletta, Walton County, Martin County, Collier
County, and Monroe County is taking the top.
Again, so from 1999, we went from $550 per capita of taxation
to the residents in our community to 2004 to over 2,000 per capita.
We were below the state ranking in the State of Florida, and in 2004
we're above the taxation per state average.
Now, I don't know about any others, but I don't enjoy being on
the top 10, and I know that this Board of Commissioners is just one
taxing district in our community, but I think that we need to start
somewhere.
Taxation of -- reported by the tax collector collected for all the
taxing districts was almost $120 million from property taxes, taxes
per capita, using the BEEBER, the same calculations that Florida Tax
Watch did, but did not include gas taxes, fuel tax, and the like.
And each year we say, we base our budget on increased property
values. And we need to stop that and move towards servicing the
needs of the people. And if it is a raise in taxes, I think that we
should tell them what it's for.
Page 81
March 14, 2006
The millage rate is just a factor. It's just a multiplier. It's the
assessed value that we have been using that's driving our budget. This
is the total property taxes. Information that was collected by -- and in
our 2005 budget book. Those are not my figures. Those are our
figures. That includes general fund, MSTUs, and unincorporated
fund, and the MSTU's hasn't been really driving that.
The black line shown in this picture, this graph, is if we would
have done rollback. But I think this board made some good decisions
with the guidance of the county manager is - we wouldn't have got
the roads done that we did. That was a very good decision.
Now, today, that we have an opportunity, not only to pay back
the bonds from the roads, we put an extra $24 million into the road
budget. And since we've been a commissioner, commission, we've
taken the gas taxes, today approximately $16 million, that was used
for maintenance of the roads that everybody enjoys paying into and
say, we're going to use these funds for the new roads that we have to
build for the backlog and our future residents. But, Commissioners,
as it's stated in our budget guidance, it's to maximize the impact fees.
Well, I'm waiting for -- I'm looking forward to the transportation
impact fees to come in, as guided by the Board of Commissioners
every other year, because we know that material and labor costs have
increased. We know that assessed values increased. And I'm not
willing to put more money into the transportation budget until we
have growth pay for growth as we direct it. And I think it would be a
bad message to send to the Board of Commissioners -- or to the
public.
Now, again, I'm not going to recommend rollback because I
know by some of the comments I've been hearing it's going to be a
4-1 vote, okay? So I want to be productive in what we do. And I
think that the county manager deserves some of his recommendations
of budget policies outlined in page 13 of 20 of the expense
Page 82
March 14,2006
assumptions. We could always debate this during the workshop on
whether it's prudent information or not.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, are you just about
finished?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I promise you I will not take
two hours, at least two hours, on an issue on my street, okay. I'm
only taking a few minutes.
The -- just to give you an example, over a million dollars for
stormwater improvements, which is recommended, but in our AUIR
it predicted 7.5. So I think the time to discuss that is during the
budget meeting.
But there's some things that I don't agree on on page 9 of 20, is
the unincumbered funds to be rolled back into our budget. I don't
think that we're a bank for the property taxpayers in the county. I
think that should be given back. If it's not tied to anything, where
were we keeping it?
The other thing, 10 percent --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, could you wrap it up,
please?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ten percent in the reserve fund
-- I only have a few things, Commissioner, and I promise you, again,
I won't take too much time today.
Ten percent reserves from property taxes to help our bond rating
to make the capital improvements that we need for growth in Collier
County is a wrong message to send to the taxpayers.
And the constitutional officers are -- must submit their budgets
by May 1, but we're not going to get that information, our budget,
until the 1 st of June. Why can't we have it earlier?
Page 83
March 14,2006
The unfinanced request or unfinanced things from the State of
Florida, we'll know that before our budget workshop, Commissioner.
And if we have to do it, we have to do it. There's no way around it.
But I truly -- I understand where Commissioner Coletta wants to
be, but I think we can get there by having growth pay for growth.
And I'm going to make a motion that we adopt the assumptions
on page 9, that we guide -- that we ask the county manager to -- any
unincumbered funds to be not allocated as a carryforward. Ten
percent reserve funds, it should be 2.5, just like the other
constitutional officers, request that the budget information be
provided to the Board of Commissioners the same time that the
budget is for the constitutional officers. And that's my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As written? I'm sorry,
Commissioner Henning, was that amended or just as written here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On page 9 or page 13?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, page 13. I was wondering
why I couldn't follow it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, that's why the confusion.
I'm sorry . Would you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Page 13 is expenses of
assumptions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, yes. I follow where you
are now. Just a few minutes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I apologize. One mistake I
did make is, stormwater capital improvement fund is $10 million,
what's being proposed, but actually it's 7.5 million. I think I said a
million.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may? Can we also leave it
open with the fact that if we can find any other unencumbered funds,
that we might be able to direct them towards transportation?
Page 84
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Beyond what I mentioned?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm fine with that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I can second your
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll include that in the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second your motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got some concerns because I think --
are we talking about all constitutionals, or are we -- or are we talking
about the school board in general? Because I think -- I'm just
concerned about what we have -- what the motion is here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the motion just has to do
with our budget. It has nothing to do any other taxing district.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I've got some concerns.
Commissioner Coyle?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are a lot of questions here.
First of all, Commissioner Henning, what do you mean by rollback?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Rollback is using the existing
property taxes, carry it forward, and add new construction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's all?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's -- as far as the
property taxation, yes. It doesn't include impact fees, it doesn't
include some of those other fees that we charge for services.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, if you -- if you were
to do that, what is the total amount of tax collections we would
receIve --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For--
Page 85
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for this year?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: '07?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's -- that's -- you have
to wait to see that. The assumption is, probably on new construction,
is $6.5 million, or I just heard a whisper of $7 million.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it would be a $7 million
increase over what we had last year?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that what we're saying?
Now, we have an obligation to fund other constitutional officers.
How do we get them to live within budget so we can afford to do
that, since the sheriff is taking the entire 7 million?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, again, I'm not
recommending rollback. I think it's prudent to go to true rollback.
I'm not recommending that. That wasn't a part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you said that you were going
to make a motion, or that you weren't going to make a motion for
rollback, but that's what you thought we should do but you wouldn't
get the votes to do it. Is that what you think we ought to do is go to
true rollback?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if we went to true -- gave
that guidance to give true rollback and also give the guidance --
which is not on the table -- to come back on what the needs - to fill
the needs of the community, the services of the community, that's
what I was going to recommend. And, again, that's not on the table.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess -- I guess I'm trying
to do what you suggested we should do, take a look at what our
obligations are to the people of Collier County and to the
constitutional officers and develop a budget associated with that. I
mean, I have never participated in a budget here that says, let's see
Page 86
March 14,2006
how much money we get and then let's just spend it all. I have
always, and I thought this commission had also, taken a look at what
was mandatory with respect to the services we were given, and we
came up with a list of priorities of any other projects that we wanted
to fund, and then we decided we'd either fund them or we wouldn't
fund them based upon their priorities.
And I do recall that both you and I did vote to turn some of that
money back to voters last time. So I don't think it's fair to say we've
been approaching budgeting from the standpoint of just trying to
spend whatever we can get.
The problem that I see is that we first must identify what our
obligations are. And if we have constitutional officers who are taking
all of the rollback increase, then we're left in a bind. We have no
money for cost-of-living increases, we have no money for salary
increases for our employees, we have no money for things that we are
obligated to provide to our citizens of Collier County because the
prices of those services go up, the prices of electricity go up, the
prices of gasoline go up. We have to have ways to pay for those
things, and I don't know how we do that, and how we get there by
talking about rollback.
Just a very good example here. You used a figure of $816
million is what people pay for property taxes here in Collier County,
and that's absolutely true, it's just that it doesn't come to us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, we don't get $816
million. It goes to the school board and the fire districts and the water
management district and mosquito control. We actually get the
minor portion of all of that money . We get about 29 percent of
all that money.
So, you know, it's not like we can just control how much people
pay in property taxes. It's not up to us to do.
Page 8 7
March 14,2006
The other point is that, why did Collier County's property tax per
capita increase so much? It's because people's homes increased in
value. That's wealth to those people. I would dare say that those
people would much rather have their property increase and -- in value
20 percent per year but yet have their taxes capped at 3 percent per
year.
So the people who are homesteaded here in Collier County are
not paying these huge tax increases. It's the people who are not
homesteaded in Collier County that are paying the huge tax increases.
And we can debate whether or not they are being treated unfairly, but
the point is, that's the law, and the state would have to change that
law if they're going to change it, not us.
So there are a lot of problems. But bottom line is, anytime I can
identify a tax cut to the people in Collier County, I'm ready to jump
on it and see if we can do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm glad you're there,
because I'm going to spend more than 10 minutes during the budget
workshop.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But, Commissioner, the
recommendation is tied to the increased property evaluation. And
I'm just saying I don't think that's the way we should be doing it. I
think that we should be looking at the services that we need to
provide to the residents, okay? That's all.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And as far as the increased
evaluation, 3 percent, 2 percent, 20 percent is still a tax increase, and
all I'm saying is, whatever that increase is, we ought to tell the -- have
the pride to stand up to the community and say, we increased your
taxes for this reason. That's all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could I interject here one thing?
Page 88
March 14, 2006
The -- Mike, if you could put on there the typical FY -'06
unincorporated area resident tax bill -- I think there's a pie there -- so
that the people understand that -- what was $813 million that are
collected, how the breakdown is here, okay, and so they get an
understanding of what percentage of the pie belongs to the county's
general fund, and, of course, that takes in all the constitutionals, and
then, of course, we have fire control, mosquito control, water
management, and, of course, we have the school board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, I'll tell
you the short answer, tell the public the short answer. The school
board takes most of the money.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I want to show that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I can tell you that they are
the highest school taxation district in the State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And we don't have any control over
them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I don't have a vote. I do
have a say-so as a taxpayer, and I've been telling the school board
members that -- and showing them where they are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's going to be an
interesting display, that pie chart. But let me just make one brief
comment about, I don't think we're trying to spend all of the money
that comes to us. I think the county manager has made a proposal
which permits us to send back millions of dollars to the people of
Collier County. They're anticipating an increase of, perhaps, 20 to 21
percent.
I think what is being said here is that we're going to limit it to
$16 million primarily because $7 million of it has already been taken
by the sheriff. We've got an obligation to support the sheriffs
department.
Page 89
March 14,2006
And so if that much of it is going to be taken by the sheriffs
department, then we don't have much left to deal with. So we're
voluntarily limiting our healthcare coverage to our people. We're
voluntarily limiting the cost of living adjustment and the salary cost
to work within that particular category so we can send back 6
percent, 5 percent --
MR. MUDD: Five percent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- five percent of the increased--
of the total amount back to the taxpayers.
So it's not like we're trying to find ways to spend it. We're just
trying to find ways to make ends meet, and then whatever the excess
is, it ought to go back to the taxpayers, which is exactly what you're
saying, and I think I agree with that, and I think you'd get a vote to
approve that. I don't - I wouldn't shy away from making a motion to
get that kind of tax --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Five percent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we already have a motion
and a second on the floor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, but it didn't deal with that
part. It dealt with expense assumptions for FY -'07, and I'm still a
little concerned about the carryforwards. It appears to me that if
you've got some proj ects that you know that you have not funded or
because of timing could not be funded and the funds could not be
obligated, but that you do anticipate that they will be obligated right
after the end of the fiscal year, then, bang, that's your money.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, it wasn't -- it
said unincumbered funds, so it's not tied to any specific project.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. But if you have a
proj ect that is not funded that you know is -- that is going to be
coming up in the next fiscal year, it would make some logic to move
Page 90
March 14, 2006
those funds forward into the next fiscal year so they can be used for
that purpose.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the recommendations was
just to roll those funds back in, those unincumbered funds, and I don't
agree with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But not as unincumbered?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But not as unincumbered.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think I would agree with that too.
But if it's rolled in to be used for projects that are identified, that is a
different story.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Carryforward is also important because
two-thirds of your general fund is ad valorem tax supported. The
first influx of tax revenue doesn't come from the tax collector until
about Thanksgiving. Our fiscal year begins on October 1 st. Your
mandatorily, by statute, required to fund one-twelfth of the sheriffs
budget -- and the sheriff's budget next year will probably be over
$150 million --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Only if the board approves it.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's 140 million this year. It's not
unreasonable to think it's going to be --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir--
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- in the order of magnitude.
MR. MUDD: -- you're absolutely correct, sir.
Go ahead, Mike.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: But 12 mill-- so you're spending $12
million a month October 1 st and November 1 st that you are required
by statute to fund to the sheriff before you've gotten dollar one of ad
valorem tax revenue.
Page 91
March 14,2006
Carryforward provides some of that buffer to pay for those -- pay
for those services until the ad valorem tax revenue is received. That's
one thing. Carryforward.
Unreserved fund balance is important. You'll hear from your
auditor at the next meeting that unreserved general fund balance is
important. The recent hurricanes that we've experienced, we're
spending $5 million this year out-of-pocket. That carryforward
unreserved fund balance provides you some of that buffer to mitigate
that and respond quickly and capably to the residents of this
community .
It's also an important safeguard relative to the county's overall
financial position, and that is important when you're in the
marketplace for bonds because they look -- one of the first things
they look for is, what was the county's fund balance and how has it
changed over the last few years in the general fund? That is one
measure of the financial strength that the reasonable analysts that are
rating the county's debt immediately honed in upon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm willing to put that on
the table for further debate at the workshop.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'm sorry. I didn't realize
this motion was going to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to put that back. Let's
-- that concern about the first quarter --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta has the floor right
now, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. It was Commissioner
Henning's motion, so I don't have a problem with them anticipating
what my question is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The -- I'm going to put
that -- I think it's important to debate that issue about the first quarter
Page 92
March 14,2006
in -- or fiscal -- first fiscal year. So, you know, the details, we can
hash that out at the workshop. So that's removed from my motion if
that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Ifwe could go back here
to the motion, it has to do with the expense assumptions. That's what
we're dealing with.
Was my addition of unincumbered funds to go towards roads,
was that the problem?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Pardon me, sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The motion that was made was
to approve as it's written here, the '07 expense assumptions, then from
that I added about the unincumbered funds that may result to be used
for transportation needs for roads. Is that's what the problem is with
the large discussion we're having at this point in time? Does that
raise a problem?
I know we seem to be getting far from the point of what's here. I
mean, these are staff recommendations we're working with.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. The concern is specific to reserves
and being able to not put at risk the county's financial position, and
that's tied to the carryforward issue as well. Just arbitrarily reducing
carryforward for our reserve levels is something you would have to
approach with great caution. And I think the recent hurricane
experience over the last two years bears that out. And, you know __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once again, I'll go back to my
original question. Does the inclusion in that motion about
unincumbered funds going towards transportation cause the problem
that's here now? I want to try to work through this so we can get to
where we all need to be. I hear the discussion going on and on and
on, and I still don't have my answer.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Any unincumbered funds would go to
transportation that would carry over from -- into fiscal year '07.
Page 93
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That raises the problem, right?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That would be a problem, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I remove that from
the motion and would like to have further discussion on this.
My whole objective is to see what we can do to come up with
extra funds over and above what we're doing now. Anything as far as
a rollback goes, Commissioner Henning's right, I would be opposed
to a rollback, but I would like to see any additional funds that come
in be directed towards transportation.
At what point we give staff that type of direction, I'm not sure.
But if incumbered (sic) funds in the motion is a problem, then I
withdraw my second, and, you know, ask for the motion to be
reworded, or some way that we can get to the solution that would
meet all needs. I don't want to cause a burden for the county, I don't
want our bond rate to go to hell. I want everything just to be able to
work out. And I think this commission knows exactly what I'm
looking for.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have one public speaker. Can we
take care of the public speaker so he can leave?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Then I'll come back to Commissioner
Coyle.
MS. FILSON: Tammie Nemecek.
MS. NEMECEK: Good morning. Tammie Nemecek, President
of the Economic Development Council of Collier County. This is
early discussion for us with regards to budget, but we thought it
important to talk a little bit about some of the infrastructure pieces
that we're working on with regards to economic development, and I
know we'll go into more detail on this during the workshops in June,
but I did want to have you think about some of the things that we're
working on with regards to the Immokalee Airport, which is an
Page 94
March 14, 2006
infrastructure component to our economic diversification plans and
something that has lacked funding over the last many years.
I think we might have some opportunities to leverage some
funding locally with some federal funding coming up in the next
couple of years, and we're talking about unincumbered funds and
incumbered funds.
The difficulty that we have with what we're doing with the
airport is that some of these things take a long time to develop. And
in order for us to be able to have those funds readily available when
we have the opportunity to access those funds at the federal level or
even at the state level, it's important that if the funds are available
now, that we might want to go ahead and incumber them.
And so part of the discussion relating back to rollbacks and
incumbered funds and unincumbered funds and what we do with
this budget process going forward with regards to the airport is, I
would like to have you continue to look at the airport as an economic
engine, that it's an opportunity for us to diversify the economy.
It is providing a tax base that does not provide the amount of
services as residential taxpayers. For every dollar that we collect
from those businesses, they're only going to require 75 cents in
services. It is a revenue generator when it comes back to our ad
valorem tax rate.
And so I would like you to consider over the long-term, and as
we continue these budget discussions over the next several months, is
looking at the Immokalee Airport long-term and to find out if there
are funding -- if there is funding available that we can start leveraging
with some state dollars and federal dollars in order to get some
needed infrastructure at that airport.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Tammie.
Commissioner Coyle?
Page 95
March 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, just a couple of points. I
think that Commissioner Henning has already stated that he would
like to discuss this in greater detail during budget hearings, and I
think that's the right time to do it rather than trying to resolve it right
here today, because we'll have more specifics to deal with then and
we can wrestle with that.
The other thing is that when we were talking about the increased
tax revenues resulting from all factors, including new construction
and the increased valuation of the property, we were saying that the
county manager had recommended that 16 percent of it be used to
fulfill our obligations, our increased obligations, and 5 percent of it
be sent back to taxpayers or result in a rollback of some kind.
Now, please remember what that means is, 20 percent of the
increase is going back to the taxpayers, okay? Twenty percent of
whatever the tax increase is this year over last year will be going
back to the taxpayers, right?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Five percent of the increase is 20
percent of --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what you're assuming in this
particular case is that our assessed -- our increase in assessed value is
going to come in at 21 percent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: I believe everything I've seen so far says we're
going to be at the 20, 21 percent increase level. Now, I won't know
that specifically until the property appraiser gives me that particular
number on 1 June. But everything I've seen from the state as of
November and December of last year that they put forward says that's
what our rate's going to be.
In the previous year they had the same kind of figures, and it
came in right around 19.5, and that's kind of where we came in with
Page 96
March 14, 2006
the property appraiser. So I believe based on what they saw in the
housing market then will hold true. If that's the case, sir, then what
you just described is true.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is 20 percent refund to taxpayers?
Okay.
Now, the last thing -- and it's very fast -- is I'm going to need
some kind of strategy, statement, policy, whatever, that convinces me
that we're going to be able to get the constitutionals that we're
responsible for funding to adhere to budget guidance. Many of them
do and always have. Some of them do -- do not and never have.
Now, how do we get there? How can you be sure that budget
guidance on turnover salaries, cost-of-living allowances, and benefits,
particularly health insurance benefits, will be made consistent across
all government employers in Collier County and not have Collier
County government, our agency, placed at a great disadvantage
because other agencies are demanding higher increases? How do we
solve that problem?
And you don't have to solve it today. We've got a limited time
frame. But I'm going to need some kind of evidence that
constitutionals are going to abide by that policy, or else we have to
reevaluate the allocation of this money. Otherwise, we can't survive.
We can't have our health insurance benefits for our employees
being split 80 percent county, 20 percent employee, while other
agencies in Collier County government are paying 100 percent of all
the health insurance benefits. We can't do that, because that places us
at a severe disadvantage from the standpoint of being able to hire and
retain people, and it also creates a severe problem for our budgeting,
because if we cannot rely upon people to adhere to budget guidance,
then we'll have to use more of the taxpayers' money to make up for
that fact, and that doesn't make me feel comfortable either, so I just
think --
Page 97
March 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think--
MR. MUDD: The answer to your question -- and we're going to
debate it some more. But the answer is, it's difficult to do. And I
believe our experience over the last two years with the sheriffs
budget and the appeal process and all the things that we've had to do
basically show that.
I think it's -- it's imperative that the board members, when they
review the budgets of the agencies on Friday, where they get to look
at the constitutional officers' budget, that you basically ask those
questions -- what is your healthcare percentage county to employee __
and get those particular items out. Those questions haven't been
asked in the past and haven't been addressed, but I believe if we do
that and you bring that out in a public forum, I believe you'll start
getting some corrections to where your intent is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if I could, let me correct you.
They have been brought up before. They've been brought up
personally by me before. And I had received some assurances that
there would be a move to compatible. In fact, it looks like we might
be moving to the opposite direction.
But it's going to be a difficult thing, but it impacts exactly what
Commissioner Henning is talking about. How much money do we
need to meet our obligations for constitutional officers and other
agencies of the government over which we have no managerial
control? That's a tough problem, because the people of Collier
County expect us to control the budget, but yet we have to give the
money away to people we do not control.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I was specifically talking about the
workshop date --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think the other thing we've got __
MR. MUDD: -- not previously on a meeting or whatever. I
know this board has brought those particular items before.
Page 98
March 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other thing we have to look at also
is the mandate coming down from the legislature __
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- and hopefully we'll get some guidance
by the first of May in regards to what's required of us.
Commissioner Coletta, if we can -- I'll have you finish up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm more than willing to address
it after lunch if you want to continue it, but I don't want this coming
to a vote until that point in time that we really get to discuss
everything.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What I'd like to just bring to a vote today
is just the decision for the dates that have been chosen so that we can
move on and I don't--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second your motion on the
dates.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The dates are June 22, 2006;
Friday, June 23, 2006; and Monday, June 26, 2006. And the
adoption of the proposed millage rates would be July 25, 2006.
The established public hearing dates would be September the 7th,
2006, and the final date would be September 21, 2006, on Thursday.
I have a motion. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was the 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.)
Page 99
March 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries unanimously.
MS. FILSON: And those are on your calendars.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't we already have a motion on
the floor and a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. The second was
withdrawn.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The second was withdrawn.
So we'll break for lunch and we'll be back --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, we're going to continue the
discussion?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. We're all done with this discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, wait a minute, not quite,
not quite.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This, I think, should be brought back
when we have the budget hearings. We don't have enough
information. All we had to establish today --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. I hear you. I hear you
loud and clear, but the thing is, we're leaving staff with the guidance
that what's in here --
MR. MUDD: There is no guidance, and at this particular
juncture, spend everything that comes in as far as the thing is, and
then fight about it during a workshop. I believe that __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm fine with that.
MR. MUDD: If that's where the board wants to go, I believe
that's where we were years ago, and it got -- and it wasn't very
productive, and I'm talking about the times that staffs sitting here
with the productivity fighting over particular items.
And I believe guidance to limit the amount that people bring in
for a budget is a good one. And I believe not doing that, you open
this commission --
Page 100
March 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, the only problem I
have with the guidance is the fact that we're capping it off at 16
percent. Ifwe have a chance to come up with some extra money--
MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner. You gave no guidance. You
basically approved the dates of the workshop, the dates you're going
to set the top of the millage, and the dates you're going to do your
budget --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's leave it at that. I know
you're not -- you're disappointed, but I think it's the best way to go,
because I accept the guidance that's here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, wait a minute, wait a minute.
There hasn't been a vote on that issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's not been a vote at all on the
guidance. All we voted for --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I make a motion that we
approve the guidance that the county manager has provided to us.
And if we want to modify it at a subsequent meeting, we can do so.
But right now the staff needs something to work with; otherwise,
they're going to show up at the workshop with absolutely nothing
to show us, and we're going to sit there and squabble for days and
days and days and days over how many people you need __
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Discussion?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Michael, let's go back to the
guidance that's there as far as the cap goes on the money. My
concern, of course, once again, is back to transportation and the
roads. This commission has stood firmly in place for years now
Page 101
March 14, 2006
trying to come up with every last dollar they could for the roads,
because that's been the number one priority that the voters out there
have given us and been mandated to us.
The actual guidance to be able to lock it in at 16, am I correct, if
that guidance goes through, that means that we don't have the option
if it turns out to be 17 to pick up that extra percent, that we're giving
that up now?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. You're giving -- you're giving
direction to the manager at this point to -- and we would bring in a
budget that shows the ad valorem capped at 16 percent. If we get 20
percent increase in value and your direction is the staff
recommendation, we would be bringing you a millage rate that is
lower, and we would tell you, we are lowering the millage rate by X
million dollars, and that equates to, you know, four decimal places,
whatever the associated millage is, and at that point in time, if you __
there were policy direction that you wanted to put that into roads, if
you wanted to put it into general fund reserves __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So this isn't final?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, not by any stretch.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- it would come back to us.
But the guidance does say that this is the will of the commission at
this point in time? That's the part I'm having the problem with. I have
no problems with anything else, constitutional officers, right down on
through. My problem is the fact the people I represent pay a 3 percent
maximum increase in taxes. They want to see the roads built in the
worst possible way.
I hate to put the burden on other people, but the truth of the
matter is, everybody walked into this with their eyes wide open, they
Page 102
March 14, 2006
all complain about the roads when they're here, then they go back to
where they were.
Everybody likes to see their taxes lowered. But I think they want
to see services more than that. That's my fear is the fact that once
this guidance goes out, this is going to become the status quo that
we're going to be following through. I understand we can reverse it,
and that is important, but that's my --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Since it was my motion, let me
clarify that, okay? All we told you to do was come back at the next
workshop with a proposal based upon this guidance.
MR. MUDD: Come back with a budget, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With a budget based on that
guidance. Ifwe don't like it, we change it.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ifwe come up with more projects
we want to do, we change it. If we come up with fewer projects we
want to do, we change it. All we're doing is giving you an initial
guidance to come to us with something at a workshop, and then we
will go from there.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, looking for--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But without doing that, you don't
know what to present to us.
MR. MUDD: Sir, I'm just looking for a start point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. You're just looking
for a start point.
MR. MUDD: Without a start point, it makes the budget -- the
whole budget process very, very difficult.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, not too long ago we
approved our AUIR -- I think it was a unanimous vote of
transportation -- showing where the monies are going to come from.
Page 103
March 14, 2006
Now, if somebody objected to our five-year capital improvement
program, I didn't hear it. And I'm sure Mr. Feder's going to come in
with the first year of the five-year capital program and say, this is
what I'm going to do in the next budget year.
But I just want to point out to the commissioners, a 16 percent
increase in taxable value equates to over $50 million, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not for Collier County, it doesn't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It sure does. You base it upon a
-- a property valuation in the general fund of $300 million. It's 289
million, round it off. It's over $50 million.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Even at that, a 16 percent
increase -- I don't know too many people that their personal income
has increased 16 percent. So we're giving the guidance of 16 percent,
and I'm looking forward to getting some support to do the hard work
that we need to do in the budget workshop and make sure that as we
increase the taxes that we need to -- get to tell the public of what we
have to increase their taxes for.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, if you'd finish up
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be very brief, very brief.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- because I want to call the question
and get this vote over, okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to point out the
fact that the increase in building the roads out there has increased
some 66 percent in two years. That's all I wanted to mention.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm going to call the question. All those
in favor of the guidance that was put in the motion. Mr. Coyle,
Commissioner Coyle, would you clarify exactly what it was?
Page 104
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm just approving the
guidance as presented for our discussion at the next workshop.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And that -- that's included in my
motion -- my second.
So -- call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. We'll
break for lunch.
I believe we have a time certain at one o'clock. Ifwe're 10
minutes late, would that be a problem, because we've got to go to the
church.
MR. WEIGEL: No.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
This brings us to the one o'clock time certain. And for those
folks that were here, please excuse us. We had a group of young
Americans that basically occupied our time for about an hour or so,
and that's why we're a little bit late, and it was a worthwhile endeavor
indeed.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2006-11: AMENDING SCHEDULE THREE OF
APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
Page 105
March 14, 2006
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, PARK
IMPACT FEE UPDATE, PREPARED FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, UPDATING THE METHODOLOGY FOR THE
ANNUAL INDEXING ADJUSTMENT TO THE PARK IMPACT
FEE RATES, AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE
DATE OF MAY 15~ 2006 - ADOPTED
This brings us to item 8A. It's a recommendation that the Board
of County Commissioners adopt an ordinance amending
schedule three 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 incorporation by
reference of the impact fee study entitled Park Impact Fee Update
prepared for Collier County, Florida, updating the methodology
for the annual indexing adjustment to the park impact fee rates;
and providing for a delayed effective date of May 15,2006.
And this will be presented by Amy Patterson, your impact fee
coordinator -- manager.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Manager, manager, manager.
MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would you like to be a director?
MS. PATTERSON: Whatever you'd like. I'll answer to
anything.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Director sounds good, Amy.
MS. PATTERSON: Great.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll take a vote right now.
Page 106
March 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. All in favor of
making Amy a director, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. Okay. You're director, Amy.
MR. MUDD: State your name for the record.
MS. PATTERSON: Hello. I'm Amy Patterson, your Impact Fee
Manager.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Next we might go to county
manager.
MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. Amy Patterson, your impact fee
manager, for the record. I'm here today for the Collier County park
impact fee update. This is a regular three-year update of the park's
impact fee.
We have with us today Mr. James Duncan from Duncan
Associates, and Mr. Bill Reeves from Coastal Engineering, who
conducted the land survey study. And with that, I'm going to turn it
over to Jim Duncan, who's going to provide a presentation and
answer any of your questions.
MR. DUNCAN: Thank you, Amy. I'm going to make a rather
brief presentation, and then you focus on what you might be
particularly interested in.
As Amy indicated, my name is Jim Duncan. I'm president of
Duncan Associates.
First of all, very quickly, you are moving on a very positive
schedule for adoption. It has been through all of your boards with
approvals. It is before you today on the 14th and May 15th with the
60-day out for effective date.
In summary, as you know, it was last updated in 2002 by our
firm, and at that time we made several adjustments in your
methodology, we varied the housing units by size and type, we added
hotels and motels, which you did not have prior to that, and we
Page 107
March 14,2006
introduced an annual inflation index. And I want to tell you that you
were one of the first in the state to get into that. That's been put in
now in most of the communities around the state.
Then in this one, we've added four additional ones, and these are
what I would call methodology tweaking, improving it.
We have used an appraiser for land costs. We were always
quite concerned about the land costs we used in 2002 as to whether or
not they accurately reflected the true cost of buying land in your
county. And so we have done the impact fee studies for your
neighboring county to the north, and we have been using an appraiser
on all of those studies for several years now, and it certainly helps in
justifying the validity of a very important component of the fee.
We took a relook at your single-family-size brackets. One thing
in 2002, as you may recall, we had to rely upon the 1990 census
because the new census was not out in any detail that we could use.
2006, however, we were able to use the 2000 census, and that gave us
a very -- a much more current appreciation of family household
information, which affected the single-family brackets, and I'll get
into that briefly in a minute.
We consolidated the multiple-family brackets again, and I'll
touch on that in a minute, and we refined the annual inflation factor.
In 2002 we used the CPI, and I think we all know the consumer
price index was more on buying food and drugs and things like that.
When you get into talking about facilities, it is much more important.
And in this, we're talking about land and buildings.
On land we used your property appraiser's increased actual
values as a percentage, and we used the Engineering News record,
which is more related to construction.
So we think that the four suggested changes in this 2006 study
greatly enhance and improve the validly of the study and make it
more appropriate.
Page 108
March 14, 2006
County growth. As you well know, Collier County is continuing
to be one of the leaders in the nation. In just the last five years, your
growth has increased by a third, most of it in the unincorporated area.
Your housing units and your park acreage has moved forward,
not quite at the same pace. So the land cost per acre is the biggest
single factor that is moving the fees to a higher bracket in this study.
This shows what they were in 2002. We're dealing with four
types of parks; community parks, which are inland and primarily
serve the unincorporated area; the regional parks, which are primarily
along the coast and serve the entire county-wide population; and then
two outset focuses, beach parking and boat access, which in and of
themselves are, as you all know, much more expensive to acquire, but
very important to provide the recreation on the park facilities for this
community.
And you can see that on these, the boat access has pretty much
stabilized at one and a half million. The biggest change percentage-
wise on it is the regional land at 36,000 to a new figure of 200-.
And I think more important than looking at the 200- is looking at
the 36-, which was a very low figure four years ago to buy any land
in Collier County.
Collier -- this just shows the pattern of the facilities that we did
an inventory on.
This is the overall value of your park facilities, about a half a
billion dollars as the study points out. And as you know, the
methodology that is used here and throughout the state for park
impact fees, it's a buy-in. It's people who are coming to your
community. And what they're coming for, among other things, is the
recreational amenities. And so basically, they show that we -- they
do not deteriorate or depreciate the level of service of your existing
residents.
Page 109
March 14, 2006
Their obligation is to buy in to your existing inventory, and the
prorated amount comes from that 580 bill-- $580 million.
This shows you the difference in the 2002 and 2005 equivalent
dwelling units. The main thing to look at there is under the single-
family, you'll see the four (sic) categories, small, medium, and large,
and we've actually recommended collapsing a little bit.
In the old study it was up to 1,800, mainly because you see in
2005, there's much less difference in the number of people in the
units. You're sort of closing in. You don't have that wide diversity of
a lot of people and a few people.
The average home, which is around 2,000 square feet, is our __
what we call equivalent dwelling unit 1.0, and a small unit actually
only has about 9 percent less, while the large unit has about 9 percent
more, and that's where we have to justify the variable rates.
And actually we're recommending on the multiple family, that
you collapse the three that you have right now, because there was no
appreciable difference in the number of people living in multiple-
family units in this county according to the U.S. Census.
The three -- four components of the fee, community park fee.
Basically you see -- and this is the component of your fee that is
charged to the unincorporated area only. This is appreciating only
about 25 to 35 percent across the board, which is -- the regional park
fee is the fee that is charged to all residents of Collier County, is
increasing up to about 200 percent based, as I said earlier, on the
price of land.
The combined park fees across the board, which are assessed, .
would be -- to the unincorporated area would be about 100 percent
increase from your current fees.
If you were to adopt the fees at the full 100 percent maximum
allowable rate as your memorandum from staff indicates, it would
probably add, presuming that your growth rate maintains the same
Page 110
March 14, 2006
pace, another $7 million in revenue. You have been collecting
around 8 million, 7 to 8 million. So you could expect that your
revenues would increase to about $15 million in the first full fiscal
year after the adoption.
Staff and myself and Mr. Reeve, the appraiser, stand ready
to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had a number of questions. I
don't want to hog all of this time. But the first one was type of
household size. It shows that less than 1,500 feet, you show an
average household size of2.5, yet at 2,500 you show it at 2.99.
And in my view, anyway, it seems that that should possibly be
reversed in that usually the bigger the house, the fewer people are
living in it in our county, and the smaller the house, it seems that
you're usually talking about young families with children. And I was
wondering why it went opposite that.
MR. DUNCAN: As I indicated, we took this straight out of the
U.S. Census. And you are absolutely right, Collier County has some
very unique family household formation features. And I think I've
pulled up maybe the table you're looking at here which talks about
the family size by detached multifamily and mobile home, and then
breaks it down on the size of bedrooms on the lower side. Is that the
one you're referring to, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm not. I'm actually referring
to page 23 of 48, is the one I'm looking at. And I mean -- because
this makes it a great deal of differences as to how these are
calculated.
MR. DUNCAN: Well, pretty much we --like I said, we relied
exclusively on the U.S. Census unless we had some local type data to
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So this wasn't based then on local
Page 111
March 14,2006
data?
MR. DUNCAN: This was based on U.S. Census, local data.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
MR. DUNCAN: No, for Collier County, not for--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. That didn't really give me an
answer, but that was -- that just doesn't make any sense. It seems
every time we get -- every time we get household size it differs
depending on what point we're trying to prove at the time.
Second thing is, it says, recent sales prices were inflated by 5 to
14 percent per month. And I realize this was done a while back. Now
that things have flattened out, have you modified that in any way?
MR. DUNCAN: We did these numbers, what, last 2005 and--
you know, so they wouldn't reflect -- if it flattened after that, you
know, it wouldn't have been in there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then on page 31 of 48, you
talk about replacement costs, and here you were talking about acres,
regional parks, beach parking, boat access, and it talks about acres.
Are you talking about replacing those acres?
MR. DUNCAN: The word replacement cost may be a slight
misnomer, because what we're talking is more of a buy-in. This is
the current-day value of these assets. In other words, if you were __
we're not saying replacement in terms of maintaining or rehabbing or
something like that.
We're saying, if you had to go out today to buy these assets, this
is what it would cost. And we have upped it from -- well, in this
particular case, we've used the acreage figures that our appraiser gave
us and multiplied them times the amount of acres.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, there's another part in here
that also talks about replacing the acreage. I'm trying to look for it
real quickly. And I thought, you know, you're not going to replace the
acreage. Even if you have a hurricane or a fire, you've got those
Page 112
March 14, 2006
acres and they're going to be there forever. It's only replacement on
the top.
MR. DUNCAN: It's more ofa buy-in value. It's more ofa buy-
in value.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But wasn't that used as -- in your
calculations, that buy-in value?
MR. DUNCAN: Yes. That's that same thing as what we called
here the replacement cost.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then you also used the cost of
buying new land.
MR. DUNCAN: That is what we're basically saying. If you
have a park on the beach -- if you're starting from scratch and
somebody's coming in, you're going to have to buy that even though
you have it right now. So we have to put a value on it to come up
with a total asset value that the current residents of Collier County
own.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I'm saying is --
MR. DUNCAN: And when we say replacement value, what
we're really saying is somebody that's moving in from somewhere
else, from up north, they don't have the right to reduce or depreciate
the level of service. So what is the cost for them to buy that same
level of service? In other words, is it five acres per thousand, or
whatever it is. And it's more complicated --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I understand that, and we want
to make sure that we are able to do these things. What I'm saying is,
it appeared to me, and it doesn't -- it doesn't explain it very clearly. It
appeared to me that you've not only used the amount of replacement
cost for land, but also the cost of buying new land. And I thought, it
looks like you're calculating both costs of land into this one figure.
Page 113
March 14,2006
MR. DUNCAN: The replacement cost is the current cost to buy
that land. It is the new cost. In other words, you may have bought
some land 20 years ago, but you can't buy it at that price anymore.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. DUNCAN: And if you're going to buy an equal acre to,
you know, accommodate some new people moving in, we have to
pay today's value on it, not 20 years ago value. So that's what we're
saying about replacement value or buy-in cost or today's value,
today's cost.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll come back.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In here it states, in our book
anyways, page 27, the county will not acquire much new land near
the beach. The evaluation for those properties, with that kind of
statement, how'd you come to the conclusion of the impact fees?
MR. DUNCAN: We just -- let me give you an analogy. We
just finished a study, a similar study, park study for the City of Fort
Lauderdale.
And they're not going to be -- they have 53 acres and seven miles
of beach. I mean, they don't make it anymore. So we're not going to
actually buy beach land, but we can buy beach access property.
And in many cases in this community and on the southeast coast,
the only way you can get people to it is to -- is to put -- you know,
some day we're going to have to go to structured parking to
accommodate certain areas.
But most of that land is already developed, so it's actually a tear-
down type station. It's not rebuilding a mansion or something like
that. But you have to pay an extreme value, and that was taken into
consideration by our appraiser in coming up with those figures. It's
not that we're going to increase the actual amount of beach. It's that
we're going to increase the citizens' access to that beach.
Page 114
March 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay,
MR. DUNCAN: Which is the same essential thing. You're
increasing the level of service by allowing more people to have
access.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, some of the appraiser--
appraisals in there are parcels that are bigger than beach access. So
how do you -- how do you squeeze that down to beach access?
MR. DUNCAN: I will let Mr. Reeve answer any questions about
the appraisal. His firm conducted the actual appraisals.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you need to take those
parcels and somehow figure out what is to be used as far as your
calculations and what is not to be used, correct?
MR. DUNCAN: We used average -- for example, and I
remember specifically on the community and regional. The reports
-- it was a rather full report, as you know -- gave a range of 200-,
$250,000 an acre for those two categories. We actually used a low,
because it is our policy usually to take the conservative numbers, and
we used 200,000 in each of those cases.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My next question is, what about
if you had knowledge of appraisals that were done for this particular-
- for this particular issue in the areas that the Board of
Commissioners will never build a park in; would you consider those?
MR. DUNCAN: If there was a policy of them not being valid,
they could be discarded absolutely. No, I agree on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What part of the
appraisals did you consider towards our master plan of building
parks?
We don't have a master plan, do we, right?
MS. RAMSEY: I can't really speak for what they've actually
used, but we do have a five-year plan that does tell where we're
Page 115
March 14, 2006
looking, and we're also doing the east of 951 study as to how many
acres, and part of that was presented to you during the AUIR.
And I do know that they used the A UIR as a guideline to
determine types of properties that we're currently looking at. And,
you know, the board direction at one point last year, about this time
or in June, was to seek out some lots along Gulfshore to help with
some rest room facilities, and so I know they took that into
consideration when they were doing the impact fee study as well. So
there is some guidance there in our plans.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it be fair to assume that
we're not going to get a regional park in the urban area?
MS. RAMSEY: If you consider urban area, what, west of951?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Urban boundary line. Yes.
MS. RAMSEY: I would say that there's still an opportunity
down in Commissioner Fiala's district for a regional park.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there a need? Would there be
a need?
MS. RAMSEY: There will be a need when we get to that one
million population, most definitely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But that one million, a
lot of that's going to be out eastern, east of 951, in fact, east of
Golden Gate.
MS. RAMSEY: There's still a lot of population coming down
along 41 and 951 down in that area. There's still a lot of acreage
that's yet to be developed, and we do not have parks there yet, so
we're looking at at least one larger park in that area probably.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But would it be fair to say that
most of the parks would be east of 951 ?
MS. RAMSEY: If you're talking--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Besides that one in South
Naples.
Page 116
March 14, 2006
MS. RAMSEY: Well, yeah. Most of the acreages that we're
looking at will be in Immokalee, some in the Estates area down along
41 probably in the East Naples area.
But we're also continuing to look along the beach. We're still
trying to buy lands for parking at existing locations, like Bayview,
and there's expansion at Clam Pass. There's possibly a parking
garage at that location. So there's a number of projects yet still
coming in close to the coastline.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I understand that's
the emphasis, to try to get people to the water and that. My concern
is, evaluation of per acres, of 200,000 per acre, when I know east of
951 or even in Golden Gate Estates, the properties are not valued at
that.
MS. RAMSEY: I know that you say that, sir. I do have an email
that I received on February 27th. We've been trying to buy five acres
right next to Max Hasse Community Park. We've been trying to buy
it for five years. It was -- the owner was out of Israel and now has
been sold to someone here in the Collier County area, and his asking
price on that five acres is $1.25 million, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Yeah, and I'm going to
sell my car for $1.2 million. So what's the appraised value of that
piece? Have you had it appraised?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, actually not yet, but we're doing an
in-house appraisal on that right now. And of course, we always
do the two appraisals and we give them the average of that. But
it is starting to escalate even in the Estates area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, there's no question about
that it's escalating.
MS. RAMSEY: Right. I'm not here to defend their appraisal
element. And if you have more appraisal questions, I'd rather turn it
Page 11 7
March 14, 2006
over to him. I'd feel more comfortable with him defending his
appraisal prices than me standing here, if that's okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't -- I do not question the
appraisal prices. The question about where we did the appraisals and
how did we get to -- Ms. Ramsey, it's really not an appraisal question.
MS. RAMSEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay? It's the value -- what I
consider where the growth is going to be, where we're going to put
parks, east -- in eastern lands, and the appraisals show some of those
parcels. How much of that was put into the impact fee calculation
about where we're going to put that? Did you have input on that?
MS. RAMSEY: I had provided the AUIR and the five-year
plans, and from that the consultant has done his appraisal and his
impact fee study. So, again, I'd have to turn it over to them. I have
never sat in the room with the consultant to discuss the questions that
you're currently asking me. I have looked to the consultant to
provide us with an impact fee that he feels is defendable, and I have
not been involved in trying to change his rationale on that impact fee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
Sir, I have another question. I was trying to find before, I'm
sorry .
Here, again, you were talking about -- regional parks is the one
I'm looking at, but community parks. It says the same thing. We talk
about that single-family dwelling. Here it says 1,300 square feet, and
yet, of course, you're using a different ratio to figure the cost out, and
for -- and we usually consider smaller homes to be those of people
with less income, obviously, rather than the big homes with bigger
income. And yet the percent of increase is 228 percent.
MR. DUNCAN: Which table --
Page 118
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And yet you get into the bigger
homes, and it goes down. And I'm thinking -- what I'm worried about
is a hardship to those people who already are having difficulty in
buying a home, and now, we're going to go up 228 percent.
MR. DUNCAN: Commissioner, first of all, I really understand
what you're saying about the issue of affordability, or workforce
housing. That is probably the biggest crisis that is happening in our
state, in the State of Florida today. We do impact fees all around, and
that is of concern in every community we're in.
Unfortunately, impact fees are, in a sense, a socially regressive
tool because they are related to the impact that - a house, as you well
know, people who live in a house put on the services, and it's the
opposite of a property tax, which, you know, we were used to back in
the '60s and '70s.
What we try to do -- and actually we introduced the variable
rates several years ago, okay. And in the '90s, quite frankly, the
ranges were there. And we've done -- we've done fees for
communities. And I'm not saying that Collier County doesn't fit in
there -- which this is the number one issue. I'm talking about
communities which really have a lot of haves and have-nots. Santa
Fe, New Mexico, and a lot of the sky resort communities and things
like this. And we've tried to create those ranges.
Today what we're finding out of the census is that those are
coming closer together. The number of the people aren't there. We
can't look at, you know, the type of the people. All we can look at is
the number of people, and it's showing in this community, as I said
earlier, that the number is not that great.
Now, the -- we were suggesting to change the range. As you
know, in your current -- we're saying that the three categories should
be 0 to 1,500 for square feet and 15 to 25 in the -- over 25. That's
one of the recommended changes we've got in here.
Page 119
March 14, 2006
The difference in the fee is not that great between the low and the
high one, quite frankly. It's only 18 percent. That's not a big change.
That's not going to really make it affordable.
What I compliment you all on is that you're one of the few states,
the few cities or counties that has taken a forward move in this, and
they're getting into the exemption or waiving, or whatever you want
to call it, of fees for affordable housing. That's the only way you're
going to solve it, and mixing in with others.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me tell you where I'm going and
why I'm questioning this. I thoroughly believe in our park system.
We've got a great park system. I love the things that they're doing.
And I feel that these families need these parks, and that's true.
But when we talk about maximum allowable -- and I'm just -- I'm
just fearful, when you use $445 million as replacement cost for land
and -- but you're not going to ever replace that land, you're just __
you're wanting to buy new, and then the rates go up 228 percent, I
feel that maybe we're going overboard.
I believe in impact fees. I believe we need to have them. I
would never vote against them. But I think they also need to be
reasonable and fair.
MR. DUNCAN: Oh, absolutely. And if they're not, we'll be
litigated and they'll be corrected through the courts. That's why we
don't.
Just last week I made a presentation in Fort. Lauderdale, okay,
the same thing, and we have a wider range there on parks. And
somebody -- I don't know how well you know that community, but
somebody pointed out to me and -- that we had a fee for the lowest
sized house, which is theoretically, you know, the lowest income
person, and then the difference between the highest one -- and they
pointed out that that lowest income is probably going to be in the
minority neighborhood with five kids and a low fee, and that highest
Page 120
March 14, 2006
fee is probably going to be in a condo that has a snowbird living there
five months and 29 days a year. You know what I'm saying?
And they have their own amenities. They're not even using the
facilities, but they're having to pay twice as much on that fee
schedule.
That's getting about as far away from calculating an impact fee
and making it legal as we can do it, but we are - I don't know of
anybody who's ever sued on that. I'd hope they wouldn't. But we try
to make them. In yours it was just difficult to make a big change.
There's a big difference between the low and the high.
The 200 percent you're talking about has to do with the overall
rising cost of the fee. The land cost is the driving reason --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you're also going for the very
maXImum --
MR. DUNCAN: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- impact fee.
MR. DUNCAN: Oh, no, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it says that in here.
MR. DUNCAN: We call it maximum allowable. It's a policy
decision on your part, on you and your colleagues' part. You could --
you could adopt it at 50 percent as far as the consultant's
recommendation. You need to adopt it at the level that you need to
purchase adequate facilities. I mean, you know, you may have other
sources. We have communities that are dedicating sales taxes and
property taxes to parks, and they're not passing across the full cost of
growth. That's a decision you have. I'm not saying as a consultant
that you are obligated to charge 100 percent. I'm just saying, the
maximum allowable amount under the study we have provided you is
in this study, and it's up to you to fix the percent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. But before I turn
Page 121
March 14, 2006
this over to Commissioner Coletta, we're doing -- we're using the
dual rational nexus, right?
MR. DUNCAN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And I think we ran into a
problem a few years ago where we were trying to address road
impact fees, and I think we cut ourselves short. So I think that's
something the commissioners ought to take into consideration.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you know, our choices are
very few here. We can, one, do without the parks, put them off
sometime in the future, but we've already set a standard that we have,
for every so many thousand population, that we're going to provide
so much in the way of parks. So that's really not an option.
So the option comes down, do we get it from impact fees or do
we get it from ad valorem if you're going to have the parks? It's a real
simple, you know, direction to go.
Myself, I hold with the direction this commission has taken and
upheld for a long time, you know, for the highest reasonable fee that
we can come up with that's defendable that we would do to try to
make sure that growth pays for both growth. In spite of that, how
much of these parks are being paid for out of ad valorem? There's
still a percentage, isn't there?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And their user fees as well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, there's users fees
also. Amy, we're addressing the parks and recs as far as impact fees
versus ad valorem.
MS. PATTERSON: We're not -- at the current time, impact fees
are the funding source for growth-related capital improvements for
parks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, but we still have to
underwrite the cost of maintaining them and staff --
Page 122
March 14, 2006
MS. PATTERSON: Sure. Not impact-fee eligible costs.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. So I mean, that's still a
cost that we pick up for our residents that are coming down here.
MS. PATTERSON: Right. But if you were to adopt this fee at
less than 100 percent, there will have to be another funding source
found --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MS. PATTERSON: -- to support the growth element of the
parks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I think the choice is real
simple. Either we go with the impact fees, where it is, or we do with
less parks.
MS. PATTERSON: I also need--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because I don't want to spend
another dollar to pay for growth out of the taxes from the people I
represent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, Commissioner, let me just ask
you -- because I agree. I don't -- I don't ever want to see us have less
parks. That's where people play and congregate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. I agree.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I believe impact fees should
pay for them. You don't feel the figures were inflated?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I don't. If they are inflated,
I can assure you that the other end of the spectrum, the building
industry, will be telling us the fact that it is and probably taking us to
court, and that's where it should be challenged.
We pay this gentleman, not a small fortune. We pay him a
reasonable fee for his services. He is -- he carries - his credentials
are impeccable. He's done this numerous times before. And I feel
reasonably certain that what he has presented to us is accurate, about
Page 123
March 14, 2006
as sure as I can be. I mean, I'm not an expert in the field itself. I can
only rely on staff and the people that they hire, the consultants.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That was one of the reasons I asked if
this was under the dual rational nexus system, and he assured me it
was. And so that's where we need to go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry I'm suspicious.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no. You should be, you
should be, and we're going to hear from the building industry, I'm
sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think one of the confusing
points, Commissioner Fiala, is the replacement value, and it's best
just to think of that as the current value of our owned facilities, the
current value of the land we own. That's all that is. If you just ignore
the word replacement and put in current value of the land we own,
that's all it is.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The -- don't get me
wrong, I don't -- I don't really care where the impact fee is, lower or
upper, three times more or whatever, I just want to make sure the
figures are right, that's all. And I -- nobody has convinced me that
we're using the proper land calculations to get that.
But I know during the AUIR process, Marla, you wanted -- I
forget how many thousands of acres, or whatever it was, that the
board said, no, don't buy that.
MS. RAMSEY: I think in the community parks we were asking
for 240 acres to buy in advance or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. RAMSEY: -- to buy in advance or our -- to make sure that
we could get some on for the future, and you've directed us to buy as
we go, so that's the way we changed our AUIR, with the
Page 124
March 14,2006
understanding that if an opportunity arises, that I may come back
before the board and buy in advance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, right. But how did that
reflect on the -- did that reflect on the impact fees? Because we
wasn't buying that 200. We were only buying 54 acres, I think it was.
MS. RAMSEY: You mean as far as on the amount of - you
know, we update it every three years, and I don't know that they take
into account the actual acreage that we're buying at one time, or if
you look at it over a period of years, so you'd have to answer that
one.
MR. DUNNUCK: The first thing we look at are actual
acquisitions, because that's a real-world type situation. And when
there haven't been incidents of real acquisitions, then we have to rely
upon appraisals. We can't just pull a number out of the air. I mean,
it's -- it's just our policy to go that route.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. DUNCAN: May I -- Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you're not done with me.
MR. DUNCAN: I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was stated that you took nder
consideration our capital improvement plan for the next five years. Is
that correct, sir? I'm asking you a question.
MR. DUNCAN: Yes. As a spending guide to spend the money
that you collect from impact fees, you would use the capital
improvement program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, did you use it
based upon what the board adopted or what was submitted to you?
MR. DUNCAN: We use whatever staff submits to us to review.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The question is, was it 200
acres or 250 acres, or was it 50 acres? Because you base upon -- your
impact fees on that.
Page 125
March 14, 2006
MR. DUNCAN: I think what you may be confusing is two
different methodologies. One is consumption based, and one's
improvements based. And improvements-based methodology is what
you may be describing, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. DUNCAN: That's when you go forward and you say, we're
going to grow 35 percent in the next five years, we're going to need
200 acres and divide it into that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. DUNCAN: What we're doing here -- and it's the way
almost all park impact fees are done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that wasn't based on that.
MR. DUNCAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. DUNCAN: It's what we call a consumption based, which
is probably a better word than replacement, because what we're
saying is, people who are moving in are consuming part of your
facility level of service. And that part that they're consuming, they're
responsible for paying you.
It's like you own a stock in all your parks, and they don't have a
right to come in and use that without an entry fee. I mean, you go
into a gated condominium, you have to buy into it, and you're paying
an incremental difference for the pool and for the parks and all that.
It's the same thing to people coming in here. That's how you
calculate the fee.
So what we do is look at what you've got. We look back in the
real world. And in Florida, I have always found -- and I've been
doing impact fees in Florida for almost 30 years, believe it or not --
that we have such a cyclical -- I mean, I know it's hard for you all to
believe that because you've been on such a high ride for a long time -
- that it's very difficult to predict with any accuracy exactly how
Page 126
March 14, 2006
much -- how many people we're going to have in the next five years
and precisely where those improvements need to be, because you
have to amend an improvements base every time something is
changed.
If you think all the growth is going toward Immokalee and all of
a sudden it goes to Marco Island, you've got to shift your
improvements there because the free market -- the real estate market's
going to drive where people want to live.
So that's why on a park fee, the consumption base is the more
reliable approach. It's what we've used. And I misunderstood, we do
look at a capital improvement element, or capital improvement plan,
but it's a spending guide, and not as a tool to calculate the fee. I hope
I didn't confuse it more.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Basically it's like initiation fee to a
country club?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It has nothing to do with the fee
base?
MR. DUNCAN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
MR. DUNCAN: The CIP doesn't. It's a spending guide. You
need to be able to put improvements on there like you all were
saying, because you just don't want to go willy-nilly and buy land,
you want to buy hopefully where you think that growth is occurring,
and you want to buy it as much ahead of time as you can because the
land is never going to go away, the price.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So does that mean if we approve
this impact fee, we get to have a golf course?
MR. DUNCAN : Well, I don't know about a golf course. We
Page 127
March 14, 2006
typically -- that's funny you say that. And I will say this. You all
know -- and I -- this is my first time to appear before you, and I don't
mean this as --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You already have Imperial Golf
Course Estates.
MR. DUNCAN: You all have done a lot of things. You have
the highest road fee in the state. I know you know that. And when I
was doing a fee for your neighbor, Bonita Springs, they were upset
because they didn't want it as low as Lee County. They said, but
we're really part of Collier County. Can't we have a high fee like
them? They now have the second highest fee in the state.
And while this -- if you adopt this at close to the maximum
allowable, I'm not going to, you know, bluff you, it will make your
park fee one of the highest in the state, if not the highest. But that's
probably for only a short time, because right now Fort Lauderdale
and Miami are -- they've both got fees on the table at 5- and $6,000 a
dwelling unit.
And as everything, fees are going higher to date. Doubling a fee
is a lot. But you know what happened to school fees in this state? I
know you've been monitoring them regularly. They doubled last year
in 2005. The cost of doing business, the cost of providing facilities is
not going down. It's going up, along with our population.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
I believe we have one speaker that signed up for public
comment. If that individual would like to come forward?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That's Al Zichella.
MR. ZICHELLA: Commissioners. Is this on?
Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I just wanted
to weigh in. I'm here -- for the record, Al Zichella, CBIA. I'm the
president of CBIA this year.
Page 128
March 14,2006
I just want to point out, and I'm sure you realize, that this impact
fee, if you adopt it, is going to put the -- just the parks portion of our
impact fees over $3,500 per home. That's pretty steep territory. I just
heard the consultant say it will be the highest in the state, at least for
a brief period of time.
One question I think we should be asking ourselves is, should we
be doing this in the face of our challenges for affordable housing?
Having said that, impact fees, as a rule, when your average home
price is over $500,000, probably academic.
The average customer buying a house from one of my members
at $500,000 isn't even asking me. But if we are serious about the
dialogue that we've been having in this county about nurses and
policemen, and we can -- I'd love to hear from Ed Morton on this and
some other folks about this and where they live and where they go --
I'd submit to you for those people, the impact fee is a problem.
Again, not necessarily our issue as builders, but collectively as a
community, we need to be considering these things. I understand that
we've -- we have adopted a level of service that we would like to
maintain. And to do that, we have to occasionally raise our fees
when costs go up. We understand that.
But, again, the question should be, I think, should we be doing
this given the other important pressing problems that we have
regarding essential service workers and where they live?
Also I'm wondering, I didn't hear any discussion on credits in this
study, and, unfortunately, I have not seen a study. So I would defer
to what -- to you on whether or not they're in there.
But remember, the people that are moving in now, these people
buying these half a million dollar homes are paying significantly
higher ad valorem taxes than the people that are here now.
I would submit to you that growth is paying for growth and
Page 129
March 14,2006
maybe in many cases, more than paying for growth if we consider
that factor which we usually do not consider.
So -- and if there is a portion -- and I heard some dialogue today
about a piece of the ad valorem tax going toward county parks or
regional parks. That might be, I would suggest to you, a positive
indication to the rest of the community that we're serious about
affordable housing if we decide to maybe apply some of the ad
valorem taxes to that.
It is a community decision about the quality of life. We're
talking about parks. We're not talking about roads or water or sewer.
This is a quality of life issue.
And we are faced with numerous challenges. Not only can we
maintain a level of service on parks, it's where do some people afford
to live. And again -- I'll say it, again, it may not be our issue as
builders, but as citizens and residents, it certainly, I think, can be
demonstrated that it is.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: AI, I'd just like to say that the impact
fees pay for growth for the influx of people coming in. After those
parks are up and running, that's where ad valorem taxes kick in for
the operation of those parks, sir.
MR. ZICHELLA: We recognize -- may I?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
MR. ZICHELLA: I do recognize that, Commissioner Halas,
and I think I made mention of that.
My point is simply this, as a community I'm urging you to
consider an alternate remedy to maintaining the level of service, or,
as Commissioner Coletta said, maybe adopting a different level of
service when one considers the other problems that we're facing as a
community; otherwise, it's not our issue. And, once again, thank you
for the opportunity.
Page 130
March 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have to correct something. I
may have stated it, but it was mentioned out of context. I wasn't
suggesting that we lower the level of service. I was giving you
suggestions of what -- if we didn't want to approve the impacts fee or
collect the ad valorem, then we would have to lower the level of
service. I want to go on the record in making sure that I'm with
Commissioner Fiala. I don't want to lower the level of service.
MR. ZICHELLA: Commissioner, I apologize if I --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay.
MR. ZICHELLA: I did not mean to say -- I wasn't quoting you.
I meant that you had mentioned it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I just wanted to make
sure, so I didn't get a thousand phone calls afterwards wanting to
know why I'm not providing --
MR. ZICHELLA: Please forgive me for speaking for you. I
didn't mean that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I heard him say that, AI.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Caught again. Thanks, AI.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You are really entertaining today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. He's just trying to get somebody in
trouble.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it $50,000 that we can defer
impact fees per house for affordable housing?
MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, for the record. We have a
couple of different impact fee deferral programs in Collier County.
We have a county-wide deferral program which is based on income,
and they have to qualify, but that's open to anybody.
We have the Immokalee residential impact fee deferral program,
which has a little bit higher income level and a higher price of home
Page 131
March 14,2006
that can be bought. Again, open to anybody living within the
Immokalee community.
We also have an impact fee deferral program for affordable
rental units. And the other that you might be referring to is the
charitable organizational waiver program, which is -- doesn't apply to
parks, but is a commercial program that we also have to deal with
impact fees.
MR. MUDD: But as a board, you did increase the money
available for help from CDBG to $50,000. I think that's what you're
getting at.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And that can go towards
impact fees or not?
MR. MUDD: It can if that's the way -- if that's the way they
want to go toward it, or in most cases they defer and then they go in
and try to get that help.
Denny's here. Go ahead, Denny. You can explain it better.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't want to go, Mr.
Baker, too long on this. But we do recognize the challenges for the
workforce here to live in the community. And it was -- I was told,
and I don't know how true it is, County Manager, that part of the
recent legislation on growth management, that one thing they didn't
want us to do was cut level of service on parks.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Parks is a category A.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we can't take it out of
category A, can we?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you can't take it out. It's
legislatively put there as -- and one of the reasons -- one of the
reasons it -- from what I've been told. I wasn't here when our
forefathers decided to make this particular item.
But one of the things they didn't want to do is they didn't want to
gut -- they felt that communities would spend all their monies on
Page 132
March 14, 2006
water, sewer, transportation, and they would forget about the other
amenities in a community like parks, and they felt that parks would
be the bill payer for all the rest.
So in order to preclude communities from gutting that bill payer,
parks, they decided to move it into category A so that they made sure
that the growth management plans that communities had would be
holistic and they would touch on every area.
And you know, I've always thought to myself, why isn't sheriff
patrols and EMS in category A? Why are they in category B, those
things that you can have a say with as far as the board is concerned?
It's just the way they set it up. And they wanted to put parks and rec.
in there as an indicator to make sure that you've got a system that
basically goes across all the particular service areas in the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. The -- I guess you're
reassuring me that it's a broad mix of appraisals that we're basing
these impact fees on?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That's what I've been told.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I see them across the
board here, and even in some of the communities that we'll never
build a park in -- but I see that we have appraisals in Immokalee, Port
Royal, City of Marco Island, the City of Naples, Livingston Woods.
So those -- even though some of those communities, except for
Immokalee, we'll never build parks in as a part of the calculation.
MR. REEVE: Commissioner, my name is Bill Reeve. I'm the
director of the real estate division for Coastal Engineering here in
town, and we were asked to provide -- and I broke down the county
into eight areas that you see in the report.
We were asked to provide ongoing value conclusions for land,
vacant land tracts, within that area, each of the eight areas that were
laid out.
Page 133
March 14, 2006
Obviously, if you're going to put a regional park east of 951, for
example, in Golden Gate Estates, while I was not specifically
directed as to where the parks were going to go, I was asked for land
value conclusions within those areas.
It would be an assemblage of parcels having to put together
numerous half-acre, five-acre or 10-acre piece, as opposed to finding
a solid ISO-acre tract of land.
In case of Marco Island and the beach side, they had indicated to
me -- they, being the county -- had indicated that they were looking
for potential for boat traffic areas and/or beach access.
The part that you had -- the question that you had earlier relating
to the $200,000, I think if you take a look in the report, I believe the
impact fee study had taken areas six, seven and eight -- is that correct
-- areas six, seven, and eight and averaged those to come up with that
$200,000.
Obviously, if you go east of 951, depending upon the price point,
depending upon the time that you're dealing with, and depending
upon the parties you're dealing with, that valuation may change.
The date certain in terms of window of value, because appraisers,
unfortunately, look historically at transactions, was probably up
through May of last year.
Activities have changed in those corridors. Weare involved in
another study, and I know in looking at the July '04 through July '05
and then up through September, the appreciation on sale/resales,
especially east of 951, ranged anywhere from 10 or 15 percent a
month to 30 percent a month in vacant and improved transactions.
So it's a moving target, if I had to say.
It's going to take a site-specific and a negotiation-specific, which
mayor may not defer from that indicated value that they used on an
average from the areas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, I never questioned your
Page 134
March 14, 2006
appraisals. N ever did. I just want to make sure that we're doing the
right thing. We know we're not going to put a boat ramp in between
two houses on Marco Island, okay? And that's part of your appraisal.
I didn't guide you to do your appraisal.
MR. REEVE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that's what it is. We're not
going to put a boat ramp in Port Royal, and we're not going to put a
neighborhood park in Livingston Woods. So as long as the
consultant that put all this together to come up with the bottom line
feels that it's legally sufficient to use properties that we'll never make
improvements, I'm fine with it. I never questioned your appraisal.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, hopefully we can
wrap this up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I hope so. Just a couple of
quick points. Number one, the new growth management plan
requires that parks as a category one facility be under construction or
in place not later than one year after the approval of the development
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- unlike roads, which can wait
three to five years.
Now, what that means is we've got to have some money
available to react so quickly. We've got to -- got to be able to have
the funding to do that.
Now, if we can make one assumption, and that is that the growth
-- that the impact fee calculations have been done in accordance with
case law, okay -- and I understand there's a possibility of a mistake.
But if we make the assumption that it has been done in accordance
with case law, than it is nothing more than a redirection of the cost of
acquiring land and developing a park.
Page 135
March 14,2006
We don't control either of those. We don't control the cost of
land. We don't control the cost of construction. We don't control
labor costs. Somebody else determines what those are. And as a
result of charging us that much for it, it impacts what we charge for
impact fees, okay?
Now, the idea of using a conglomerate of appraisals really builds
in a safety factor, because if we plan to build a park in Everglades
City, the cost of land acquisition would be less than it would be if we
built one in Naples. So when we plan on that, and then suddenly we
find that the population distribution indicates that we need to build it
in East Naples rather than Everglades City, and the cost goes up, and
guess what, we don't have the money, because we forecast too low
and we made assumptions that were not sound. So by using an
average of real estate prices throughout the county we protect
ourselves from that.
Now, we will still be wrong because we can never be perfect.
But what happens? That's reflected in the next update to the impact
fees, and so the price then goes down. And so it is a self-correcting
thing. And if we expect ourselves to be absolutely perfect every
time, we're never going to get there. But that's the good thing about
impact fees, it is self-correcting over time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So would you be so inclined to make a
motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion we approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. It's been suggested that we
approve the impact fees as stated, and the motion was made by
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion? If not, I'll call the question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see a finger.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Uh-oh.
Page 136
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's one thing -- it doesn't have
to be part of the motion. I just want to mention it before we vote.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Discussion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's one point that's very good
here, and Al brought it up. Ifwe don't have -- and we don't -- an
impact fee deferral program for gap housing, we ought to think about
it, because when you're talking about houses in the range of225-,
250-, 275-, impact fees like this do make a difference.
So we really ought to start thinking about that, but it can't affect
our position on the cost of the land because we've still got to buy it
somehow and build a park. So I just wanted to make that comment,
that we ought to be thinking about this other thing, too.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe there's already some
discussions in that already by staff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I'm just going to go ahead and call
the question. All those in favor of this motion, 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: Passes unanimously. Thank you very
much. I believe we have a time certain now, 7 A.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2006-64: PETITION: ADA-2005-AR-8497,
APPEALING OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (A V A-2005-
Page 137
March 14, 2006
AR-7821) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 316 FLAMINGO AVE
- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to a time certain
item, 7 A. This item to be heard at two p.m.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
The Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association,
Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association, and the Vanderbilt Beach
Zoning Committee appealing the admini -- appealing an
administrative decision specifically asking to overturn the granted
administrative variance, A V A-2005-AR-7821, for property located at
316 Flamingo Avenue.
Appellant's hearing exhibits are on display in the County
Manager's Office on the second floor, Building F, Collier County
Government Center. And I -- okay. Mr. Weigel, do you have some
opening comments, sir?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, yes. This is an appeal of an administrative
variance -- pardon me. Let me clear my throat.
An appeal of administrative variance decision made by staff, and
the appeal is before us today at this time certain.
I would look to provide or advise the board and the chairman in
regard to the potential procedure that will be had here today. And I'll
just start right now and then be open to any questions that there may
be.
Because it is an appeal, typically in appellate proceedings such as
this, or even in a court of law, the appellant has the opportunity to go
first and provide on the record the point or case that the appellant is
attempting to make.
Page 138
March 14, 2006
That is followed by the -- in this case there is an affected
property owner, the residents or owners of the property that is at issue
here. And I would suggest that for due process and by virtue of the
fact that there is property at issue, real property at issue, that the
owner party, which may be the Dowdys or their representative, have
the opportunity then to present their case and/or rebuttal to the
appellant's case, which in this case, is, I believe, three homeowner
associations.
I would suggest the timing -- the timing of the presentation of the
appellant, meaning the homeowner associations, and the time allowed
for the response of the homeowner or their representative, be
essentially equal and, perhaps, not necessarily more than 20 minutes,
but with a time frame of the 20 minutes.
The chair, and with the assistance of the board generally,
can make changes based upon questions that may come to the board
and to the chair during the course of proceedings regarding
additional times. At all times the chair will have control of the
proceedings.
Additionally, there may be tendered public speaker slips for
public speakers. And, again, as is typical in this and in other
proceedings, the chair will inquire as to public speakers after there
has been an opportunity for the appellant and the property owner or
property owner's representative to respond. And the chair can at any
point thereafter entertain the public speakers imposing, if he wishes
and if there's no counter-determination from the board, essentially a
time certain for the speakers to speak.
Again, the chairman in this proceeding, as in other proceedings
past, may ask if there are representatives of a group that may --
representative or representatives of a group that may be here that can
either speak on behalf of that group utilizing their three minutes or
Page 139
March 14,2006
that other persons cede time. Again, it's up to the chair to make that
determination if additional time be granted.
Also in proceedings such as these, the chair at any point can ask
for a showing of hands or to stand up in the audience so that the
commissioners can see what the interest is of a particular point of
view from the public that happens to be present.
Additionally, I'll note that it would -- the commissioners at the
beginning of this hearing, and certainly before a decision is rendered,
are recommended to make any declarations of ex parte discussions
that they may have had with staff or outside parties, with the
appellant or the property owner or their representative or anyone else,
and also provide any material that they may have received for the
record of this proceeding.
And lastly, I'll mention that inasmuch as a motion to dismiss had
been filed with the staff prior to this hearing by the representative for
the property owner, the Dowdys, that the county attorney, county
staff, but particularly county attorney, will look to advise the board in
regard to the motion to dismiss and the action that you may wish to
take relative to that prior to the appellant actually starting the
presentation of their case.
And if there are any questions, I'll certainly try to respond.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any questions from the board?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have just one question. Once
we give ex parte communication on this item, we received two
documents, one from the appellant, one from the property owner.
The -- when we base upon our fact of finding (sic) and ultimate
motion, could we use these documents?
MR. WEIGEL: Very good question, Commissioner. The
Jennings decision, the 1991 Jennings decision, that set the stage
for legislation relative to the ex parte proceedings that we have
Page 140
March 14,2006
adopted here indicate that if in fact there is a disclosure of outside
communications, including oral or written materials that you may
have received, and that you bring those to the attention in the
proceeding of having received them, you technically, in fact, can
utilize that information as part of your decision-making process.
I do not know, of course, how these proceedings are going to
unfold in regard to what written materials may be given to the record
during the course of the proceeding today. There is a possibility, in
fact, that these very documents that you may have received prior to
this hearing may be introduced into the hearing by one or more of the
parties here today as well.
The answer is yes, you may utilize those. Certainly you have an
obligation to disclose that and any other information or discussions
that you've had prior to this meeting today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this point in time, start with
Commissioner Coyle in regards to his ex parte.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Inasmuch as we have heard
this --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: First of all, let me back up here. Let's
-- everybody that's going to be involved in this proceeding, please
rise to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this point in time, I'd like to
have disclosures from the commissioners, starting with
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. As you all know, the board
has heard these -- this issue before, and in addition to the ex parte
disclosure that was relevant to that particular hearing, I also have had
meetings, have received correspondence, emails, telephone calls, all
Page 141
March 14, 2006
containing arguments for or against granting this petition, and it's all
in this file if anyone wishes to inspect it.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Along with Commissioner
Coy Ie, having heard it before, I also have correspondence and emails
in my file if anyone wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have had meetings,
correspondence and, of course, we've discussed this once before
before the Board of County Commissioners, and I've also had a
number of telephone calls both for and against this, and I've had
various conversations on the outside, meeting with different people in
the community both for and against this matter, and discussed this at
some length with the county staff, and also at some length with the
county attorney and also with the community development and
environmental services.
And all of my ex parte, along with the ex parte from before and
any new stuff -- in fact, I just got one - one included this morning
early, about 8:30 this morning, that arrived. So that is also here, and
it's from the zoning committee of Vanderbilt. So that's all presently.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Likewise, I was in the meeting
where we discussed it before. Since then I've had meetings with
different and various people, I've also spoken to various members of
our staff asking them questions, and I've also received emails and
phone calls, and I have them all in here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received a document from the
Vanderbilt associations and one from Quarles and Brady, four emails,
I talked to the county attorney about the proceedings, and I spoke to
Page 142
March 14, 2006
Mr. Schmitt months ago about this issue, and naturally, we've heard it
in another forum, previous day.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. BROWN: At this point, we'd like to respectfully object for
the record. We believe that a substantial amount of prejudicial ex
parte communications--
MR. WEIGEL: If you're recognized by the chairman, then you
may come to the podium to speak. But first you need to be
recognized by the chair.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please come forward.
MR. BROWN: Yes, Chairman. We believe that a substantial
amount of prejudicial ex parte communications have taken place in
this case, and we just want to have that objection noted for the record.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I believe that what we're looking
at here is the fact there we're here as an open forum, and I think that
all of us are here to hear both sides of the argument, and I believe we
will then come up with a conclusion on which way we're going to
vote on this.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's Coyle.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm the slender, young one.
I'm intrigued by that obj ection, and I would like to understand on
what basis the objection has been lodged. Prejudicial ex parte
disclosure or ex parte communications is not in any way forbidden by
law. Are you suggesting that there has been inappropriate ex parte
and it has not been properly disclosed?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. BROWN: Obviously the nature of ex parte
communications is that we don't, from our perspective know, you
know, exactly the content of those communications. You know, the
Page 143
March 14,2006
times and places when they were made, the people, you know, with
whom they are made, you know, when these meetings took place.
And we do have somewhat of a basis. Actually I spoke with
Richard Bing on the phone at one point, and he informed me that he
had spoken with a, you know, quote-unquote, number of
commissioners, and they agreed with them that our -- you know, that
the appeal would be decided in their favor. And obviously, that is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I never spoke to Mr. Bing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never did.
DR. BING: Can I respond to that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not the chair. I'm just trying to
find out if we're being accused of doing something illegal here. Is
that essentially what you're saying?
MR. BROWN: Obviously, I have -- you know, I have no idea
what -- you know, what the content of those communications is. And
just to note it for the appeal record, you know, ifnecessary. I hate to
put anybody off -- you know, on guard. Like I said, we don't know,
you know, what the content of these communications are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just for future reference in case
you ever run into this situation again, we're required to keep files of
all these. These are public records.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: These are public records.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so anytime you have a
question about what we've talked about, it's here. We keep records of
telephone calls and all correspondence, emails. And so, if you ever
have a concern about any discussions that might have taken place, it's
in these files, and you can have copies of them anytime you'd like.
You could have requested them the minute that you had the
conversation with Dr. Bing.
So I just want to assure you that we're not trying to hide anything
from you, that --
Page 144
March 14, 2006
MR. BROWN: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that it's all available to you.
MR. BROWN: I just know from the nature of, you know,
passing conversations or meetings that aren't always, you know,
memorialized in writing, that a lot of the times, you know,
communications, you know, unbeknownst to us and unrecorded and
undocumented can occur, that's all.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, I think we all can tell
you that Dr. Bing doesn't like the project and he told us why he
didn't, and we discussed it and asked questions of him.
MR. BROWN: But I'm sure you can all understand, just from
our point, you know, we're very, you know, somewhat alarmed and
concerned when, you know, something like that is mentioned, you
know, that in any way, that this appeal might already be decided in
anybody's mind.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But, sir, you're the representative for the
people here.
MR. BROWN: Yes, Mark and Shirley Dowdy.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I would think that you're going to
give us an argument of why that should -- that the variance should
not be declined that was given; is that correct?
MR. BROWN: Yes, I'm going -- I have an argument prepared.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I would think that we are here to
listen to both sides of the equation. And as we said earlier, we come
forth with all of our ex parte. That's public information that you are
allowed to have.
And I even added more to it when I said that there was meetings
outside or discussions outside at social events both for and against,
okay? And I made that very clear, because there are some people,
okay? And that's why I wanted to make sure that we laid everything
out on the table in regards to this, okay?
Page 145
March 14, 2006
MR. BROWN: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
DR. BING: Mr. Chairman, can I respond to the accusations?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, let's not get to that point. I just
want to get some direction here from the county attorney, okay?
MR. WEIGEL: I thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
have expressed a potential order of the proceedings here, which you
and the board may endorse in regard to the timing, of who goes first
and for approximate amounts of time.
Additionally, I had indicated that prior to -- prior to the argument
or statements of the appealing party, which is the property owners'
associations, that, in fact, Mr. Brown, on behalf of the Dowdys, had
transmitted a motion to dismiss request, which I would suggest prior
to the beginning of the argument for the appeal by the property
owners' associations, if the representative for the Dowdys wishes to
utilize the opportunity to address his motion to dismiss on behalf of
the Dowdys, that he may do so, and then legal staff will respond to
his argument to you and you may have questions of us, of course, at
any point in time.
So I would ask that you on the record adopt what you believe are
ostensibly the times and orders of things to occur here, perhaps, as I
suggested.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
MR. WEIGEL: And then after that, prior to the beginning of the
argument by the appellant, which is the property owners' associations
-- and they have given us a listing of an order of persons to present,
and they've all-- within their 20-minute time frame. And to the
extent practicable, Ms. Filson will indicate to those speakers as
they're presenting when their time is up, because they're sharing time
during that 20-minute period.
Page 146
March 14, 2006
We will do the best we can, but the fact is that they need to judge
their own time well for themselves in the sense that they're packing a
lot of people in their 20-minute period. But subsequent -- prior to
that, we'll take care of -- if the Dowdy representative wishes to go
forward with his request for motion to dismiss, we'll take care of that
first.
But you set the proceeding and then move forward to that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much, County
Attorney.
At this point -- at this point in time, before we get started, what
we're going to is we're setting a guideline here that each side -- each
representative for the appellant and for the property owners has a
maximum of 20 minutes, and then for each speaker, it will be three
minutes, unless they decide to relinquish their time. And I want to
get the formalities of this thing moving and get this taken care of.
So -- and then when we hear the property owners' side of this
thing, I will give the appellant -- which is normally done in here -- in
this frame -- property issues, a rebuttal time of three minutes, okay?
We've got that established?
MR. MULLER: May I be recognized on one issue?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. MULLER: I'm Mark Muller from Quarles and Brady. I
represent the Vanderbilt Beach Zoning Committee. I just wanted
to clarify whether we would have an opportunity to present some
argument in opposition to the motion to dismiss.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think I covered that. That was three
minutes rebuttal time, okay?
Okay. At this point in time, County Attorney, then let's figure
out if we're -- where we are in the guidelines here now that we've got
the ground rules set, I believe.
MR. WEIGEL: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Where I
Page 147
March 14, 2006
figure is then that Mr. Brown, on behalf of the Dowdys, may wish
to make a presentation about his request for a dismissal of the
proceeding.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And then you'll give us guidance
if he has anything in regards to that; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: I will.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BROWN: Yes. And Chairman, how many minutes do I
have for presentation? Is it separate from the other 20 minutes?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct. I would hope that it's not
going to be more than 10 minutes or five minutes.
MR. BROWN: I don't believe it will be.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. BROWN: Essentially, our proposition is that the appeal
that the Vanderbilt associations filed is untimely. There are
essentially -- I'll start with section 250-258 of the Collier County
code. If you can turn to tab 7 in the binder that I provided. I
provided a notice entitled, appellees' memorandum regarding a lack
of a notice requirement, Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, section 250-58A.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Somebody stole my manila
folder. Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What tab was that?
MR. BROWN: It's tab 7. Also, just the ordinance itself is
included under tab 5. Is everybody there? Okay.
Basically, as you can see from section 250-58A, which is
applicable Collier County code provision under which the
appellants filed their appeal, it provides that appeals to a board of
zoning appeals or the governing body, as the case may be, may be
taken by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board
or bureau of the governing body or bodies in the area affected by the
Page 148
March 14, 2006
decision, the termination or requirements made by the administrative
official.
Such appeals shall be taken within 30 days by filing with the
administrative official a written notice specifying the grounds
thereof.
The administrative official shall forthwith transmit to the board
all papers, documents, and maps constituting the record of the action
from which an appeal is taken.
In this case, Susan Murray of the Collier County staff granted the
Dowdys' appeal on August 29, 2005. That is included under tab 6.
You can see that staff report. I believe it's on the third page. So that
is the date that the appeal or that the -- that the Dowdys'
administrative variance was officially granted.
Now, as you can see from section 250-58A, there is no notice
requirement at all. There's no -- when an administrative variance is
granted, it's a purely ministerial function of the Collier County staff.
You know, it's just something that - you know, it's a decision that
they make, and it's filed. And, yes, it is put into public records in due
time.
But when it is granted, there is no requirement anywhere in the
code that, you know, notice be given. Moreover, there is no
mechanism for notice. You know, there is no requirement that there
is a publication, nor is there a requirement that any notice be mailed
out to anyone.
Therefore, it is implied in this ordinance and it is the intent of
this ordinance and the drafter's intent to measure the 30 days from the
date of the decision, determination or requirement.
And in this case, as I said before, Susan Murray granted the
Dowdys' administrative variance on August 29, 2005. And as I said,
that's in tab -- in tab 6.
Page 149
March 14, 2006
If you turn to tab 9, you can see the Vanderbilt associations'
appeal. It was received by the Collier County staff on October 13,
2005. That's 45 days later. It's 45 days after the date that the
administrative variance was granted.
Now, I know that the appellants might argue, well, there should
be notice. Like I said, there is no requirement in the code or in this
provision that any notice be required, nor is there any mention that
there is a mechanism for notice.
And as we know from dimensional variances and appeals or
requests for an official interpretation, when the Collier County
ordinances require notice, it's there. When there's an intent, it's there.
It's provided for in the code. In this case there is no intent to make
for any notice.
Second of all, you -- you know, implying that there is some
notice requirement is basically creating law, because the only days
that you could -- and if you do not measure the date of -- the date of
this appeal or the 30-day window from the date the variance was
actually granted, you'd have to measure it from the date of
constructive notice or the date of actual notice.
The date of constructive notice would be the date that the
information of the -- or the information of the variance being granted
was officially or publicly available. That information --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, have you just about wrapped up?
Because we'll get into -- we'll get some determination here from
our county attorney in where we are on this thing, okay?
MR. BROWN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think you've covered that area very
good. Do you have any other additional --
MR. BROWN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- information? Okay.
MR. BROWN: Very quickly. Measuring it from the date of
Page 150
March 14, 2006
constructive notice is basically the day that it's publicly available.
The information in the Dowdys' administrative variance was publicly
available on the Collier County's website on September 6, 2005.
That is 37 days late, or 37 days after the variance was granted. So
that's seven days late, and that's the date that it was available.
Measuring it from the date that the appellants were actually
notified of the variance being granted is a preposterous measurement
time frame. Basically that would -- if you measure from the date that
they were actually notified, that would mean that somebody could
literally, you know, be a snowbird, come down, and eight months,
nine months, 10 months, a year, two years, three years later hear
about a variance being granted and then want to appeal it. You can't
measure it from the date that one is actually notified.
So just in summation. There's three dates that you can measure
from. The date that the appeal -- or that the variance is actually
granted, that way it's 45 -- or it's 15 days late; measure the date from
constructive notice, and that way it's seven days late; and if you
measure it from the day the appellants were actually notified, then it
isn't late, but it sets a precedent that you can appeal an administrative
variance months, years, whenever later, all the while encumbering the
title to someone else's property. That's it on this issue. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, what I would suggest is that you
may wish to turn your attention to page 57 of 81 of our agenda item
7 A, and there you'll see a response from assistant county attorney,
Jeff Klatzkow. And assistant county attorney , Jeff Klatzkow, is
prepared to address. But I would suggest he address after Mr. Muller
has the opportunity to respond immediately.
I just wanted to put to your attention that we are prepared to
address, both orally, as well as already to some degree, in the written
form.
Page 151
March 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just before we get started, does the
county attorney before -- before -- that you'll give a rendering on this,
although it's already in our printed material?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, we will.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. You want to go ahead __
MR. WEIGEL: I just want the record to be complete, and so that
if you have questions for us beyond what we just tell you without
questions, that you'll have the benefit of both of these arguments to
come up with all the questions you have at one point in time, if you
should have any.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please proceed, sir.
MR. MULLER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Mark Muller from Quarles and Brady. I represent the Vanderbilt
Zoning Committee.
The ordinance says such appeal shall be taken within 30 days.
Thirty days from when? That question is dependent upon the facts of
the case.
The Florida Supreme Court has recognized in a 1990 case that
the time limit for an appeal can be tolled or extended by two different
doquins (sic) equitable tolling or estoppel. Equitable tolling happens
when there's some sort of excusable ignorance of the deadline and
lack of prejudice to the opposing party. That's -- in this case that
would be the Dowdys. And the zoning committee would be the one
who had some excusable ignorance of the deadline.
Estoppel is when there's some sort of actual deception or
misconduct relating to the deadline.
We certainly in this case have equitable tolling, and we think we
also have estoppel.
Page 152
March 14, 2006
The association has been involved in the Dowdys' various
variance applications for years, going back to 2001. With regard to
this application, they regularly corresponded with staff, including Joe
Schmitt.
We have up on the screen part of Exhibit 6, which is in our
booklet we've provided to you. This is the booklet. If you'd turn to
tab 6, the bottom of the first page. This is an email from Bruce
Burkhard to Joe Schmitt saying, the Vanderbilt Bay Property Owners'
Association has put in so much time and effort to correct this
egregious set of violations that you can be confident that we won't sit
idly by and let a set a variances go unnoticed. I'd be very surprised if
the BCC would condone any variance that was after their clear vote
on the matter.
This is August 25th of2005, the day the staff recommended that
this administrative variance be granted. Mr. Schmitt never said
anything about that staff report being in the pipeline.
On September 20th Bruce Burkhard from the association,
Richard Bing from the association, Commissioner Halas, Joe
Schmitt, and Patrick White from the County Attorney's Office, had
a meeting to discuss this pending application.
The meeting went on for some time, at which point Mr. Burkhard
got the idea from the answers that Mr. Schmitt was giving that
something wasn't quite right, and he asked him a direct question. Joe,
have you already granted this variance? And the answer, after a long
pause, was, in fact, yes.
This is on September 20th, over three weeks after it's been
granted, and the association has been on him from day one about not
granting this and being opposed to it. And three weeks later they find
out for the first time that it has, in fact, been granted.
It was followed up with an email that's at tab 7, page 2 of your
materials. After they found that out, there was an email sent from
Page 153
March 14, 2006
Bruce Burkhard to county staff inquiring about the deadline. And it's
at tab 7, page one.
And this is from Trisha McPherson to Joe Schmitt, asking, Joe,
Mr. Burkhard called the office about the process. He wants to know
how to obtain the format paperwork necessary for filing this type of
appeal to the administrative variance; two, if there is a deadline for
the appeal, since they weren't notified of the date it was granted.
On or about October 13th, Joe Schmitt confirmed to Mr. Bing, or
Dr. Bing, that the appeal deadline was October 22nd. You don't have
to take my word for it.
Tab 8 of our materials, page 2, is the email from DickBing to Joe
Schmitt that says -- and this is October 13th -- Joe, thanks for
returning my call and confirming that the appeal deadline is October
22, 2005. October 13th was the date that the associations filed their
appeal formally. They informally had filed it on October 12th.
In effect, the county, although they knew that the associations
were very much interested in this variance and were very much
intending to appeal, hid that fact from the association until the bills __
beans were spilled on October -- or September 20th.
The appeal time should run from September 20th. Thirty days
from then is well within the time that the associations filed their
appeal.
The legal support for it is equitable tolling and estoppel, and it's
also because it's fair. We are not some party that was out of town
when this happened, had no interest in what was going on and came
back two years later. We were intimately involved in this process
and should have been told about it and should have the opportunity to
appeal it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any questions? If not,
we'll go into the other side. Do you have a question?
Page 154
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I thought we're all done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This gentleman has 15 more minutes,
because I think he used up five minutes.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Just a second here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: So the board will need to make a determination
in regard to the appeal --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: -- or order of dismissal request. As I indicated,
we have provided on page 7 -- 57 of the -- of the agenda package, a
written opinion to the board relative to the motion to dismiss request.
If you have any further question from us, of course we're able to
talk about it and provide any other additional information that you
may have. But it is, I think, the appropriate time now, before we go
into the proceeding in chief, for this board to discuss and determine,
if it's ready to, the question of whether this dismissal request should
be honored or not, denied or approved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to deny.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fred Coyle to deny this and a second 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: Those opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Now you're ready to start the proceeding.
Page 155
March 14,2006
I don't know if you're going to consider the time spent on the
dismissal matter, which is not actually the appeal, as taking time
away from the appeal arguments of either __
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll set the clock back to zero and we'll
start at 20 minutes,
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Shall I call-- they gave me a list -- an
order in which they want the speakers to go before the attorney. Is
that acceptable to the chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, I guess so. Yes. Get this over
with.
MS. FILSON: Bruce Burkhard, you'll have three minutes.
MR. WEIGEL: Followed by?
MS. FILSON: And he'll be followed by B.J. Savard-Boyer,
who will have three minutes.
MR. BURKHARD: Thank you. My name is Bruce Burkhard,
for the record. I live at 283 Oak Avenue. I'm a director of the
VBPOA and a vice chairman of the Vanderbilt Beach Zoning
Committee.
From the very outset, the VBPOA has really tried to do nothing
more than see that the LDC is enforced in a fair and equitable
manner. That's been our whole driving concern throughout the whole
exerCIse.
Contrary to previous statements in the hearings, the Dowdys are
really not being singled out unfairly for enforcement. During a site
visit to confirm the details of a requested variance for a pool cage, a
county planner discovered that there were multiple violations of
setbacks of the house.
Actually, there had been previous problems noted at the
Page 156
March 14,2006
submission of the site development plan and it was kicked back to the
builder, and very shortly thereafter, he resubmitted basically the very
same plan with a lot of flaws still in it.
So the homeowners' association has opposed the variance from
the start -- from the very time the rear setback violations were
discovered and relayed to the homeowner.
We presented the whole story to the CCPC on May the 20th of
2004. And in a unanimous nine-to-nothing vote, they resoundingly
recommended that the variance be denied.
On June 22nd the association presented the case to the BZA, the
highest authority at the county level, and asked for a denial of the
variance. This time by a majority vote of 3-2, the variance was
denied. We felt that we had made our point and that clear direction
had been given to county staff, correct the problems.
From the -- from time to time for the better part of a year we
continued to make inquiries of the CD staff regarding the disposition
of the case.
The staff was well aware of our continuing interest and was on
notice that we would appeal any backdoor administrative variances.
Sometime in September -- and I find out now it was actually August _
- an administration variance was granted, and a CO was apparently
issued at the same time. Unbelievably, no one in our organization
was notified.
We found out about it only during the previously mentioned
meeting that Mr. Muller just spoke about. We stated at the time that
we would be appealing, and a letter confirming our intentions was
sent.
Sometime after the discovery, we were advised by Mr. Schmitt
in email that there was no deadline for filing an appeal. We have
since found out that the staff in its executive summary has tried to
disallow our appeal of the variance because of untimeliness.
Page 157
March 14, 2006
I hope at the end of the day that you'll accept the basis of our
appeal and that you'll overturn the administrative variance that we
believe was improperly granted. By asserting your authority, you
will be helping to restore public trust and confidence that the LDC is
a meaningful document that must be followed.
Gamesmanship should not trump common sense, and hopefully
active citizen participation should be encouraged. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is B.J. Savard-Boyer, who will
have three minutes. She will be followed by the attorney, Mark
Muller, who will have 20 minutes.
MR. WEIGEL: No.
MS. FILSON: That's what -- 20 minutes, correct?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's right.
MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My
name is B.J. Savard-Boyer, and I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach
Property Owners' Association.
We're here today because the home on Flamingo does not
conform to the LDC code. Here are three examples of other
homeowners who were put in the same position. The first was on
Flamingo. The surveyor mismarked the lot at 25 feet rather than the
required 30 feet from the front yard setback. The house was laid out,
built per the survey on the site.
At the time the error was found, the house was build up to the
stem wall, block, pilings, pool, et cetera; therefore, it was five feet
out of compliance with zoning and had a potential rear yard setback
problem, as the contractor was unaware of the exact setback for rear
yard, exact for -- height off the seawall for the pool deck.
The house was torn down and rebuilt, new pilings and all. The
house is five feet less deep than the original design, and the interior
walls and size of the lanai were altered to comply.
Page 158
March 14, 2006
Second example is on Heron Avenue. This house was built with
a 3.3-foot rear yard encroachment into the setback in violation of the
LDC. Homeowner, with the cooperation of the developer, applied
for a 3.3-foot after-the-fact variance, which was later denied by the
code of zoning appeals.
The redesign required extensive alteration in order to provide
living space not less than the original home. The owner had to move
the two rear bedrooms from the ground floor to a new second floor.
This dramatically changed the roof line of the house and
required the removal of a large portion of the existing concrete slab
and walls. The alteration was eventually completed to comply with
the LDC.
The last example was an experience my husband and I had with
the extensive remodeling of our home in 1993. Construction was
stopped before -- because of a code violation. We flew to Naples
from Minnesota to meet with the county staff to go over the violation
and solve the problem, which we did.
After that, construction continued to completion. A job that was
to take three months took six. So you see, time and money was
involved with all three examples.
I feel bad that the owners are in this position today; however, the
land development code is for the betterment of the community, not to
single out one individual homeowner, but to have the law adhered to
by all.
I ask that you uphold our appeal. Thank you very much for your
time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mark Muller.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MULLER: Good afternoon, again. Mark Muller, on behalf
of the Vanderbilt Beach Zoning Committee. In the booklet that
we've provided to you, at tab 1 are a couple of pictures. You can't see
Page 159
March 14, 2006
it on the screen, but on the pictures that you have, this is the rear of
the Dowdys' home. You can see that the seawall on the adjoining
property is essentially level with the grade, and the seawall cap on the
Dowdys' property juts up several feet. It also, if you look closely at
the photograph, cantilevers out over the water by over a foot. It has a
large hook on the top of it.
That is by intention. The hook is there to create more property
between the outside edge of the seawall cap and the back wall of the
pool. Without that overhang or that cantilever, this pool is too close.
It's 6.6 some feet away from the outside edge of the seawall. With
this cantilever it got out to 7.8 feet.
And what the Dowdys did was ask the county, since they're
within 25 percent of the 10-foot setback, which would have been 7.5
feet, they're now at 7.8 with this manufactured setback, you can grant
them administrative variance. We don't have to go through the
regular process. And they got the county staff to buy into that.
We think that there are three reasons why the county staff was
wrong in granting that administrative variance, and we'll -- I'll briefly
outline them for you and then talk in a little bit more detail. I am not
going to go through every item in this tabbed book. I don't want to
spend the time to do that. I hope that you'll consider this or you've
looked at it already.
First reason, under section 9.04.04 of the land development code,
the encroachment that the Dowdys are trying to solve cannot be
caused by an error or action on the part of the applicant. These errors
on setbacks -- and this is only one of them. There was a setback error
with the house itself, there are current existing setback violations
with regard to the side staircases on either side of the house, but __
and you have this pool setback.
All of those violations were caused by the Dowdys' contractor,
their surveyor, or their architect or a combination of all three. People
Page 160
March 14, 2006
that they hired. They are responsible for those people's actions, and
they don't qualify under this section of the land development code for
an administrative variance.
Second, it's replete through the emails -- and we'll show you a
couple of them -- that staff and Joe Schmitt in particular did not want
to approve this variance, having already been told by the county
commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, in '04 that this variance
was going to be denied when the setback was 20- foot.
They concluded that if the Dowdys met the checklist in this
section, that they were required to grant the variance even though the
ordinance itself says they may grant the variance. They turned may
into shall, which was wrong.
Third, staff allowed the Dowdys to cantilever this seawall cap to
essentially create more land and create a setback, something that
when the county staff did a clarification in 1998 about where you're
supposed to measure from, they would have had no idea that
somebody would ever try to do that.
And we'll show you the staff clarification, the drawing that's
attached to it, and you can come to your own conclusion if this is
something that is completely way out of bounds, and that the staff
should have turned down.
Our first point, the error on the part of the owner. The purpose
of the administrative variance is to create an administrative process to
help keep minor setback problems, especially on residential homes,
from having to become major issues that have to go in front of a full
board.
It's streamlined, it's easy. You could look at it and know what
you have to do to a certain extent.
Under section 9.04.04 of the LDC, however, an absolute
requirement, absolute, to administrative variance is that the
encroachment can't be caused by an error or action on the part of
Page 161
March 14, 2006
the applicant.
And if you look at tab 13 of the materials you'll see this
particular provision. It does not say, error or action by the applicant.
It is broader than that. Error or action on the part of the applicant. In
other words, it includes the applicant, it includes their contractor, it
includes their architects, their surveyors, the people that they hired to
build a home.
If it wasn't this way, the loophole swallows the rule. The only
people that wouldn't be able to apply for a variance under this
ordinance would be an owner/builder, because if they were an
owner/builder, they would have done it themselves and been directly
responsible.
That's not what this section of the code says. It is on the part of
the applicant. It covers the people they hire. That's not to mean that
this section never applies to a situation like the Dowdys. If the
Dowdys sold their home to somebody and they bought it without
knowing that there was a setback problem, which happens frequently,
that -- that purchaser can apply for an administrative variance, and
the error or action was not on the part of the applicant. It was on the
part of the predecessor to the applicant, and they'd be able to qualify
under this for an administrative variance.
Also would want to point out, just because you can't get an
administrative variance under this section doesn't mean that you can
never get a variance. You can go through the standard process,
which is what the Dowdys have done before, and they got turned
down. So now they try to do the abbreviated route and were
successful, and we think that for the sole reason that their contractor
was responsible, it should be reversed.
The second point is, that the administrative variance is
permissive. It's not mandatory. If you look again at this section of
the LDC, it says may, not shall. If you find the requirements are met,
Page 162
March 14, 2006
the county manager or designee may administratively approve
encroachments of up to 25 percent of the required yard.
County staff, in particular Joe Schmitt, felt absolutely
constrained and required to grant this variance if the Dowdys met the
requirements. And you can see that at tab 6 of our materials. It's an
email on the first page on the top, August 25th, from Joe Schmitt to
Bruce Burkhard. The bottom part of the highlighted section, if after
staff review it is verified that the noted setbacks on the survey meet
the defined criteria, I have no option but to issue the final CO for the
pool cage. Likewise, the other variances, if the request is within the
administrative criteria and limits of the code, we have no option but
to approve the request.
At tab 8 of our materials there's another email from Joe Schmitt
to Dr. Bing. This time he says, the variance request was
administrative in nature; that is, the requirements were met, and by
code we had no option but to approve the administrative variance.
I would submit to you, you're going to look at the ordinance, you
can see where it says may, and staff has crossed out may and written
in shall. This is a shortcut. It's not something that you get as a matter
of right. It's an administrative variance that is within the discretion of
the county manager or his designee.
So for that reason, you can see from the backup documentation
staff didn't want to approve this but felt like they had to.
The final point, and that's this whole idea about cantilevering the
seawall, which I think is the most egregious thing that was done in
this case.
When the Dowdys submitted their request for an administrative
variance, they were, to a certain extent, misleading to staff and to the
county. If you look at tab 3, Tim Hancock's letter, the highlighted
portion, which is in the second paragraph, it says, attached to this
Page 163
March 14, 2006
request is an approved building permit to effect necessary seawall
repairs for the subj ect property.
These weren't repairs to the seawall. There was no problem with
the seawall. They weren't necessary for anything other than to try to
get an administrative variance.
If you look at the attachment, which is a drawing of the seawall
repair, you'll see a scale drawing that shows the seawall cap at 14
inches and this overhang at 12 inches, for a total of 26 inches. That's
not quite correct either, because 26 inches wide is not what they built
on this site.
If you look at tab 11, which is the actual survey - and you'll have
to really look in your materials to see it because it's fairly small. On
the bottom corner is a blowup of the seawall cap. And you will see
that it is 2.8 feet. That's 31 inches. Five inches beyond that was
permitted and approved. And the Dowdys needed every single inch
of that five inches because--
MR. BROWN: Excuse me, Chairman. I have to object at this
point. This --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You'll have your time, sir.
MR. BROWN: But this matter was not included in their appeal.
They're not allowed to create new issues to now enter into their
appeal. There was a 30-day window in which to make those
arguments.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, any person speaking needs to be
recognized and to speak from the podium.
You'll have an opportunity to respond certainly later on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
MR. MULLER: Now, if you look at what they got, 7.8 feet, they
were just past the 7.5 feet that they needed to be able to qualify for
the administrative variance. So even on the materials they submitted
Page 164
March 14, 2006
showing what they were going to build, they did more than that in
actuality, and, in fact, they needed to do more than that to get to the
7.8 feet.
The staff clarification, which is really the important issue on this
item, is at tab 12. Before this staff clarification, staff had to grapple
with whether to measure setbacks from the inside or the outside of a
seawall or the inside or the outside of a seawall cap.
Staff recognized, and it's set forth in the staff clarification, you
could have a difference of over a foot between these two
measurements since a seawall is usually six inches thick, and a
seawall cap is at least a minimum of 1.3 feet. That's a big difference.
So staff tried to clarify where you're supposed to measure from. And
the clarification was that you can measure from the outside edge of
the seawall, or the outside edge of the seawall cap.
So you don't have to worry about measuring from the inside of
the cap or the wall. You go to the outside of the cap or the wall.
Attached as an exhibit and referenced in the clarification is a
drawing. The drawing shows you what the cap looks like. The
seawall cap is symmetrical on this drawing. It's the same sizes
landward and seaward. It's intended to sit on top of the seawall and
to act like a tie beam and to hold the whole thing together.
It's structural. It's not misshapen, and it's certainly not
cantilevered over the water, and it is not designed solely to create a
setback, to tend the land out over the water. Because now when
you're measuring from the outside edge of the seawall cap, well, gee,
why don't we just increase the size of the seawall cap.
Under the Dowdys' interpretation, you can increase the size of
the seawall cap and overhang it by a foot, two feet, three feet, push
the envelope, you could -- you could put it all the way out to 10 feet
and measure setback from the cantilevered edge of the seawall.
Page 165
March 14, 2006
And I saw this Commissioner Henning kind of indicate that it
might fall in the water. I'm sure there's a structural engineer that can
design it so that it stays up. Now, I'm not suggesting that's what the
Dowdys did, but you're allowing somebody to stretch this staff
clarification beyond all realm of possibility.
Now we're going to allow them to create land with a seawall cap.
That's not what this was intended to do, and that's exactly what the
staff allowed the Dowdys to do.
And if you look at the staff report, interestingly enough, at tab 4,
they never once mentioned the fact that they're cantilevering the
seawall cap. All they mention is that they're increasing the height.
But the height made no difference. They had to get the cantilever to
get it to over seven-and-a-half feet.
If this is how it's going to be done, then you've created a terrible
precedent. Everybody that wants to build a 10-pound house on a
five-pound lot is going to do it, and you know that you will establish
that precedent, and they will follow you right through that open door.
In closing, I know that my client is going to be perceived as the
big bad association who's trying to single out and punish an
individual homeowner. It couldn't be farther from the truth, and we
hope that's not how the commissioners perceive them.
They're trying to preserve the quality of life in Vanderbilt Beach
and -- because this has implications beyond Vanderbilt Beach in
Collier County in general, and sometimes that means that they have
to be the bad guy.
What the Dowdys have done -- and I feel for them. I understand
that they've gone through a bad experience with a builder who's
known throughout the county of getting into these kinds of scrapes, I
feel for them, but at the same time, they hired this builder. They're
responsible for what their builder did. They have sued their builder.
They have sued their architect. They have sued their surveyor back
Page 166
March 14, 2006
in November of this year, and it's part of the materials that Mr.
Brown provided to you. They're going to get some relief from the
legal system.
But this administrative variance should never have been granted.
The association should never have been forced to file this appeal, but
now that they are here and now that you've heard this appeal, we've
given you three reasons why this decision should be reversed.
And if you find anyone of them, it's sufficient to reverse, and we
think you can find all three.
Thank you. And if you have any questions, I will answer them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we'll take a break for our court
reporter. She's been on this for almost three hours, or two hours and
19 minutes. And then we'll come back and we'll hear the opposing
side.
MR. MULLER: I think we have --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I want to take a break at this point
in time.
MS. FILSON: But he indicated that he wanted to speak at the
very, very end, Dr. Bing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll take a break, and then we'll
come back at 3 :30.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Benjamin Brown. He will
have 20 minutes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think there was one speaker for the
opposing side before we --
Page 167
March 14, 2006
MS. FILSON: But he indicated he wanted to speak at the very
end.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, okay. Okay.
All right. Please proceed, sir.
MR. BROWN: Thank you, Chairman. Just briefly I wanted to
address some of the arguments that the appellant's attorney made.
In terms of the land development code, section 9.04.04A, and
whether or not the county staff is obligated, you know, in a shall or
may fashion and whether they shall grant a variance if, you know,
certain criteria are met or whether they may grant a variance if such
criteria are met really is irrelevant, and it is not a basis for attempting
to have the administrative variance reversed.
If the staff was granted, you know, discretion in granting the
appeal and they elected to exercise that discretion, it's not an error in
any way that they did exercise that discretion.
Second of all, in terms of the necessary seawall repairs, I know
that that's a big issue right now in terms of, you know, what were
these seawall repairs and the seawall that was constructed.
If you could, if you could open up the binder that I had submitted
to you and turn to tab 16, please. There you will find a copy of the
seawall permit that was submitted to Collier County along with the
Shore Engineers' diagram showing what - what changes would be
made to the seawall.
The appellants made claim that, yes, you know, these weren't
necessary changes, these weren't necessary repairs. But when the
seawall permit was granted or when there was an application made,
the county was on notice of exactly what the Dowdys had intended to
do. I mean, this drawing, you know, clearly shows their intent to
build up the seawall, you know, with a, quote-unquote, cantilever, as
they call. It is in public records.
Page 168
March 14,2006
I really want to make clear today though that we are not in any
way defending the actions of the contractor or the surveyor. You
know, we found out now only after the house was completely
constructed that a number of different errors were made, and it's also
been established at the last hearing that, in addition to the errors that
the contractor and the surveyor made, that the county erred as well
by, you know, failing to notice any of these encroachments during
any of the numerous inspections that were made.
In fact, the only time -- or only when the house was completely
constructed did the Dowdys become informed that the house was in
violation of any Collier County Land Development Code ordinances.
That said, I did want to mention that this drawing that I've
prepared clearly shows what the Dowdys had done before the seawall
cap. This shows their property at the time of the last hearing in June
of 2004.
As you can see, there is a required setback of 20 feet, and at that
time there was an encroachment of 14 feet. This was because section
-- pursuant to section 2.6.2 of the land development code, if there's a
difference -- more than a four-foot difference between the seawall
and the seawall structure, then it's an obligatory 20- foot setback. And
the reason that's done is because of erosion.
When the houses are -- when houses are constructed with a
substantial amount of fill under it, the back yard is more susceptible
to more erosion if a higher seawall or a lower house is not in place.
I also want to mention that in the Collier County staff
commission planning report, which was completed on May 20, 2004,
which was before the last hearing, it includes the suggestion that as a
possible solution to the Dowdys' setback problem, that they could
increase the height of their seawall. And this is included in your
hearing materials that I've provided for you under tab 13.
Page 169
March 14,2006
As you can see on page 8 of 10, before the dimensional variance
hearing held in 2004 that the staffs recommendation even includes
the suggestion or the possibility that the petitioner, the Dowdys,
could increase the height of their seawall so that their pool deck is
less than four feet away. This is a solution that had been used
numerous times in the Vanderbilt Beach area and was perfectly legal.
As you can see from that section, it also includes, and it kind of
incorporates the suggestion of the Dowdys' former representative,
Tim Hancock, in that the Dowdys never wanted to build a seawall.
They never wanted it on their property. I mean, quite frankly, it's
unattractive. You know, it's not aesthetically pleasing. But at that
time, they believed that it would -- it even would have been more
injurious to the neighborhood than the current existing setback.
Notwithstanding -- that was why they went to the dimensional
variance hearing back in 2004, just trying to wholesale, get the
property -- get a variance for the property and not have to build this
seawall. Having to conform the house would have cost, you know,
literally hundreds of thousands of dollars potentially with removing
the whole back part of their -- the back part of their pool deck,
removing it via a barge in the canal, and a number of different other
reparatory measures.
Also, it was included in the transcript of the dimensional
variance hearing. Tim Hancock, their representative, even mentioned
at the dimensional variance hearing that, once again, that this seawall
-- construction of this seawall cap was a potential solution to the
problem. I hate to use the word solution, but it was a remedy. It was
a legal remedy to fix this -- fix this problem. And you can see, this is
included in tab number 14 in the binder I provided for you.
I included pages 1 and then 90 and 91 of that transcript. And I
can read from this just briefly. He said -- and he spoke at the hearing
just as I am now.
Page 170
March 14, 2006
There is a way to fix the height of the pool deck issue, and it's
been used in Vanderbilt Beach time and time again. We don't like to
use it -- we don't like it as a solution, but it is available, and that
solution is to raise the seawall cap.
We have photos of homes throughout Vanderbilt Beach that have
done just that. When they go in to repair the seawall, they raise the
cap. In this case, you can raise it two feet, backfill behind it. Now
you're four feet above the seawall cap and you're done.
So that height issue can be made to go away. In our opinion, the
cure is worse than the disease. But if that's the only means available
to us to address that issue, then that will be the course we'll have to
take. And that's what they did.
And I know that we can talk about, you know, that -- the
spirit of the land development code, we can talk about the intent of
the land development code, but the land development code does not
in any way prohibit what the Dowdys did. And if it's not prohibited
or illegal, then by virtue, it is legal.
It's the same way as if you approach your accountant before tax
time and your accountant said, hey, guess what? I've got this great
idea. There is a perfectly legal way that I can save you $300,000 in
taxes. And you say, what? It's perfectly legal?
He says, yes, it's perfectly legal. You would do it. Anybody
would do it. And that's exactly what the Dowdys - what the Dowdys
did here. There was a perfectly legal solution to this discrepancy in
the height or the -- in the setback.
Another thing I really wanted to mention was that granting the
appeal would, in fact, end up having been very wasteful for Collier
County. Because the seawall was applied for, permitted and approved
in a perfectly legal fashion, if the appellants actually got the relief
that they wanted, the seawall would still remain. Their biggest
grievance is with how unaesthetic the seawall is. But because it was
Page 171
March 14,2006
built legally, the only relief they would be afforded is cutting off a
slender 2.2 feet of the Dowdys' pool deck. The seawall that the
Dowdys never wanted would remain in place.
Granting the appeal and forcing the Dowdys to demolish part of
their home would additionally cause a really unnecessary and undue
hardship on them. It's been nearly four and a half years since the
house was completed. And we believe that during this amount of
time, nobody has, in fact, been harmed in any way by their seawall or
by their property.
Additionally, I'd like to say that the seawall as it stands today and
the property as it is today is not how the Dowdys want it to be
forever. Currently there's -- the back yard is empty. It's just dirt.
They plan to, you know, tastefully landscape it and make it blend
in with the surroundings, whether it's ficus, you know, or other
tropical plants. They also plan to, you know, install a boat lift that
perfectly complies with the land development code. I know there's a
new section on that now about the coverings.
I'd also like you to turn to tab 22 in your binders. I know it's
incorrectly labeled on the first page. But if you could turn to tab 22,
it identifies -- we have three letters, and these three letters are from
the three homeowners that surround the Dowdys, the Dowdys'
property at 316 Flamingo.
The first one is from Jack Paul at 307 Heron Avenue. He lives
directly across the canal from Mark and Shirley Dowdy. He is the
one, if any, who would be most aggrieved by this variance, and he's
not. He is the one who has to look at the seawall every day. All he
wants is that the Dowdys can just finally go on their way and have
this issue at rest.
If you turn the page you can see, Janet and Kent Bobb, who live
at 288 Flamingo -- I believe that's directly east of the Dowdys, that's
adjacent property -- they also have absolutely no problem with the
Page 1 72
March 14, 2006
Dowdys' house the way it is. All they want is that the Dowdys can
finally just go on their way and live in this winter home of theirs.
And once again, the neighbor directly west of them on the other
side, Jacqueline, or Robin, Scheppner, also feels the same exact way,
and you can read that letter.
So all three of the people that surround the Dowdys' property
have no problem with it the way it is.
And at this time we respectfully request that you deny the
appellant's motion and just permit the Dowdys' house to stand as it is.
As I said, it has -- they began construction of the house in October of
2000. Construction ended in -- I think in November of 200 1. It has
been almost four and a half years since the time when it was
completed, and they just want some resolution to the matter.
They already have a certificate of occupancy for the house, a
certificate of completion for the pool electrical, and a certificate of
completion for the pool screen, and they just want to -- please, if you
can just deny the appeal and let them go on their way.
And also I'd love to answer any questions that any of you had,
you know, and dispel any information or any beliefs about this
matter. I know I only have six and a half minutes, but I'd love to -- if
anybody has any questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Anybody have any questions?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's Mr. Brown, correct?
MR. BROWN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mr. Brown, does your client want to
backfill behind the seawall at the level of the extended seawall after
this is completed?
MR. DOWDY: No, keep it at grade level.
MR. BROWN: I believe so. I'm not sure exactly.
Obviously, you know, at this point we'd do whatever is, you know,
Page 173
March 14, 2006
most mitigating to the surroundings and try to, you know, conform
the property as best -- as best it can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. I was just thinking -- I
mean, we have an issue up in this area about stormwater drainage,
and, you know, that might cause a problem with water going onto
the neighboring property. But your client has answered my question,
he has no desire to do that.
MR. BROWN : Well, actually I believe that in the -- there's
pictures of the seawall, I believe, included in appellant's diagram as
well. There is drainage -- drainage tubes provided for in the seawall
itself. So that if there is any backup of water, it is able to drain out
into the canal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other questions of
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, at this time, we'll take public
speakers, continue on with public speakers.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mark Dowdy. He'll receive
three minutes. He'll be followed by Shirley Dowdy.
MR. DOWDY: Commissioners, I'm Mark Dowdy. I live at 316
Flamingo.
A couple of the things I want to bring up -- it's not what I
prepared and wrote up, but when we came before the board the last
time, we did mention that the solution to this problem may be raising
the cap of the seawall.
At that time you turned us over to code enforcement. Wernet
with code enforcement. We met with Mr. Schmitt. We met with the
department. In fact, there were about 15 people in that room,
including a representative from the County's Attorney's Office.
Page 174
March 14,2006
We made it very clear what we were attempting to do, and they
said, go ahead and apply for it.
We did that. We put this wall up. We didn't want to do it. We
spoke to you people and said we didn't want to do it. Now it's up. t's
sitting there. I still don't like it.
To answer your question, yes, we're going to keep it at grade
level. I have put some steps up over this wall onto my dock to get
into a boat. I'm not thrilled with that either. I don't want to do any
more steps.
The point I really want to make though is we went through the
procedures, went through code enforcement, came back numerous
times, cost a lot of money to come back and forth to try to get this
thing resolved. We did what we said we were going to do, and now
here we are today with this appeal.
We were elated when we got our CO. We were elated when we
-- the variance was granted. We thought we were done with this
thing after four and a half years.
I'm paying the young attorney here a lot of money to be here
because I don't know the law. And I may be, as the other counsel
mentioned, excusable ignorance. We hired the contractor, who was
also the architect. He hired a surveyor. I think everything was
incorrect from the beginning, but I didn't know it. We were 1,300
miles away.
And as it turns out now, we're the victims of this still. Four and a
half years later, meeting with the code enforcement, meeting with the
building department, getting a summary of this building department's
notes on this and opinions on this. And I hope that they're going to
speak to defend their actions as well.
But we really feel that we are the victims. And the fix on this is
to tear the back of the house off for $300,000 roughly, which is
excessive, reconstruct or just leave it, put grass back there and forget
Page 175
March 14,2006
it. But as Ben said, the wall will still stand. It's going to look ugly.
There's so much re-wrought (phonetic) in that, it's not coming down.
I'd just ask that the commissioners reconsider this, and I'd like to
put this to rest ourselves and not go into any further litigation or any
further time wasting your time because I know that you've got a busy
schedule after sitting here all day and listening to what you have to
deal with. You don't need to deal with us. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Shirley Dowdy. She'll be
followed by your final speaker, Dr. Richard Bing.
MS. DOWDY: Hi. My name is Shirley. I'm very nervous. I
don't speak in public. But there's just a few things that I have to say.
Everyone keeps saying this is not personal, but this is personal.
The very first day we had our house and we went down there, we're
having our furniture moved in, one of our neighbors, Frank Halas,
came over to the house. I was so happy. We were so proud. Come
in. Look at this beautiful home we built. We're just so happy.
He came in. We showed him all around. He said, oh, we have
parties in the neighborhood, welcome committees and stuff. He said,
here's my phone number if you ever have any questions.
Two weeks later, I call Frank Halas because I want to know
about a landscaper, somebody to mow my lawn. And he said there is
a problem with your house. And I said, what? He said, don't worry.
It's not your problem. It's your builder's problem. I said, oh, please
don't say that. That's my home.
That was the start of our nightmare. It has never stopped. I've
been -- I was down here with my 30-year-old daughter who died. I
have -- he has lost his father, he has developed heart trouble. I cannot
tell you the sleepless nights we've had over this.
This is personal, you people, I am your neighbor. If you want to
get even with somebody or somebody has to pay for this, why don't
you go after the builders? Why are you going after your neighbor?
Page 176
March 14,2006
And instead of us, why don't you go after the examiners who, on
13 occasions, approved our house? They said, it's fine, it's fine, it's
fine. Then we come and we're moving in, and they say, it's wrong.
And now -- and their attorney says we've hired and we're going
to sue our builder. Yes, we are, but one thing he failed to tell you,
none of our attorney fees are recoverable. We cannot get any of that
money. That's coming right out of our pockets. That has nothing to
do with what's going on here today. That's all out of our pocket.
This is personal. And I want you all to know that. It is very
personal.
That's all I have to say.
MS. FILSON: The final speaker is Dr. Richard Bing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
DR. BING: Will our attorney have a chance to rebut after staff,
or when do they get their -- his final rebuttal?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Whenever you'd like to take the
opportunity .
DR. BING: Well, after staff -- I assume staffs going to present
after us, if that's all right with you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't believe staff had anything unless
there was a clarification that you want to put on the record.
Is there anything, staff, that you want to put on the record. If not,
then --
MR. SCHMITT: Unless you have questions.
MR. WEIGEL: The response from staff is, if you should have
any questions, they're prepared to respond.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Bing.
DR. BING: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I
am Richard Bing, 10951 Gulf Shore Drive, president of Vanderbilt
Beach and Bay Association and chairman of the Vanderbilt Beach
Zoning Committee.
Page 1 77
March 14, 2006
I first have to leave my prepared remarks because the opposing
attorney said that I said that I had spoken to you and knew how you
were going to vote today apparently, and that is totally out of context.
I wouldn't have been down here lobbying you yesterday,
Commissioner Coyle, if I knew how you were going to vote
obviously. That's absurd.
I did say I had conversations with you about how you voted the
last time this thing came up. That's all I relayed to Mr. Brown.
Our attorney just advised that during the break, apparently Mr.
Schmitt said that he had conversations with me prior to September 25
about what was going on here, and I did not. You could see by my
emails and so forth that I was surprised. And I wasn't at the meeting,
by the way, in Mr. Halas's office where this was first discovered. I
was told by Bruce and others after that had occurred.
Okay. Let me go back to my -- what I was going to say.
Let's back off for a few minutes and just look at the big picture
here. From the beginning, four or five years ago, we simply have a
10-pound house on a five-pound lot, or a seven-pound lot, whatever
ratio you want to say. That's the problem.
And this has resulted in an absurd and clearly avoidable course
of events. After what was clearly denied by you almost two years
ago, it appears that staff and the owners' agents have conspired to
alter the site to fit the house rather than the logical reverse, as many
other owners have done.
During the course of the last hearing, you could not find a legal
reason to grant the requested action. I remember the proceeding and
you asking that, Commissioner Coyle.
Today you have multiple clear legally defensible reasons to
overrule staff. We respectfully request that our position be upheld,
and thank you for your consideration.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, can I put a few things on the
Page 178
March 14, 2006
record?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. SCHMITT: Joe Schmitt, Community
Development/Environmental Services Division Administrator.
Just for the record, the folks in Vanderbilt Beach have known
about this all summer long. There were emails.They.rein your
packet. They were in your packet. I won't go through those, but even
as early as 9 August when we notified the members of the Vanderbilt
Beach and Bay Association that -- the intent of Mr. Dowdy.
I did have conversations with Mr. Bing long distance, and we
certainly can have those records pulled because they're county
records.
But be that as it may, there was no attempt by staff in any way,
shape or form to hide the fact that Mr. Dowdy was, in fact, pursuing
the course of action that they were. And, in fact, when the actual
appeal was approved -- and just for the record, even though the
document says 24 or 25 August, it was actually not approved by staff
or by -- through the county attorney and signed finally -- and it's
notarized as of 6 September.
Also, just for the record in case this will be appealed, and I know
it will be, the issue in regards to the 30-day notice, the -- where I
stated that there was no appeal process. There is no appeal process
for an administrative appeal as defined in the LDC, but it's clearly
defined, working with Dr. Bing and Patrick White and myself, and
we informed Dr. Bing that he could appeal under the codes of laws
and ordinances and under the appropriate section, which was
appealed, and then I made a ruling, working with the County
Attorney's Office.
And there's a record where we notified at that time an agent
working for the Dowdys, Mr. Hancock, that Mr. Hancock informed
us that he lost the first notice, and we sent out a second notice dated
Page 1 79
March 14, 2006
September 22nd, and the ruling was that the 30-day time frame
actually started September 22nd. So I just wanted to make sure that
was on the record because -- in case it's appealed.
Certainly it was not staffs intent in any way, shape or form to try
and work around the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association, and, in
fact, I had numerous conversations on the appeal process and what
the Dowdys, in fact, were doing. There's numerous emails that were
provided by both attorneys, and you can go back and see emails as
early as mid-August on exactly what the intent was, and I just wanted
to make sure that's on the record.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just -- I got one question before I have
Mr. Henning--
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Commissioner Henning.
So what is the legal document then, September 22nd, since the
first one was misplaced or lost?
MR. SCHMITT: We were notified by -- I have --let me just
slip these -- I'm going to put them on the visualizer.
This is the -- dated August 25th, as you see right here. It was
actually notarized and signed by -- notarized and actual date of this __
I'm sorry. Let me go to the first one. 6 September was the notarized
date, and that was the date of signature.
We got word that the Dowdys and their agent, Mr. Hancock,
never received that notification. We re-sent another notification out,
and that was notarized and dated September 22nd.
And it was based on that ruling of the second notification that we
made a ruling that that was the official notification, which was
basically the start of the 30-day time clock. That may be argued, but,
in fact, that was my decision, and that was a decision coordinated
through, at that time, the assistant county attorney, Patrick White, to
allow for the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay to appeal. We certainly were
Page 180
March 14, 2006
not, in any way, shape or form, attempting to deny an opportunity to
appeal these decisions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for David
Weigel. In ordinance number 85-2, it goes into the whereas and
whatforths, and then there's a signature by then Commissioner Voss,
but then there's a detailed specification of seawalls and ordinances.
Is that how they were written back then? Because the ordinances that
I see, the last page is the signature of the chair.
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner, if I understand your question,
and I'm looking at the agenda package which __
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Start with page 34.
MR. WEIGEL: Right, and I'm on 34 and 35 right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or is this a different document
that came out like the old unified land development code?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, starting on page 35, and the pages that
follow thereafter, which are recorded in the public records of Collier
County in the sequence following page 34, which is the signature
page of the ordinance, I note two things; one, that the ordinance
signature page is dated -- it is dated January 8th and so is the -- so are
the succeeding pages, starting at 35 and thereafter.
It appears that that may, in fact, be part of the ordinance as an
exhibit -- an exhibit to the ordinance --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: -- potentially.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Page 181
March 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, could you give me
some guidance in regards to 9.04.04, the specific requirements for a
minor after - the- fact encroachment?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is this considered a dwelling or is this
considered a structure?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, 9.04.04 of the land development
code, that section appears on page 44 of 81 of the agenda book, and it
also appears in some of the tabs that have been submitted by the -- by
a submittal of the appellant and possibly for the property owners as
well.
But if you want to look at the agenda book, it's on page 44. And
I'm going to ask Mr. Klatzkow to come up and place 9.04.04,
including paragraph A, the paragraph in question, on the visualizer,
so you've got your option, and the public both here and in video land
can see the land development code section in question.
As you can see, there is a title in bold and an initial paragraph
preceding paragraph A. And you'll note in the second sentence of the
introductory paragraph above A, the second sentence says, for
purposes of this subsection, meaning 9.04.04, minor yard
encroachments shall be divided into three classifications.
And you'll see that -- you'll see that these classifications appear
as A thereafter, and then there are some succeeding ones as well
which are not at issue with us today. Here's what I note and I opine,
and that is, I do see language in two occasions in paragraph A, both at
the end of the second line and in the next to the last line, where it
talks about the county manager or designee may.
Typically under rules of statutory construction, which have been
ruled upon time and time again in case law, the word may is a
discretionary term, whereas, the word shall is considered a mandatory
term. And so I would opine that that is a discretionary term. And I
Page 182
March 14, 2006
recognize that that was one of the arguments made by the appellant to
you today.
Now, the decision having been made, whether it's considered by
staff as discretionary or mandatory - and apparently they believe that
it was mandatory. And apparently they were working with a former
assistant county attorney no longer with us, and he certainty didn't
disabuse of that thought.
Be that as it may, as county attorney, I'll tell you that the opinion
of the County Attorney Office is that may is discretionary and that,
therefore, having a decision having been made to grant the variance
takes away the issue of the fact that it's discretionary or non-
discretionary in the context that a decision has been made, and you
are then forced to look at the correctness of the decision.
The county manager or his designee, I would say, incorrectly
thought that they had to provide an approval of the variance request,
but they just missed on the opportunity of the fact that they didn't
have to, but they ultimately made that request.
Now, to answer your question, Mr. Halas, in regard to other
aspects of 9.04.04A, it talks in terms of a dwelling, but it also talks in
terms of a structure.
I would submit that the board in its wisdom in creating 9.04.04A
certainly intended to provide some discretion to the county manager
or his designee relating to structures and dwellings that may be
violative of a code standard.
But note what I said, structures and dwellings. I read the first
part of A to be referring to structures. These are structures for which
a building permit has been issued but for which a certificate of
occupancy has not been granted.
And then further down, it says, specifically referring to, for
single-family, comma, mobile/modular homes, comma, duplex and
Page 183
March 14, 2006
two- family dwelling units only, and I emphasize only, it indicates
that, in fact, there is this discretionary ability of the county manager
or his designee to approve a variance with a -- up to 25 percent
deviation from the standard that's at issue.
I would submit, my opinion is, that we then look at these
premises to determine, what is this for which an after-the-fact
variance was approved -- requested and approved, and where does it
fall under 9.04.04A? Is it a structure or is it a residence?
I believe, and I would ask that Mr. Schmitt or someone from
staff confirm, that, in fact, a certificate of occupancy has issued for
the residence. In fact, a building permit and a certificate of
occupancy are separate and apart for the residence than for the pool
cage, deck and pool, and that the administrative variance that was
approved, depending on the date of notice, but was approved at end
of August by the staff, was not for the residence but was for, in fact,
the pool deck, pool and pool enclosure as a structure.
If that is the case, then I believe you apply the standard relating
to structure and not a dwelling, which is six inches or 5 percent.
If you come to that conclusion based upon the facts and
application of the law as I've told you, then the variance that has been
approved was inappropriately approved and you may find reasoning
to uphold the appeal and remove the variance.
I would ask that staff on the record indicate whether, in fact,
there was a separate building permit for the residence and for the pool
enclosure and confirm for the record that, in fact, a certificate of
occupancy issued for the residence, I believe, in fact, under a separate
administrative variance request, separate and apart from the one
before you today, and if that is the case, then you have the ability, if
you accept my opinion or interpretation of this law, to rule upon the
facts of the pool and pool cage relative to the standard that's for a
structure rather than a residence, so --
Page 184
March 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could we have some clarification from
staff?
MR. BROWN: Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're listening to staff.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt,
Administrator of Community Development/Environmental Services
Division. Actually there's three separate building permits, one for the
pool, one for the pool cage or the pool enclosure, and one for the
principal structure.
Conferring with my building director, Mr. Hammond - and Bill,
do you have the records, because we're trying to -- I'm trying to
determine -- this is the first we've asked this, so I'm trying to
determine which one had the TCO. I thought it was the house itself,
Bill.
MR. HAMMOND: Commissioners, for the record, Bill
Hammond, Director of the Building Review and Permitting
Department. I actually -- actually I thought the -- there was a TCO
for the screen cage, which was issued while there was -- the variance
process was going on, and I think there also may have been a TCO
for the home. I don't have that specific information unfortunately in
these files I brought.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you clarify what a TCO is?
MR. HAMMOND: I'm sorry. TCO is temporary certificate of
occupancy, sir. It's a conditionalized document for occupancy or a
level of occupancy for something that's been issued under permit.
And I'm going to look for that information in CD Plus. Right now I'm
trying to find that specifically. I apologize for not having that for you
at this moment.
MR. SCHMITT: Just for clarification for the record. As was
stated, there was a temporary certificate of occupancy on this house
since actually -- which -- well, I'd have to go back to the dates since
Page 185
March 14, 2006
they closed on the house to allow for them -- for the Dowdys to
actually close and live in the house, and that TCO was predicated on
abating or, through some manner or form, the variances or the
encroachments that existed, and that at that time was only to -- for the
setback of the pool, actually because of the pool cage.
It was the requirement for the 20- foot setback rather than the 10-
foot setback. So there was a TCO. I have to go back and look at the
records. We can take a couple of minutes when we look at the
records to see which permit that was actually on. It was a structure.
They're three separate -- again, three separate permits. We'd have to
see which one was actually on -- had the TCO.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe when we went through this
scenario the last time, that Mr. Hancock was very emphatic that the
steps would also be taken care of, and I think they're still there; is that
correct or --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Now we're under a -- just for
clarification, we're under a different issue here. These are the two
side yard steps, both steps still encroach into the side yard setback.
For the record, we do have in a request for an administrative
variance for the steps as well. We have not acted on that. We've been
holding that until the results of this case.
And that variance was actually asked and requested during the
original hearing, which was denied as well. And in fact, if you recall,
I believe Mr. Hancock put on the record that they were going to
remove the encroachment, which is yet to have been done, and there's
an open code case on the stairs, so that is still pending.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any discussion by
commissioners here?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, I have some additional comment,
if I might.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Page 186
March 14,2006
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. And again, it's in regard to
9.04.04A. The reason -- part of the reasoning that I opine as I do is
looking at the plain language of that paragraph. But additionally, the
practical effect of the leeway granted to staff through an
administrative variance here, I think, is illustrated by virtue of the
fact that they -- that the board has given staff additional leeway
relative to a residence in the sense that the potential for a
remediation, a teardown, a partial teardown of a residence, is a
dynamic and problematic, expensive thing typically.
And you'll note that the staff is given far more leeway there from
an administrative standpoint than they are in regard to structures
generally. I believe the distinction is based upon the fact that
structures generally typically don't have the impact where there's an
adverse determination of its location, of its continued existence, and,
therefore, the staff is given a limited authority there, because if it has
more of a problem and it's not related to a dwelling, this board wants
to hear about it and make the decision itself, and you heard about it
once before.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, could I add something to the
record? Just--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Before I close the public hearing, yes,
please.
MR. SCHMITT: Two issues. One is, of course, I just want to
make sure, for the record, there were numerous emails and others
indicating my opinion. This authority certainly is -- well, it's -- for
the record, it's empowered in the Zoning Director, in Ms. Susan
Murray. Susan Murray works for me. If you have any questions
specifically how she interpreted application, I would encourage you
to ask her if there's any specifics on how she made and came to the
decision that was made.
Page 187
March 14, 2006
Second, just for clarification, staff, at least as long as I've been
here -- and you may want to ask Ms. Murray -- we never separated
the -- at least any of these -- basically what Susan or -- we basically --
from the principal structure, any of the amenities. They've always --
it's all been included in one application of this section of the code.
So there's certainly precedence in how this was interpreted. And
certainly if you make a decision today, we will take that and apply it
from hence forward.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, obviously we had the county
attorney opine in regards to exactly --
MR. SCHMITT: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- how the interpretation of this code
should be interpreted.
MR. SCHMITT: But it -- just for -- for the record, again,
accessory structure, we've also included that as the entire application
of this rule. And based on your decision, we will -- we will move
forward based on how you want to apply it in the future.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you. We'll close the
public hearing.
And Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have some more questions
for Mr. Schmitt.
Mr. Schmitt, you spent some time discussing dates.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it your contention that the appeal
was not filed in a timely fashion?
MR. SCHMITT: No, it's not. And I would -- I can pull email
records. But the indication, at least from my interpretation -- and
there's email traffic to me and Mr. Hancock -- it's on the record --
where he never received the first notification.
Page 188
March 14,2006
And upon sending the second notification, which was that date
where the notary actually authorized or validated that it was signed
on the 22nd of September, it was opined that that was the start of the
30-day clock. And that decision was made at that time that, in fact,
that was the 30-day window.
I believe -- I don't have my notes in front of me, but I believe it
was issued the 13th of September, or the 14th of September, when we
actually received the notification, October, of the intent to appeal.
That was -- the appeal was actually filed -- the filing of the appeal
and the payment and the check is actually the trigger. It certainly
could be argued that they intended to do that prior to.
And, yes, I've discussed that all the way through the month of
August with different representatives of the Vanderbilt Beach and
Bay or the zoning, or whomever was involved.
So to answer your question, Commissioner Coyle, I do not think
that we were in violation of the 30-day window. We accepted the
appeal and we moved forward with the appeal.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, if you go back to the
previous page that you had displayed, you understand the difference
between may and shall?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There was a statement at some
point in time in the documents that we've been given that said that
you felt that you had no other choice?
MR. SCHMITT: It was our thought at that time we had no other
choice. The rules -- the difficult issue there, Commissioner, is may
implies some kind of a discretionary decision factor on the part of
staff. And there are really no rules defined other than what's in __
written in that statement how to apply something specific in regards
to how you would make that decision, under what criteria do we
apply may, and if I want to ask Ms. Murray, she can expand on that.
Page 189
_.~-~~ .... ........~ "....".-..." .,.
March 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In view of the fact that the
planning commission denied the request for variance by, I think, a
unanimous vote and that the Board of County Commissioners denied
the request by a vote of 3-2 --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- when it comes time for you to
make an administrative decision, do you not feel that that is a good
indication of where the county commissioners would like to go?
MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely, but there's time and time again
where conditions change which then open up the entire chapter again.
And in this case, the loophole -- and we admitted even in the staff
report for the administrative variance, that this certainly was a
loophole that we expected they would try and -- would pursue in
regards to trying to get the administrative variance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me read something from
staff recommendations. In the case of the pool and screen enclosure,
the petitioner may increase the height of the seawall so that the pool
deck is less than four feet higher than the seawall. This would result
in a required rear yard of 10 feet instead of 20 feet.
The petitioner's rendering indicates the pool itself is 10 feet from
the seawall; therefore, only the screen enclosure would encroach.
The screen enclosure could then be moved or a variance of the four-
foot encroachment could be sought.
Now, was that true or not?
MR. SCHMITT: Okay. You're--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it still true?
MR. SCHMITT: -- reading from the--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Staffs -- your recommendations.
MR. SCHMITT: The planning commission.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, your recommendations to the
planning commission.
Page 190
March 14,2006
MR. SCHMITT: And I want to get my book, if I can.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, sure.
MS. MURRAY: Commissioner, Susan Murray for the record.
Are you reading from the original application -- or the original staff
report for the original variance? That sounds --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Uh--
MS. MURRAY: In 2004?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm reading from an attachment
that appears in tab 13 from --
MS. MURRAY: We didn't get that. Was that from Ben Brown?
Yeah, unfortunately we didn't get that, so we're relying on the
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it is the staffs
recommendation, okay? So what do you want me to do, you want me
to bring this down there and you can display it?
MR. SCHMITT: I have it, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You concluded from the
petitioner's rendering that there was only a 10- foot setback from the
seawall required. And, in fact, the pool itself was already 10 feet
from the seawall.
MR. SCHMITT: Basically what this is concluding, that even if
the pool -- the way I -- what I've heard you say and I'm reading here,
that even if the cap is put on, the seawall would no longer encroach
but the pool screen would. And I believe that determination is
actually incorrect in this report.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you were under the wrong
impression whenever you wrote this report; is that correct?
MS. MURRAY: That was actually -- that was written by Fred
Reischl, and that was based on the circumstances that he observed at
that time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And those circumstances were
Page 191
March 14, 2006
incorrect?
MR. SCHMITT: The application of the rule is basically 10 feet
for every four foot of elevation. If you exceed the four feet, you have
to go to 20 feet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that part. But was, in
fact, the pool -- or is, in fact, the pool 10 feet from the seawall?
MR. SCHMITT: The -- well, it is not 10 feet even today. It was
applied, the administrative variance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it said here that it was 10 feet
from the seawall.
MS. MURRAY: He may have been measuring from the pool lip
-- the lip of the pool itself where, in the case where you do not have a
pool screen enclosure, the setback is actually measured from the lip
of the pool. So where you have a screen enclosure, the structure then
becomes the outside edge of the screen enclosure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if you took away the screen
enclosure?
MS. MURRAY: You would measure to the lip of the pool, and I
believe that's probably what he is referencing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. Now, we've
talked here only about increasing the height of the seawall. That's all
that you had recommended is increasing the height of the seawall,
right?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, it really was not a recommendation. I
mean, we --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, okay. It was an observation.
MR. SCHMITT: -- pointed out that it was a cure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You said one way it could be
solved is to do that, right?
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You did not suggest at any point in
Page 192
March 14, 2006
time there that the configuration or shape of the cap on the seawall be
changed?
MR. SCHMITT: None.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: According to the original seawall
design drawings here, the original cap did not have an extension of
12 inches hanging over the water; is that correct?
MS. MURRAY: Correct. In the staff clarification you're
referring to? Yeah. That -- Commissioner, one of the things I think
that we agreed with was -- I think it was Attorney Muller put on the
record -- was staff did not contemplate anybody extending that
seawall cap when they drafted that policy for measurement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What I'm trying to point out here is
-- and let me say this right up front. I think that what the Dowdys
have been put through is absolutely intolerable. It's not your fault.
It's the developer's fault. I hope you understand we don't treat all of
our new residents that way, and I'm very, very sorry that these things
have happened to you.
But we've got a law, and if we're going to uphold it, we have to --
have to do it right. And -- but what I'm getting at is essentially this:
There was a cap on that seawall that didn't overlap.
MR. SCHMITT: The original cap?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The original cap.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if your only objective was to
increase the height of the seawall, why would you build a cap that
extended 12 inches out the opposite side?
MR. SCHMITT: It was very clear to us that we knew exactly
what they were doing, trying to increase the measurement. We told
them they could not encroach beyond the property line. The property
line goes into the -- beyond the seawall.
Page 193
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So knowing that, you felt you had
no option but to approve it?
MS. MURRAY: Commissioner, there's nothing in the code that
prohibits the elevation of a seawall. There's nothing in the code that
talks about the specifics of the design of a seawall cap in terms of
allowable measurements. It talks about minimums for engineering
specifications in the code of laws and ordinances. But as far as
aesthetics, there's nothing in the codes that says a seawall has to look
like A, B, and C.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is a different perception you
can attach to that. If it's not in the code, I don't approve it, rather than
saying, because it's in the -- it's not in the code, I have to approve it.
You see, that's where I'm going with this.
MS. MURRAY: I understand. One thing I want to put on the
record, which kind of bothered me, about what Dr. Bing said was, the
reason the information was put into the staff report for the 2004
variance was to put not only you but the community on record that
the staff felt that there was a loophole in the code and that the
petitioner made it clear on the record that they were going to jump
through that loophole in order to not have to demolish their pool.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can I ask a question at this time to the
county attorney? Anytime that we have administrative variance, it's
not intended to be utilized as a loophole in the code; is that correct?
And I further -- and it's further no intent -- intended to be used to
circumvent a prior decision by the board of - zoning board of
appeals?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the answer is no, that nothing -- I am
aware of no record in any legislative creation of this board that its
intent in the creation is to create a loophole, so the answer is no to
your first question. Your second question, sir?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that was the whole question. In
Page 194
March 14,2006
other words, when we deny an administrative variance and then
someone goes forward to try to utilize it as a loophole in the code, it
is further not intended to be used to circumvent a prior decision by
the Board of Zoning and Appeals; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Yeah, I appreciate what you're saying.
The board denied a variance, not an administrative variance, but a
variance request. And what Mr. Schmitt has indicate was, that they
did come back with like a different wrinkle in the sense that coming
to the staff with the idea of the seawall - extended seawall vertically,
extension to it, that that was something that was not before the board
in the formal variance request previously. So they had something
new to look at there.
The point I'm making is the fact that I don't think we're really
working with a 25 percent deviation from 10 feet here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: I think we're working from a structure issue
where the latitude of the staff is significantly less. And so from that
standpoint, you know, I've spoken on that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other further questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there a motion for -- one way or the
other?
MR. BROWN: Chairman, may I -- I still have six minutes left --
just use one of those minutes to speak? Is that --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we've got the public hearing
closed, sir. We've already closed that, other than the fact that -- if
one of the commissioners has a particular question that would pertain
to you directly.
Y '?
es, SIr.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more time.
Page 195
March 14, 2006
MR. SCHMITT: Can I -- I just want to add for the record. You
asked about the temporary certificate of occupancy that was issued.
It was actually issued on 11/9/2001. It was predicated and based on
the TCO for the home. The pool cage was -- the home permit was
the parent permit for the structure, which was - is being defined as
the pool enclosure. So the actual legal TCO is on the principal
residence.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. One more time, explain to
me exactly what the difference between the principal residence is
and the structure.
MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to turn to my zoning director because
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And how this became the
controversy.
MS. MURRAY: I didn't hear your question, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Explain why the controversy is
over -- between the structure and the principal residence.
MS. MURRAY: Well, I think, if I understand the county
attorney's position correctly, is that he believes, if you look at
9.04.04 A, that the word structures refers to the accessory structure, in
this case that being the pool enclosure and the pool, and that there are
different regulations for the pool enclosure and the pool, that being
the yard encroachments may go up to 5 percent of the required not to
exceed -- of the required yard not to exceed a maximum of six inches,
and then he believes that the second part of that sentence says that the
rules for single-family mobile/modular homes, duplexes, and two-
family dwelling units then may avail themselves of the
encroachments up to 25 percent of the required yard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we're back to the fact that it's
a residence?
Page 196
March 14, 2006
MS. MURRAY: In this case the encroachment is from the pool
cage and pool deck.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that's a separate structure.
MS. MURRAY: Which is -- which he believes is only allowed
to encroach 5 percent of the required yard, which is up to six inches.
We have not been applying the rule that way.
MR. WEIGEL: And Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, if I
may, my response is merely, why do we have all that language in
there if we were talking about only residences?
We seem to have a distinction that's based upon structures that
may be other than residences. And I inquired, and it seems the record
reflects that there has been a separate treatment for the residence and
the pool cage in regard to the building permits, temporary COs or the
lack of a real CO, and the fact that an administrative variance was
applied for the house and approved separately from this pool cage.
So I see distinctions, and I bring those distinctions, as well as the
distinctions of paragraph A to your attention. That's all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion that the
Board of Zoning Appeals upholds the conclusion of staff in that the
approved administrative variance for the screen enclosure was legally
issued within the criteria as defined by the LDC.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a second?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion fails for a second.
Do I hear any other motions? I make a motion that we deny the
appeal that was given by staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second the motion.
Page 197
March 14, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. For the record the motion would seem to
indicate denying the administrative variance --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Deny the administrative variance __
MR. WEIGEL: -- given by staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- that was given by staff.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Now, there have been criteria issued. I
would suggest that you may wish to respond and provide those
criteria. There was a one, two and three by Mr. Muller, additional
information or opinion that I've given in regard to the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I deal with that? Well, go
ahead.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The reasons for denial is, number one,
placing a cap on the seawall was an action on the part of the
applicant. According to -- by definition, they are not entitled to an
administrative variance.
Number two, an administrative variance is not intended to be
utilized as a loophole in the code and is further not intended to be
used to circumvent a prior decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Number three, by being initially denied for a permit, the Dowdys
were put on actual notice that this project did not comply with the
code. One cannot create a hardship and then claim undue hardship in
seeking a variance. That's on the record.
Are we covered?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you've covered a lot. Additionally, though,
do you wish to either include in this -- in this motion a -- the answer
to the question of whether this is -- variance was inappropriately
granted because it's a structure and not the residence, and, therefore,
and inappropriate standard was applied or not?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, I understand what you're getting to.
This is considered a structure and not a residence and, therefore, the
reason of denial is the fact that it exceeds the maximum of six inches
Page 198
March 14, 2006
as a structure, that the variance was given, but it exceeded six inches
as far as the structure.
Does that -- does that clear it -- the air?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that's clear, yes, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, if I can just
assist in finding of fact by the Board of Zoning Appeals. During the
response by the planning director, number 6 of page 4 of 81, the
extension -- the argument was, the extension of the elevation of the
seawall cap violated the land development code regulations, seawall,
it covered in the method of the seawall construction.
The response was, referring to section -- or ordinance number
85-2, exhibit C, law of ordinances, set forth, you know, basically that
there's -- there's no maximum. There's no minimum, there's no
maximum for the seawall.
The finding of fact -- and so this doesn't come up again.
In the ordinance, in all the documents, including Quarles and Brady's,
and Mr. -- Attorney Brown's and the Board of Commissioners'
packet, ordinance -- let me find it here.
The ordinance states, the intent of the ordinance, it says,
whereas, properly designed and constructed seawall and revetments,
whatever that is, serves as -- protect waterfront upland property
improvements located therein against wave attack to serve the
stabilization and position of the shoreline. That's the intent of the
ordinance is to protect upland properties. As you stated,
Commissioners, it is not there for a -- the intent for a variance.
Also, finding of fact, in Mr. Brown's attachment 16, it appears
what was submitted was actually a cap. If I look on the left-hand side
or the landward side, I do see an extension of cap similar to the one to
the seaward side, but -- and, in fact, in the pictures provided by Mr.
Brown, it is a protrusion seaward.
Page 199
March 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if you take a look at the
pictures, the neighboring properties, the seawall is there to protect
property. It's not there to circumvent --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the board's land development
code.
And there are other -- other examples in all these documents of
what a cap is. And I agree, a cap goes on both sides. It doesn't go on
one side.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: In proportion of the same direction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I hope after that vote is
taken, whatever the board decides, I think we need to have further
discussion and guidance on this particular issue, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, thank you. Is there any other
further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion was made, and there was
a second. I made the motion. I believe Commissioner Henning made
-- seconded --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You seconded, okay. Commissioner
Fiala seconded.
If there's no further discussion, we'll call the question.
All those in favor of the denial of the motion as stated, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign?
Page 200
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. It passes, 4-1.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, can I put something on the
record?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
MR. SCHMITT: Based on the record, based on this vote, I
will have to revoke -- I have no option but to revoke the CO, because
the CO was predicated on the awarding of the variance, and now that
the variance is denied, we will revoke the CO and reinstate the TCO
until we have further -- until either the applicant mitigates or -- the
encroachments or we have some other method of resolving this issue.
MR. DOWDY: Wait a minute. I have a question. Does that
mean that I can't live in the house?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. You got a temporary CO.
MR. SCHMITT: You have a temporary CO. You could stay in
the house. But I have no option but to revoke the CO. The CO was
predicated --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think this board of
commISSIoners
MR. SCHMITT: Unless this board decides to rule differently.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's what I want this
board to do in this particular case.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir. County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you know, as I indicated, the house has
received a separate CO. The house is all right. This is a structure,
and it's been recognized as a separate structure and, therefore, this
accessory structure mayor may not be apparently attached to the
house, is in -- is in position for remediation in one form or another.
The house is livable. A certificate is issued. It is not subject to
further appeal before this board regarding the house.
Page 201
n..___._ ..
March 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly my point. We just
went through a -- we just talked about 9.04.04 subparagraph A, which
says this is a structure. It's not part of the building. It's not the
building, it's not a house. We're talking about the structure. That has
nothing to do with withdrawing the certificate of occupancy.
MR. DOWDY: It's a concrete slab from the front of the house to
the back of the house.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. DOWDY: And that isn't attached?
MR. SCHMITT: If I could have a vote on that, because of
clarification. The issue -- go ahead, Bill.
The TCO was issued based upon the entire structure. And if
that's the direction of the board, we will -- we will follow the board's
direction on this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What the board said to you was
that you made a mistake --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and this screen enclosure is not a
house.
MR. SCHMITT: Got it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is a structure. So whatever we
do with respect to the screen enclosure does not deprive the owner
from occupying the house.
MR. SCHMITT: There is no intent to deprive the owner from
occupying the house.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Is that right?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And the second thing is,
Page 202
March 14,2006
the Dowdys have gone through this, like you said, for many a years
because of the finding of the Board of Zoning Appeals. There has to
be some kind of correction on the property.
Now, personally, I want to see if the Board of Commissioners
has some leeway to give some latitude on any code enforcement
action or anything else because of -- the Dowdys have gone through,
I would imagine, a lot of legal expenses and they're not over yet.
So I want to know if the board has any latitude to put off any
code enforcement action in abeyance for a period of time by
somebody.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I believe that there's -- as far as
the code enforcement, I don't believe they'll be written up at this point
in time. What needs to be done is they need to be -- to go after the
builder, and I assume from the discussion earlier on, that that's the
intent. And I believe that the builder is responsible for getting this
piece of property back in restitution. I think that's what you were
referring to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I just -- again, the
Dowdys have gone through this several years, and a lot of money, so
I would like an answer, what -- how this is going to affect the
Dowdys.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can staff give us some direction on that?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, I apologize. We were just discussing.
We had 47 other cases out there. This was all -- of course, you know
this has been going on for several years. You have another case
coming before you next week. And based on the decision today,
we're going to have to figure out how we apply these to -- there's only
a few left, certainly, from hence forward. And so I didn't catch your
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. This particular action by
the Board of Zoning Appeals --
Page 203
March 14, 2006
MR. SCHMITT: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I want to know what the
ramifications to the Dowdys are. Actually, now they're not in
compliance, so --
MR. SCHMITT: They have -- you've just ruled that the cap is
not in compliance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Board of Zoning appeals
did.
MR. SCHMITT: The Board of Zoning Appeals. That means
they have two options, they remove the cap and remove the pool so
they're within the 1 Q-foot setback --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know that.
MR. SCHMITT: And if they take the screen enclosure down,
there has to be some kind of child safety barrier. We'll have to sort
through that whether that encroaches or what that -- we'll end up with
that. That's what we were just discussing. The issue here is, of
course, the four-foot elevation. If they take the cap off, they exceed
the four-foot elevation. That means they have to take out the entire
pool, reconstruct the pool in accordance with the code so it does not
have a four-foot elevation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm assuming -- I'm
assuming that code enforcement's going to take action. I'm asking
you, do we have the latitude to put off abeyance of any kind of action
by the code enforcement for a period of a year, six months?
MR. SCHMITT: That's strictly up to your guidance to the
county manager.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: As far as how we use staff assets to do what
we need to do to basically abate the encroachments that exist. We
still have a side yard -- two side yard encroachments as well on this
house. Now we also -- you've denied the administrative variance,
Page 204
March 14, 2006
that also tied into the variance. There's the - one of the -- I believe
it's the master bath that encroaches into the side yard setback as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Am I alone here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, you're not alone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're not getting your question
answered.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The master bath -- part of the structure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, do you want to give some
kind of relief of time?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What is -- I'll throw out
a year, okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're giving the county
commissioner -- the county manager direction to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just so that we get this on the record, the
house -- basically you can give an administrative variance to the
house for that bath because of the fact it doesn't exceed the 25
percent; am I right?
MR. SCHMITT: Let me have Ms. Murray come up.
MS. MURRAY: Yes. The -- actually the back of the house was
already granted an administrative variance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fantastic. Okay. So now all we've got
to do --
MS. MURRAY: You have the stairs and the pool enclosure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The stairs and the pool enclosure,
exactly.
MR. SCHMITT: You want to allow the house to stand then, to
make -- for --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, definitely.
Page 205
March 14, 2006
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, okay. I mean, as far as - stand meaning
that the variance that was granted for the encroachment of the master
bath can remain?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's within the guidelines of9.04.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I just ask --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I just ask that you spend a
few minutes -- you and your staff spend a few minutes with the
owners to make sure that they understand clearly what is going on
here and what you're interpreting this to be --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- so that we don't get them in any
more trouble?
MR. DOWDY: Commissioner, thank you very much. I've
already met with the man. I've already met with the department. You
don't recognize the department's recommendations. I'll have to go
after Jim Allen. I'll sue him. And that's what everybody here wants.
And it's too bad, because I've got a nice house.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. DOWDY: And these people don't even -- probably half
these people haven't even seen our home.
MR. DOWDY: You just changed the code.
MS. DOWDY: And now you're going to make us tear the whole
pool out? I thought we were talking about the enclosure, we had to
get rid of the screen. But now you're talking about we have to tear
the whole pool out?
What if we wouldn't have capped that wall? If that remedy
worked to just raise it and then you're in the right ratio, what if we
just took the lid off it, then could we just get rid of the pool screen?
Do we have to tear out the whole pool? And that's going to cost like
Page 206
March 14, 2006
$300,000. It's all got to be done by barge. It's going to destroy the
integrity of our home.
MR. DOWDY: And the neighbors. We're going to do
demolition out there.
MS. DOWDY: I mean, that pool is hooked onto our house. I
mean, they -- it has been passed before with a raised seawall. That's
why we did it.
MR. DOWDY: At recommendation of staff.
MR. SCHMITT: The cap remains. You did not approved the
administrative variance. The cap remains. They still fall within the
four- foot criteria.
But the bottom line is, they have to come within the 10 feet of
the cap because you did not allow for the administrative variance. So
there's something that's got to come off the back of that house,
bottom line, unless you give us other direction.
What I'm hearing you say, the cap can remain. The
administrative variance does not stand, so the measurement now has
to be from the overhang of that cap and has to be 10 foot back, so
there has to be some portion of the back wall, or the lanai or whatever
of that pool will have to come off in order to at least get to the 10-
foot requirement rather than the 20- foot setback.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we can't --
MR. DOWDY: Why don't you come on over and look at it.
MS. DOWDY: There's only like a foot there on the other side of
our pool. So if we take that wall out --
MR. SCHMITT: If they could speak on the record.
But just for clarification, I mean, that's what we heard. The cap
stays, they have to have a 10- foot requirement. They have to move __
they have to reconstruct something in the back yard in order to meet
the 10- foot setback.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The simple part of it is, it's very
Page 207
March 14,2006
difficult to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope, that's it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Can we give the county
manager in this particular case to give any -- hold off on any action
from code enforcement on this rear yard setback issue for one year?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: While the Dowdys take on J.D. Allen or
whatever's going to be done? I think that's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion? I
think you're heading in the right direction, and it's compassionate.
But let's be honest about it. These things don't happen in one year.
Why not two years?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's have an auction. I
don't care.
MR. MUDD: I'd really like to get the attorney's opinion on this
particular issue.
MR. WEIGEL: Before you get too far talking about the 10 feet,
remember this board has just noted a difference between the structure
and residence, and there is a distinction. So if there -- if there is a
potential for these property owners coming back to the board for
another variance request for this -- we're out of the administrative
area here essentially.
But if they were to potentially come back to the board with
another variance request, Heaven help us all, but the fact is that the
board has significant power to look at whether there are mitigating
circumstances, undue hardship, answer all those questions that they
do -- and they know the criteria and they've got them right there.
But I'd suggest that code enforcement, just as in other cases, be
told to cool it -- cool it for a while, and that the staff come back to the
board at six months and see if - where things have occurred.
Page 208
March 14,2006
And if at that time it seems that there's no good faith action
between staff and the owners or there's something to report, the staff,
with the assistance of the owners, can report back to the board in six
months and say, this is where we are. Are -- because even if you
unleash code enforcement instantly, it takes a long time before things
really get into the code enforcement hearing chamber from that point
thereafter. I'd suggest six months' review.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: By the staff?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, no. I'd say come back to the board and let
you know. And then if you're satisfied or dissatisfied with staff and
owners' attempts to work through these things, you can give further
direction to the county manager as to whether code enforcement staff
ought to become involved, which ultimately gets code enforcement
board involved.
But none of that occurs until you give that inclination at some
point in the future. Again, I suggest six months.
MS. DOWDY: Can I speak?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, ma'am.
MS. DOWDY: We have already been told by a builder that if
we rip our pool out, there's a good chance it will hurt the integrity of
our home.
MR. DOWDY: It's all connected with re-wrought.
MS. DOWDY: Ifwe have to pull that pool out, there's a
good chance it's going to destroy our house.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The decision was made, and I -_
MR. DOWDY: So it's too bad?
MS. DOWDY: Nobody cares.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's been the hardest decision.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's been a very difficult decision.
MS. DOWDY: Oh, come on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Page 209
March 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did we give some directions?
Is it six months -- and come back to us in six months and let us __
give us -- inform us of the progress on it?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't think -- at this point in time I
don't think we need to continue to bring this item back. I think it's a
dead issue. We've ruled twice on it, and I think that should be the end
of it, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Until the -- and then when it's in
compliance, then everything -- they'll receive the necessary COs, and
the issue's taken care of.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we need to let code
enforcement stay away --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think they've got an understanding that
I don't think they're going to go out there tomorrow and go through
the case.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion,
Mr. Chairman--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: --- at this time that we direct the
county manager to put any code enforcement action on the rear yard
setback of this property, the Dowdys' property, off for a period of one
year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion by
Commissioner Henning to have code enforcement be relieved of any
responsibilities in regards to upholding the Dowdy residence in
regards to writing any violations, and it was seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
Page 210
March 14,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I would like longer, but I
think I'd be pushing the envelope about this point in time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 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?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Break time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's break time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One other thing.
Mr. Bing, don't know ifhe's here, it was kind of offensive __
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think they've--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, it's kind of offensive
when -- this whole conspiracy thing by the county and the property
owner and stuff like that. I mean, it didn't impress me one bit. Not
that I'm trying to defend our staff, because I had my head handed to
me when I tried to do that, but it just doesn't personally do any good
for their case, and I hope it changes in the future, because I'm sure
they'll be back again. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll take a 10-minute break. We'll be
back at 5: 10, and then I believe we have a 3 :30 time certain, I'm sorry
that we ran over so far.
(A brief recess was had.)
Item #13A
Page 211
March 14,2006
AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO HAVE A TRAFFIC CONTROL
JURISDICTION OVER PRIVATE ROADS WITHIN THE INDIGO
LAKES SUBDIVISION - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're back in session. We're going to
address an issue that was brought up earlier this morning on the
consent agenda where it was pulled off. We'll get that out of the way.
It was a concern that Commissioner Coyle had and pulled that
particular item off the consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Chief Smith has answered my
questions to my satisfaction, and I recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
MS. FILSON: Which item is that?
MR. MUDD: And that is 13A, which used to be 16J2.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion for approval.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion and a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who seconded it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's to remove $50
million out of the transportation budget, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it was to take -- it was to
remove $50 million out of sheriffs budget.
MR. MUDD: Sir, this had to do with sheriff patrols in Indigo
Lakes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, okay. No further discussion, I'll
call the question.
Page 212
March 14, 2006
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: Good.
N ow I believe we've got another time certain that -
Item #1 OF
EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION AND A NOISE
ABATEMENT POLICY FOR CAXAMBAS PARK. HOURS
EXTENDED: 7AM TO SUNSET - APPROVEDW/CHANGE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have another time certain,
and that has to do with --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 16D4.
MR. MUDD: It's now 10F. It used to be 16D4, and the item
is to recommend to approve extended hours of operation and a noise
abatement policy for Caxambas Pass, and that item was moved at
Commissioner Fiala's request.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'll let staff go ahead.
MS. RAMSEY: Okay. For the record, Marla Ramsey,
Administrator of Public Services.
Commissioners, the public has come to us and asked if we would
consider extending the hours at the Caxambas Boat Ramp on Marco
Page 213
March 14, 2006
Island, as you see on your visualizer, from seven a.m. to six p.m., and
change those hours so that it would run from seven a.m. to sunset.
On January 18th, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board heard
this request. A number of the public from the condos around the park
were in attendance at that particular meeting.
There were concerns brought up about noise and some other
issues in regards to the ramp itself, and so staff went back and met
with the homeowners at site and then brought back what we're calling
a noise abatement policy that we will use at the park to alleviate some
of the problems that the residents have been suggesting at that
location.
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board heard that noise
abatement on February 15th. Both of the recommendations, both for
the extension of the hours and the noise abatement were
recommended by Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
So we come to you today to ask if you will extend the hours and
to review the policy and provide us with the direction to go ahead and
implement those.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any discussion or
questions by staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I believe that we have four
speakers signed up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Could I just -- rather than just
say noise abatement, could you kind of describe what that noise
abatement would be?
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. The policy has about six different things
on it. One of them has to do with out of water running of engines for
boats or jet skis. The other is the engine flushing.
Page 214
March 14,2006
At Caxambas we don't have a water source anyway, so flushing
the engine, according to boaters, is not necessary when you come out
of the water. So we're talking about not allowing them to do that.
We're looking at limiting their deliveries from 8:00 until 4:30
each day. We're talking about moving the dumpster from behind the
marina building over to the Coast Guard building, which is located on
the site closer to the road itself.
We talked about excursions of vehicles, such as trolleys, things
that are going to come in and enjoy the view, that they come in after
8:00 and they leave before 4:30. A lot of that has to do with the fact
that the trolleys and the delivery area people leave their vehicles
running while they're either unloading or while they're in the location
and it causes a noise issue for the neighbors.
And the last thing is, to increase the landscape buffer along the
property line along the north property line next to the condominium
association. And in your packet you had an example of landscaping
that we were recommending.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Marla, we'd also talked about that
little curve there that we have where people seem to pull out of the
water and sit right below that building while they tie their boat down,
and we were going to do something about moving that tie-down area,
I don't know what else to call it, just a little bit further down so it's
away from the building, and that would also help to eliminate some
of the noise level.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could somebody point to the
map, the drawing, to show where this all is?
MS. RAMSEY: I think what you're talking about,
Commissioner, is in this area here is where the boats actually back
into the water, and then as they come out, they come up and they,
like, stop right up --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, right.
Page 215
March 14,2006
MS. RAMSEY: -- in this area right in here while they do the tie-
down, they leave their trucks running at that point, which is very
close to the -- to the condominiums in this area here, and I think the
suggestion would be that we designate that or -- and educate the
public just to pull up and try and do their tie-ups up in this location
rather than back in here.
And I didn't put that in the policy. I did that more as an
educational item maybe through a sign and just continue to work with
the public to massage that park so that it -- we're not quite an
inconvenience to neighbors next door.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question. Right there where
you were discussing earlier about where they pull their vehicle up in
that curve there, okay. From that curve to the condominium, what is
the distance from that residence? Do you have a --
MS. RAMSEY: I--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- segue?
MS. RAMSEY: I don't -- I'm not exactly sure what the distance
is going to be on that. Maybe 50 feet, 30 feet. I'm not exactly sure.
MR. MUDD: Take a look at your bottom. It says 60 feet by the
white thing. So you're talking about, yeah, about 60 feet.
MS. RAMSEY: Maybe, yeah, 50 feet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now, is there -- where the property line
is, I take it that's that --
MS. RAMSEY: Red line.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- line that's on an angle there?
MS. RAMSEY: They're very close to that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. Is that -- is that a hedge, or it that
trees, or what is that, to use that as a source for a noise abatement?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, there are landscaping elements in that
area. Some of them are trees, some of them are hedges, some of
them are on their side as well. And as you look at the site plan that
Page 216
March 14, 2006
we're talking about, we are talking about trying to bring in some
height, about you know, maybe 10, 18 feet in palms, trying to grow a
hedge to about 20 feet along that edge right there.
And realize that I believe this is a multistory building. You can't
really see the height of this building. It's not going to really help with
those upper floors, but it might help with the floor that's right on the
bottom, or maybe even the second floor. It also might be an
inconvenience because they won't be able to see the water when we
do that as well. So it's kind of
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And right now a lot of those bushes
and the trees have blown down from the hurricane. So we're going to
need to go in and fill that in anyway, right, the -- we have sea grapes
in there right now?
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. Actually, we're looking to put some
additional sea grapes back in and growing those sea grapes to 20
-- putting them in at six feet and growing to 20 feet, is the plan at the
moment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other question I have is, how many
boat trailers can we park here at one time?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, in the parking facility itself, it's about 38.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thirty-eight.
MS. RAMSEY: But we have -- we can really get a lot more than
that in when we use this area from here. And actually you can see
there's some cars parked in there all the way out into here. We can
really -- with a park ranger helping us on a busy weekend, we can get
quite a few in this particular location.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And what would you say is the
maximum capacity? Do you have a --
MS. RAMSEY: About -- I think we can do about 50, is my
understanding.
Page 217
March 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: A total of 50, and that's utilizing all of
the area that you just discussed?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I may.
Marla, the demand for this particular location is mainly -- is it all
week long just during the season? Is it mainly weekends or is it
holiday weekends? How does it work?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, the people that are requesting that we
extend the hours are actually working people that live in the Marco
Island area who find that closing this park at six o'clock at night
makes it impossible for them to get out just about anytime except on
a weekend.
And I asked staff what we thought the numbers were that were
coming in in the afternoons because we -- you know, we close early,
so we don't have a lot of afternoon traffic there currently, but we
probably will have some enhanced traffic in the afternoon if we're
able to go until 8:30 at night during the summer. So right now it's
somewhere between seven to 10. It would probably double, I would
assume.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Couple questions. One, if
someone
had to -- if they break down out there and it takes them a while to get
back, what happens if it's after 8 :30?
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. We have in place at this one - this is a
locking facility, and we have a telephone number or -- and a key pad
element where they can alert the sheriffs office that they've been
locked into the facility, and the sheriffs office or the -- I guess it's
actually the Marco police officers come and let them out. They have
the key and the capability to allow them to have exit out of that
facility.
Page 218
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we have any boating
facilities where people can launch to go out for night fishing?
Because that's usually the best time, especially during snook season.
MS. RAMSEY: This actually is the only boat ramp facility that
we have that we lock. All the rest of them, even though they have
hours posted on them, we don't have locking facilities and we do not
prevent anyone from going out if they're actually fishing.
Ifwe have an issue in a park why there's partying or something
going on, the hours allows the sheriffs department to help us control
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Great. So the other parks we do
have people that want to do that -- I'm past that point, by the way.
But people that do want to go out at night and do snook fishing, we,
the county, does make areas available for them. That's wonderful.
The last question, and I'm just trying to get a whole picture of
where we are. We're talking about this just for summer hours?
MS. RAMSEY: No. It would be all the time. And because of
that, then during certain times of the year we would be closed a little
bit earlier than six o'clock, because sometime - right around
December, I think we get sunset about 5:30. So it would be a little
less during certain times and more during other times of the year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I appreciate very much
parks and rec. going to the limit here to try to find a way to be able
to utilize this resource to its fullest and still meet the needs of the
local neighbors.
MS. RAMSEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, call the first public speaker.
MS. FILSON: Mark Bahr. He'll be followed by Joan Robbins.
MR. BAHR: Good afternoon. My name is Mark Bahr. I'm a
Page 219
March 14,2006
property owner on Marco Island, 1271 Stone Court. And I've been
in business on Marco since about 1980.
I'm in favor of extending the hours of Caxambas Park to sunset,
like all other Collier County parks and boat ramps. The sun sets as
late at 8:23 p.m. in the summer months of June and July, and around
eight o'clock in May and August as well, and the park closing at six
p.m. is a major inconvenience for boaters.
Many former marinas now high-end developments, including
Pier 81, Boat Haven, Wiggins Pass Marina and other places such as
Pelican Bend and Tarpon Bay on Isles of Capri have been destroyed
due to Hurricane Wilma. Many of these former wet slip boaters are
now relying on trailer boating and this boat ramp as a form of access.
I understand also that the 951 boat ramp has been denied
expansion. And even driving up here today, I see that the facility was
full and there was cars and trailers parked on the side of the road.
I understand -- I've also spoken to Dana Sousa, who is the parks
and recreation director for Marco Island. He also is in favor of
expanding the hours to sunset.
I realize that there's condo owners that are around here that are
somewhat affected by some of the utilization of the park, but the park
was there long before the condos were built and the pilings were
driven there for that purpose.
This land was donated by the Deltona Corporation for the
purpose of a park and a boat launch facility.
So I really am strongly in favor of extending the hours, at least
till sunset throughout the course of the year. Actually ideally I'd like
to see it a half an hour after sunset because boaters are allowed to
operate their boats without navigation lights a half hour after sunset.
It gives families the time to go out and enjoy the sunset, go to the
boat ramp, pull their boat out, and leave.
Page 220
March 14,2006
Some of the other things -- one of the points in the noise
abatement policy talks about stopping deliveries at 4:30 p.m. I think
that maybe that should also be extended to six p.m. because a lot of
times the facility runs out of shrimp, or if you need fuel, you'll be
prevented from getting these critical services to the park before a
normal operating time of six p.m. In those instances, I think that
should be permitted so that taxpayers don't have to wait to get fuel
depending on when the vendor could possibly get there the next day,
or if at all.
That's all I have to say.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joan Robbins. She'll be
followed by Burt Robbins.
MS. ROBBINS: My name is Joan Robbins, and I'm a resident
at 901 Collier Court, which is the condominium that directly
overlooks Caxambas Park.
First of all I'd like to thank Commissioner Fiala for taking the
time to visit us at our condominium and seeing firsthand the
proximity of our condominium to the Caxambas Boat Parks.
We are boaters ourselves and we want everyone to enjoy the
water. However, I am in -- I'm speaking in opposition to extending
those hours past six clock because -- and to sunset because I believe
that the irregular hours of closure will cause more confusion for
boaters coming in.
And the issue that was raised about the Marco Island Police
having to rescue people who are locked in at night, and those people
also cause disturbance to those of us who live right next door to the
park. And I believe the ordinance for the parks does say that there
should not be a disturbance at the county parks.
I am in support of the noise abatement policy. I appreciate the
efforts of Commissioner Fiala to work with the parks and __
department to institute those noise abatement procedures. I think it
Page 221
March 14, 2006
will help us, no matter what happens to the change in the hours,
because there is increased vehicular and boat traffic at that facility
over the last years.
My husband and I have lived there full time for two and a half
years. We have owned since 1993. One of the reasons we bought
our condo was because we enjoyed the fact that we could overlook
the boat park and the pass going out into the Gulf of Mexico;
however, we would like to have the peace and quiet of our home in
the evening after six o'clock.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Burt Robbins. He'll be
followed by William Starr.
MR. ROBBINS: Thank you, Commissioners and Chairman. I
would like to speak against this ordinance.
My name is Burt Robbins, 901 Collier Court. My condo is
directly across from the park here. And I would like to put in
perspective how far away we actually are to the park boundary, the
actual property boundary.
I think this room is approximately 35 feet wide or so. The
property boundary is 43 feet from my side of the condo to the county
property line. I measured it. Another car length over is the driveway
where much of the noise occurs, so our unit and units above us and
below us are directly impacted by this.
And I'd also like to say to the commissioners that I do not object
to the park in any way. I find that some of the things that go on down
there are more fun than watching television. We enjoy the park.
It's the hours being changed that we depend on that I object to.
Those hours of quiet that we have now, we need, because we have
noise from seven o'clock in the morning until the park is closed.
We're very close and are directly impacted by noise because of
the fact that there is much blacktop. There is some concrete where
Page 222
March 14,2006
the ramp is, and there is a lot of water that surrounds -- partially
surrounds the park. This reflects and amplifies many of the sounds
that go up to our home.
So I feel that one of the best ways to give us the peace and quiet
that you need in the evening when things -- when you want to settle
down and try to relax, is to simply close the park. It was -- it was
closed at six o'clock for a reason and that is, we are very close in a
residential area to this park. And it gives us some relief to have the
hours of closure that we have.
So the preamble of the county park ordinance calls for the -- for
the commissioners to consider themselves to be good neighbors. And
the relief that we would get from the park remaining at six o'clock
closure would greatly improve our quality of life.
It's simply the hours that we object to. We don't object to the
park or the boaters or anything like that. It has a big impact on our
life.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is William
Starr .
MR. STARR: My name is Bill Starr. I live in the same building
as the last two speakers. My wife and I bought our condo in 1996.
Many of the residents in our building bought from '89. And all
during that period of time, the operating hours of the park were seven
a.m. to six p.m.
There are many annoyances associated with living directly across
-- aside of that ramp, but we all knew those annoyances when we
bought our condos. That's not the issue.
Recently the parks and recreation department decided to change
the hours, as you well know. And when we went to the meeting of the
advisory council, one of the members of the advisory council asked
the parks and recreation staff, is the situation at Caxambas Boat Park
Page 223
March 14, 2006
the same as it is at other county parks? And they were told basically
that it's the same situation in residential areas.
Well, if you drive to the parks that they were referring to, you'll
note that at Caxambas Park, where we live, is anywhere from 30 to
60 foot away from the boat ramp.
If you go to the Bayview Park, which was one of the others they
looked at, the first residence from the boat ramp at the Bayview Park
is approximately a quarter mile, and if you go to the Cocohatchee
River Park, the condo that is nearest to that boat ramp is about 1,000
feet away, and the back of the building looks over the boat park. The
lanai side of the building faces in the opposite direction.
One of the commercial vendors that spoke at the meeting said
that we sounded like a group of people who built next to an airport
and then complained about the noise. That's really not the case. We
knew the park was there when we bought.
We also knew that from its inception the park was operated from
seven a.m. to six p.m. We think they did that for a reason because of
that close proximity of our residence compared to at any other park.
We really appreciate the noise abatement process that has taken
place, and that will greatly help, regardless of whether the hours are
changed or not.
We appreciate being able to speak to you today. We want to
emphasize that the 951 ramp, which is right at the other end of Marco
Island, is available for nighttime. And we're - want you to know that
we're asking for nothing more than we had when we started. We
don't want the rules changed in our favor. We simply want the rules
not to change.
Thank you very much for listening.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
Page 224
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's something that was
brought out that I really didn't think about, but a very good point.
About deliveries. I'm not sure -- I think, in my opinion, that you
might create some more problems by limiting the early hour
deliveries. Presently your deliveries are what, seven?
MS. RAMSEY: They could be as early as seven, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And so if you don't have any
fuel or are waiting for that fuel delivery or you're waiting for bait
or you're waiting for ice or whatever, then you have a whole bunch of
people there waiting for those goods because there's only limited
places on the island that you can get those. So why don't we leave
the delivery hours in the afternoon the way they are, and put back the
morning delivery hours to seven A. Is that a problem?
MS. RAMSEY: No, sir, if you give us that directions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Motion to approve with
those changes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second for discussion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Did you mean motion to
approve the -- as written with the change of the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just so I understand what the
motion is.
MS. RAMSEY: Clarification. It will be seven o'clock in
the morning to six p.m. as currently?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no. As -- you mean
delivery?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MS. RAMSEY: It's currently delivery.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, 4:30 p.m. in the evening.
Page 225
March 14, 2006
MS. RAMSEY: Okay. Seven a.m. to 4:30 in the evening.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. RAMSEY: Okay. Just for clarification. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. You want to divide this up in two
motions then?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that was part of the motion.
She just wanted to clarify it, for me to clarify it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Just one short note. Of
course we can monitor this. If there's some sort of problem where
this exasperates the situation there, we can always bring it back for
reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And I'll stay in touch with
the people over there to see how it works. I think the biggest
complaint is all of the noise that's generated. They mentioned the
number of times diesels and cleaning out the jet skis and so forth, and
I understand perfectly.
And I think if we don't have all of that noise emanating through
the area after six o'clock -- in fact, all day long. They're going to get,
you know, a double good thing because we're going to stop it all, so
then it ought to work a lot better for them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And moving that dumpster's
going to be a big help --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- because people throw, you
know, all kinds of stuff in there, and then, you know, it sits there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And moving the traffic down just a
little bit so that it's not stuck on that curve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Moving it down so it's not just
sitting right underneath their windows.
Page 226
March 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
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: Passes. Thank you.
MS. RAMSEY: Thank you.
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2006-65: PETITION: V A-2005-AR-8616,
REQUESTING A 2.5 FOOT AFTER- THE-F ACT VARIANCE
FROM THE REQUIRED 37.5 FOOT YARD SETBACK FOR A
CORNER LOT IN THE (E) ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT TO
PERMIT A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THAT IS CURRENTLY
UNDER CONSTRUCTION, LOCATED AT 4625 30TH AVENUE
S.E. - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 7B.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commissioner members.
It's variance 2005-AR-8616, Daniel Hamilton represented by
Davidson Engineering, requesting a 2.5-foot after-the-fact variance
from the required 37.5-foot front yard setback for a corner lot in the
Estates zoning district to permit a single-family home that is currently
under construction.
Page 227
March 14, 2006
Subject property consisting of 2.58 acres is located at 4625 30th
Avenue Southeast in Section 28, Township 49 south, Range 28 east,
Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those that are going to be
testifying in this case, or in this land use, please stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll start with Commissioner
Henning for ex parte.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: None, sir? Okay.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have communications that was
brought to my attention in regards to this, and I think it was received
yesterday.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have none also, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just have some correspondence
concerning it. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. SMITH: Thank you. Good evening. I'm Kelly Smith
with Davidson Engineering, and I'm today representing Tony Pocchi
of Pocchi Construction, who is the general contractor, and the
property owner, Daniel Hamilton, in the request for a two-and-a-half
foot after-the- fact variance from the required 37 -and-a-half- foot front
yard setback for a corner lot.
I am going to condense my presentation given the lateness of the
hour, and certainly ask that you ask any questions, items, that you
think I may have not explained clearly.
Page 228
March 14, 2006
The contractor, Mr. Pocchi, applied for a building permit for the
single-family home for Mr. Hamilton, who is his stepson. The
original building permit application indicated that the house would be
set back 65 feet from the center of the right-of-way, which is 35 feet
from the property line.
During the review, Mr. Pocchi was contacted by the Collier
County building permit reviewer who requested that the site plan
be resubmitted as an overlay on the survey. The error in the front
yard setback on 30th Avenue Southeast was not mentioned at this
time.
As requested, Mr. Pocchi submitted the site plan overlaid on the
survey. On that site plan, unfortunately, the architect incorrectly
labeled the 65-foot measurement as a 65-foot setback from the
property line.
The site plan was approved and the building permit was issued.
The building permit reviewer added a table listing the setback
requirements and, unfortunately, Mr. Pocchi believed that the front
yard was the street frontage where the front door is and was not
aware that by definition a corner lot property has two fronts and two
side yards.
Upon review of the 10-day spot survey, Mr. Pocchi was notified
that the survey revealed a two-and-a-halffoot encroachment into the
front yard setback on 30th Avenue Southeast. Construction of the
home has since stopped pending the outcome of the variance
application.
The variance application complies with the majority of the
criteria to be considered when granting a variance. The variance
requested will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to public welfare.
Because of the separation distance between the subject home and
future homes on neighboring properties and the existing vegetation
Page 229
March 14, 2006
on the subject property, we do not believe that the variance will be
noticeable by neighboring property owners or people passing by the
property .
I would like to point out that the existing vegetation in between _
- really on the entire property, especially to the east, is wetlands and
would require further permitting from the Department of
Environmental Protection to be reduced in any way with the
exception of hand clearing of any exotics that may exist there.
I know that question came up at the planning commission,
that yes, the vegetation exists today, but that means that it will be
there in the future, and that's the answer, that the DEP has jurisdiction
over that vegetation.
Further, as pointed out in the staff report, the only property
owner truly impacted by the variance request is Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. Pocchi acknowledges that he shares responsibility for the
error; however, there were several points during the review of the
building permit application where this error could have been
corrected. Unfortunately at this point it is the property owner who is
suffering the consequences.
Based upon the information in the staff report and the
information presented here today, I ask that you approve the variance
requested subject to the conditions outlined in the executive
summary.
With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one question before I turn this
over to Commissioner Coletta. We're talking about a piece of land
here that's 2.5 acres; is that correct?
MS. SMITH: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And so we're looking at a two-and-a-
half- foot setback, which is, when you look at that in respect to the
size of the land and everything, this variance is pretty minuscule.
Page 230
March 14, 2006
MS. SMITH: Yes. And I believe that if you do the math on
the actual encroachment, I think that it comes out to a little less than
90 square feet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Have any of the neighbors
raised any objection to this?
MS. SMITH: The neighbor to the east was -- did call me before
the public hearing and we discussed it. He was at the planning
commission hearing and he did raise an objection. He's not here
today, so I don't know ifhis objection has been satisfied or not.
But, again, I will -- I will state for the record that the existing
vegetation and the separation distance certainly mitigate any potential
impact that might be on that property owner. That property is
currently vacant.
And if you look at the map, the way that property would be
developed, the house is going to be set back so far that you're talking
about -- between where the subject house is and the property line is
over 400 feet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion for
approval. Or did you want to close the public hearing?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My motion is also predicated
upon the variance granted limited to 2.5-feet front yard encroachment
along 30th Avenue Southeast as depicted in Exhibit A, and, two, the
variance is limited to the existing principal structure and if the subject
residential dwelling structure is destroyed for any reason to an extent
greater than 50 percent of the actual replacement cost of the structure
at the time of its construction, all reconstruction of the structure must
Page 231
March 14, 2006
conform to the provisions of the land development code in effect at
the time of reconstruction.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion by
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll call the question. There was
a motion made by Commissioner Coletta, and I won't repeat the
motion. I think we have it on the -- transcribed, and it was seconded
by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any opposition to this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And we've got one that's going to oppose
this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion carries.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries, 4-1.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public comment
on general topics.
MS. FILSON: I have two speakers under public comment, Mr.
Page 232
March 14, 2006
Chairman. E. Bruce Holley. He'll be followed by Kenneth
Thompson.
You've been here all day.
MR. HOLLEY: Thank you, ma'am. I've only sat through one
-- I'm a planning commissioner in Prince William County, and I bring
you greetings from Prince William County, Virginia, and have been a
planning commissioner for 18 years and gone through the chair
twice, and I certainly miss your Mr. Abernathy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Abernathy.
MR. HOLLEY: I really enjoyed him.
The only public hearing that I have ever sat through long was
when Disney tried to move in with a theme park into my county, and
we ended up until 3 :30 in the morning, and unfortunately I was in the
chair at the planning commission at the time.
But I would like to be very brief and recognizing that I couldn't
fish this morning because the pier was closed putting new planks on
up until 11, but I'll be there tomorrow.
We try to visit Naples and Collier County every chance we get,
and I have been impressed by the past five years that we've been
coming down here to visit my daughter with your government and its
professionalism. I really commend you in your decorum and all of
your -- I've taken some of the things back to our planning
commission and tried to get everybody to declare as to what we've
done with developers, the meetings that the lawyers have had with us
before we open the public hearing, et cetera, so I really have tried to
emulate your model.
And I really -- I really respect your position and your county
executive and Joe Schmitt, who once lived in Fairfax County. So
that's an aside -- on a sidebar.
I recently viewed a TV concerning your MPO meeting on the
2030 transportation plan. And during discussion, the MPO and the
Page 233
March 14,2006
commissioners had a -- quite a discussion concerning ministerial
versus legislative relationships, and it was discussed at length.
I firmly believe that our MPO in my area consists of
Washington, D.C., Virginia, Maryland, and all of HOV. So my MPO
up there is so much bigger. And you may very well have a difficult
model down here for me to follow.
But in any event, I don't say -- I would like to make an
observation. I firmly believe that your MPO is unique in that the
commissioners have surrendered their legislative purity by
inadvertently giving legislative authority and dignity to the MPO
Issues.
And I don't say that to be nasty, but I do -- it is my thing that
caused me to comment and look into your transportation situation,
the things that you are experiencing down here, we are in the same
kettle of fish up in our area.
The price of an average home in Prince William County now is
up to $410,000. We cannot get people to work in the county and a
place to live. You're going through the same thing.
It seems as though the real estate industry is driving our
assessment programs, and the commission for a real estate salesman
at 6 percent of half a million is great.
I'm sorry. I'm really babbling here. But in any event, I'm selling
all my land in North Carolina just to get out of that assessment thing,
and so be it.
But in any event, this MPO thing brought up the question. My
daughter lives in Briarwood. Recently she called me and she said,
Daddy, you're 18 years on the planning commission, what do you
think about removal of the traffic light at Foxfire and Briarwood?
I said -- my reply was, somebody just lost a lot of votes; two,
they violated two PUD documents, and I didn't believe that if
anybody sued it would stand up in court. And so I think that the
Page 234
March 14, 2006
F oxfire people and Briarwood and the PUDs around there must have
paid for the lights.
And I said, public works, FDOT, and the traffic contractors did
not consider safety, but rather made the intersection a more public
hazard, and I had discussed this with Norm Feder.
One, rather than smoothing the westbound traffic on Radio,
they increased it -- increased the speed by taking the light out.
There's no -- there's no check and balance there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, are you close to wrapping up?
MR. HOLLEY: Yes. I only have about another half a
paragraph.
First of all, they did not try to implement traffic calming
measures. One is -- I think one of the things that should be done is
the light put back and that there be no turns allowed on red out of
Briarwood and out of F oxfire. That would make that intersection
much, much more safe.
Norm said that the light that they did take out of that was a smart
light. It was a demand light. And I think that it would -- it would all
-- all solve it.
And your -- your format of building roads is wonderful, but you
need to take it one more step further, and that's get some of the
people, the single occupancy vehicles -- the same way we're in
trouble up there on 95 and the HOV lanes is get them out of the car
and get them on mass transportation.
We're trying to get Metro to come down to Prince William
County out of Fairfax. I don't know whether we'll succeed or not.
So, again, I say, I would certainly in -- like to see you replace
that light and also make it no right turn on red, and I think that would
help it a great deal.
Page 235
March 14, 2006
I would also suggest that you move citizens' time as the first item
of agenda, like we do in the planning commission and the board of
county supervisors, and let us guys go fishing.
Thank you very much. I enjoyed it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, sir.
MS. FILSON: Your next public comment is Kenneth
Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm Kenneth Thompson. I live at 2031
Becca Avenue. And here lately, we're getting a lot of gasoline put on
all of our hedges out on Bayshore Drive, down in front of my house.
I'm putting a lot of money in hedges. And the more I put out, the
more they kill.
You've got a guy coming out there in the middle of the night, 11
o'clock, and telling me that you people sent him out there to plant
bushes at night so the traffic wouldn't be so heavy.
But the night he was planting bushes, I called the sheriff on him.
He was making more damn noise than I never -- he had a bucket --
running up and down the road with the bucket down. And I know
nobody didn't tell him he could come out and plant bushes. And as
fast as he plant them, somebody keeps pouring gas on them.
And the guy across the street -- I'm going to ask you one more
time, please, please tell the guy to take the lights down on the house.
N ow this is enough. And I promise you, I won't come back here no
more. He's got lights worse than this. And the more -- the more -- I
get him in court now, and the judge - the more -- the more I carry
him to court, the bigger he makes fun at the judge.
And I don't think it will happen again because he's going -- you
can't live there, ma'am. There's -- nobody can live there for the lights.
Now, this guy, you've got to do something about this guy, because
you see -- I can go home and he thinks I done something to him when
I come home. I don't say nothing to him. I think he's stupid.
Page 236
March 14, 2006
And I don't want to hurt nobody's feelings, you know. But the
reason I act the way I do is because I left the south, and I went to live
in the north, and I lived with the Yankees for so long I just got
messed up, and that's what it will do to ya.
That's a joke, but anyway--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not a joke. That's true.
MR. THOMPSON: It did. It got us so damned screwed up, I
don't know whether I'm going or coming.
And Bayshore Drive is a racetrack. And you need to do
something with this Texaco station. I told you about them parking all
over? He's got them back there again.
And I get so -- I'm having to go to the MRI a lot at nights and get
one shot, and then they give me another few minutes later to make
both of them work. And they keep me there for about three to six
hours.
This is getting so bad with me, I can't -- I can't take it. And I call
-- I'm going to be honest, I called Mrs. Arnold and I just about cussed
her out on the phone. You need to get to doing something.
And I don't know whether she told you or not, and I don't really
care, but I'm going to tell you like it is. Somehow or another she's
moved to the left and left me standing by myself, and she is the cause
of me coming here today because she come on this code enforcement
board in 1992, the 4th -- I think it was July -- no, December.
And when she got on there, she got in contact with Dale
Steinberg, which is -- he's -- I don't know what he is. And he just __
she got in contact with him, and the both of them got together, and
it's just contact all the time. She -- it's just all the time.
They send people out. And I've got more permits than -- you can
wallpaper this building with them.
And Mr. Coyle, you did a good thing today. Maybe you won't
ever do nothing else in life, but I appreciate you helping those people.
Page 237
March 14, 2006
But you said -- it was -- he said that only two people like that in
life. Well, me and my wife is in the same shape as these people. I
got where I don't pay no attention. If I want to build something, I go
sit down with Michelle Arnold and I tell her what I'm going to do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Kenny, you pretty close to --
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah, okay. You ought to be careful of who
you drink with, because that lady sure told on you a while ago, I'm
telling you.
But I thought sure you'd a tucked in to help that lady. She was
awful nice. Pretty lady, too, I tell you that.
So get the lights down for me, will you? I know you people got
the power and you can do it. This guy's just hateful and hardheaded.
He ain't going to listen.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much, Kenny.
MR. THOMPSON: The sheriffs department, you can't get them
to do nothing. Two hours -- you call up, and it's 10 hours later when
they get there. That's no damn lie. There's no lie about it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there anything we can do about
shielding those lights or making them shield those lights so they're
not shining in his yard?
MR. MUDD: We've tried, ma'am, and we're going to continue
to try.
MR. THOMPSON: There was the lights about that big around.
He crosses them over the house to make the house looked bigger.
Now he's got them shining right into our house. And I'll go home
now, he'll think I done something wrong to him again.
But, I don't know. I give the sheriff my guns, I just disown them.
I'll put them over there by you, Mr. Halas, maybe you won't like it.
Item #15
Page 238
March 14,2006
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to staff and
commission general communications.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll start off with the county
manager.
Do you have anything to add in our communications here?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the only thing I'd mention is that
next week, four of the commissioners are going up to our legislative
day in Tallahassee. And we'll leave on the 22nd, and our full day of
going to see our representatives is on the 23 rd of March.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Attorney, do you have
anything to bring before the board?
MR. WEIGEL: No, I don't think so. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll start off. Ijust want to give a
brief report of what was accomplished in Washington. County
Manager, myself, and Debby Wight, we went to Washington. And we
met the first day. We flew out on Wednesday morning, and about
seven in the morning, we had a lunch meeting with the Ferguson
group to discuss the strategy.
And as you know, the Board of County Commissioners, we had
eight items on the agenda that we felt were the most important items
to address to our legislative body up there in Washington.
We met 3:30 in the afternoon with Omar Franco. He's chief of
staff for Congressman Mario Diaz- Balart. And we discussed a
couple of items that pertain to Mario's district.
Of course the most important one was the -- hopefully that we'll
get the additional $2 million funding this year for the interchange
Page 239
March 14, 2006
justification report. And it looks very, very promising that we should
get that particular funding.
The other item of great concern was the park that's located in
South Immokalee. We asked that we have a funding of about -- I
think it was 950,000. And I don't think we're going to get all the
funding, but we are going to get some help in that area. So we're
looking to address that issue in the Immokalee area.
The -- then from there the next morning we had another briefing
with the -- with the people there that represent us, our lobbyists.
And then we went to the -- the area where there's an office by the
governor of Florida, and in this building is all of the governors'
representatives from all 48 states -- or 50 states.
And we met with Gerald McSwiggan, and he represents
Governor Bush. And basically what we did there is we made sure
that we brought forth all the transportation issues that we have here in
South Florida.
And one of the first questions they asked is, are these items that
we brought forth on the SIS, and we said, yes, they are. So I think
that -- and they were very much impressed about what we are -- some
of our thoughts and ideas for addressing issues in the future and
addressing transportation growth.
We also made sure that they had an understanding that the
county was putting forth a good sum of money in this bypass road of
2982. I believe it's $500,000, and that the State of Florida was also
going to come forth to address the study in regards to that bypass.
From there, we went to Brydon and Ross, who's the legislative
assistant for Senator Mel Martinez, and we basically stated our facts
that -- some of the items that we were interested in the transportation
issues that I just discussed.
And also we brought forth the interchange that's located at State
Road 84, 1-75, and 951. And thanks to Norm Feder, transportation
Page 240
March 14,2006
director, a picture's always worth a thousand words. And they were
able to get for us the actual outline of that, and we made sure that we
stated the fact that FDOT has already put about $10 million into this
study, and so -- that we were looking for about $5 million to buy the
right-of-way for people who are willing to sell. None of this would
be contested. And I think that Senator Mel Martinez's office was
impressed with that.
We also brought up the fact that we had some stormwater issues
in your district in regards to addressing stormwater needs in the Lely
area, and how it affected about 55,000 homeowners, and that -- we
also basically let them know that, again, we weren't looking for a free
handout.
This was a cost share by the county of about 41.8 million, and
that we were looking for some help from them in regards to
addressing some issues of canals and so on. So I think that that was
off to a positive start.
We also talked about some medical requirements that we need,
because we have a lot of doctors that give of their time for assisting
people who are not as fortunate as we are with medical insurance or
are underfunded by medical insurance, and that we wanted to get
some additional information or additional monies to address
infrastructure inside these -- inside these two units, one being Golden
Gate City, and I believe the other one is out in Immokalee, such as X-
ray equipment and so on.
And the doctors, how they provide medical treatment or assist
and care for people, they come forth with the suppliers of medicines
or pills. They use those as -- to build on their pharmacy, the free pills.
From there we went to Senator Bill Nelson, and we had a shared
time with Polk County, but I think we got our message across. We
only had 15 minutes with Senator Nelson before he left with another
staff, and we didn't let Polk County get a word in edgewise.
Page 241
March 14, 2006
And we basically told him what our concerns were as far as
transportation issues. And I believe he's going to help us along with
Senator Mel Martinez in regards to those areas.
The transportation issues are basically what we stated earlier
with the interchange at Everglades Boulevard, 1-75, and also the
interchange at 1-75, State Road 84, and 951.
From there, we went and visited Connie Mack, Congressman
Mack. And what we did there, again, is basically we impressed upon
him the items of concern. And again, one was the stormwater issue
and also the transportation needs at State Road 84, 75 and 951.
And I believe that between Congressman Mack and
Congressman Diaz- Balart, they're going to work to help us in regards
to getting funding to address our transportation issues.
So we'll just see how this all shakes out. There's no promises. As
the -- as they go through the budget process in Washington, I think
that we will get some funding, and I think it will payoff that we have
a lobbyist in Washington.
And I just want to say it was a pleasure. I wore out a pair of
shoes. We did an awful lot of walking in a short period of time.
Most of the time it was almost at a double-time pace.
But I think we covered our issues, and I think it was very
successful. So -- and I want to say that the lobbyists did their
homework, they made sure that everything was set up ahead of time.
They had -- basically did some briefing to our elected officials, but
there -- from there we took the ball and ran with it, and I think we
pretty much covered all the areas of concern that we needed to
address for the residents here in Collier County.
And I think that we have a commissioner also that went to
Tallahassee, and ifhe could enlighten us on his trip, I'd
appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My turn next?
Page 242
March 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You didn't tell us what you had
for dinner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we ended up paying for our own
dinner. We -- that was hard for our lobbyists to understand that we
said that we have a very tough ordinance and that we have to
basically pay on our own.
So what we did is County Manager Mudd actually picked the
bill up for the luncheon that we had, and we decided that that took
care of the lobbyist, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Henning was
being facetious when he asked you that question. I don't think he
wanted that kind of detail.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, Ijust want to make sure that we
were up front with everything.
So Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I learned that if things
don't pass in Tallahassee, that we can address it through a local
ordinance. We're talking about transportation concurrency.
In proportionate share, the ordinance stays here. It doesn't have
to be reviewed by the county, and we have some leeway to do that.
And I think Commissioner Coy Ie's trying to get a tougher
concurrency through the CIE is a good way to get what the citizens
want in Collier County, so I'm going to support him when that comes
up for a growth management plan amendment, and I think that deals
with all the concerns, transportation concerns, that we have.
I think it would probably, at that -- as soon as possible for us to,
with the assistance of the county attorney and the transportation staff,
is let's see if we feel comfortable enough through the local ordinances
and what we have to control to ask our legislators to pull certain
requests by Collier County Board of Commissioners.
Page 243
March 14,2006
Because what it's doing -- I'll tell you. I was with the governor,
with other legislators. Not our delegation. Our delegation is behind
us. But the proportionate fair share is not going to pass.
And, my perspective, it makes our legislators look not in the best
eyes of their colleagues because they feel that the proportionate fair
share is a good thing, whether that's true or not. I sat down with
Secretary Cohen. In that proportionate fair share ordinance that we
can write locally, we have a lot of latitude. We don't have to ask
Tallahassee for how we management growth in Collier County.
So anyway, that was kind of the gist of it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's very interesting. I
wish I could hear more. I'd love to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think -- I hope we could
in an upcoming meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sounds great.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Marla, you can just wave to me.
When are they going to begin that noise abatement over at
Caxambas?
MS. RAMSEY: Tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why not today?
MS. RAMSEY: We're already closed, I think.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Also I just wanted to
discuss with you. Somebody had told me -- I don't know. You
know, being that I heard from somebody else, and I don't know how
credible the source is, that in -- that it's becoming a popular thing to
developers to buy up golf courses or country clubs or amenities
within a community and sell them off or build something else.
Page 244
March 14, 2006
They said -- actually someone told me that it started about four
years ago up north. It's just spreading around down here. And I
thought, you know, we're seeing first-hand what could happen. And I
thought maybe -- maybe it would be time for us to discuss at some
point in time if there's any type of laws we can put in place or
limitations we can put in place that would prevent somebody from
coming into somebody else's community, I don't care whose it is, and
taking over their facilities, selling it off to be something that is
different than what these people bought to live around. And I didn't
know if that would even be something we could do.
I'd heard that they were putting that together in Lee County, as a
matter of fact. Did you hear that, David?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, yes and no. I'm aware that there's some
stirrings about that, but I don't know how far they've put it together.
And it may be that part of our effort will have to be a multi-pronged
approach, and that is, to put the people that live near or around
properties that are at risk, advise them or at least inform them that
they themselves need to also help themselves to get protective
mechanisms in place, because we're really talking about private
property, and there's only so much that legislation can do at the local
level.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd understood there were about
eight vulnerable golf courses -- I don't know that -- this is what I've
been told -- here, and they said that that can even spread a little bit
further into the country clubs that sit on those golf courses.
And so I thought, well, you know, I think we -- if we can do
something to help put something in place so that people can protect
themselves against greed, that would be a wonderful thing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we've also got the same issue with
waterfront property. We're losing more and more working marinas
Page 245
March 14,2006
throughout the whole state. And it was brought up today, the fact
that we've lost a number of marinas here in Collier County. And so
there's now --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And another one's about to go in
Goodland.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. And I can tell you that we're
going to have more and more pressure put on us as the Board of
County Commissioners because there's going to be more individuals
that are going to have to trailer the boat, which gets to be very
expenSIve.
And, of course, the areas that we drop boats are going to get
more difficult to accommodate all of the needs that we need here in
Collier County.
So we've got a lot of other issues that -- also in that same vein.
That was interesting to find out that the boat drop-off or the launch
site there on 951 cannot be expanded. I assume that's because of
DEP or the Corps.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But I think Marla is going
back and refiling because there are some provisions that maybe
weren't included in the first attempt that might be able to be included
in the next one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She doesn't give up easy.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we've got a concern for the
citizens.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I just want to personally
thank you and Mr. Mudd and Ms. Wight for going to Washington,
D.C., and taking time away from your family and your home.
And I really appreciate what this commission is doing to try to
move the Everglades Boulevard exchange forward. I do believe that
Page 246
March 14, 2006
even though an interchange normally takes like almost a generation
to complete, that we're going to set all sorts of speed records with
this.
But thank you so much for your support on that. It's so much
appreciated by --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Solid backup.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the people.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Solid backup.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it's just so much
appreciated by everyone that lives out in that area.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have two things, Mr. Chairman.
One pertains to the traffic light at Kings Way and Radio Road.
The residents have indicated that they are -- they are in the
process of setting up meetings with other communities to see if
there's anything that might happen with respect to traffic counts and
further utilization, but they've also come up with information which
seems to substantiate their claim that they paid for the light.
So all I'm asking is that rather than rushing ahead and pulling out
those poles right now, immediately, let's give them a little time to see
if they can come up with any definitive information that shows that
they, in fact, did pay for something there.
And the staff was told, I think, by the commissioners earlier that
they should remove the light by the end of February, I believe it was,
and that the staff has, in fact, removed the light heads. The lights are
not there. The poles continue.
And all I'm suggesting is that rather than take the chance of
doing something that we might have to redo at some point in the
future, that we at least take a little time to gather all the information
to make sure that we've touched all the bases, and then do whatever is
the proper thing to do at that point in time.
Page 247
March 14, 2006
And I'm just asking that we provide guidance to staff to give
them a little more time and see what happens.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any comment from transportation
director?
MR. FEDER: None necessary, just very quickly. We did
remove the heads. We purposely did not remove the rest of the signal
installation.
Weare of an understanding that by the 20th of this month, we
should get some more answers back from F oxfire and Moon Lake.
We did note to them that we need some level of urgency to get that so
that we can then do the studies during season. And so we're
expecting something after the 20th, and then we'll work accordingly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And is that okay? I mean,
do we have three nods for that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The other thing is, I would like to
comment on Commissioner Henning's observations about the growth
management bill. We've always understood that we have the
opportunity to write the proportionate share ordinance. The problem
is that what we're being forced to do is to try to navigate through a
mine field, rather than having the legislature and Department of
Community Affairs to give us a clear road map. It is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Welcome to government.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, no, but we shouldn't accept
that. You know, because what will happen -- and although you
feel confident when the legislators tell you that an issue is dead that
it's really dead, that's not really true.
Bennett's proposal is not dead. Bennett's proposal didn't make it
this time. It didn't make it in this particular committee. It can be
added at the next committee meeting, it can be added in the
Page 248
March 14,2006
conference committee meeting when they start working out
differences between the senate and the house bill. It can be added
next year. It can be added to another bill that is going through the
legislature.
What we're faced with is, in fact, a real conspiracy to eliminate
impact fees and consolidate growth management control at the state
level. And that's what they're doing, and everybody recognizes that.
The -- we have people who participated in writing that bill who
will tell you what it says and what it doesn't say, and they're, in fact,
wrong because it doesn't say that.
And we have a lot of very specific statements to use to exemplify
that point. The most telling, I think, was one recently by Nancy
Lanan which says, nobody, nobody has had the chance to think
through all the ramifications of this bill, and she's right, nobody has.
And all I'm suggesting to you is that we -- we be very careful that
we don't become so naive as to think there are people there that
would not try to take away our home rule rights, because there are
people there who would love to do that.
And I think that Mr. Bennett's changes are likely to surface. If
it's not him, it will be somebody else. We're going to be fighting this
for a long, long, long time.
We can't be confident of anything. We're going to have to take
very careful steps, try to do something. We'll find that they will
block our attempts to do it, and we'll have to find something else.
That's not the way it should work.
It is a -- it is a growth management bill. Then, blast it, it should
permit you to manage growth. End of story.
Now, with that, we constantly are having disagreement on the
commission about whether it's really a threat or it's not a threat. If it
does something bad or not, I don't know.
Page 249
March 14, 2006
Well, I don't think we're ever going to solve this because it
depends on who you listen to. And what I would suggest is the only
thing we've ever asked for is to let us get to transportation
concurrency. That's all we've ever asked of them. Just let us have --
let us be able to work through real transportation concurrency.
So what I would ask this board to consider so that we don't have
to argue about this anymore and that we can at least develop a united
front in what we do, I would suggest we put this to the voters. Do
you want roads built before development is approved? Yes or no?
That's all we've ever asked.
And I would -- I would ask this commission to approve putting
that on the ballot in November, and that way we get a very--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd back you up, second that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We could do that. We can
accomplish that, Commissioner. We don't have to ask the voters.
We can do what you suggested, take out the two-year construction
out of our CIE for transportation, and you get that, but continue
building the roads.
You get at the place. You don't have to ask the voters. You
already know what the answer is going to be. And we can do that
and I support you on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then let's do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's do it, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Get going.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think it's good that
legislators in Tallahassee know what the voters say about that
question here, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Why -- I mean, that's
common sense. I don't know of anybody that -- anybody that doesn't
want a better transportation network, raise your hand, you know? I
Page 250
March 14, 2006
mean, everybody wants that, but --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the legislators don't want that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the legislators recognize
they have 67 counties in the State of Florida, and they recognize
that the only one that has a beef with the growth management plan
or growth management bill is Collier County.
Let's take our own destination instead of relying on somebody
else. I think that we have the tools. Let's go down that road, try to
utilize those tools to get where you want.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because the reason is, they'll start
cutting off those avenues. Once they find that you're going to be able
to circumvent something that they've put in that legislation, they will
start trying to cut it off, just like Bennett did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Bennett took a shot at you
for your comments instead of sitting down with your delegation. It's
been in the media.
So that -- if you take a look at his stuff that he put in his bill, it
doesn't even belong in that bill.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So? People do that -- legislators
do that all the time. They put stuff in a bill that doesn't belong there
so it will get passed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So it will get passed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As far as that particular issue
coming up this year, it already went through a committee without it
being in there, so it would have to go back to that committee to be
heard, or it would have to be an add-on on the floor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or it would have to be an add-on in
another committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Add-on -- it would have to be
brought up on the floor and debated, so --
Page 251
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And come up during the
conference committee, if there's a disagreement between the Senate
and the House. There are ample opportunities to sneak those things
In.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not taking any shots at
other elected officials when I know that I have opportunities to fix
my concerns in my own house. I will not participate in this constant
back and forth through the media. It does nobody any good. And if
the issue is about concurrency or local control, take control of your
own destination instead of asking somebody else.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm going to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- will be happy for you to
enlighten us about how you're going to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the first thing is the CIE.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Well, yes. It's the first thing.
We've already agreed on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We've already agreed on
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The second thing, you have a
concern about the proportionate fair share.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. We can write an
ordinance that stays here locally as long as it doesn't -- or it fits the
-- well, there is no guidelines in the statutes. As long as it doesn't go
against the state statutes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or as long as it doesn't offend one
of the lobbyists who has a great influence over those state legislators.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Local ordinance stays here. It
Page 252
March 14, 2006
doesn't have to be approved by the legislators, doesn't have to be
approved by any of the departments in Tallahassee. It stays here, by
a supermajority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll tell you -- and it won't do any
good. I'll tell you you're wrong. But --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- I'm going to let you try, and I'm
going to let you see that. But I'm going to still push for the
referendum for people to tell us that they want roads before we
approve development, end of story.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll be out there saying that
we are -- we have the ability to do that before you can even vote on
it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I want you to show us that
we can do it. I want you to turn down the next developments before
we have roads, okay? I want you voting against those developments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And again, as you do it
through the CIE. And, Commissioner, I don't want to get in an
adversarial relationship with you, and I see the discussion is going
there, so I'm going to end it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just have one question to ask you,
Commissioner Henning. You made a statement that no other
counties of the 67, other than Collier, have any real concerns in
regards to the growth management issue. Why is that? Why do you
think that's so, that we're the only ones that are concerned about it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know. I'm not going to
comment on that. That came from one of the FAC staffmembers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because we went through the scenario
last summer with F AC, there seemed to be a lot of concerns in
regards to issues with the school boards and requirements there and
how they were going to interface with other county commissioners in
Page 253
March 14,2006
regards to addressing growth and getting their house in order.
And so I'm concerned because I think there are some other
underlying facts that other counties are concerned with. And it seems
to me that, as we went through the process now, maybe they've got
some additional information that we don't have because I think that
we have some real concerns of proportionate share, and you just
stated that you thought that that was going to be a dead issue. And I
find that hard to believe, because I think that's one of the things that
the developers wanted really bad.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's going to be difficult for
them to turn that down. Maybe I'm wrong.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's understand proportionate
fair share, and I'm not the one to explain it to you. I think our staff
can, you know, pick somebody to tell us about proportionate fair
share. The -- Nancy Lanan, I understand, Commissioner Coletta's
going to forward some tapes over to -- which I haven't heard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. Can I comment
after?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I guess we don't want to
trust anybody in Tallahassee to explain it to us. But F AC, somebody
in F AC can tell us. Mason Palmer, he's a little knowledgeable about
that. But anyways.
I think the other communities have concerns about it because you
have to have schools in place before the development. It's just the
opposite. In our concern, we want to have capital improvements in
place.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Roads.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I can?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me finish up. I had a question
Page 254
March 14,2006
going here. Are there three nods to give the staff guidance to proceed
with a referendum question about--
MR. MUDD: There was a motion that you basically made, and
seconded by Commissioner Fiala. So you've got a motion and a
second on the floor. We've got to come to some kind of --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got some more discussion before
we
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so. With that
discussion with Nancy Lanan, if you could come up, Mr. Schmitt.
Joe Schmitt, would you come up, please.
She agreed with your position about the fact that the way to get
around this whole thing was how you schedule your roads and bring
them to contract.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can be very proud of the
fact that you were ahead of the curve on that one. She did bring up
some situations there that we have to be able to work around to be
able to deal with that.
Joe, what was that exactly you were going back to her about the
disagreement between?
MR. SCHMITT: The guidance --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The guidance.
MR. SCHMITT: -- that she told us. Number one, we could
keep the two-year window, but we still had to operate under -- and
we had to bring back a prop. share, which basically, if they pay the
prop. share, negates the two-year window for concurrency, as
Commissioner Coyle -- his basic premise is.
Page 255
March 14, 2006
I then asked her -- she said, you can get around the rule if you
use the two-year window on the CIE but then withdraw the funding.
And then, therefore, you take away an opportunity for prop. share.
And I said, yes, I understand that, but that doesn't make sense
because 360 requires a fiscally feasible plan. And she said, well,
that's a good question. She didn't know the answer to that.
So I said, how can we have a fiscally feasible plan if you remove
money from the funding program? And we can move it out past the
two-year window, which is what we're doing in the CIE. There's no
problem with that.
And moving in the window when, in fact -- and Norman
certainly can explain -- when, in fact, we have either a contract,
signed, sealed contract or actually guys out pushing dirt.
But she said we could withdraw money and actually create
almost a glitch or whatever ruling, which would allow us not to then _
- which would prevent an opportunity for pay and go, or prop. share.
And I said, that doesn't make sense. I've got to have a fiscally
feasible plan and I've got to present that every year to DCA as part of
the CIE. And we haven't gotten -- I have not gotten an answer back
from her on that -- on that when I tried to stump her.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's where they're going to
tag you, because if they don't think your plan is fiscally feasible
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- they're going to send it back, and
that's where they've got their hooks into you.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So whatever you do with
proportionate share, they're going to kill you with the CIE and your
five-year plan. And if they believe that you're withholding stuff
Page 256
March 14,2006
artificially just to try to get to concurrency, they're going to jump all
over us, and they're going to change the law, and we're going to be
right back in the same box we were in before.
MR. SCHMITT: And understand that the CIE is part of the
annual submittals, of course it's part of a GMP amendment, which
go through transmittal and adoption, and just as Commissioner Coyle
just mentioned, if they're -- anybody perceives we're playing games
with -- they're going to file an appeal.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what I said earlier about sets of
books.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All kinds of lawsuits.
MR. SCHMITT: So our only option right now for
Commissioner -- what Commissioner Henning has stated, our only
option, if everything goes as planned, certainly, we're going to live
with 360, our only option is to figure out how we develop a prop.
share ordinance that gets the -- certainly puts it back in our court.
And we're still wrestling with that. And I'm looking at Norman
because I know he's struggling with that. That's kind of his -- that's
in his camp.
MR. MUDD: And we'll work on that prop. share ordinance that
we've got to have done before December of 2006, and we're working
on that right now.
The thing about the prop. share ordinance from what we've
learned is, you cannot only make a fee or a criteria for future growth
issues, like you do for an impact fee, can only be used for growth, but
you also get back at past sins, and you can make them pay for past
sins in that particular prop. share. So we can make it onerous, but,
you know, it's going to be challenged, I believe.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you see, the point is, we can
do that right now, and we just did it down at 41 and 951. That's
a developer agreement. And we can do that without proportionate
Page 257
March 14, 2006
share, and we can do it better without proportionate share, quite
frankly.
What proportionate share does is give them -- once you
negotiate it with them, it gives them the right to go, end of story.
And there are going to be some restrictions on what you can put in
there and -- whereas a development agreement, we can hold up the
development until such time as it's done. But, you
know, we've debated this before. We're not going to change their
minds.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Any way we can get there, we
should do it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know what good it's
going to do to take it to the voters. We know what the will of the
voters are. It's already there. How's that going to change what we
can do?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because I really don't believe that
you'll get there using the methods that the people in Tallahassee are
telling you to use. You cannot get there that way.
And I think it can serve a purpose by supporting our position that
if concurrency -- road transportation concurrency is a no-brainer and
if it's something that everybody wants, why isn't it something that our
legislators want and why can't they put it in the damned legislation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So this is direct towards
Tallahassee?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's directed toward anybody to get
our concurrency rights in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, wouldn't it also, by having a
vote, it would send a strong message to Tallahassee, send a strong
message to the development community that this is the way we're
Page 258
March 14, 2006
going, period, whereas -- and it can't be broken because the voters
have spoken, and that's why I'm seconding your motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Can we have a vote?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. You know, we're one
county
standing alone. Are you planning on trying to grow this to the whole
state?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it would be a wonderful
thing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, seriously. We're going--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it would be a wonderful
thing, seriously.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about a state initiative on a
state ballot?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that would be wonderful,
too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, think about that way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, because I hate to
spin my wheels and not go anyplace.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's not spinning wheels.
You're just giving voters a chance to express their -- you always say
that you like to hear the -- listen to the people, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a state issue really. It would
be great if --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a Collier County issue to me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any direction from the county attorney
on what we've got on the floor here, the direction that we're going?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think the direction you have is clear
Page 259
March 14, 2006
enough. And in regard to the question of growing it state-wide, is
conceivably you could get other counties to do the same thing, to
have a -- potentially have referenda in the time that's available to put
it on the November ballot or September ballot, probably November
ballot.
So it's conceivable that it could grow in other places and have the
same kind of value that it would here, that it's just a -- potentially a
restatement of what we already know.
The question of getting signatures for a state ballot, that's a big
thing. That's a little different. You might want to talk to F AC about
that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My concerns are similar to -- on the
same thin line as what Commissioner Coyle -- or Commissioner
Coletta has. We're sure that the voters are going to tell us, yes, we
want to make sure that the roads are in place, but what does that do
for us as far as being able to come up with the legislation to offset the
rules and regulations that may be set forth in Tallahassee?
MR. WEIGEL: It's just a local sentiment. It's not a binding
referendum.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It gets the voters behind us in that
objective, and it let's people know that it's more than just two or three
commissioners who want this. It's a majority of people in Collier
County who want it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's a stronger statement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, it makes it a lot
stronger statement. And particularly since the commissioners are
always squabbling about it. You know, we don't have a consistency
of thought on this issue here. We say we want roads before
development, but when you start talking about, well, how are we
going to get there, you know, we're all over the place, you know.
Page 260
March 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. One more comment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, one more time. And I hear
where you're coming from. And, you know, you're absolutely
correct. I just want to know we can get there. I don't want to do
something that's just going to feel good. I'd like to hear a report back
from our staff to be able to talk to Florida Association of Counties to
see what's possible and what's doable, to come back and see if it's
something we wanted to do on a statewide effort. It would actually
be helping our own legislative people.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would, it would.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, not going at it that we're
trying to take the feet from underneath them. We're trying to do
something that will enable them to be able to do what they want to do
for Collier County, reaching out at the state level.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a very good point. The
point is right now it's just us trying to get our state legislator -- our
Southwest Florida legislators to do something for us, and they're
going to fail because they don't have support from others.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got it. There you are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so if we can get other counties
to have similar referenda, then maybe they'll get some support from
these other counties --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- so it will help our delegation.
So -- and if we don't win it this time, it will help us win it next time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why not shoot for the whole
enchilada and go for the state right now?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, because I don't think we can
get it done that quickly, but --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We don't know that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But -- well, we shouldn't up -- hold
Page 261
March 14, 2006
up our efforts to do it while we're trying to get other --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we do it dual?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely. I'd love to do that,
yeah. I'd love to do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's the motion?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And the motion--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm going to modified the
motion slightly. I'm going to say that the motion is to give staff
guidance to come up with a referendum question that essentially says
to the people, do you want to see transportation -- roads available,
road capacity available before development is approved, and then I
am going to add Commissioner Coletta's suggestion that we begin to
work through F AC to try to get other counties --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Legislators.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and their legislators, and to get
other counties interested in doing the same thing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, let me just ask, when you said
road capacity, you said road capacity, not roads built this time.
Before you said roads built.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if you add a lane to a road,
I'm not sure you're talking about a road built, or if you're
improving an intersection or you're improving a turn lane or you're
doing something to improve capacity.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In other words, road capacity in
places before development --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before development, that's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- can be in? I just wanted to
clarify that.
Page 262
March 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. The second agrees.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Second agrees, okay.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 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: (Absent).
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's unanimous, four -- we have four
commissioners, and it's four.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 4-1 -- 4-0.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 4-0.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have nothing further, Mr.
Chair.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank God.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, wait. I have one thing to say.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're adjourned.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In case my cousin is watching -- my
cousin and his wife flew in from Atlanta today -- I can't come
home for dinner because now I have to go to Canvassing Board, but
welcome, George and Glenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've been using that excuse for
the Canvassing Board all day today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We are adjourned.
Page 263
March 14,2006
***** 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 #16Al
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY MULTI PURPOSE FACILITY
AT THE VINEYARDS - W/RELEASE OF UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "REFLECTION LAKES
AT NAPLES PHASE 3H", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "REFLECTION LAKES
AT NAPLES PHASE 31", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A4
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "BRISTOL PINES
Page 264
March 14, 2006
PHASE I, TRACT "X-I", TRACT "R" AND TRACT "R-l",
REPLA T"
Item #16A5
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "COPPER COVE
PRESERVE", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item # 16A6 - Continued Indefinitely
RECOMMENDA TION TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF OLDE CYPRESS, UNIT ONE. THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 2006-50: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "OLDE CYPRESS, UNIT THREE".
THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A8
Page 265
March 14, 2006
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "REFLECTION LAKES
AT NAPLES PHASE 3J", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A9
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "REFLECTION LAKES
AT NAPLES PHASE 3K", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16AI0
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "REFLECTION LAKES
AT NAPLES PHASE 3G", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16Al1
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SUBMIT A
GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF INVASIVE
PLANT MANAGEMENT (BIPM) FOR CONTRACTOR
SERVICES TO FUND INVASIVE EXOTIC VEGETATION
REMOVAL ON THE CONSERVATION COLLIER W A TKINS-
Page 266
March 14,2006
JONES PROPERTY ($21,000) - TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE
WETLANDS AND ENDANGERED WILDLIFE SPECIES
Item #16A12
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SUBMIT A
GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF INVASIVE
PLANT MANAGEMENT (BIPM) FOR CONTRACTOR
SERVICES TO FUND INVASIVE EXOTIC VEGETATION
REMOVAL ON THE CONSERVATION COLLIER MCINTOSH
PROPERTY ($50,000) - TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE
WETLANDS AND ENDANGERED WILDLIFE SPECIES
Item #16A13
IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT REQUESTED BY PJM
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, LLLP TOTALING $212,114.56 DUE
TO THE APPROVAL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMP ACT
FEE DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A14
CONTRACT AMENDMENT, TO CONTRACT NUMBER 04-3682
"CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR IMPACT FEE STUDIES - LAW
ENFORCEMENT" WITH TINDALE-OLIVER AND
ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,900
TO PROVIDE FOR REQUIRED UPDATES TO THE COST AND
CREDIT COMPONENTS OF THE IMPACT FEE STUDY
Page 267
March 14, 2006
Item #16A15
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CPOC REALTY, LLC FOR OFFICE
SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE HOUSING AND GRANTS
SECTION OF THE OPERATIONS SUPPORT AND HOUSING
DEPARTMENT AT A FIRST YEAR'S ANNUAL COST FOR
RENT AND COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE FEES OF
$70~957.76 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A16
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2006-03: PETITION CARNY-06-AR-9211,
PEG RUBY, MARKETING/SPECIAL EVENTS COORDINATOR,
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT THE
ANNUAL EAGLE LAKES COMMUNITY PARKS SPRING FEST
ON MARCH 30 THROUGH APRIL 2,2006, AT THE EAGLE
LAKES COMMUNITY PARK LOCATED AT 11565 T AMIAMI
TRAIL EAST - W/W AIVING OF THE SURETY BOND
Item #16A17
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2006-04: PETITION CARNY-06-AR-9285,
ELLEN BARKIN, COMMUNITY CENTER SUPERVISOR,
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT THE
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY FESTIVAL ON MARCH 23
THROUGH MARCH 26, 2006, AT THE GOLDEN GATE
COMMUNITY CENTER, LOCATED AT 4701 GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY - W/WAIVING OF THE SURETY BOND
Page 268
Item #16A18
March 14, 2006
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR CANTERBURY FACILITY - AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY
AT THE VINEYARDS - W/RELEASE OF UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A19
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR QUAIL WEST PHASE 3 UNIT 4-
W/REDUCTION OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A20
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUARRY PHASE 2",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1
BID #05-3899, "LIVINGSTON ROADWAY LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE CONTRACT", TO KENT TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. ($86,000) - TO PROVIDE SERVICES AND MATERIALS
NECESSARY TO REPAIR, MAINTAIN AND INSTALL
ROADW A Y LIGHTING
Item #16B2
Page 269
March 14, 2006
AN AGREEMENT TO CONSTRUCT A SOUND ATTENUATION
WALL AND AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE OF
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS NECESSARY
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUND ATTENUATION WALL
AS PART OF THE FOUR-LANE EXPANSION OF COUNTY
BARN ROAD FROM RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD TO
DAVIS BOULEVARD. (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT
NO. 33, PROJECT NO. 60101). ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT:
$340,000.00, WHICH WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE COST OF
CONSTRUCTION WHICH WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE
BOARD AS PART OF THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE
BID AWARD
Item # 16B3
CONVEYANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY VIA QUITCLAIM DEED
WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
AT DAVIS BOULEVARD AND LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD,
PROJECT NUMBER 60016 (FISCAL IMPACT: $527.00)
Item #16B4
ADOPT-A-ROAD AGREEMENT (1) FOR THE FOLLOWING:
REMEMBRANCE OF CARMEN SARMIENTO - AT NO COST
TO THE COUNTY BECAUSE OF ALREADY EXISTING SIGNS
Item #16B5 - Continued to April 25, 2006 BCC Meeting
NEW STAFF SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND THE COLLIER
Page 270
March 14, 2006
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B6
SOLE-SOURCE PURCHASE OF "CARTEGRAPH" COMPUTER
SOFTWARE LICENSES AND IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES
FOR ASSET MANAGEMENT FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
DEPARTMENT. FISCAL IMPACT: $93,100.00 - TO BETTER
UTILIZE THEIR EXISTING ASSET/WORK MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM FOR SIGNS, SIGNALS, LIGHTING, SIGNAL
CONTROLLERS AND OTHERS ASSETS
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2006-51: CHAIRMAN TO SIGN (1) A
LANDSCAPING INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE
HIGHWAY AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEP ARMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FOR MEDIAN AND
ROADSIDE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG US 41
NORTH, BETWEEN IMMOKALEE ROAD AND WIGGINS PASS
ROAD; AND (2) A FDOT-REQUIRED RESOLUTION
EVIDENCING THAT THE BOARD HAS APPROVED AND
AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THIS AGREEMENT
Item #16Cl
RESOLUTION 2006-52: TO APPROVE THE SATISFACTIONS
OF LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
Page 271
March 14, 2006
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $30.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 2006-53: TO APPROVE THE SATISFACTIONS
OF LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $30.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item #16C3
RESOLUTION 2006-54: TO APPROVE THE SATISFACTIONS
OF LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $50.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2006-55: TO APPROVE THE SATISFACTIONS
OF LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID
Page 272
March 14, 2006
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $110.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item # 16C5
RESOLUTION 2006-56: TO APPROVE THE SATISFACTIONS
OF LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY AHS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $90.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item #16C6
RESOLUTION 2006-57: TO APPROVE THE SATISFACTIONS
OF LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $120.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item #16C7
CHANGE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $77,768.52 TO
CONTRACT 04-3680 WITH BELAIR BUILDERS, INC. FOR
INSTALLATION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR-
951 )/V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD (CR-862) 16" FORCE MAIN,
PROJECT NUMBERS 73085 AND 73086 - TO PROVIDE
Page 273
March 14, 2006
WASTEWATER COLLECTION FACILITIES TO MEET
DEMAND IN THE NORTHERN REGION OF THE COUNTY
Item #16Dl
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE TO ACQUIRE A
RESIDENTIAL LOT FOR EXPANSION OF THE COUNTY'S
BA YVIEW PARK AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $252,700,
PROJECT 800601 - TO PROVIDE BEACH AND BOAT ACCESS
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE COMMUNITY
Item #16D2
RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL REVENUE AND APPROVE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR AN ADDITIOANL $19,592
AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE AID TO LIBRARY PROGRAM
FOR COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY - TO IMPROVE
LIBRARY SERVICES WITHIN THE STATE
Item #16D3
GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
STATE, DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION
SERVICES FOR $9,980 FOR "ASSISTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR
VISION & HEARING IMPAIRED PATRONS" - TO IMPROVE
THE LEVEL OF LIBRARY SERVICE PROVIDED TO ITS
PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED
Item #16D4 - Moved to Item #10F
Item #16E1
Page 274
March 14, 2006
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS - TO COVER THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 20,
2006 THROUGH FEBRUARY 17~ 2006
Item #16E2
BID NO. 06-3943, EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS & DRUG
TESTING TO ANCHOR HEALTH CENTERS, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $35,000 - FOR POST OFFER JOB CANDIDATES
AND ACTIVE EMPLOYEES
Item #16E3
RESOLUTION 2006-58: LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SENATOR
MEL MARTINEZ FOR USE OF OFFICE SPACE AT THE
GOVERNMENT CENTER FOR AN ANNUAL RENT OF $4,248 -
COMMENCING ON APRIL 1,2006 AND TERMINATING ON
JANUARY 2~ 2008
Item #16Fl
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - FUNDS ARE NEEDED FOR MINOR
OFFICE EQUIPMENT COSTS AND INCREASED COSTS IN
WATER/SEWER AND ELECTRICITY
Item #16F2
FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES MATCHING
GRANT APPLICATION AND GRANT DISTRIBUTION FORM
Page 275
March 14,2006
FOR THE POWER COTS PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF
$293,384.00 - TO PROVIDE EQUIPMENT (31 POWER COTS)
THAT ARE PROPERLY DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONAL FOR
THE TASK OF MOVING PATIENTS/VICTIMS
Item # 16F3
FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES MATCHING
GRANT APPLICATION AND GRANT DISTRIBUTION FORM
FOR THE STAIR CHAIR PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF
$64,948.10 - TO PROVIDE EQUIPMENT (31 STAIR CHAIRS)
THAT ARE PROPERTY DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONAL FOR
THE TASK OF MOVING PATIENTS/VICTIMS
Item # 16G 1- Continued Indefinitely
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CREATION OF ONE
0.5 FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) EMPLOYEE FOR THE
MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
Item #16Hl
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
HALAS TO ATTEND THE GULF CITRUS BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES KICKOFF EVENT ON
FEBRUARY 1,2006 AT A DUDA & SONS, STATE ROAD 29, IN
HENDRY COUNTY; $10.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HALAS ' TRAVEL BUDGET - SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Item #1611
Page 276
March 14, 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 277
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
MARCH 14, 2006
1. 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) February 4, 2006 through February 10, 2006.
(2) February 11, 2006 through February 17, 2006.
(3) February 16, 2006 through February 24, 2006.
B. Districts:
(1) Port of the Islands Community Improvement District: Minutes
of December 16, 2005; Agenda for December 16, 2005.
C. Minutes:
(1) Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes
of Special Meeting on January 26, 2006; Minutes of February 8,
2006; Agenda of February 8, 2006.
(2) Collier County Planninq Commission: Agenda of February 16,
2006; Minutes of December 15, 2005; Cancellation Notice of..
March 2,2006 Meeting; Agenda for New Member Orientation of
March 2, 2006.
(3) Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board: Agenda of
February 15, 2006; Minutes of January 18, 2006.
(4) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Agenda of February 13,
2006; Minutes of January 17, 2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\3.14.06 Misc.
Corresp.doc
(5) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Agenda and Minutes of
February 6, 2006; Agenda and Minutes of Special Meeting on
February 8, 2006; Agenda and Minutes of February 15, 2006;
(6) Pelican Bay Services Division: Agenda of March 1, 2006;
Minutes of February 1, 2006;
(a) Budaet Sub-Committee: Agenda of February 15, 2006;
Agenda and Minutes of September 21, 2005; Minutes of
February 15, 2006.
(7) Environmental Advisory Council: Agenda of March 1,2006;
Minutes of February 1, 2006.
(8) Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of
November 15, 2005; Minutes of January 17, 2006.
(9) Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of
March 2, 2006; Minutes of February 2, 2006.
(10) Collier County Productivity Committee: Agenda and Minutes of
January 18, 2006.
(a) Operational. Efficiency and Effectiveness Subcommittee:
Minutes of October 13, 2005.
(11) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of January
26, 2006.
(12) Forest Lakes MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of March 8,
2006; Minutes of February 8, 2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\3.14.06 Misc.
Corresp.doc
---'-""'""---_.........-.,-_.~
March 14, 2006
Item #16Jl
DOCUMENT FOR TENTH YEAR STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SCAAP) GRANT FUNDS - TO
COVER THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INCARCERATION
OF ALIENS
Item #16J2 - Moved to Item #13A
Item #16Kl
OFFER OF JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,000.00 AS TO
PARCELS 124 AND 724 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. RICHARD D. LYONS AS TRUSTEE OF LAND TRUST
NO. 11304, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-3779-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD
PROJECT NO. 66042). (FISCAL IMPACT $2~800.00)
Item #16K2
EXTENSION OF TIME TO CONCLUDE F.S. CHAPTER 164
PROCEEDINGS AND APPROVE STIPULATION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME IN REFERENCE TO THE INVERSE
CONDEMNATION LAWSUIT OF BERNARD J. AND HELEN R.
NOBEL, AND VINCENT D. DOERR VS. COLLIER COUNTY, IN
CASE NO. 05-0064-CA FOR FURTHER ATTEMPTS BY THE
STAFFS OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF LANDS,
AND THE COUNTY TO REACH AN AGREEMENT IN THE
MATTER - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item#17A
Page 278
March 14,2006
RESOLUTION 2006-59: PETITION SNR-2005-AR-8899, BY
BEAZER HOMES, REPRESENTED BY SCOTT OSMOND,
REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM INLET COVE
COURT TO BLOSSOM COURT FOR PROPERTY IN VALENCIA
LAKES PHASE 7-A, LOCATED WITHIN SECTIONS 22 AND 23,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH~ RANGE 27 EAST
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:40 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
_S:;:'"~-:2e /
FRANK HALAS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT"E'.~ROCK, CLERK
BY~. W", .'~."';Q.. .......~........'.'.:....... {J~
. .' l
~ asw.. ,,.. t
t1~.Ml"
~ .~ .j' r.-. ; \ II' J
'. ,.' .'''/ "" .. I' ",'
These minutes approved by the Board on
Yc::L\ - ~lo or as corrected
--
, as presented
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 279
__........"... ...~.......,_'"'.","',...._,._..~ """'_-"_"'_""~'__'o>,".",,,.<_,_,___"'.'"'M''''''''''' "~-'~'--'"~"~.'...,.-'