BCC Minutes 03/28/2006 R
March 28, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, March 28, 2006
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas
Jim Coletta
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ti"^
'~"',
^"
-<,..-. \
~-
'."'..,....-.,."'"
AGENDA
March 28, 2006
9:00 AM
Frank Halas, Chairman, District 2
Jim Coletta, Vice-Chairman, District 5
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
March 28, 2006
Page 1
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Associate Pastor David Swicegood, Marco Presbyterian Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. February 28,2006 - BCC/Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) Gregory Tavernier, Water Department
B. 25 Year Attendees
1) Nery Anderson, Building Review and Permitting
2) Timothy Billings, CDES Graphics Department
4. PROCLAMATIONS
March 28, 2006
Page 2
A. Proclamation designating April as being Water Conservation Month. To be
accepted by Paul Mattausch, Water Department Director.
B. Proclamation proclaiming April 19, 2006 as Distinguished Public Services
Awards Day. To be accepted by Patrick O'Connor.
C. Proclamation proclaiming March 28, 2006 as Lely High School Mock Trial
Team Day. To be accepted by Mr. Rick Bruno, teacher at Lely High School.
D. Proclamation designating March 28, 2006 as The Barron Collier High
School Girls Basketball Championship Day. To be accepted by: Coach Mike
Hamburger
E. Proclamation designating the week of May 5-9,2006 as Battle of Coral Sea
Week, a 1942 World War II battle. To be accepted by Dr. William Roy.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Renee Finsterwalder, Compensation Analyst,
Human Resources Department, as Employee of the Month for March 2006.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Sal Soldano to discuss relief of liens and/or
payment interest on property received from a Collier County Tax Certificate
Sale.
B. Public Petition request by Steve Kirk to discuss proposed affordable housing
development "The Reserve at Eden Gardens".
C. Public Petition request by Sharon 1. VanSlyke to discuss flooding in Quail
Hollow.
Item 7 and 8 to he heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. SE-2006-AR-9097, Scriveners Error Petition to correct the legal description
that replaces and supersedes Resolution No. 2005-432, which granted an
after-the-fact variance for a 5.3-foot encroachment into the required ten (10)
March 28, 2006
Page 3
foot rear yard (accessory) setback, on a waterfront lot at 175 Bayview
A venue.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. V A-2005-AR-8693;
Eberhard Thiermann, represented by Richard D. Yovanovich, ofGoodlette,
Coleman, & Johnson, P.A., is requesting a variance from the required 10-
foot rear setback for a screen enclosure of 3.2 feet in the RSF-3 zoning
district. The subject property is located at 117 Channel Drive, in Section 29,
Township, 48, Range 25, Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This amendment of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) Rating
System is continued from the February 28, 2006 public hearing ofLDC
Amendment 2005 Cycle 2. The Board directed that staff provide data to
support the requested increase in bonus unit awards across the levels of
affordable housing income provided for in section 2.06.03 Table A.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Affordable Housing Commission.
B. Appointment of member to the County Government Productivity
Committee.
c. Discussion by the Board of County Commissioners to direct County
Attorney staff to draft a resolution to allow a Commissioner to request
investigation of County business by the Clerk of Courts. (Commissioner
Henning)
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: Historical and
Archaeological Preservation Board, Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force,
Land Acquisition Advisory Committee and Public Vehicle Advisory
Committee. (Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager)
March 28, 2006
Page 4
B. Recommendation to approve amendment number four (4) for a Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP) of$I,716,800 under Contract No. 04-3576,
Construction Manager at Risk Services for Courthouse Annex and Parking
Garage, with Kraft Construction Company, Inc. for the construction of the
Courthouse fourth floor renovations, project number 52004. (Len Price,
Administrator, Administrative Services)
c. Recommendation to adopt a superseding resolution authorizing
condemnation of fee simple interests for the proposed right-of-way and/or
stormwater retention and treatment pond sites, as well as perpetual, non-
exclusive road right-of-way, drainage and utility easements, temporary
construction easements and temporary driveway restoration easements,
which will be required for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility
improvements to Santa Barbara Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to Pine
Ridge Road. (Project No. 62081) (Estimated fiscal impact: $14,180,000)
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
D. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or
purchase of fee simple interests and/or those perpetual or temporary
easement interests necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and
utility improvements required for the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard
from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock Road. (Capital
Improvement Element No. 32, Project No. 60091). Estimated fiscal impact:
$10,918,000. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
E. Report to the Board on a request from the Collier County Housing
Development Corporation that the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County donate the residential portion of the Bembridge PUD to be
used for Affordable-Workforce Housing (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development and Environmental Services Division)
F. Recommendation to approve four Fringe Benefit Program initiatives for
non-bargaining unit employees in order to combat turnover and to improve
the recruitment and retention of employees. (Len Price, Administrator,
Administrative Services)
G. Recommendation that the Board authorize the advertisement of a public
hearing in regard to increasing Collier Area Transit (CAT) bus fares to be
scheduled on May 23,2006. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
March 28, 2006
Page 5
Services)
H. Recommendation to award Contract 06-3924 to Douglas N. Higgins Inc., in
the amount of $4,369,400, for the construction of a Reclaimed Water
Aquifer Storage and Recovery System, approve Work Order HDR-FT-3785-
06 under Contract 05-3785 with HDR, Inc. for construction engineering
inspection services, in the amount of $167,800, and approve the necessary
budget amendment for Project 74030. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public
Utilities)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item was continued from the J anuarv 24. 2006 BCC Meetin2 and
was further continued from the Februarv 14. 2006 BCC Meetin2 to the
March 28. 2006 BCC Meetin2. Recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt a Resolution Superseding Resolution No. 94-136, and
providing guidelines for consideration of applicants for appointment to
Advisory Boards.
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
mediated settlement providing for the purchase of the remainder property,
full compensation for the acquisition of Parcel 178, and attorneys fees in the
case styled Collier County v. Teodoro Gimenez, et aI., Case No. 04-0561-
CA (Vanderbilt Beach Road Project #63051). (Total Fiscal Impact:
$1,534,876)
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Presentation of the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2005. A
copy of the 2005 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report has been given to
each Commissioner. A copy is available for viewing at the Clerk of the
Circuit Court's Finance and Accounting Office.
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
March 28, 2006
Page 6
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Pine Air
Lakes Unit Six.
2) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Caldecott,
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
3) Recommendation to award RFP #05-3888 Development of a Final
Management Plan for the Railhead Scrub Preserve, a Conservation
Collier property, and a template for a Final Management Plan that can
be applied to all Conservation Collier Preserves, at a cost of $38,821
to URS Corporation Southern.
4) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Banyan Woods The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
5) CARNY-06-AR-9339, Duane Wheeler, Carnival Co-Chairman,
Rotary Club of Immokalee, requesting a permit to conduct a carnival
on April 3rd through April 6, 2006, in the Immokalee Regional
Airport located at 165 Airport Boulevard.
6) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution opposing enactment into law
proposed Florida House Bill 1199 relating to Cable Television and
video programming services, removing all local cable television
franchise authority and provisions to grant or renew any cable
television franchise certificates.
March 28,2006
Page 7
7) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution opposing enactment into law
proposed Florida Senate Bill 1984 relating to Cable Television and
video programming services, prohibiting the requiring of in-kind
contributions from cable television franchises, to include supporting
the use or construction of public, educational or government (PEG)
access facilities.
8) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution opposing enactment into law
proposed United States (U.S.) Senate Bill 1504 relating to Cable
Television and video programming services, preempting all local
authority over the provision of cable and video services within the
community, including the ability of local governments to provide
appropriate oversight to entities conducting such business within its
jurisdiction, including local public rights-of-way
9) A request that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
approve LDC Special Cycle 2006 1 a, to amend the Bayshore and
Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District (MUD) Overlays with the
addition of an administrative deviation process. These overlays were
recently adopted to guide redevelopment in the Bayshore/Gateway
Community Redevelopment Area.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award Contract #06-3905 Fixed Term Road
Safety Audit Services" to three firms at an estimated cost of $180,000
annually.
2) Recommendation to accept a quitclaim deed for Livingston Road and
Radio Road rights-of-way. No fiscal impact.
3) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a budget amendment to recognize revenue received for the Collier
County Transportation Disadvantaged Program in the amount of
$26,804.73.
4) Recommendation to approve Change Order No.2 to Professional
Services Agreement No. 04-3587 in the amount of$398,713 for
additional engineering services with American Consulting Engineers
of Florida, LLC for design additions and modifications to the County
March 28, 2006
Page 8
Barn Road expansion project from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to
Davis Blvd., Project No. 60101.
5) Recommendation to approve the Department of the Army Corps of
Engineers permit for the Haldeman Creek Dredging Project.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to award Contract 05-3838R, Land Development,
Conditional Use Rezone, and Permitting Services for the Solid Waste
Park for Collier County, with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.,
for the site of the Solid Waste Park, Project 59007, in the amount of
$569,049.
2) Recommendation to authorize conveyance of an Easement to Florida
Power & Light Company (FPL) for the installation of underground
electric facilities to provide electric service to the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant 12-MGD Reverse Osmosis
Expansion (SCRWTP 12-MGD RO Expansion), at a cost not to
exceed $27.00, Project Number 700971.
3) Recommendation to approve, execute and record Satisfactions for
certain Water and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreements. Fiscal
impact is $68.50 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
4) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the county has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1991 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record Satisfaction 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 1992
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $60.00 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 1993
March 28, 2006
Page 9
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $50.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
7) 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 $50.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
8) 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.
9) 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 $100.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
10) Recommendation to award construction Work Order UC-195 under
fixed term Underground Utilities Contract 043535 to Mitchell and
Stark, Inc. in the amount of $11 0,000 for the removal of the
emergency storage bleach facility, and to award Work Order CHM-
FT-3291-06-02 under Fixed Term Engineering Services Contract 01-
3291 to CH2M HILL, Inc. in an amount of $46,900 for Time and
Materials to provide Construction Engineering Inspection services to
serve the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF), and
approve the necessary Budget Amendments in the amount of
$156,900, Project Number 73966.
11) Recommendation to authorize the purchase of sole-source equipment,
for specific rehabilitation projects in the amount not to exceed of
$281,000 for the North County Water Reclamation Facility
Rehabilitation, Project 725321.
12) Recommendation to award Work Order CAE-FT-3785-06-02 with
Carollo Engineers, P.C. for professional engineering services for High
Pressure Reverse Osmosis Demonstration Scale Testing at the North
March 28, 2006
Page 10
County Regional Water Treatment Plant (NCRWTP) in the amount of
$264,900, Project Number 70094.
13) Recommendation to award Work Order CDM-FT-3785-06-07 with
Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., for professional engineering
services for the proposal and writing services of up to 24 grant
application submittals to the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD) and Big Cypress Basin (BCB) for the Lower West
Coast Water Supply Plan (L WCWSP) in relation to the Alternative
Water Supply (A WS) Funding, and approve the necessary Budget
Amendments in the amount of$99,850 for Project Number 75009.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the creation of a Trust Fund to distribute
available funding to citizens affected by future natural disasters and to
create an Individual Care Coordinating Council for managing the
distribution of these funds.
2) Recommendation to accept a grant in the amount of $18,230 and
approval of an agreement between Collier County Board of
Commissioners, the South Florida Water Management District, for the
continuation of the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods program through
Collier County University Extension.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Authorize
the Public Services Administrator to Sign the Annual Application for
Funding from the United Way Thru the 4H Foundation
4) Recommendation to award Bid #06-3936 for food for the summer
meal program for Parks and Recreation to Cheney Brothers, Inc. at an
estimated cost of $150,000
5) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment appropriating
$35,000 from reserves to fund the initial environmental site
assessment and remedial action in response to the fuel spill at
Caxambas Park.
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment appropriating
$200,000 from reserves to fund the installation of a new fuel system at
March 28, 2006
Page 11
Caxambas Park.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award contract #06-3914, Construction
Management at Risk Services for the Collier County Fleet Facilities,
to Wright Construction Corp., projects 52009 and 35010, in the
amount of $44,070 for pre-construction services, and to approve a
professional services work order with CH2MHill for construction
inspection and oversight in the amount of$293,380.
2) Recommendation to award Bid No. 06-3890 for the purchase of
irrigation parts to Boynton Pump and Irrigation Supply, Inc. and
Florida Irrigation Supply.
3) Recommendation to approve a plan to provide temporary residential
housing for new County hires and/or interns.
4) Authorize the release of Work Order #PBS-02-52, in the amount of
$178,450.00, issued to Wall Systems Inc. of South West Florida,
doing business as Professional Building Systems (PBS). This work
order is for remodeling the Risk Management clinic and office areas
in Building D and is issued under Annual General Contractor Contract
RFP # 02-3349.
5) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to Fund 516,
Property and Casualty Insurance, in the amount of$12,530,280 to pay
the cost of property insurance claims related to Hurricane Wilma and
to recognize corresponding reinsurance and FEMA recoveries in the
amount of $12,492,780.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award Bid
#06-3951 Horticulture Debris Hauling and Disposal to Wherry Truck
Lines, Inc., for Pelican Bay debris cleanup.
2) Recommendation to approve a Modification to the Fiscal Year 2006
Emergency Management Preparedness & Assistance Grant accepting
$42,018 and approve a Budget Amendment to recognize and
March 28, 2006
Page 12
appropriate the revenue.
3) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment and authorize
negotiation of a Professional Services Work Order with BSSW
Architects (Contract #01-3235) not to exceed $78,000 and authorize
negotiation of a Professional Services Work Order with Q. Grady
Minor & Associates (Contract #01-3290) not to exceed $110,000 for a
new Emergency Medical Services facility, Project #55160.
4) Recommendation to reallocate real property purchased under the
Vanderbilt Beach Road 6-1aning project (Project No. 63051) to Collier
County Emergency Medical Services to utilize for the construction of
EMS Station 72, Project 55150, approve a Budget Amendment in the
amount of $420,000 and authorize negotiation of a Professional
Services Work Order with BSSW Architects not to exceed $40,000
and Q. Grady Minor & Associates not to exceed $130,000.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award Bid
#06-3948 Oakmont Retaining Wall in Pelican Bay to International
Contracting, LLC. and to approve a budget amendment in the amount
of $134,800.00, project 51104 and to authorize the Chairman to sign
the standard contract after review by the County Attorney.
6) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment to fund the
balance of replacement ambulances for the Emergency Medical
Services Department in the amount of$171,000.
7) Approve budget amendments.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) To approve and execute Site Improvement Grant Agreements between
the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and grant
applicants within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment area.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
March 28, 2006
Page 13
1) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
prepaying $40.00 to attend and speak at the 3RD Annual Florida
Tradeport Briefing and Barbecue sponsored by the Economic
Development Council of Collier County on March 31, 2006, to be
paid from his travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
prepaying to attend a function serving a valid public purpose.
Commissioner prepaid to attend the Leadership Collier Class of 2006
Graduation Ceremonies on May 10, 2006 and is requesting
reimbursement in the amount of $50.00, to be paid from his travel
budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement to
attend a function serving a valid public purpose. To attend the Marco
Island Civil Air Patrol Celebration on April 10th, 2006 at the Marco
Island Presbyterian Church; $15.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Halas request for Board approval for payment to
attend function serving a valid public purpose to attend Naples
Alliance for Children Annual Advocacy Dinner on Wednesday, April
5,2006; $35 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 authorize
the Clerk's Office to file the State of Florida Annual Local
Government Financial Report for the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 as
required by Florida Statute 218.32. A copy of the State of Florida
Annual Local Government Financial Report for the Fiscal year 2004-
2005 is available for viewing at the Clerk of the Circuit Court's
Finance and Accounting Office.
March 28, 2006
Page 14
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the transfer of funds collected under Ordinance 04-42 to the Clerk of
Courts to fund the second year of the Collier County Juvenile
Assessment Center Agreement with the David Lawrence Center.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcels
166A and 166B in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Juan Ramirez,
et aI., Case No. 02-5166-CA (Immokalee Road Project No. 60018).
(Fiscal Impact $94,153.50)
2) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel No. 126 in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District, et aI.,
Case No. 02-1702-CA (Goodlette-Frank Road Project 60134). (Fiscal
Impact $210,980.43)
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Authorize
the County Attorneys Office to Make a Business Damage Offer to
Settle a Claim for Business Damages by Golden Gate Nursery, Inc.
resulting from the Acquisition of Parcel 140 in the Case Styled Collier
County v. Rosa A. Hernandez, et aI., Case No. 05-1033-CA (CR 951,
Collier Boulevard, Proj ect #65061) (Fiscal Impact, if accepted is
$162,500)
4) Recommendation that the Board of Collier County Commissioners
approves a Release and Satisfaction of Lien for 2642 44th Terrace
SW, Naples, for any claim of lien arising out of Code Enforcement
Board Case No. 2006-04.
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
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
March 28, 2006
Page 15
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VESMT2005-AR8891 to disclaim, renounce and vacate
the County's and the Publics interest in a Portion of Tract R and a portion of
a 10 foot utility easement according to the plat of Creekside Commerce Park
Unit Two as recorded at Plat Book 35, Pages 43 through 44, Public Records
of Collier County, Florida.
B. An Ordinance of Collier County, Florida, amending Collier County
Ordinance No. 2001-75, as amended, The Public Vehicle for Hire
Ordinance, by amending Subsection 142-52(6) to grandfather two (2)
Vehicle For Hire businesses currently certificated by the Public Vehicle For
Hire Advisory Committee that had taxi, cab or taxicab in its trade name as of
December 11, 2002 but do not provide mileage metered service; also
amending Subsection 142-54 (A) (10) to delete the now outdated
requirement to provide a notarized copy of proof of advertising for a
fictitious name.
C. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consent to the
request of the Board of Supervisors of the Wentworth Community
Development District and adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance No.
2004-37 in order to correct an error in the metes and bounds legal
description of the Wentworth Community Development District.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
March 28, 2006
Page 16
March 28, 2006
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Call to order the Board of County Commissioners for March 28, 2006.
At this time we'll have Associate Pastor David Swicegood of the
Marco Presbyterian Church give the invocation, and that will be
followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise.
PASTOR SWICEGOOD: Let us pray. Father in Heaven, this
morning we acknowledge you as the everlasting God, the creator of
this vast universe and all that is in it. We bow before you humbly
asking that your will be done here on earth as it is in Heaven.
We thank you for the freedoms we enjoy as citizens of this great
nation, and we ask your blessing and your protection upon our
military men and women who are defending our freedoms at this very
hour.
We thank you for Collier County and for each of our county
commissioners, especially for this meeting and all the Items on the
agenda, we humbly ask for your wisdom and discernment. In your
hands we commit all of these matters. We ask all of this in the name
of our Lord, Jesus Christ, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
CONSENT, SUMMARY AND REGULAR AGENDA _
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Please be seated.
County Manager, do you have anything to update us in regards to
today's agenda?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. If you'd bear with me on this change
sheet. It's almost longer than the agenda in and of itself.
Page 2
March 28, 2006
Agenda Changes, Board of County Commissioners' meeting,
March 28, 2006.
Item 3B should read, 30-year attendees instead of the -- what's
printed on the sheet, 25-year attendees. Both Nery Anderson and
Timothy Billings are receiving 30-year service awards. That's at staffs
request.
Next Item is to withdraw Item 6B. That's a public petition
request by Steve Kirk to discuss proposed affordable housing
development, the Reserve at Eden Garden.
The next Item is to move Item 7 A to Item 17D, and that's
SE-2006-AR-9097, scrivener's error petition to correct the legal
description that replaces and supersedes resolution number 2005-432,
which granted an after-the-fact variance for a 5.3-foot encroachment
into the required 10- foot rear yard accessory setback on a waterfront
lot at 175 Bayview Avenue, and that's at staffs request.
Next Item is to continue Item 9C indefinitely, and that's a
discussion by the Board of County Commissioners to direct county
attorney staff to draft a resolution to allow a commissioner to request
investigation of county business by the Clerk of Courts, and that
continuance is, again, indefinitely.
The next Item is Item 10C. The fiscal impact is identified as
$14,180,000 in the agenda index but is identified as $5,693,500 in the
actual executive summary. The correct fiscal impact is $5,693,500,
and that's at staffs request.
The next Item is to continue Item 13A indefinitely, and that's a
presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Fiscal Report for the fiscal
year ended September 30,2005. A copy of the 2005 Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report has been given -- it will be when it finally
gets done -- will be given to each commissioner. A copy will be
available for viewing at the Clerk of Court -- at the Clerk of Circuit
Court's financial and accounting office, and that continuance is at
staff s request.
Page 3
March 28, 2006
Next Item is to move Item 16A6 to 101, and that's a
recommendation to adopt a resolution opposing enactment into law
proposed Florida House Bill 1199 relating to cable telephone and
video programming services, removing all local cable television
franchise authority, and provisions to grant or review any cable
television franchise certificates, and that move is at Commissioner
Halas's request.
The next Item is to move a similar Item, Item 16A7 to Item 10J,
and that's a recommendation to adopt a resolution opposing enactment
into law proposed Florida Senate Bill 1984 relating to cable television
and video programming services, prohibiting the requiring of in-kind
contributions from cable television franchises to include supporting
the use or construction of public, educational or government, which is,
in brackets, PEG, P-E-G, access facilities. That's also at
Commissioner Halas's request.
Next Item is to move a similar Item, but this is at the federal
level, Item 16A8 to 10K, and that's a recommendation to adopt a
resolution opposing enactment into law proposed U.S., United States,
U.S. Senate Bill 1504 relating to cable television and video
programming services, preempting all local authority over the
provision of cable and video services within the community, including
the ability of local governments to provide appropriate oversight to
entities conducting such business within its jurisdiction, including
local public rights-of-way. That Item is also at Commissioner Halas's
request.
The next Item is Item 16C 13. The amount in the title on the staff
index should read $99,955, rather than $99,850. All backup material
is correct. That correction is at staffs request.
The next Item is to move Item 16D1 to 10L. That's a
recommendation to approve the creation of a trust fund to distribute
available funding to citizens affected by future national disasters and
to create an individual care coordinating council for managing the
Page 4
March 28, 2006
distribution of these funds, and this move is at Commissioner
Henning's request.
The next Item is to move Item 16F3 to 10M. That's a
recommendation to approve a budget amendment and authorize
negotiations of a professional service work order with BSSW
Architects, contract number 01-3235, not to exceed $78,000, and
authorize negotiation of a professional service work order with Q.
Grady Minor & Associates, contract number 01-3290, not to exceed
$110,000, for a new Emergency Medical Services Facility project
number 55160. That move is at Commissioner Henning's request.
The next Item is to move 16F4 to ION. That's a recommendation
to reallocate real property purchased under the Vanderbilt Beach Road
six-Ianing project, project number 63051, to the Collier County
Emergency Medical Services to utilize for the construction of EMS
Station 72, project 55150, approve a budget amendment in the amount
of $420,000 and authorize negotiation of a professional service work
order with BSSW Architects, not to exceed $40,000, and Q. Grady
Minor & Associates, not to exceed $130,000. This move is at
Commissioner Henning's request.
The next Item is to continue Item 16Jl indefinitely. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the Clerk's Office to file the State of Florida Annual Local
Government Financial Report for the fiscal year 2004/2005 as
required by Florida Statute 218.32. A copy of the State of Florida
Annual Local Government Financial Report for the fiscal year
2004/2005 will be available for viewing when this Item is presented to
the Board of County Commissioners in the future.
The next Item is Item 17B. The last sentence in section one,
which is a revision to subsection 6 in section 142.52 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances, the same being part of section
one of the Collier County ordinance number 2001-75, as amended,
should be stricken through.
Page 5
March 28, 2006
This sentence reads as follows: Each person or entity planning to
operate under a fictitious name shall attach to the application a
notarized copy of the newspaper notice published in accordance with
section 865.09 of the Florida Statutes, and that line that's being
stricken is at staffs request.
The following Items are note Items. Item 16E2. Staff is
recommending award to the Florida Irrigation Supply as primary and
Boynton Irrigation and Supply, Inc., as secondary vendor for the
purchase of parts and related Items. The executive summary did not
state order of primary and/or secondary vendor, and that's a correction.
That's at staffs request.
Item 17D, which is previously 7 A, this Item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members. That's -- that note is at staffs request.
And then you have two time certain Items today, Commissioner.
The first is Item lOA. It's to be heard at 11 a.m., and this is the
second part of your review of the written and oral reports from your
advisory boards and committees that are scheduled to give you in this
particular year, in accordance with ordinance number 2001-55, and
those reports are from the Historical and Archaeological Preservation
Board, the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force, the Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee, and the Public Vehicle Advisory
Committee today.
The next Item that has a time certain is Item 12B, and that will be
heard at 10 a.m. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approve a mediated settlement providing for the
purchase of the remainder property, full compensation for acquisition
parcel 178, and attorney fees in the case styled Collier County versus
Teodoro Gimenez, et ai, case 04-0561-CA, Vanderbilt Road -- excuse
me -- Vanderbilt Beach Road, project number 63051. Total fiscal
impact in this particular purchase is $1,534,876.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Page 6
March 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much, County
Manager.
County Attorney, do you have anything to add to today's agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Do I dare? On Item 17B, I'll note that with a
reference to Ordinance 2001-75 as amended, there is also actually a
base ordinance prior to that, which I'd like to put on the record before
the end of the meeting just for the record, and so that if you should
approve the consent agenda, as Mr. Mudd has indicated, and the rest
of the agenda with those alterations, I'll place that on the record and
you'd include that with your motion. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll start with Commissioner
Henning. Do you have anything to bring forward today on the
agenda?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no ex-- changes to the
Consent, if that's what you're asking. Do you want ex parte
communications?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The board heard 17B at a
previous meeting, and I talked to the County Manager on 17D, as in
David.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. Boy, I hate to do
this, but I want to discuss something, and that's 16E 1, 16E 1. And I
didn't get enough information from the agenda, so I'd like a little bit
more. Also to declare on 17D, which is what now 7 A ? We don't have
to do that now, do we, because we have to declare it when it becomes
7 A, right? I think so. 17--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 7A is on the -- now on the--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- on the summary agenda, so if you
have any ex parte, you bring it forth now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Staff, citizens, and attorney's
Page 7
March 28, 2006
office, I spoke to. And 17C, I spoke to the owner of the property, and
I just wanted to reconfirm that they are keeping somebody, a
representative of the community on CDD. They assured me they are.
They've never varied, and so I'm fine with that, and that's all I have to
declare.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, 16E1 would now become 100.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 100 for 16E 1 ?
MR. MUDD: El.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: E1, okay.
Okay. I have nothing to -- the only thing I have to declare is that
7 A, which was moved to 17D, I did have email in regards to the
scrivener's error. And on 17 A, I had no -- no other disclosures.
So I will continue on here with Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have one change. I'd like
to pull from the consent agenda 16C 1 and put that on the regular
agenda. And as far as the summary agenda, I had, 1 7 A, I received a
phone call.
MR. MUDD: 16C1 would become lOP, as in pop.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's 16C1, correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no further changes to the
agenda, and I have no disclosures for the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a motion to approve
today's regular consent and summary agenda as amended?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I will call for a vote at this point.
County Attorney, you wanted me to add something to this?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I have the number that I can give you in
Page 8
March 28, 2006
regard to 17B. For the record, it's ordinance number 91- __
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you speak up a little bit, sir?
MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. I'll get to the mike. The ordinance
number that I referenced in regard to 17B is Ordinance Number 91-93,
so that's just for the record, and we're set. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. If there's no further discussion,
I'll call the question for the approval of to day's regular consent and
summary agenda.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carried unanimously.
Page 9
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
March 28. 2006
Item 3B: Should read: "30 Year Attendees". Both Nery Anderson and Timothy Billings are
receiving 30-year service awards. (Staff's request.)
Withdraw Item 6B: Public Petition request by Steve Kirk to discuss proposed affordable housing
development "The Reserve at Eden Gardens". (Petitioner's request.)
Move Item 7A to Item 170: SE-2006-AR-9097, Scriveners Error Petition to correct the legal
description that replaces and supersedes Resolution No. 2005-432, which granted an after-the
fact variance for a 5.3 foot encroachment into the required ten (10) foot rear yard (accessory)
setback, on a waterfront lot at 175 Bayview Avenue. (Staffs request.)
Continue Item 9C Indefinitely: Discussion by the Board of County Commissioners to direct
County Attorney staff to draft a resolution to allow a Commissioner to request investigation of
County business by the Clerk of Courts. (Commissioner Henning request.)
Item 10C: The fiscal impact is identified as $14,180,000 in the agenda index, but is identified as
$5,693,500 in the actual executive summary. The correct fiscal impact is $5,693,500. (Staff's
request.)
Continue Item 13A Indefinitely: Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for
the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2005. A copy of the 2005 Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report has been given to each Commissioner. A copy is available for viewing at the Clerk of the
Circuit Court's Finance and Accounting Office. (Staff's request.)
Move Item 16A6 to 101: Recommendation to adopt a Resolution opposing enactment into law
proposed Florida House Bill 1199 relating to Cable Television and video programming services,
removing all local cable television franchise authority and provisions to grant or renew any cable
television franchise certificates. (Commissioner Halas' request.)
Move Item 16A7 to 10J: Recommendation to adopt a Resolution opposing enactment into law
proposed Florida Senate Bill 1984 relating to Cable Television and video programming services,
prohibiting the requiring of in-kind contributions from cable television franchises, to include
supporting the use or construction of public, educational or government (PEG) access facilities.
(Commissioner Halas' request.)
Move Item 16A8 to 10K: Recommendation to adopt a Resolution oPPosing enactment into law
proposed United States (U.S.) Senate Bill 1504 relating to Cable Television and video
programming services, preempting all local authority over the provision of cable and video
services within the community, including the ability of local governments to provide appropriate
oversight to entities conducting such business within its jurisdiction, including local public
rights-of-way. (Commissioner Halas' request.)
Item 16C13: The amount in the title on the agenda index should read "$99,955" (rather than
$99,850). All backup material is correct. (Staff's request.)
Move Item 1601 to 10L: Recommendation to approve the creation of a Trust Fund to distribute
available funding to citizens affected by future natural disasters and to create an Individual Care
Coordinating Council for managing the distribution of these funds. (Commissioner Henning's
request.)
Move 16F3 to 10M: Recommendation to approve a budget amendment and authorize negotiation
of a Professional Services Work Order with BSSW Architects (Contract #01-3235) not to exceed
$78,000 and authorize negotiation of a Professional Services Work Order with Q. Grady Minor &
Associates (Contract #01-3290) not to exceed $110,000 for a new Emergency Medical Services
facility, Project #55160. (Commissioner Henning's request.)
Move 16F4 to 10N: Recommendation to reallocate real property purchased under the Vanderbilt
Beach Road 6-laning project (Project No. 63051) to Collier County Emergency Medical Services to
utilize for the construction of EMS Station 72, Project 55150, approve a budget amendment in the
amount of $420,000 and authorize negotiation of a Professional Services Work Order with BSSW
Architects not to exceed $40,000 and Q. Grady Minor & Associates not to exceed $130,000.
(Commissioner Henning's request.)
Continue Item 16J1 Indefinitelv: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize the Clerk's Office to file the State of Florida Annual Local Government Financial Report
for the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 as required by Florida Statute 218.32. A copy of the State of Florida
Annual Local Government Financial Report for the Fiscal year 2004-2005 is available for viewing
at the Clerk of the Circuit Court's Finance and Accounting Office. (Staff's request.)
Item 17B: The last sentence in Section One, which is a revision to Subsection (6) in Section
142.52 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (the same being part of Section One of
Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-75, as amended), should be stricken through. This sentence
reads as follows: "Each person or entity planning to operate under a fictitious name shall attach
to the application a notarized copy of the newspaper notice published in accordance with Section
865.09, Florida Statutes". (Staff's request.)
Note:
Item 16E2: Staff is recommending award to Florida Irrigation Supply as primary and Boynton
Irrigation and Supply, Inc., as secondary vendor for the purchase of irrigation parts and related
items. (Executive Summary did not state order of primary and/or secondary vendor.) (Staff's
request.)
Item 170 (Drevious Item 7A): This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. (Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items:
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: Historical and Archaeological Preservation Board, Lake Trafford Restoration Task
Force, Land Acquisition Advisory Committee and Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
Item 12B to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve a mediated settlement providing for the purchase of the remainder property, full
compensation for the acquisition of Parcel 178, and attorneys fees in the case styled Collier
County v. Teodoro Gimenez, et aI., Case No. 04-0561-CA (Vanderbilt Beach Road Project #63051,
total fiscal impact $1,534,876).
March 28, 2006
Item #2B
MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 28, 2006 BCC/REGULAR
MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Okay. Approval for the February 28, 2006, BCC/Regular
Meeting. Motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion for approval 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?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries unanimously.
Okay. I believe our-
Item #3
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have three awardees. Would
you like to do it from the dais, or would you like to come down on the
floor?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we do it on the floor. I think
that would be apropos for someone who's got as many years in.
Page 10
March 28, 2006
MR. MUDD: The first awardee today, 20-year awardee, and that
is to Gregory Tavernier from the water department. If Gregory could
come forward, please.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you for your service for Collier
County. Surely appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which water department?
MR. TAVERNIER: South Department.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My flock.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The next 20 will be easier.
MR. MUDD: Gregory, can we get a picture, please. We'll get a
picture with the commissioners. That would be great. Come on, get
in the middle of those two.
(Applause)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have two 30-year awardees
today. The first is N ery Anderson from Building Review and
Permitting. Nery, if you could come forward, please.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: First of all, congratulations on 30 years
of service.
MS. ANDERSON: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We really appreciate your dedication.
MS. ANDERSON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Here's a little something for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And also here's a plaque for you. Again,
thank you so much for your service.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You get this little package, too. I
almost opened it on you.
Page 11
March 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Feels like it's got a bar of gold in it.
MS. ANDERSON: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MS. ANDERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Come take a picture with us.
MS. ANDERSON: I'm very emotional. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. MUDD: The next 30-year attendee is Timothy Billings
from Community Development's Environmental Service Graphics
Department.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, Timothy.
Congratulations.
MR. BILLINGS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thirty years of service. And I believe
there's a bag of gold right here for you. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. Congratulations.
MR. BILLINGS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks so much for your years of
servIce.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good to see you again, thank
you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Come take a picture with us.
(Applause)
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL AS BEING WATER
CONSERVATION MONTH - ADOPTED
Page 12
March 28, 2006
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, that brings us to paragraph 4,
which is proclamations. Your first proclamation is a proclamation
designating April as being Water Conservation Month. To be
accepted by Paul Mattausch, Water Department Director.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll go ahead and read this
proclamation.
Whereas, water is a basic and essential need of everyday
creatures -- every day living of creatures; and,
Whereas, the State of Florida Water Management District and
Collier County are working together to increase the awareness about
the importance of water conservation; and,
Whereas, Collier County and the State of Florida have designated
April a typical dry month when water demands are most acute, Florida
Water Conservation Month to educate citizens about how they are to
help save Florida's precious water resource; and,
Whereas, Collier County has always encouraged and supported
water conservation through various educational programs and special
events; and,
Whereas, a very -- every business and industry, schools and
citizen can make a difference when it comes to water conservation;
and,
Whereas, every business, industry, and school and citizens can
help by saving water and thus promote a healthy economy and
community.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, the month of April be recognized as Water
Conservation Month.
Collier County, Florida, is calling upon each citizen and business
to help protect our precious resource by practicing water-saving
measures and become more aware of the needs of conserving water.
And we trust Paul Mattausch to continue to educate the citizens
and enforce the laws of the board on the -- such a precious resource.
Page 13
March 28, 2006
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion and a
second for the approval of this proclamation.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's unanimous. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, we've come a long way, huh,
Paul, from when we first started?
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We appreciate you. Thank you,
Paul.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wasn't too long ago, we had to take a
shower with somebody. Now there's plenty of water. Thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Paul.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's always fun showering with
somebody else.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Commissioners, thank you very much. I'll
keep my comments very brief because I don't have much voice this
mornIng.
Thank you very much for recognizing April as Water
Conservation Month. Commissioner Henning, as you said in the
proclamation, water is really our most valuable resource in Collier
County .
Page 14
March 28, 2006
And I want to -- I want to leave three things with everybody to
consider, and that's one, when you turn the faucet on, make sure that
you think about using the water resource.
Number two is, water on wilt. That's the best way to water our
plants. It makes them healthier, it grows a better root system, and the
plant itself actually tells us when we need to water.
And the third thing is, remember Fridays are dry days. We don't
irrigate on Friday.
And thank you very much for this proclamation. On behalf of
the water department and the public utilities division and the people of
Collier County, thank you.
(Applause)
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING APRIL 19,2006 AS
DISTINGUISHED PUBLIC SERVICES AWARD DAY -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is a
proclamation proclaiming April 19, 2006, as Distinguish Public
Service Awards Day. To be accepted by Patrick O'Connor.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And it's my privilege to
read that proclamation. Please, come up.
Whereas, the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce, in
cooperation with the Naples Daily News, is celebrating Distinguished
Public Service Awards Day; and,
Whereas, an individual from law enforcement, fire, and
emergency services will be selected for this award based on
achievements above the norm and/or generous individual acts
throughout the year; and,
Whereas, these recipients will be awarded at a breakfast event on
Page 15
March 28, 2006
April 19, to be held at the Naples Hilton and Towers, in Naples; and,
Whereas, nominations for these awards have been solicited by
the Naples Daily News through advertisements and through the
various department officers; and,
Whereas, the individuals will be chosen by an anonymous
selection committee.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that April 19, 2006, be
designated as Distinguished Public Service Awards Day where these
outstanding public employees will be recognized for their outstanding
commitment to our community.
Done and ordered this 28th day of March, 2006, Frank Halas,
Chairman, and I make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
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: All those opposed by like sign.
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes unanimously. Congratulations.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Brenda, thank you very much.
You need a picture first.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You need a picture, please.
MR. O'CONNOR: Good morning, and thank you.
We wanted to thank you for taking the time for the proclamation
Page 16
March 28, 2006
this morning. This is the third year that both the Naples Daily News
and Naples Chamber of Commerce have come together for the
distinguished public service awards.
It's to honor fire, police, EMS. They are the fabric of the
community. We need them.
I want to thank you so much for taking the time to recognize
them. Have a good day. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING MARCH 28, 2006 AS LEL Y
HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL TEAM DAY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, as you look out at
the audience today, I'm kind of excited because there are some young
faces here, and I'm kind of excited about our next two proclamations.
Next proclamation is a proclamation proclaiming March 28,
2006, as Lely High School Mock Trial Team Day, to be helped by Mr.
Rick Bruno, a teacher at Lely High School.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is to be read by Commissioner
Fiala.
MR. MUDD: And if you have folks here, Mr. Bruno--
MR. BRUNO: Yes, we do. All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you're doing some great things
out there. I keep reading about you guys. Oh, wow.
Whereas, on February 24th and 25th, 2006, the Lely High School
Mock Trial Team competed against Canterbury School and Charlotte
High School in the 20th Judicial Circuit Mock Trial Championship at
the Lee County Justice Center in Fort Myers; and,
Whereas, Ruth Damys, Jonathan Cooper, Kristen Cooke,
Page 1 7
March 28, 2006
Chrisandra Downer, Nancy Spector, Leah Litvak, Stephanie Tears and
Jessica Octavien led the way in defeating Canterbury School at the
regional level to advance to the state tournament; and,
Whereas, Ruth Damys earned the best attorney award for the best
prosecution and defense; Chrisandra Downer earned the best witness
award for both prosecution and defense; and Kristen Cooke earned
best closing argument; and,
Whereas, the Lely High School Mock Trial Team will represent
the 20th Judicial Circuit at the state championship in Orlando from
March 30th through April 1st; and,
Whereas, the team will bring a perfect 10-0 record in match play
to the tournament; and,
Whereas, participating in mock trial competitions provides
students with an excellent understanding of American legal processes
while building self-esteem, teamwork, and developing public speaking
skills.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that March 28, 2006, be
designated as Lely High School Mock Trial Team Day.
Done and ordered this 28th day of March, 2006, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Frank Halas, Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Second. I'll second that.
Motion by Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner
Halas.
All those in favor of approving this proclamation, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 18
March 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes unanimously. Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to say right now that Rick
has done so many good things over these years with this team, and
they're outstanding. They're known throughout state. And I have
heard of people coming to Lely specifically to be a part of this team.
There's no better recognition that they can give our entire county, and
I'm just so proud of all of these kids.
(Applause)
MS. ARNOLD: Do you have the proclamations?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I have them right here.
Now, I want to know who Ruth Damys is. Did I pronounce your
name right?
MS. DAMYS: D-A-M-Y-S.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Jonathan Cooper? I know
which one you are. Kristen Cooke; Chrisandra Downer, thank you;
Nancy Spector; Leah Litvak; Stephanie Tears. Is Clarence in the
audience watching this, I hope?
MS. TEARS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jessica Octavien. Did I miss
anybody here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have three left. Well, I don't know
why. Thank you. Thank you so much.
MR. MUDD: We need a picture.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great group, huh? You know, you
guys even look intelligent, you know that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. All five of my kids
graduated from Lely.
Page 19
March 28, 2006
MR. BRUNO: All lawyers?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations.
MS. DAMYS: I just want to take this time to thank you guys for
honoring us today. And most of us have been together for three or
four years. And when we leave, we're going to represent this area with
a very, very good name. And just thank you for honoring us today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Item #4 D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 28,2006 AS THE
BARRON COLLIER HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS BASKETBALL
CHAMPIONSHIP DAY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next Item, proclamation, is a
proclamation designating March 28, 2006, as the Barron Collier High
School Girls Basketball Championship Help Day, to be accepted by
Coach Mike Hamburger.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I will be presenting the award.
Will all the coaches and team players come on up?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Doesn't this tell you a lot about our
young people?
MR. MUDD: March Madness going on right now. Basketball is
at the height of everybody's mind.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Doesn't this tell you a lot about the
youth in our community? These are the people we should be reading
about all the time, these wonderful kids.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Whereas, on Friday,
February the 24th, 2006, the Barron Collier High School girls
basketball team won the Class 5A State Basketball Championship in
Page 20
March 28, 2006
Lakeland, Florida; and,
Whereas, Allison Naretta, Brittany Benson, Morgen Aston,
Courtney Jacob, Shalana Stice, McKenzie Gatz, Dani Johnson,
Karady Gatz -- did we pronounce it wrong?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Karady.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Karady, okay -- Erin Zampell,
Lauren Welch, Kelsey Assarian, Kasey Will, and Breon Spiro; along
with their coach, Mike Hamburger, and assistants Mike Slaughter,
George Gabourel and Ethan Bulgter brought this team to a victory
with a score of 43 - 36 against the number one ranked Winter Haven
Blue Devils; and,
Whereas, the Barron Collier High School girls basketball team
ended their season 31-2, winning their last 18 games; and,
Whereas, the Barron Collier High School girls basketball team
has never won this championship before in the 84-year history of its
sport.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that March 28, 2006, be
designated as the Barron Collier High School Girls Basketball
Championship Day.
Done and ordered this 28th day of March, 2006, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Frank Halas, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion for
approval of this proclamation by Commissioner Coyle, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 21
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wonderful. I have a proclamation
for each of you.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, they're all the same. How
many more do we need? You may as well take them all. You're
going to get them all.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Ladies, you were all pumped up the day
you won, right? I want to see all those same smiles, okay, for the
camera, all right?
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ladies, you did a wonderful job,
congratulations.
MR. HAMBURGER: I'm Mike Hamburger, the coach of the
team. I'd just like to thank the county commissioners for honoring this
team. It was a great opportunity that I had a chance to coach these
girls and get to know them, and they're a special bunch of girls.
They've accomplished something that's never been accomplished in 84
years, so I want to thank them, too.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Item #4 E
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF MAY 5-9,
2006 AS BATTLE OF CORAL SEA WEEK - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is a
proclamation designating the week of May 5th through the 9th, 2006,
Page 22
March 28, 2006
as the Battle of the Coral Sea Week, and the Battle of the Coral Sea --
for those folks that can't remember back that far or don't remember the
history, it was a 1942, World War II battle, and it was a turning point.
This will be accepted by Dr. William Roy.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is Dr. William Roy in the audience this
morning?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I'll go ahead and read the
proclamation. But I'm sure that all of us, especially us that are on the
dais, probably remember some of the great photography that was
taken in World War II when we watched the -- every Sunday, I
believe, it was on Victory at Sea, and I'm sure that Dr. Roy's video
was on a lot of those episodes.
Whereas, from May 4th through the 8th (sic), 1942, the
American and Australian navies fought together in the Battle of the
Coral Sea, the first of the Pacific War's six battles between opposing
aircraft carrier forces, to defeat the Japanese from capturing Port
Moresby and ending Japanese expansion southward; and,
Whereas, the Australian military provided crucial military
intelligence that allowed both u.S. and Australian forces to adequately
prepare for the battle; and;
Whereas, on May 1, 1942, HMAS Australia and the HMAS
Hobart departed Sydney under the orders to join the United States
aircraft carriers USS Lexington and the USS Yorktown; and,
Whereas, the Battle of the Coral Sea was the first battle in history
where none of the opposing ships were within gunfire range, with all
damage to the ships being inflicted by aircraft; and,
Whereas, during the battle of -- battle, the Japanese military
unsuccessfully attacked HMAS Australia and the HMAS Hobart while
severely damaging the USS Yorktown and USS Lexington, which was
later abandoned and torpedoed by American forces to prevent her
capture; and,
Page 23
March 28, 2006
Whereas, the allied forces in the Battle of the Coral Sea
prevented the Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft carriers from
participating in the Battle of Midway and saved friendly forces in Port
Moresby from facing an overwhelming invasions; and,
Whereas, each year since 1946 Coral Sea Week has been
celebrated in Australia to express the gratitude to the United States in
the battle and the support given to Australia by America in Wodd War
II; and,
Whereas, the USS Yorktown survivor and Collier County
resident, Dr. William G. Roy, has been invited to Adelaide, South
Australia, to -- as a guest speaker at this year's national celebration of
the 64th Anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea; and,
Whereas, Dr. Roy was a Photographer's Mate Second Class
aboard the USS Yorktown at the Battle of the Coral Sea and at the
Battle of Midway and shot numerous photos and reels of film that
have been used in many historical publications and documentaries;
and,
Whereas, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
would like to express its appreciation to Australia for recognizing Dr.
Roy and all Wodd War II veterans for their unselfish service to our
two great nations.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that this week of May 9th
-- May 5th through 9th, 2006, be designated as Battle of the Coral Sea
Week.
Done and ordered this 28th day of March, 2006, board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Frank Halas, Chair.
I move for approval of this very important proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion and a
second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 24
March 28,2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there someone here to accept this on
behalf of Dr. Roy?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I'll give this to the County
Manager to make sure that this is sent to Dr. William Roy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will we also be sending one to
Australia for whoever conducts that ceremony?
MR. MUDD: We can, ma'am.
MS. ARNOLD: I've been working with Dr. Roy with this
proclamation, and he will be presenting this to several dignitaries in
Australia.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Item #5A
RECOGNIZED RENEE FINSTERWALDER, COMPENSATION
ANAL YST, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, AS
"EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH" FOR MARCH, 2006 -
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph number
5, presentations. And that's a -- and we only have one presentation for
today, and that is a recommendation to recognize Renee
Finsterwalder, who's the compensation analyst, Human Resources
Page 25
March 28, 2006
Department, as the Employee of the Month for March, 2006.
Ms. Finsterwalder, could you please come forward.
(Applause)
MR. MUDD: Renee Finsterwalder performed in an excellent
fashion in association with the FY -2006 Pay Plan, which was an
extraordinary year from a Pay Plan perspective. Many unforeseen
complications arose during the process and included:
The introduction of exceptional payroll processing for certain
non-exempt classifications required that Renee develop two additional
spreadsheets;
The performance evaluation scoring in the public utilities
division required the development of three additional spreadsheets;
Renee has developed several additional spreadsheets for budget
modeling purposes. These were required because of the inherent
complications with the spreadsheet used to calculate and update our
financial IT system, which is called SAP;
The vote on the Pay Plan was delayed, resulting in the need to
back out the pre-loaded increases from SAP in a very short time
frame. Some employees' salaries exceeded pay grade maximums,
requiring last-minute changes to the formulas in 10 spreadsheets.
Renee accepted these with aplomb and, once again, the pay raises
were successfully loaded to the SAP financial model. On an
after-the- fact basis, she answered many inquiries from managers and
employees and provided copies of substitute PARS -- which is the
way we change our pay system -- when requested. In spite of these
complications, the number of questions that arose were significantly
reduced from past years, a testament to the accuracy of the
calculations and to Renee's performance.
Renee's response to these circumstances was truly above and
beyond. In spite of unprecedented complications, the pay increases
were, once again, processed on time and with significantly improved
accuracy from past years.
Page 26
March 28, 2006
A lay person may not appreciate the day-to-day pressures that
accompany the role of a compensation professional as we deal with,
perhaps, the most changed issues in the workplace, employees' pay,
and nobody gets more calls once pay's messed up than Renee.
Okay. We are -- we are chartered by the County Manager's
Office to enforce the County Manager's actions and to ensure that
county expenditures for pay increases are warranted. This often puts
us in conflict with managers who wish to pay their employees more
but may not have the justification to do so within the context of the
County Manager's policies and procedures.
Our role is to ensure that the justification is appropriate and to
balance management's desire with the intent of the policies and
procedures of this board and the County Manager. This requires
patience, self-confidence, the ability and desire to listen and, indeed, a
backbone. Renee has rapidly shown that she has these traits to be a
successful compensation professional.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present to you and to
recommend that Renee Finsterwalder, the compensation analyst for
the human resource department, as the employee for the month of
March 2006.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a gift here for you, $150.
Here's something to put on your wall. Congratulations. We appreciate
your servIces.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good job.
MR. MUDD: Renee, we need a picture before you leave.
MS. FINSTERW ALDER: It's not bad enough I'm on the TV?
(Applause)
Page 27
March 28, 2006
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY SAL SOLDANO TO DISCUSS
RELIEF OF LIENS AND/OR PAYMENT INTEREST ON
PROPERTY RECEIVED FROM A COLLIER COUNTY TAX
CERTIFICATE SALE - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, and that moves us to public
petitions, and our first public petition today is a public petition request
by Sal Soldano, to discuss relief of liens and/or payment interest on
property received from a Collier County tax certificate sale.
MS. SOLDANO: Good morning. I'm Sal Soldano. I've been a
taxpayer for the last 20 years in Collier County. And for the last
several years, I've been buying tax certificates.
And everything was going fine until this tax certificate. It was
forced to sale and, unfortunately, nobody bid on the property, so I
became the owner of the property.
I had to pay the back taxes on it that unfortunately had many
liens on it since 1991, which I had to pay. And so I went to code
enforcement to seek some relief, and they told me to petition the
commission, and perhaps you can give me some relief on some of the
payments or, perhaps, the interest rate on the liens on the property.
And that's about it. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to
answer them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much is the liens?
MR. SOLDANO: It's 16 -- oh, the liens?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the amount?
MR. SOLDANO: The interest on the liens, $1,621.23. The liens
are $3,185.34.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that it?
MR. SOLDANO: Yes, I believe that's it.
Page 28
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you be interested in
selling -- selling that property to -- for the amount you paid for it?
MR. SOLDANO: Well, I'd consider all offers, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if we make an offer of what
you bought it for for the tax certificate, you'd accept it?
MR. SOLDANO: Probably not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County, did you wish to say something?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'd just like to note for the record that many
of these liens are out-of-pocket expenses for the county, such as lawn
mowing expenses, and this is how we get paid. At the end of the day,
if we didn't get paid this way, we'd be forced to foreclose on
hundred-dollar liens. And obviously that wouldn't be something that
anybody would want.
MR. SOLDANO: Right. All I'm asking for is relief on the
interest of the liens. I realize the liens were paid by the county. I have
to pay those, but there's interest on the liens because they haven't been
paid for so many years, and that's kind of like out of my control. So I
was hoping I could get some relief from the commission on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it looks to me like it's
about $4,700; am I correct?
MR. SOLDANO: Yeah. Those were the taxes I believe.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you sell us the property
for $4,700.
MR. SOLDANO: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, sir.
MR. SOLDANO: Thank you.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY SHARON I. V ANSL YKE TO
Page 29
March 28, 2006
DISCUSS FLOODING IN QUAIL HOLLOW - PRESENTED AND
TO BE BROUGHT BACK FOR DISCUSSION AT A FUTURE BCC
MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next public petition is a public
petition request from Sharon VanSlyke to discuss flooding at Quail
Hollow.
MS. VanSLYKE: Is there a place to put pictures up?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Display them? Why don't you speak at the
dais over there, and Mr. Mudd can assist you in putting them up.
MS. VanSLYKE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your time's on, ma'am.
MS. VanSLYKE: I am Sharon VanSlyke. My husband and I
relocated to East Naples from out of state 26 years ago. We have
successfully owned and operated a lawn maintenance service here for
22 years.
Eighteen years ago we were fortunate enough to be able to
purchase a lot and have a home constructed in Quail Hollow,
something that would not be possible for many involved in the service
industry here in Naples today.
The property directly behind our home was rezoned for a planned
unit development. In both the preplanning and planning meetings, our
main concern in permitting this development was the drainage issue.
We were assured by both the developer and the county planning
department that adequate off-site drainage would be provided.
Although no one really wants development in their back yard, we
knew it was inevitable, and were satisfied that the county and
developer would keep their word.
We did not attend the commission meeting to protest this
rezoning, being comfortable with the fact that drainage swales would
be provided and would work.
When the swales were first constructed, they seemed adequate,
Page 30
March 28, 2006
but they sat unsodded for months, and after heavy rains in May, were
totally eroded.
After all the dirt and debris washed into the swales, sod was
thrown on them. Every time it rained, even just an inch or so, our
properties flooded.
Daryl Hughes and Tom Kuck from the Engineering Department
came out to our property several times. And each time we were told
that no, the swales were not right. Things would get fixed. But their
hands were tied until COs were requested. We believed.
In December, in one of our almost weekly calls to Daryl to check
if any progress was being made on the regrading of the swales, we
were told that all he knew was that there was some communication
going on between the developer's attorney and the County Attorney's
Office.
In January, when I called Daryl to check on the status of things,
he informed me that he had been removed from the proj ect.
Tom told me this was just something he thought best to do, and
no COs would be issued without his approval. We still believed.
In February, we were still hearing, and believing, the same
promise. When we phoned Tom on March 13th and were informed
that the swales had passed inspection, we were shocked. How could
swales that had not been touched since August, and not passed then,
be approved in March of the following year, with no work whatsoever
being done on either the east or north swales bordering Quail Hollow,
whether by machine or shovel? How could the As Builts have
changed?
Tom and Don Nobles from engineering met with us on March
16th. And we were then informed that the county has been removed
from the project and the swales had been approved from the South
Florida Water Management District.
When asked why, neither gentleman knew the reason, and
informed us that to their recollection, this had never happened on any
Page 31
March 28,2006
other project.
T om sent an email shortly after the meeting, and I quote, we met
with Sharon and several other neighbors this morning. They are still
concerned with the drainage swale between Quail Hollow and
Mandalay.
We explained to them that this project was reviewed and
approved through South Florida Water Management District, not the
county. South Florida Water Management District conducted a final
inspection and signed off on the proj ect. We, the county, understand
their concerns.
Don is setting up a meeting with Steve Nagel, South Florida
Water Management District, Gary Neale, Hole Montes, Sharon's
group, and Don and myself for next week. I believe we need to put
South Florida Water Management and Hole Montes on the spot to
defend the design and approval in addition to a timely fix.
As of now we have yet to be informed as to a date when this
meeting will take place. For 18 years our property has remained
relatively dry. We have weathered numerous tropical storms and the
torrential rains that were once a daily part of Southwest Florida
summers. Weare hardworking service people, the kind that are
leaving this county every day.
This issue has caused us many sleepless nights and has taken me
away from the day-to-day operations of our business, about which I
care very deeply. We work extremely hard, and we just want to return
home at night knowing that our landscaping and, in fact, our homes
themselves are safe from flooding.
This issue has been going on for almost a year now. In this time
we have heard over and over that we would get results. We have
come here today looking for help and guidance.
We would hope there's someone out there who can explain why
first Mr. Hughes, then the entire engineering staff of this county was
removed from this, and only this proj ect, why South Florida Water
Page 32
March 28, 2006
Management District would approve these swales engineering staff
has said are not right, someone who can give us their assurance that
these swales will be re-graded to the specifications on the conceptual
drainage and utility section of this existing planned unit development.
Are there other avenues we should be exploring?
We have put our faith in the county to see that the developer did
what was promised back in September of2003, and I quote from a
copy of correspondence we received from Assistant County Attorney,
Marjorie Student-Stirling, dated February 2nd of this year.
The county, through the planned unit development rezoning
process, did require that swales be provided to alleviate any flooding
problem that might result from the development of the Mandalay
project. Prior to that time, at least a portion of the Quail Hollow
project did drain into a low-lying area that is now the Mandalay
project.
The applicant for the planned unit development rezoning readily
agreed at the public hearing on September 23, 2003 to alleviate the
potential flooding problem by providing the swale.
We have believed every time we were told that no COs would be
issued until the swales were made right. We should have been named
Virginia.
Rainy season's once again fast approaching. Do we again have to
see the scenes in the pictures we have shown you? Tom told us at our
last meeting that the county would have to sign off on a final
acceptance before this project's bond money would be released. Do
we really have to wait that long? And what, if anything, will be done
at that time? Can anyone help us? If you cannot, why not? Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Laurie (sic), I've got a question. This
one picture, is this the difference in elevation from the development
versus your back yard?
MS. VanSLYKE: I have the As Built figures here, which depict
Page 33
March 28, 2006
the elevations of our yards.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I'm just looking at this one picture.
MS. VanSlyke: I can't see it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That picture's worth a thousand words, I
think. And I think that this is one of the problems that we're finding
throughout all of Collier County.
I have a huge issue with stormwater in District 2. And just to let
you know, that we realize that this is a huge issue in the Lely area to
the point where we went to Washington this year looking for relief in
the stormwater issue, and I believe it encompasses where you live
over 11,000 acres. So we realize there is a problem, but something of
this nature needs to be addressed before we go any further.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Will the proposed enforcement
of stormwater take care of this problem, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe it will. Their stormwater's
not supposed to go on other people's property. I believe that the
statement that she made -- and I need to have Stan confirm that on the
record here in just a couple seconds -- that the bond will not be
released until the swale is fixed is the hammer we have over this
particular person where we don't have to go in front of Code
Enforcement Board, where we basically hold their money.
Tom or Stan, you want to talk about that a little bit?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. Good morning,
Commissioner, Stan Chrzanowski, Engineering Review. I have a few
pictures also. This is the swale.
Can you hear me? That's Mrs. VanSlyke's house in the
background. That's the swale leading away from her house. Her--
this picture is taken facing north. This picture is that same swale from
that location taken facing south.
This picture -- the monument you see, the survey monument
down here is -- the corner of that swale, the south end of it, and all the
Page 34
March 28, 2006
way up at the north end of that is Mrs. VanSlyke's.
The swale then makes a turn to the east, and that's the same
monument you see at this point, and the swale heads out to a wetland.
Now, when this proj ect was being approved, when the proj ect
was going through its review, we, county staff, everybody, realized
there was a problem.
On March 20th -- April 15th -- April 15th of 2003, we sent an
email to Ricardo Valera at the Water Management District telling him
that -- to be aware of the project Mandalay. The design looks normal.
It actually looks conservative, but the problem is, there's an existing
subdivision on the north side of Mandalay called Quail Hollow done
in 1986, 20 years ago.
Quail Hollow residents are screaming that Mandalay will disrupt
their drainage. That shouldn't happen unless Quail Hollow back yards
are draining illegally into Mandalay, but that may be the case.
Please tell your reviewer, whoever that is, to pay close attention
to that possibility by maybe requiring cross-sections of existing
conditions along that common side.
And then in May, Ricardo attended the EAC meeting and was --
and saw the plans for Mandalay and said that the Water Management
District would take everything into account.
But we were assuming it was just the back yard drainage. I think
that the engineering staff at that time had assumed that this proj ect was
a Water Management District permit, and it turned out it wasn't.
That's -- sorry that's upside down. I'm used to north facing up the
page, not that anybody can tell.
What you're -- what you're looking at here is your standard Lidar
contour maps. And the one thing about contour maps, the colors
represent contour lines. The contour lines are the edge of the color.
And if you look here, you can see the contour line for the eight
five, the eight oh. These are grades NABD. It's just a different datum
than the A&GBD (sic) data that's done by small point.
Page 35
March 28, 2006
Flow is always perpendicular to contour lines. So the flow
coming off these parcels would go this way. If you look at the broken
line, that's basically continental divide. It's the dividing line between
the flow going toward their system and the flow going toward the
Mandalay project, and a lot of the flow -- it wasn't just back yards that
were involved.
This whole area in here and the road -- I've been out at the site. It
all seems to drain toward the Mandalay project. The swale you saw
drains into that wetland at the bottom right-hand corner of this
drawing. When the water builds up, the swale just ponds.
One of the reasons that the district signed off on this and the big
problem they seem to have with this is, they looked at it and they said,
well, where's the district permit on this? And this was 1986. This is
five years before Tom and I -- well, yeah, five years before Tom and I
got involved with the county.
And the water management district has the concern that a lot of
this flow is going off-site untreated for water quality and untreated for
water quantity. That's their big objection. And really, we don't
usually make neighbors -- when we cite somebody for a code violation
__ technically this is a code violation. You're discharging uncontrolled
water off-site.
When we cite a person, we always cite the homeowner. We don't
cite the neighbor building the house next door and tell him to fix the
homeowner's problem. We cite the homeowner.
In this case, we tried solving the problem with the back yards by
routing their water uncontrolled, no water quality treatment, off into a
wetland. The water management district has a problem with that.
I don't know what the solution is to this. There are some
solutions. One is, we could have Quail Hollow go back in for an
after-the- fact water management district permit, but the district would
them make them re-grade their back yards.
One of the policies we had back when this was going on is, we
Page 36
March 28, 2006
didn't allow people to clear the trees off their parcels after we
permitted the subdivision. So when somebody went to clear, if they
wanted trees kept in the back yard, they kept the back yard down low,
which is what the developer did here.
T om talked to the -- Tom would be talking today, but he can't
talk today, kind of like Paul Mattausch. Tom talked to the engineer,
Bill McAnly, and -- do you want to talk?
MR. KUCK: Yeah. I'll talk for a little while. You've got to
excuse me. Good morning, Commissioners, Tom Kuck, Engineering
Director, for the record.
Yes, I met with Bill McAnly yesterday. He was the engineer
who designed this project in 1985/'86 and he said -- I'm talking about
the Quail Hollow project. He said, it was designed so all the flow
would go to the north.
Well, it was never developed that way. When the homes were
built on there, they didn't put the right amount of fill in. They put
enough fill in to build the house, and just left the yards the way they
were. So consequently a lot of the drainage and runoff from Quail
Hollow drains to the south instead of to the north.
Another problem we've seen out there is lack of maintenance on
the swales. I believe that if a survey was taken, you would find or we
would find and discover that if -- just cleaning out those swales and
some of the pipes under the road would alleviate some of the problem.
I'll point to one place where I think a lot of the excess water is
coming from.
MR. MUDD: Do it right here, Tom?
MR. KUCK: Right where these arrows are here, you've got a lot
of this water that's coming in and coming right down through here,
and this is where Sharon lives right here, I believe. Did you hear me
or not?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
MR. KUCK: And I believe with some reworking of Quail
Page 37
March 28, 2006
Hollow -- again, to repeat myself -- on cleaning out the culverts and
looking at those and possibly looking at where some of this water
could be directed back to the north, that that will eliminate a lot of the
runoff. It really should be going to the north and it's been going to the
south.
Mandalay is not the problem. Mandalay has an interceptor,
another swale around here that picks off their back yard drainage and
diverts it back here.
The people of Quail Holloware saying that when this was
developed -- when Mandalay was developed, it just created a dam for
their flow coming across here. Well, it probably did. But if it would
have been built the way it was supposed to have been, we wouldn't
have that problem. Everything would be draining to the north and
then on around through the sloughs.
I'll answer any questions you may have.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Henning, this is -- I asked you to
come forward and talk for a second, and this had to do with
Commissioner Henning's question and how we can fix this particular
issue. One, his question was about code enforcement and do we have
any hammers, and talked about the bonding before. Your
recommendation?
MR. KUCK: On the bonding?
MR. MUDD: On how to fix it.
MR. KUCK: On how to fix it? I think we need to go out -- the
county or somebody needs to go out and make the study and look at
the existing drainage in Quail Hollow and find all the deficiencies.
And if that's the problem, correct those. The swale that's been
provided along here is more than adequate to take care of the runoff
from just the rear yards, but it's not designed to take the runoff from
the streets and everything else in Quail Hollow.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Tom, I've got a question. When I looked
at this one picture, there's a huge elevation change between Quail
Page 38
March 28, 2006
Hollow and Mandalay. This one picture depicts, I would say, maybe
an elevation change of about two feet, just guessing. I don't know
where that picture's at but it was down here.
Commissioner Coyle, do you have that picture?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let me see if I -- yeah, there
it is. I think this is the one that you're talking about.
CHAIRMAN HALAS : Yeah, here it is. I look at this picture. It
looks to me as if you -- maybe you ought to put that up on the -- it
looks to me like you've got almost an elevation change of two feet.
MR. KUCK: Now again, what was the question?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Look at the elevation change from the
back yard to where the Mandalay project is. That looks to me -- that
white area must be the area that you're going to be doing the
construction in, yes?
MR. KUCK: Yes. Mandalay would be draining to the swale
from this area over into here. The bulk of this water, almost all of this
that you see here, is coming from Quail Hollow.
And currently, I believe, on Rattlesnake Hammock Road, I've
heard that transportation is doing some improvements, and there's a
water -- there where the Cypress Slough crosses Rattlesnake
Hammock, and anything they do there may help the drainage for this
whole area by eliminating some of the clogged ditches and the swales
there.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The point has to be made that Mandalay
did nothing wrong. They built exactly to the grade they're supposed to
build according to the water management district. And if this proj ect
had been built 20 years ago correctly, the problem wouldn't exist.
We tried to solve the problem by installing that perimeter swale.
The swale was sized for back yards, but the water management district
doesn't like the perimeter swale because it totally bypasses any water
quality and quantity retention within the project, and Quail Hollow is
the violation here. It's not Mandalay.
Page 39
March 28, 2006
And the only way to -- and it's a violation that goes back a long
time that didn't really show until this project was built. And the only
way to fix it, you have two ways.
Well, if it were up to the district, I suspect they would have you
put a weir in that ditch so that the water gets retained in the ditch
before being discharged off site. That's standard.
The other way is to raise the grade of the back yards, but that will
kill all the trees that you see, the large trees that are in the back yards.
I don't -- this is a public petition. I don't know how deep you
want to get into this here, or do you want to come back with a full
presentation?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I think we need to come back
with a full presentation. When I voted against it in the first place, the
reason I voted against it is, I couldn't see how you could build in an
area that was swampy and not affect the neighbors behind them. And,
of course, we were assured that you get all of this drainage, but it
didn't happen. I mean, it's going to drain someplace.
And being that they didn't have any water problems before and
now they do -- and we have allowed these people to build there. I
don't care whose problem it was, as you say, before, it didn't happen
until these people built here, so we've got to do something to change
that around, period.
It shouldn't be the responsibility of the Quail Hollow people to
put money into something and fix something when it's not their fault
in the first place. So we've got to find -- I would love to have you
come back and show us ways that this can be remedied, eliminated,
any of this flooding, and guaranteed to be eliminated.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Ma'am, it's difficult to force water to go
upstream.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well -- well, then --
MR. KUCK: The one thing we -- the one thing we can do is do a
Page 40
March 28, 2006
survey of some spot elevations throughout Quail Hollow and see if
there is a fix, and if there's lack of maintenance of the swales out there
and some of the culverts on the road are partially plugged, if that
could be part of the problem. We haven't gone to that detail yet.
We've spent a lot of time with this going back and forth.
And I realize that Quail Hollow has a problem, and we're
interested in finding a fix also. I will say one other thing about Quail
Hollow. That was developed in '85, '86 and '87. At that time the
engineering department or the county did not do full-depth inspections
of the developments, and also when they issued CO's for the homes,
they didn't check the lot drainage. We've made a lot of improvements
over the last 20 years, but this is another one of those older projects.
I'm talking about Quail Hollow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And like Commissioner Halas said
before --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you want to bring -- do you want to
make a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll bring this back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's the best way to do it.
MS. V anSL YKE: Could I just make one more small comment?
When this -- as I said in my speech at the beginning, when drainage
swales were first installed, they worked fine. Our yards were dry. It
wasn't until after heavy rain in May and early June when the sod--
when the swales sat unsodded and all the dirt was, you know, washed
into the swales that they quit functioning like they should. They
worked fine when they were first installed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to bring it back, please,
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got a motion to bring this back
Page 41
March 28, 2006
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: All those opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We solved that.
Commissioner Coyle, did you have anything else you wanted to
say?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. That's all I wanted to do. We
want to get this back and get it solved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jim, would you explain to her what
that means, what we just did? Thank you.
Item #12B
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR
THE PURCHASE OF THE REMAINDER PROPERTY, FULL
COMPENSATION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 178,
AND ATTORNEY FEES IN THE CASE STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. TEODORO GIMINEZ, ET AL.,CASE NO. 04-0561-
CA (VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT #63051) -
APPROVED AND STAFF TO BRING RECOMMENDATIONS ON
SAID PROPERTY WITHIN 60 DAYS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that -- well, we have a time certain
Item, and that is -- that is 12B, and that is a recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners approve a mediated settlement
providing for the purchase of the remainder property for full
Page 42
March 28, 2006
compensation for the acquisition of parcel 178 and attorney's fees in
the case styled Collier County versus Teodoro Gimenez, et aI, case
number 04-0561-CA, Vanderbilt Beach Road, project 63051, total
fiscal impact $1,534,876.
And I believe that Ms. Ellen Chadwell from the County
Attorney's Office will present.
MS. CHADWELL: Okay. Good morning, Commissioners. I
am here on behalf of a mediated settlement agreement and a
condemnation suit entitled Collier County versus Teodoro Gimenez.
In 2004 the county filed suit to condemn a right-of-way for
parcel for Vanderbilt Beach Road improvements, and this parcel was
identified as 178.
And if you'll take a look at this aerial photo I have up here, you'll
see a good illustration of the area of the take. The property -- the
subject property is situated on the southwest corner of Vanderbilt
Beach Road and Collier Boulevard.
Prior to our acquisition, it was 6.6 acres in size. The county's
acquisition is 2.73 acres. So roughly 40 percent of the property was
acquired for purposes of right-of-way.
Our appraiser, we deposited, based on our appraiser's estimate of
full compensation, $917,200 in the summer of 2004. They have had a
couple appraisers look at the property, and they have valued the take
as well as the damages to the remainder at $1,917,000.
The worst-case scenario in this matter, were you to go to trial and
they were to prevail with a jury verdict in that amount, would expose
the county to $2,000,464, and you'll see that on the second page of the
executive summary where I've tried to estimate the compensation
attorney's fees that would be calculated under the benefits statute
based on that jury verdict cost.
I will say that the costs here have been estimated at $100,000.
That is probably a little light. Statutory interest at $120,000. They're
entitled to interest date of deposit, should they prevail on a verdict.
Page 43
March 28, 2006
What -- we went to mediation, pursuant to a court order. This is
scheduled for trial in August. There are a couple aspects about the
property I want to explain so you'll understand the damage component
of all of this.
This -- this property is actually a commercial subdistrict under
the Collier County Growth Management Plan. It allows for
commercial development. That subdistrict specifies that this property
would be entitled to 41,490 gross leasable square feet. I should say
that -- the square feet of gross leasable area of that sounds a little
better.
In addition, the property is required to maintain 2.3 acres of open
space, which is largely comprised of a 75- foot buffer along the south
property line and the western boundary of the property.
In addition, there are a number of other restrictions. All of these,
when you apply to the property in the after-condition is -- have some
impact on it, and that's where the damage issue arises from.
At the mediation staff -- and I have here with me today Kevin
Hendricks and Jay Ahmad in case you have any questions you'd like
to ask them.
At mediation, staff -- we agreed to reach settlement with the
property owner to buy the entire site at $8 a square foot. That
amounts to a total of $2,309,000 for the land. In addition, part of that
settlement includes $125,000 for attorney's fees. That was based on a
benefit of $464,000.
In addition, we're coming here before you today with some costs
that we have negotiated with the property owner. There's planning
fees in the amount of$12,OOO. And we have some defense costs for
depositions and exhibits and such that amount to $5,700. This lovely
exhibit you see here is part of where those dollars go.
At any rate, the settlement was reached to purchase the whole
property, and we feel that that is a good way to resolve this issue. It
allows us to get a good value for the right-of-way parcel that we'ver
Page 44
March 28, 2006
acquired.
It also allows us to restore the subdistrict, because one important
aspect of this is that the county owns -- and that should be -- let me see
if I can put something on the visualizer here for your benefit.
The county owns a lot, a little over one acre, it's an estates lot,
immediately south of this parcel. If we were to acquire the entire
McIntosh parcel, we would be able to amend the subdistrict, in
essence restoring a portion of what it has lost by adding that estates lot
to the 3.89-acre parcel. You'll have just under 5.
And consequently, that will put the lot owned by the county to a
higher and better use as opposed to its current use as residential. So
that is a plus.
In addition, instead of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in
damages or purported damages to the property, you're getting the
value in land in return for that.
So staff is here to recommend that the board approve that
settlement. We would also ask that you approve the negotiated costs
here in the amount of $17,700. And we would ask at -- I think in this
instance that there are some potential uses for this property. I can't
come here and say that we have thoroughly researched those
opportunities.
We have talked to planning staff as far as what would be required
in using this property for excavation of borrow material, for using this
property for an affordable housing project. Those are not uses as a
matter of right. Those would require -- the first would require a
conditional use permit. The second would require a plan amendment
and rezone, so those are things that bear further investigation.
This is a good -- a good opportunity, I think, for the board to give
staff some -- if you want to move this settlement, that you give staff
some direction to investigate the potential uses of the property and
come back to the board with a report in the event that it makes -- those
opportunities are not really feasible in the sense of going forward with
Page 45
March 28, 2006
using the property in that way. The county can then surplus it and
solicit bids to sell it.
It would also -- staff will also need some direction to amend the
plan -- the subdistrict to allow the inclusion of this lot to the south. I
have already spoken to planning staff on that, and they feel that's a --
that's a measure that they can recommend. They'll need direction for
that.
But I think should this board direct us to come back with a status
report in maybe 60 days, then at that point in time the board can make
some -- have some input as to how this property is used, and if you
decide that you prefer to just surplus it and sell it, then at that point in
time we can direct staff to move forward with a plan amendment to
incorporate the other property and surplus the whole -- the whole.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You about wrapped up?
MS. CHADWELL: I think that's about all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we've got some commissioners
that have some questions.
MS. CHADWELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, just an observation.
If you refer to that photograph that is on the board up there, the light
area is the right-of-way. That's really the only property that we really
would like to have for the expanded lanes in those two roads.
But because that damages the property, we have to pay additional
amounts of money for damage. So why not go ahead and buy the
entire parcel, which we then can, perhaps, dispose of and thereby save
taxpayers a ton of money on this particular property transaction.
So I would like to make a motion that we approve staffs
recommendation again with the qualification that we direct staff to
come back to us with recommendations about how we can best use the
additional property we are acquiring here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second it for discussion. I believe the
Page 46
March 28,2006
County Manager has something to say here.
MR. MUDD: I need to be real -- this has -- my comments have
to do with pending legislation in Tallahassee, it has to do with eminent
domain.
I want to make sure that the acquiring of the 3.897 acres, okay,
has nothing to do with eminent domain, that it is a voluntary sale, and
that's the way it's being -- that that's the way it's being put through in
this settlement, so that when we segregate -- because this thing is put
on the property appraiser's thing as a whole lot of some six acres, I
believe, or five-plus acres.
We need to make sure that area that -- and I've got to switch
again. That area that you showed on the camera that's light in here,
the part that we need for the road that caused this action, which was an
eminent domain taking and the part in green that we're doing
voluntary are separate so that it doesn't come across that way, because
that pending legislation says that any eminent domain can't be resold
to a private developer, okay?
Because there's some things that happened up in Connecticut, and
there's some things that have happened on the east coast of Florida
that have caused grave concern about governments using eminent
domain and then reselling the parcel for private development to
increase the tax rolls.
So I just want to make sure that that's clear. And, Ellen, for the
record, get a clarification that that parcel, that 3.878-acre parcel that's
on the visualizer is a voluntary acquisition.
MS. CHADWELL: Yeah, clearly it's voluntary on behalf of the
property owner. And under the recommendations, you'll see that I've
asked that you authorize staff to proceed with the acquisition of good
and marketable title to the remainder either through a closing or a
stipulated final judgment.
Although I don't think there's a large concern in going forward
with this, we can certainly close on the property and that will, you
Page 47
March 28, 2006
know, take it out of the context of stipulated final judgment in the
condemnation suit.
So if you'd like to authorize us to do that, there will be some
incidental closing costs associated with that, but that's certainly a way
that we can handle it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My motion includes that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? Pardon?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My motion includes that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. My second does, too.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was delighted to hear that
you were considering all aspects, and possibly, but you didn't mention
this, even something about more county-owned affordable housing or
working with the developer to sell them at our cost, this property, so
that they can build and we could stipulate that they build some kind of
affordable housing or, you know, whatever is needed in the market,
and soon, you know, rather than let it set for five or 10 years or
something like that, if that can be done, and maybe, you know,
depending, maybe even work with them on the land trust, possibly
putting it into a land trust. I realize it's bought with gas taxes and
impact fees, so that's not going to be a cheap thing to do. But, you
know, I'm glad that you're exploring all avenues.
MS. CHADWELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other further
discussion on this?
Yes, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to remind the
commissioners, in the Growth Management Plan this parcel unit per
acre for residential is two and a quarter, one unit per two and a quarter.
So if we want to put affordable housing there, we have to amend the
compo plan. That can be challenged and probably will be by the
Page 48
March 28, 2006
neighboring properties. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two and a quarter limitation on
each homesite, you're saying?
MS. CHADWELL: Yes, he's correct. And as I did mention, it
would require plan amendment and a rezone, so that -- you know, we
__ it needs to be investigated, we need some time to research the
details of all that, and then let the board make a decision as to how
they think this property's best utilized.
I would ask for some clarification on the motion. Are you asking
that we come back within 60 days with a status report, or is there an
indefinite time period within --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sixty days sounds good to me.
MS. CHADWELL: Sixty days.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It was in my motion, or my second, I
should say.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor of the motion that was provided by Commissioner
Coyle and seconded by Commissioner Halas, all those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes.
Okay. And at that -- and at that we'll take a 12-minute break.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Twelve minutes?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Twelve minutes. So we'll be back here
Page 49
March 28, 2006
at 10:43, that's correct.
(A brief recess was had)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Board of County Commissioners are
now back from recess.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2006-75: APPOINTING LAUREEN OWENS AND
KENNETH KELLY TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
COMMISSION - ADOPTED W/CHANGE TO EXPIRATION
DATE
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that would bring us to Item -- we
do the zoning and the advertised public hearings starting at one
o'clock.
That would bring us to paragraph 9, Board of County
Commissioners, in particular, 9A, which is appointment of members
to the Affordable Housing Commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if I may?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I'd like to recommend
that we go with the committee's recommendations on this.
MS. FILSON: And--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Commissioners, could I --
could I just mention? We have a lot of affordable housing in East
Naples, a reallot of it, and yet there's not one person that sits on that
committee that lives in East Naples. There was one lady that applied,
and I would think, just like we want to have somebody in Immokalee
and in the east end of the county, I think we should also have
Page 50
March 28, 2006
somebody from East Naples. So I would like to nominate her,
Laureen Mary Owens and Kenneth Kelly, if that would be okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to see Don Spanier on that
committee. He's been on there for a number of years, and I think he's
very well adapt to that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I personally am not
concerned if I have someone from District 5 there. I mean, one person
would be great but -- from Immokalee, and I already got someone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's not so much the issue. In
fact, there's been times that I have voted for people from other districts
to be on these committees because I thought they were more capable.
I just think -- the reason I was going with the recommendations is
the committee seems to have -- have direction now. It took a long
time to get there, and I'd like to be able to empower them to keep
going forward. That's the reason I made that recommendation to go
with their recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And normally we do do that,
but as I looked through all of the people sitting on there, I realize that
nobody from East Naples sits on there and yet we have thousands and
thousands of affordable homes here, and I think that they should be a
part of it. And this lady --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's no one from your
district on there?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Oh, from my district, yes. But,
somebody that lives on Marco Island. They don't have, really,
affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I don't have anybody from
Golden Gate Estates on there either. I do have somebody from
Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know. And that's -- if you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you know, it's a balance of
Page 51
March 28, 2006
the whole thing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe we have some direction from--
MS. FILSON: If I may interject, Commissioners, on 12/13/05
you amended the ordinance, and the ordinance indicates that there
must be one person living east of Collier Boulevard, and I believe the
only one that fits that category is Kenneth Kelly.
And then while I'm speaking, I'd like to change the expiration
dates of these two members to mirror the rest of them. I picked up the
expiration dates of the city, and they reduced the city's membership
from four to two. So I would like the expiration dates to be October
1 st as opposed to what I have in the executive summary.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: September 1st -- or September 16th?
MS. FILSON: Yeah. I have September and -- 16th, and it
should be October 1 st, then that will mirror the expiration of all the
other members.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we're supposed to have one
east of951, we already do.
MS. FILSON: And one from Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, and one from Immokalee.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, got you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So again, I ask you to consider
Laureen Owens. She's a lady that has been -- she and her husband are
strong Catholic people that have been very --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I withdraw my motion and go
with Commissioner Fiala's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She's a good person.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And she works with WIC and a lot
of charitable --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sure she is. I think all
Page 52
March 28, 2006
these people are good people. But obviously you have some strong
feelings about that individual. And if I can honor, you know, that, I'd
be happy to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bless your heart. Thank you so
much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So is the motion that we're going
to have Laureen Mary Owens as one representative and Don Spanier
as the second representative?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, Kenneth Kelly, because we
have to have one east of 951 in the Estates area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we might want to
encourage the other people to reapply when those other vacancies
become available.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor. Do
I have a second?
MS. FILSON: I have a motion by Commissioner Fiala and a
second by Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Okay. Is there any further
discussion?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor of the two candidates,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
Aye.
Motion carries.
Item #9B
Page 53
March 28, 2006
RESOLUTION 2006-76: APPOINTING ROBERT BENNETT TO
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next Item is 9B, and that is
appointment of a member to the County Government Productivity
Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hate to keep jumping in front,
but I personally know Robert Bennett and have seen his
accomplishments throughout all of Collier County, and I'd like to
recommend him.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Got a motion on the floor for
Robert Bennett and a second.
Any other further discussion?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Seeing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item lOB. That is
a recommendation to approve --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about 9C?
MR. MUDD: -- amendment number 4 --
Page 54
March 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got 9C, don't we?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, that was pulled.
MR. MUDD: Continued that indefinitely.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Excuse me. That was pulled.
Item #10B
AMENDMENT NUMBER (4) FOR A GUARANTEED MAXIMUM
PRICE (GMP) OF $1,716,800 UNDER CONTRACT NO. 04-3576,
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK SERVICES FOR
COURTHOUSE ANNEX AND PARKING GARAGE, WITH
KRAFT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE COURTHOUSE FOURTH FLOOR
RENOVATIONS. PROJECT NUMBER 52004 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Brings us to lOB. It's a recommendation to
approve amendment number four for a guaranteed maximum price of
$1,716 -- excuse me -- $1,716,800 under contract number 04-3576,
Construction Manager at Risk Services for courthouse annex and
parking garage with Kraft Construction Company, Inc., for the
construction of the courthouse fourth floor renovations, proj ect
number 52004.
And Ms. Len Price, your administrator for administrative
services -- excuse me. And Peter Hayden, your project manager over
in facilities, will present.
MR. HAYDEN: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning.
MR. HAYDEN: I apologize. I'm out of breath. My name is
Peter Hayden, senior project manager with facilities management
department.
Today I'm presenting the approval of a contract amendment with
Page 55
March 28, 2006
Kraft Construction for the courthouse fourth floor renovations.
On January 24,2006, the Board of County Commissioners
approved Item 10C waiving formal competition for the renovation
work under section V.A.3 of the purchasing policy, and section 255.2
of the Florida Statutes.
Spillis Candela DMJM is the architect of record for the
renovation project. The project consists of renovating approximately
5,800 square feet on the fourth floor of the existing courthouse for the
construction of one new courtroom, one hearing room, one jury
deliberation room, two judicial offices and two judicial assistant
offices.
The proposed cost is $1,716,800. The work is scheduled to begin
April, 2006. Work will be completed October 1, 2006. The
renovation will be completed nights and weekends.
That essentially concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
MR. HAYDEN: Questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The estimated cost is $300 per
square foot?
MR. HAYDEN: Yes, approximately; 296, but it's approximately
300.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, okay.
MR. HAYDEN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, is that comparable to
other recent construction?
MR. HAYDEN: This is a little bit higher for this project, and the
cost is higher due to the type of work at night and weekends.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. HAYDEN: It's difficult to get contractors to work the night
hours and the weekends.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The comparable, since the
building is already built, to me -- I mean, to me it's -- 300 a square
Page 56
March 28, 2006
foot would include the vertical construction. Where am I wrong on
that? Well, I mean --
MR. HAYDEN: Oh, I see what --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the building is already there.
All you're doing is fitting it for the need.
MR. HAYDEN: Well, a couple of issues. One, the compressed
construction schedule, which is essentially April to October, that's
one. So that's an accelerated time frame.
Two is the working conditions; nights and weekends I
mentioned.
Three, they are actually demolishing that whole 5,800 square
feet. There's a lot of demolition work that has to happen first in April
before they can even start doing any construction as far as the
rebuilding of courtrooms and that type of work.
MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, your facilities
management director. Let me add one other thing. These are -- there's
a courtroom involved. This is heavy electronics, and both for the
court system and for security and a lot of millwork. It's a very -- much
more expensive type of construction than regular office construction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What does millwork mean?
MR. CAMP: Heavy cabinetry, like the judges' benches. Of
course, it's reinforced and those kind of things. A lot of the security --
the courtroom actually becomes a jail cell in certain instances. We
don't want to go into a lot of the security, but all those issues make it a
much more expensive -- and this is both at the federal and state level.
They have the same kind of issues as relates to square-foot cost for
courtrooms and court facilities.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Millwork is all the wood trim that goes
inside those courtrooms. That's what millwork is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You mean the plush -- the
plushness of it.
MR. CAMP: Well, just a point --
Page 57
March 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what's expected in a courtroom,
SIr.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what's expected in a courtroom.
Every courtroom you ever go to, it's all woodwork in it, I believe.
MR. CAMP: Actually, you're both right. I don't mean to be a
diplomat. In our case, our courtroom -- our courthouse was built
without all the lavish finishes. We took white woods and stained
them. We -- you'll find no marble in there. We actually used too
many inexpensive finishes to the point where we're going to go back
and upgrade some of them. If you look at the floor, we tried to use a
less expensive terrazzo instead of a granite or a marble, and we're
paying for that now. So we did use very inexpensive finishes at the
time the building was built, and we're continuing that overall
philosophy, with some exceptions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions or discussion?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Entertain a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion to approve the risk
management service of the court annex by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 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.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 58
March 28,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, motion carries.
MR. HAYDEN: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item # 1 OC
RESOLUTION 2006-77: AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF
FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS FOR THE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-
WAY AND/OR STORMW A TER RETENTION AND TREATMENT
POND SITES, AS WELL AS PERPETUAL, NON EXCLUSIVE
ROAD RIGHT -OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
AND TEMPORARY DRIVEWAY RESTORATION EASEMENTS,
WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO
SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD FROM DAVIS BOULEV ARD
TO PINE RIDGE ROAD (PROJECT NO. 62081) - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next Item,
which is 10C. It's a recommendation to adopt a superseding resolution
authorizing condemnation of fee simple interest for the proposed
right-of-way and/or stormwater retention and treatment pond sites as
well as perpetual non-exclusive road right-of-way, drainage and utility
easements, temporary construction easements, and temporary
driveway restoration easements, which will be required for the
construction of a roadway, drainage and utility improvements on
Santa Barbara Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to Pine Ridge Road.
It's project number 62081, estimated fiscal impact is $5,693,500.
And Mr. Kevin Hendricks, the real estate proj ect manager for
transportation --
MR. HENDRICKS: Transportation.
MR. MUDD: -- will present.
MR. HENDRICKS: Good morning, Commissioners. How are
Page 59
March 28, 2006
you today?
I'd like to make one note here. The fiscal impact on your printed
agenda shows $14.18 million.
MR. MUDD: I already stated that.
MR. HENDRICKS: Oh, you've already done that?
MR. MUDD: I've stated it a couple times.
MR. HENDRICKS: Okay, good. Okay. Well, this is merely a
superseding resolution to authorize condemnation for the Santa
Barbara Boulevard project, phase one only. That takes us from Davis
Boulevard north to approximately Painted Leaf Lane.
And it doesn't alter the weight or the gravity of the findings
which you've already made regarding the necessity to condemn the
property for public purposes that you approved already on November
the 29th of 2004.
That basically is it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion to approve this by
Commissioner Henning and seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries. Thank you very much, sir.
Page 60
March 28, 2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you want, let's go to the time
certain that's for 11 o'clock. I don't think we --
MR. HENDRICKS: One minute.
MR. MUDD: Well, let's try this one. All right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Which one do you want to try?
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2006-78: AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY
GIFT OR PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS AND/OR
THOSE PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY EASEMENT
INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
REQUIRED FOR THE EXTENSION OF SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD FROM DAVIS BOULEVARD TO RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK ROAD (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT NO.
32. PROJECT NO. 60091) - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Let's try --let's try 10D because we've got our
speaker already at the podium, and that's Mr. Kevin Hendricks, head
of real estate for transportation.
10D is a recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the
acquisition by gift or purchase of fee simple interest and/or those
perpetual or temporary easement interests necessary for the
construction of roadway, drainage and utility improvements required
for the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to
Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
It's capital improvement element number 32, project number
60091. Estimated fiscal impact $10,918,000. And again, Mr. Kevin
Hendricks --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 61
March 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion on the--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I'd like to just add, I
thought it was interesting and should be noted and I'm happy about
this, that also included in this project, as I learned throughout this
thing is, they're going to finish up Radio Road and put it to four lanes
so that's going to -- to be a great help in that area as well. So I just
want to put that on the record.
MR. HENDRICKS: That would be phase one in the other
project that we just did the superseding condemnation resolution for.
We've added Radio Road to that as well.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any further discussion? Ifnot, a
motion is on the floor by Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Fiala in regards to these utility improvements for Davis
Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock.
I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries. Thank you very much.
Item #10A
REVIEW OF THE WRITTEN AND ORAL REPORTS OF THE
FOLLOWING ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
SCHEDULED FOR REVIEW IN 2006 IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-55: HISTORICAL AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD, LAKE
TRAFFORD RESTORATION TASK FORCE, LAND
Page 62
~-,--~.,--,- -_."",,,~ '"
March 28, 2006
ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC
VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Hendricks. You were wrong. It only took a
minute and 30 second.
Commissioner, that will bring us to lOA, and it's an 11 -- 11
o'clock time certain. This Item to be heard again at 11 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 number 2001-55: Historical and Archaeologic Preservation
Board, Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force, Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee, and the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
And Mr. Mike Sheffield, the assistant to the County Manager, will
present.
MR. SHEFFIELD: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike
Sheffield from the County Manager's Office.
As you know, the purpose of these reviews are for you to
determine if the advisory 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 packets. 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
presenter.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please do.
MR. SHEFFIELD: Okay. The first presenter is John Thompson,
representing the Historical and Archaeologic Preservation Board.
MR. THOMPSON: And I'll be glad to answer any questions you
might have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions by the
Page 63
March 28,2006
board. Do you have a brief summary?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's in our book.
MR. THOMPSON: Do I have a brief -- well, we're doing our job
in the way it's designed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any questions from
commissioners in regards to Historical and Archaeologic Preservation
Board?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, thank you very much, sir.
MR. SHEFFIELD: The next presenter is Clarence Tears,
representing the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I went over there to see that the
other day. That was really interesting to watch that thing working.
MR. TEARS: Actually, this is pretty exciting news. We're
dredging. We removed over three and a half million cubic yards of
muck from Lake Trafford. And as you can see in the photo, this one
shows the dredge on the lake, you know, some of the pumping
stations. And then in the far right-hand corner, you'll see the muck
being stored on the section of land that we acquired for this proj ect.
This phase of the project probably will be completed by the end
of April. And the only other Item that we're looking at is possibly
doing littoral zone cleanup, which may extend the contract probably
five or six months.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation would like to get the
fringes cleaned out for some bass habitat, so we're working with them.
I think the task force is doing their job and has for the last 10
years to keep this proj ect moving forward.
And with that, I'd answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions from
commissioners? Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What did you say they were trying
to clear out?
Page 64
March 28, 2006
MR. TEARS: Littoral zone. There's a lot of vegetation in the
littoral zone. And we may have to use a different type of dredge for
that, shallow draft-type dredge.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And one last question. It was so
much fun watching this. And one of the Immoka1ee citizens took me
around. It was just -- it was just a great experience, and I loved it.
And I notice that the water pouring back in is all black. Is that -- does
that contain sediment?
MR. TEARS: No. Actually it meets all the background
standards that we have for return water. We actually have a consultant
that is not an on-site firm cleaning up the lake, but we hired a
consultant that does testing daily to ensure that the quality of water
return to the lake meets the standards that we want.
And currently we actually have three cells. In my understanding,
they just recently started using the third cell to store some of this
material, and then the second cell, the water levels went down so
much they actually went back to the second cell. So we have actually
a lot of space to store additional material.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the quality of the material as far
as -- have you made samples, soil samples, of that material that's
going into that area?
MR. TEARS: Well, we did -- you know, we did cross-sections
of the lake before the dredging project started to look at the soil
content to ensure that we could store it on the site safely, so it met all
standards at that time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What I'm getting at is, the materials
that's in the soil, actually it's being compacted. And is the levels of
stuff that we don't want to be associated with, is that increased as we
put this on -- in this reserve?
MR. TEARS: No. I think it's a little too early to do the testing.
We need to ensure that all the material settles out and starts to dry up.
And what we'll do is after the areas dry up, we'll go back in and test
Page 65
March 28, 2006
the material --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. TEARS: -- to ensure, you know, that it meets all standards.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Entailings, finding out what it entails?
MR. TEARS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I may. The oxidation
that will take place with this material, how long will it take to get it
down to base material that will be left after the oxidation takes place?
MR. TEARS: It really -- it probably will depend a lot on this
upcoming wet season and the impacts on that on some of these
holding sites. We're pretty optimistic. The water levels have been
dropping quickly. We're starting to see a lot of the material or water
going into the soil, so we're pretty optimistic. Probably about a year
out, I would think, you know, being extremely optimistic, or maybe
just a little bit longer than that. It really depends.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's one of those unknown
things, but I'm sure we'll get the answers. What assurances do we
have that we won't have a muck build-up in the lake again? What has
been done to prevent that?
MR. TEARS : Well, we actually hired the Florida Gulf Coast
University to do a modeling study of the lake to look at inflows, and
based on that, we may work with Collier County to do stormwater
improvements in the area just to see what opportunities we have to
ensure that this doesn't happen again. In addition, we're looking at
various aeration-type systems spread out through the lake to just sort
of give it a little muscle and decaying process to help the lake sustain
itself.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Keep the oxygen levels up.
MR. TEARS: It's putting the lake on steroids, actually, to keep
up with some of the inflows.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions?
Page 66
March 28, 2006
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. TEARS: Thank you. Have a good day, Commissioners.
MR. SHEFFIELD: The next presenter is Bill Poteet,
representing Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee.
MR. POTEET: Good morning. For the record, my name is Bill
Poteet, and I've had the pleasure of serving as the chairman of the
Conservation Collier committee for the last year.
You've requested that we come before you today for the
four-year review, and I can tell you without reservation that
Conservation Collier's playing a significant role in our community.
From our inception three years ago, the committee has worked
long and diligently to recommend to you properties worthy of being
associated with Conservation Collier.
We have reviewed numerous properties, totalling over 2,100
acres, properties which are voluntarily submitted to us to be purchased
by Conservation Collier.
Of the 2,100 plus acres we've reviewed, we've narrowed our
recommendations down to around 652 acres, of which Collier County
currently owns 425 acres of pristine wetlands and wild habitat.
The locations we've recommended to Collier County are
typically locations with high visibility and with addresses like U.S. 41,
Immokalee Road, Pine Ridge and Collier Boulevard.
We recently held our first dedication of a preserve at the
Cocohatchee Creek Preserve in North Naples. It was well attended,
and it's kind of a show of things to come. And we anticipate a number
of other openings in the near future.
Additionally, one of our purchases, the Ottermount (phonetic)
property, was included -- has included an important archaeologic site
which was at imminent risk for development.
Now, we typically find properties to be encroached by
Page 67
March 28, 2006
developments to ensure open air green space remains within our
community. We constantly review our process and look specifically if
we are spreading Conservation Collier down evenly between our
county commission districts. We think it's important to spread the
wealth around the community and make sure we're not just focusing
on one neighborhood.
We've done pretty well with that with the exception of District 3,
and it's not because we haven't tried. Last year we really focused on
District 3. There's just not a lot of properties in that district for us to
meter our ordinance requirements.
The committee is currently working on some referendum
language for a cap on the amount of dollars to be spent for
Conservation Collier, and we should have that back to you by the next
meeting for your consideration. Weare working on recommendations
to changes in the ordinance which create a Conservation Collier (sic),
specifically the removal of sending lands from our target areas that
were -- sent out a request for purchase.
We currently have four subcommittees addressing various issues.
We have a full contingent of board members who meet regularly, and
we also have a number of citizens in the environmental community
that attend our meetings on a regular basis.
Just to summarize Collier -- Conservation Collier has been a very
productive committee, following the directives set forth by this Board
of County Commissioners. Weare excited about the future of the
community, anticipate bringing you some outstanding properties for
consideration in our upcoming fourth cycle.
And as a personal note, I can tell you that I am just so proud to be
part of this committee, because every time we go out there and buy a
piece of property, we create a legacy for my kids and all the citizens
of Collier County. Thank you. Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have any questions for staff?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good report.
Page 68
March 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bill, I've got a question. This past
weekend the sheriffs department was out there at Rail Head Preserve.
What are we going to do with that? And are we going to have that
opened up for the public? And what do you foresee --
MR. POTEET: We're in the midst of putting together our plan.
You know, you have to do a temporary plan of action on how to do it,
and then we set up the dedication, then we set up a long-term
maintenance plan, and our subcommittee is addressing that as we
speak.
The actual sheriffs activity this weekend, which we welcome,
wasn't brought on by us. It was by the local neighbors who were
complaining of all the A TV activity on it. And you know, one of the
reasons we bought that particular piece of property, it is loaded with
gopher turtles. I mean -- and it's -- you know, it's just great upland
property that every environmentalist in Collier County, when we
looked at all the properties, said that was the number one pick. And so
we want to keep it as pristine as we can.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that have the environment for
Scrub Jays?
MR. POTEET: Alex Sulecki could probably answer that much
better than I could. She's our expert resident.
And for your record, Alex does a wonderful job providing the
staff support for our committee.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you. And for the record, Alex Sulecki,
Coordinator of Conservation Collier. It does have Scrub Jay habitat,
but it's not big enough. It doesn't -- we've never seen any Scrub Jays
on it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. What is the intent for that piece
of property? Are we going to use that for any type of recreation, or is
it strictly going to be basically just trails in there, walking trials?
MS. SULECKI: Walking trails is what we anticipate. And we
have to wait till we have access through the Veterans Boulevard, the
Page 69
March 28, 2006
east/west Livingston.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, got ya.
Any other questions?
(N 0 response)
MR. POTEET: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MR. SHEFFIELD: The chairman of the Public Vehicle
Advisory Committee is not in the boardroom, so Michelle Arnold will
present on behalf of that committee.
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code
Enforcement Director. The chairman, Tony Marino, unfortunately
had a conflict. He was going to try to make it, but unfortunately, as
you can see, he's not here.
You have the report in front of you. If the board has any
questions, I think that the committee's serving its purpose and doing a
good job.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions from
commissioners?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, thank you very much. We'll make
__ anybody for a motion for approval of the reports on these four
committees?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, we have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Fiala to approve
the reports by the four advisory committees.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 70
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It carries. Thank you very much, each
and every one of you.
Item #10E
REPORT TO THE BOARD ON A REQUEST FROM THE
COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION THAT THE BCC OF COLLIER COUNTY
DONATE THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE BEMBRIDGE
PUD TO BE USED FOR AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE
HOUSING - STAFF TO RETURN WITH OPTIONS,
GUIDELINES AND RESTRICTIONS - CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10E, and
that's a report to the board on the request from the Collier County
Housing Development Corporation that the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County donate the residential portion of the
Bembridge PUD to be used for affordable workforce housing, and Mr.
Cormac Giblin, your Affordable Housing Coordinator, will present
from Community Development's Environmental Services.
MR. GIBLIN: Good morning, Commissioners. Again, for the
record, Cormac Giblin, your Housing and Grants Manager.
This is a status on the request from the Collier County Housing
Development Corporation's request for the donation of the residential
portion of the county-owned Bembridge PUD.
The Bembridge PUD airs on the visualizers here. I have about
Page 71
---~- ^ .- ._~....".",~."~,~",,....__..,,"..,,-
March 28, 2006
10 or 11 slides just to walk you through to give you a little bit of
background and a quick status report on what -- some of the questions
that we've been -- some of your questions we've been able to answer
over the past month or so since you last saw an Item on this -- an
agenda Item on this.
The Bembridge PUD is on Santa Barbara Boulevard just north of
Davis Boulevard. It's 40 acres. It's currently occupied by the Caloosa
Park Elementary School, and there is an EMS -- county EMS station
being built on the southwest portion of the PUD.
There's a close-up of the residential portion of the PUD. It's
approximately 5.2 acres.
And the request from the Collier County Housing Development
Corporation is that they are a not- for-profit corporation whose mission
is to ensure that all residents of the county have a decent, affordable
home in a safe neighborhood, and they're requesting that the county
donate the residential portion of the PUD to be placed in an affordable
housing land trust.
A land trust would be formed called the Community Land Trust
of Collier County. We would take the price of the land out of the
price of the housing that's built on it, and ensure the long-term
affordability of the units for 99 years. And they would invite the BCC
to become an active partner in this land trust.
At your last meeting, there was a proposal from some of the
board members to research the feasibility of restricting some or all of
the units to be used or sold or rented to county employees only.
We've had several meetings with the County Attorney's Office looking
into this scenario.
And one of the pertinent state statutes that govern the -- that
would influence that decision is the one I've put on the screen, and I've
highlighted some of the most important parts.
Basically this statute reads that if the county -- the county may
donate or sell a piece of property to a nonprofit organization whose
Page 72
March 28, 2006
mission is -- is to promote the community interest and welfare only
after the board has declared that it is not -- that property is not needed
for county purposes.
In discussions with the County Attorney's Office, attaching a
restriction to the property that the units only be occupied, or a
majority or some of the units be occupied by county employees,
would not meet the letter of this statute, and, therefore, you would not
be able to donate the property to the Housing Development
Corporation.
If it is the board's desire or intent that a portion of the units be
restricted to BCC employees only, the property would have to go
through the normal property, surplus property, disposal format, be
output for formal bid, and -- with whatever restrictions the board
would like to see on that parcel.
So that is really a -- one of the main issues that we've been
researching since our last meeting is, can the BCC restrict the
ownership or the use of the units to only our own employees, and the
answer is yes, but not going through this process.
The state statute on the screen in front of you now does allow us
to donate or sell at a nominal fee or sell at market value county -owned
property to any nonprofit organization for the purposes of promoting
the interest and welfare of the county.
The -- some of the background specifics on the piece itself. It
was purchased by Collier County in 2001 for approximately $414,000
using impact fees to fund that purchase. It's currently appraised at
about $1.1 million. That appraisal's current as of a couple months ago.
Again, the Housing Development Corporation's request is to
donate the land to be used permanently for affordable workforce
housing and placed in the land trust. And if done, the impact fee trust
fund, the original source used to buy the land would need to be
reimbursed from some source, either the general fund or some of the
voluntary housing contributions that recent developments have been
Page 73
March 28, 2006
contributing, or even if we enact a linkage fee in the future, those
could all be possible funding sources.
There was also a discussion at the last board meeting about the
number of units at various income levels and the proposed sale prices
of what those units would be.
The developer, who I'll introduce in a minute, and they'll make a
presentation of their own, they've really come up with two different
scenarios. And here we have A and B.
The bar graph in red shows a distribution of units ranging from
60 percent to 150 percent of median income. The majority, 51 percent
of that spread, do fall between -- at less than 80 percent of median. So
60 and 80 percent units do make up the majority of those -- of that
scenario, although it does encompass a wider range of incomes.
Scenario B is capped at 120 percent of median income and --
however, doing that, you see that the majority of the units wind up
being 100, 120 percent units. I'll show you the next slide here. It kind
of puts everything in order in a table.
Again, scenario A. We have 51 percent of the units at 80 percent
or less of median, but it also does include some 150, 140 percent of
median units.
Scenario B caps everything at 120, but without those higher
income units to share the -- to spread the costs over, the high point of
the curve occurs at the 100, 120 percent.
Again, the -- and then the -- the other column is the associated
proposed sale prices that would be charged for each unit at those -- at
those levels. These would be exclusive of down payment assistance
that the county may offer, or in some cases impact fees. If impact fee
deferrals were extended to reach up to the 150 percent level, those
would then also be backed out of that.
And then based on the two different scenarios, the developer has
come up with two possible site plans. Just -- this is just a graphical
representation of how the units could fit on that -- on that piece of
Page 74
March 28, 2006
property. Both of these scenarios have the same number of units, it's
just a slight mix.
In the scenario B, there are some three-story units. The scenario
A at the top is all two-story product, as well as a community center
and the room for pool and cabana, some type of on-site amenities,
playground or what have you.
There is a graphical illustration of -- this same developer is
building an affordable -- or actually a mixed income development
down at the corner of Bayshore and Thomasson Road called Serus
Point PUD. This is what Serus Point is going to look like when it's
built. It's already been approved, it's in the site plan approval phase
now. And this is just put on the screen to show you what -- what
could -- what the product built on Bembridge could look like or may
look like.
And with that, if you don't have any questions of me, I can
introduce the HDC themselves.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, I believe, has a
question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. Let's go back up. I
tell you one of the things I feel very, very strongly about is that we
come up with a matrix where we can provide housing for our
employees. I don't think we should be the -- what do you want to call
it, the housing sync for the whole county. I do think that we're going
to see other people coming forward.
Recently North Naples Fire Department came up with a million
dollars toward affordable housing. The school system's working very
hard at it.
I think that we have a responsibility for our own employees, and
we have a responsibility to make our laws as user-friendly as possible
for affordable housing.
Would it be possible to come up with a way that we put this
whole thing out with bid with specific requirements in it? In other
Page 75
March 28, 2006
words, we're looking for affordable housing to fall within, say A, and
this is the particular scenario we're looking for and employee -- the
housing would be for county employees? And they bid on it, and then
they pay for it, and they have to provide it within that framework even
though the bid may be very small and it might be our own housing
authority that's out there. But one of the requirements would be is that
they place it into a trust for perpetuity. I think that would get us past
this issue as far as what's legal and what isn't.
If we did that and made that part of the specifications of the bid,
would that work, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Well, I think it would. I appreciate
the opportunity to comment.
As you are probably aware, during this legislative session, there
is some legislation also that's percolating a bit, I believe, prepared by
Representative Mike Davis, which attempts to -- and, again, it's in the
__ it's in the early stage, but attempts to provide some additional
legislative opportunity for a county like Collier County beyond the
limitations of section 125.38, which Cormac has illustrated very well.
So, yes, the answer is, I think that the county could do what
you're -- what you are suggesting, particularly to provide property for
county employees with the appropriate restrictions thereon.
It just would not be done under this statute which allows for the
transfer of such property to a not- for-profit, but it restricts us because
it says, with the determination that it's not used for county purposes.
What I see right now in the draft legislation by Mr. Davis is that
it provides a separate statutory mechanism which allows more arrows
to the quiver of the board in making some determinations regarding its
land, but even without that legislation being effectuated, what you
have indicated is, if the property remains with the -- if I understand
correctly, if the property were to remain with the county, the county
can do with it what it needs to. If it --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I want to make sure that
Page 76
March 28, 2006
we have whatever, whoever it remains with, the same parameters that
we talked about before where it remains in a land trust.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I don't know if that's
possible, that's why I said, if we put it out to bid.
MR. WEIGEL: You could do it in a bidding -- a bidding format,
you can.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A bidding format, and you
know, we're putting the property out for bid as surplus, and these are
the conditions that would go with the sale.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. And of course it's not just a bid to the
highest bidder, but it could be tailored essentially like a request for
proposals or with a whole string of guidelines and requirements, and
then the bidder bids on that package with any additional commentary
they wish to provide for our consideration.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but if
we went with the original thoughts we're going with and we turned
this over to the land trust, they're not required to put it out for bid, are
they?
MR. WEIGEL: No, but we would lose -- if working through the
present scenario with the HDC and then a land trust, which isn't
operational yet, is my understanding, is the fact we lose the ability, if
we wish to maintain the ability, to direct some or all of that housing to
be for county employees.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'd like to get to the point
where we're directing it for county employees, but I don't want the
county really in the maintenance and running of a project.
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we could avoid that, I just
think that we're the wrong people. I don't know if we've got the
where-all and the personnel to be able to do it.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I -- obviously we're not set up to do that at
Page 77
March 28, 2006
the present time, and I'm not suggesting that for a moment yet. But
whether it's a land trust or multiple land trusts, there's a possibility of
there being more than one land trust that could be a player on the
horizon here, quite frankly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just a couple questions. Would
the buyers then be required to homestead there so this would be their
primary residence?
MR. GIBLIN: That's the plan is that would be owner-occupied
affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Secondly, when we -- you
said the BCC. Would that -- that doesn't include constitutional
officers? We're not going to be including constitutional officers in this
project?
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, that would be up to you. The
perspective I took away from your last meeting was that you were
talking only County Manager's agency.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thirdly, are we designing the
prices? Because we want to build for our employees. Are we
designing the prices of these homes so that they're affordable to our
employees? I mean, do we -- you know, like $350,000, you know,
you're not going to hit many people there. You know, you're only
going to hit the top of the cream of the crop, and they can go out and
buy anything.
What we're trying to do is prepare for those who can't afford that,
and I think we ought to be basing this on, you know, our salaries,
rather than going up so high, especially if, you know, if there's no land
cost involved in the price of the home, we should be able to keep it at
a moderate rate.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, the prices that are on the screen
here are proposed maximum sales prices, and these are derived
Page 78
March 28, 2006
directly from the percentage of median income. So these --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Median income or our employees'
median income?
MR. GIBLIN: For example, at the 80 percent level, someone
earning 80 percent of median can afford a home of 188,000, same way
that someone --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but are you talking about
median income for our employees or median income for Collier
County?
MR. GIBLIN: The median income is based on, for Collier
County .
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, see, there's the difference. I
mean, you know, Collier County, that's -- that's kind of skewed
because we're including all of the retirees, and yet we're building for
our employees. So I would think that we would even -- not even using
median so much as average income for our employees, because that's
who we're building for rather than Collier County.
MR. GIBLIN: Then you may be -- sounds like you may be
favoring option B here, which caps it at 120 percent of median
Income.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I just want to make sure that
the people that we're building it for can actually buy it, and I hope that
we're going to be helping them with financing as well.
MR. GIBLIN: I think -- what you see in option A is a scenario
that goes all the way from very low income up to the gap housing
level, which goes up to 150 percent of median income. And then
option B caps that at what we would call moderate income at 120
percent of median income.
But these prices are directly derived from those people's ability to
pay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My last comment is, I think once we
can -- once we can put this into place and we step forward -- and I
Page 79
March 28, 2006
think we should base it, by the way, on our own employees' income
rather than the county income. Once we put this in place, I'm sure that
we can set an example for other large counties to follow suit. And
we're paving the way now, but you know, we'll be able to help them
also to do this same type of building if that comes to be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I applaud now?
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, if I could also add to what Mr.
Weigel said. Again, we are presenting this today as an update, as an
informational Item specifically because of the actions going on in
Tallahassee as we speak, with the amendments being added to the
House Bill 1363.
I have a copy of the amendments here, and a lot of them speak
directly to this very issue of county-owned lands, nonprofits coming in
wanting to build affordable housing on those lands, putting them in a
land trust that is -- it is a model that this bill contemplates very
specifically.
And if I may, I'd like to introduce, you know, Kathy Patterson.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got one more question here by
Commissioner Coyle. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. A bit of clarification. Based
upon what we've been told by the County Manager in the past, the
median income of county employees is actually higher than the
median income of Collier County. That's what we've been told before.
MR. MUDD: Are you talking about household income or are
talking about employees?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm talking about median
.
Income.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, a little bit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the median income for Collier
County employees is actually a little higher than the median income of
all of Collier County.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And in my mind I'm thinking it's around
Page 80
March 28, 2006
36 to 38, and we're around 42.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's what my memory
indicates.
MR. MUDD: Earned income.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, okay.
Now, the other thing, I'm -- I'm concerned because we've only
been presented with one alternative today. You know, there are a
whole host of alternatives that haven't been evaluated. And I was
hoping that we would -- we would have an opportunity to choose
among several alternatives, one which might be the lease of the
property rather than the sale of the property.
If our objective is to remove the cost of the land from the pricing
equation for the home so we can keep the homes as cheap or as
affordable as possible, we should be thinking about ways that we can
lease the land rather than sell it under whatever scenario we decide to
pursue.
And the reservation of this property for county employees has
been one of the preferences expressed by this board since we began
this process. We've always been interested in doing that.
Furthermore, there is nothing that indicates that rental units are a
desirable thing. I think they are a desirable thing. There are a lot of
young people who make above the median income who can't afford to
buy a house anyway, so they would probably like to rent for a short
period of time, or for however long it takes them to accumulate the
savings necessary to buy a home.
So it just appears to me that there's a whole range of
opportunities that haven't been presented to us that I was hoping to get
today. But we can certainly -- Commissioner Coletta's solution to this
problem is particularly interesting. It gives us the opportunity to
specify what we want and still meet the requirements of the law.
But until we get the options presented to us about, should there
be a mix of rental units, should it be all rental units, what sectors of
Page 81
March 28, 2006
median income do we really want to target? And certainly serving the
employees of county government is a primary objective here -- and we
can't really go much further unless we get that information and can
make some decisions on it.
So I would like to get that information and get staffs
recommendations on all those issues so that we can make a decision as
to where we go with it. I mean, we've only been presented with one.
MR. GIBLIN: Certainly, Commissioner, and that is our plan.
That's, again, why we don't -- we're not looking for a specific
recommendation from the board today, but if you issue some guidance
in terms of how we move forward and how we decipher what comes
out of Tallahassee in the next couple months, our plan is to come back
to you after that with definite options and plan.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I want to -- I want to make sure
that we understand -- we understand the basis for the reason we've got
this on the agenda today.
This had to do with a public petition by your Affordable Housing
Corporation for the board to donate this land to them so that they
could set up a trust fund, the land trust fund, for affordable housing or
workforce housing, so that's the reason that it's here.
When they gave their presentation at a previous meeting, there
were questions that this board had of them that needed to be answered.
Cormac, from a staff perspective, has answered some of those
and tried to give you have a review of where you were with that
particular issue. I would -- and if you want -- if the board wants us to
do more from that public petition into something greater into a staff
action, then we can do that also.
But this was to update the board based on that public petition that
was made by the Affordable Housing Commission, and I would really
__ I'm a little uncomfortable for Cormac to stand there because he's not
the petitioner or this particular Item, and I believe the petitioner needs
to come forward.
Page 82
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But he's done a good job.
MR. GIBLIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS : Yeah. I've got some concerns, just to
throw it out there for whatever it's worth. Donating the land, that
takes the cost of the land out of the equation. And I guess I want to
know what it's going to cost to build affordable housing at -- in this
area.
I would hope that it would be somewheres around 125- to
$130,000 a square foot (sic), if you take the land out. And I'm
concerned that when we say the medium ( sic) income here of the
county staff is around 42,000, if you times that times about three,
we're looking at $126,000 is about what staff can afford to purchase.
So three times their medium income. So that just gives me some --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's three times the household
income, which is generally around $75,000.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, if you've got a single person that
wants to buy this, that's $42,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's where the rental comes
.
In.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's where the rentals come
In.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's where the rentals come
.
In.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I've got some concerns there.
Now, if you -- if you're so lucky and your spouse makes 42,000,
that's wonderful, but that may not be the case in all cases. It could be
the other way, too, that somebody's making more than 42,000 average.
So when you look at the whole thing, you've just got to -- you've
got to open the whole thing up to figure out exactly where you stand
and who can qualify for it.
I believe once we get over $300,000 though, I think that's putting
Page 83
March 28, 2006
it out of the realm of people being able to get that type of housing.
Commissioner Coletta, did you have a question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very, very brief. I just wanted
to say that I think Commissioner Coyle is coming from the right
direction, that we open it up also to consider some rental units,
because like we said, if we -- but if we target it the way everyone's
suggested -- suggesting for county employees -- because we're -- other
opportunities are going to come up. We have this fund that's
underway. We have it sitting there. That's a different thing
altogether, and that's where possibly we can look at a different matrix
when we're working with that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, we'll have the -- Kathy present.
MS. PATTERSON: I'm Kathy Patterson with the Collier County
Housing Development Corporation.
Cormac has pretty well covered everything that we have talked
about over the past couple of months. We have thought about doing
rental units. And keep in mind that this is just kind of a proposal. We
will -- once the land is -- we decide what is -- whether the CCHDC
will get the land, we will be coming back with other proposals as to
how this -- how we -- what kind of a mix you want, whether you want
rental units.
The HDC is very aware that we need to do something with rental,
and especially for those families that don't think they want to own or
just want to start out and start looking for something else.
And as far as cost today, I have Jim Fields here. He's going to
present to you the cost based on this 70-unit total development we are
talking about, and I also have Jeff Cecil if you have any questions
regarding the Community Land Trust of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any questions?
MS. PATTERSON: Do you have a question of me?
Page 84
__.,",,_v""_"~"___' ------...-
March 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, do you have a
question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, my light's not on, is it?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just wondering what you were --
MR. FIELDS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Jim
Fields. I basically did the -- as I did before, did the analysis, and I was
instructed to basically sharpen that pencil. I think Commissioner
Halas said sharpen the pencil, and I think Commissioner Coletta said,
hey, let's look at apartments, that type of thing, and basically look at
how we can come up with various options.
One thing we tried to do here, I think, is show, as Cormac has
amply shown, I guess, from the site plan perspective, number one,
physically will it work, otherwise -- that's the first thing, will it fit?
What you saw represented there was nothing more than a conceptual
indication of -- that it works.
Cirrus Point started off looking exactly like that. I will tell you
the floor -- the resulting site plan it totally different. But the main
thing is that, physically, it works.
The numbers that we used are based on 30 percent PITI, which
every banking system in the country uses in terms of projecting
whether this person is qualified to purchase.
The numbers have all been run according to that 30 percent PITI,
and with other -- further, with additional exceptions saying, i.e., if the
county, in fact, uses -- gives the land to the trust -- basically donates
the land to the trust, if the -- if the HDC purchases the land, i.e., via --
through reimbursement of impact fees, if we purchase the land via the
current appraisal.
And all of those obviously have a very direct bearing in terms of
affordability. So when we talk about $350,000, you're talking about
the upward component of this at the very highest realm, i.e., the 150
percent level.
Our goal, as Kathy has stated, is to provide something, and I
Page 85
March 28, 2006
think, in terms of -- as this goes into the trust, we are going to be
developing additional solutions. I could spend two years generating
solutions. And what we're attempting to do is protect two years out in
terms of what would happen -- the impact of actual delivery.
I think there's legislation that has been mentioned already. In
June everything that we're looking at here could be thrown out the
window based on a whole new format, a whole different set of
circumstances. So if you will bear with us. It's all conceptual at this
stage.
I will tell you this, is that, as a team -- and I want to emphasize
this -- as a team, there's certain benefits that have been put into this
thought process in terms of what would actually accrue to a purchaser
on that site.
Number one, you've got a 501C-3, an HDC, okay? They -- in
their first scenario, A, that 51 percent was part of -- not by any
accident. Fifty-one percent allows Kathy and the CCHDC to basically
bring other financial vehicles, if you will, SHIP funds or otherwise, to
the program.
The second scenario was developed saying, what happens if we
purchased the land? What would it take to basically -- and in this case
I used 441,000. I think it's 414,000, as Cormac's correctly pointed it
out.
Would it work? Well, yes, it does. And that's basically what
scenario B says. But if you'll note, there are a lot more units sitting
above in the thresholds from 100 percent up than there were 60 to 80
percent, simply because every unit developed at 60 to 80 percent with
an assumption that you've got $80 a square foot, and all the other
related costs, impact fees or otherwise, basically that -- those lower
units lose basically. They do not stand on their own. They need to be
purchased up, if you will, internally, and that's why the larger units, if
you will, the upper income levels, i.e., 100 to 120 percent, basically
carry the bulk.
Page 86
March 28, 2006
So we wanted to basically demonstrate in terms of feasibility
what the impact of that is going to be. And certainly if we're talking
about impact fees being waived or being deferred for up to 150
percent of gap, obviously that's going to have significant input. The
land to the trust is going to have significant input.
What we did attempt to show, however, is that it does work.
That physically it works, economic -- in terms of financial feasibility,
it works.
The other thing I wanted to make note -- and this is critical and
something very, very important. I've had the opportunity to meet with
Dr. Baker, superintendent of the schools. You'll note on the site plan
that we show an access to the Calusa school road.
He sees this as his participation, and he would support, would
recommend to their board, to allow that access. If we put that access,
i.e., using the existing -- where the EMI -- excuse me, the emergency
access -- the emergency building would sit or bring it off of Santa
Barbara, we've got a host of other problems and issues in terms of
setback and access.
Using the existing school road and working with them as a
partner, they -- Dr. Baker sees it as a means of, hey, I might be able to
get some housing for my teachers in conjunction with county
employees and other staff.
In other words, I think everybody has to bring something to the
table. In this case, maybe the school board brings the access that we
need to make it -- do this economically in a very practical fashion, i.e.,
we talked about the sheriffs department. Maybe the sheriffs
department, or like similar to the fire department ponies up and
basically donates or basically gives some cash so that their employees
can participate too.
I see it as a partnership all the way around, and it's something
that, I think as a group, we're well aware of, and we're more than
willing to work with to demonstrate to you basically how this will
Page 87
March 28, 2006
work, whether it be apartments or housing or a mix thereof.
So that's my presentation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm still interested in determining
how we structure this in a way that permits us to retain the flexibility
to give -- have some of this housing for our employees while turning it
over to someone who has the experience and dedication to manage it
over a period of time and still staying within the state law that we just
saw.
And it appears to me that the competitive procurement process
that Commissioner Coletta just described earlier is a good way to do
that, but I'm -- I still would like to get the trust fund and the
Affordable Housing Corporation involved in that process somehow,
and we need some recommendations about how that gets
accomplished.
We've said we don't want to manage it. We want to take the land
out of the equation. I don't know that donating taxpayer land is the
right way to do this.
Certainly a long-term lease would be great because we still retain
title to it, and -- but I don't understand how the lease payments will be
made. What is the source of funding for that? Does it come from the
land trust or the Affordable Housing Corporation through whatever
donations or funding would be provided to them? All these things are
questions I have that I don't have answers to and I need some help.
So if we could, perhaps, give staff some guidance to come back
with recommendations about how we deal with all these things. I
mean, we know -- we know the primary objectives. One is primarily
Collier County government employee housing, some mix of
apartments and for sale units, taking the land price out of the cost
equation in the most efficient way we can without just donating
taxpayer property.
And so with those fundamentals, if we could get some
Page 88
March 28, 2006
recommendations about how best to proceed with that, it would
certainly help us.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, and it sounds like you are
describing what would go into the RFP process with the constraints
and the limitations, you know, that would be placed on the RFP.
One last person I'd like to bring to the microphone is Jeff Cecil,
who is the treasurer of the Collier County Housing Development
Corporation, and he's got some insight with the land trust perspective
of this and how that works, how it could be set up, who would be a
partner in it. Jeff has been helping other local governments set up
their land trusts in the last few months.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Cormac, I have two commissioners that
have some questions, okay? We'll start off with Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just a couple fast comments.
Do we have any idea or can we get the median household income for
our employees? I mean, you might not have it now, but could you get
that for us?
MR. GIBLIN: We certainly could -- well, actually,
Commissioner, household -- to determine a household's income, you
need to know both the income of the person working for Collier
County and the income of their spouse, if they have an income. I'm
not sure how -- we've done surveys in the past and had people
voluntarily give us that information, but I'm not sure that the county
has a good vehicle to capture all of that information.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, it's information that we have to
capture so that we know that we're in the price range of the people
here in Collier County, the employees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We want to make sure -- or how --
what the -- how many single employees we have that need housing
versus how many families.
My second question is -- and no, this is more of a question -- it's
more of a statement. I would guess that new employees when we
Page 89
March 28, 2006
attract them here, recruit them, they probably don't want to buy a
place as soon as they move to town. They probably want to get the
lay of the land, see what is what, so they probably do need rental
places, especially because we want to put them into someplace pretty
quickly and get them here to stay. So I think these are great
suggestions that we're hearing from the commissioners.
And also, do we have any knowledge of how many of our own
employees are leaving town because their rental units have been
converted to condos?
MR. GIBLIN: I'm not sure we know that exact -- answer to that
exact question. I can tell you that the last time we did a survey, about
12 or 13 percent of our employees lived outside of Collier County,
mostly in Lee County.
And I would think that an affordable ownership -- and those
people have been working for us, in some cases, for many, many
years, five years or so. The opportunity to buy a unit affordably in
Collier County may help keep those people from seeking employment
closer to where their house is up in Lee County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just meant -- more or less meant
the rental conversions to condos. I have spoken to a couple employees
just recently who actually are going to leave. They've been with the
county a long time. They've always rented. And now they said that
their condo's been converted, so rather than try and find another
places, they're going to move to Tennessee.
And so I was just wondering -- I just happened to speak to a
couple of them. I was wondering if we -- if that's just isolated cases, if
we have a lot. We need to address that also in our rental units. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, is everybody aware what
the school board is doing? They're looking at having a builder build
and lease.
Page 90
March 28,2006
But I'm not sure if we should be in that type of business. I have a
concern about that. And we want to -- whatever we do, we want to
make sure that we don't have a disparity between our existing
employees and our future employees that might benefit from this
because we might create bigger problems that we have to address.
Just a little food for thought. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. CECIL: Good morning, Commissioners, almost afternoon.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.
First of all, I want to say that in the 13 years that I've been
following the affordable housing marketplace in Collier County, this
is the first commission that's been brave enough to mention the fact
that we could use more rental homes.
I was frustrated, frankly, 12, 11, 10 years ago when I was on the
Affordable Housing Committee for the joint EDC and chamber when
-- and all we wanted to talk about over and over again was home
ownership.
And I understand the benefits of having solid employees who
own their own homes and take good care of them, but as you have
pointed out, not everybody wants to move here and buy immediately.
Not everybody can afford it.
And I don't think the employers, whether they be the county, the
school board, the sheriffs office, I don't think the employers should
supplement their income so that they can buy immediately unless
they're looking for specially trained employees that they have to
recruit from afar.
Be that said, I'm here to talk about the community land trust. The
community land trust is not a medicine that fixes all the ills.
Community land trust is simply a vehicle for ownership of the land
that would take the cost of that land and hold it for perpetuity if we --
if we put that restriction on it.
The 99- year idea came from the idea that you then lease
Page 91
March 28, 2006
whatever you build on it to the new owner for 99 years. Under Florida
law, and most laws in most states, that 99- year lease is the same as
home ownership or same as ownership. So whoever is the 99-year
lessee would be considered the owner and they could finance it with a
regular mortgage. It's a leasehold mortgage, but it's doable, and there
are many, many lenders that will do it.
They are not easy to find in Collier County because we don't
have a lot of land leases. But if you look at some of the communities
that are built down here, we do have some co-ops that have land leases
that are financeable. Anyway, it's a vehicle.
Some of the questions that we would like you to address at some
point in the future, probably after this legislative session, is -- among
them are what do you -- do you want to be an active member of this
community land trust? Lee County has chosen to be -- to appoint
one-third of the land trust board itself.
The Board of County Commissioners is going to choose
one-third of the board. The Bonita Springs Housing Development
Corporation is going to choose one-third of the board, and Lee County
Housing Development Corporation is going to choose the other third.
Because we want that land trust to be a CHDO we have to limit
how many public officials we can have on that board, so that -- and
that's limited to one-third. Because Lee County has chosen to appoint
one-third of that board, we already have our one-third. We can't have
any other county employees, schoolteachers, sheriffs, anybody that's
employed by government be on that board.
So now we're limited to the next two-thirds, the businessmen and
the low income. We must have one-third of the board low income.
Now, this is to make it a CHDO. This is to make it eligible for special
federal financing and things like that. If you choose not to make it a
CHDO, then you don't need to worry about how many you appoint.
We had suggested early on that the board be involved with at
least one board member, one land trust board member.
Page 92
March 28, 2006
We have presented these questions to the county attorney. We've
been working with them. But all of us agree that we need to take this
slow until we see what the legislative session has to offer.
But I'm here to answer any questions you might have about land
trusts. They are relatively new to Florida. There are several manuals
that have come out, but all of them are kind of tentative in their
recommendations. They have model bylaws, model articles, all based
on having your tenants, who are owners, but the tenants of the land
trust ultimately be on the board. So all those things have to come into
play. There's a lot of questions.
Commissioner Coyle, you're absolutely right, we have a lot of
things that we need to answer, and an RFP would probably be -- serve
you well, but I'm here to answer any immediate questions you might
have about land trusts.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I think we have one public
speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. John Barlow.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll go right into the public
speaker, and then we'll open this up for discussion.
MR. BARLOW: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
John Barlow. I consider myself retired in paradise down here, so a
citizen.
I've been following, as most of you have -- and I guess that a lot
of the ink and a lot of the talk is around affordable housing, and I had
some thoughts that I wanted to share with you quickly.
First of all, I believe that donating county land is not sustainable
in solving the workforce housing issue relative to this community. If
you want to talk about 70 units or a few or more than that, that's one
thing.
I also think as a citizen the county should receive market value
Page 93
March 28, 2006
for that property irrespective of what we paid for it several years ago,
because if we don't, we've decreased the reality of the land cost as it
stands today and as we go forward into the future for what property
costs here.
The current density estimate of 14 housing units per acre, in my
judgment, is too high. Personal opinion. When I look at it, deputies,
nurses, firefighters, schoolteachers and Collier County government
employees, tend to want single-family dwellings as opposed to
multiple-story apartment type.
I think there is definitely a need for rental and apartment type for
single- family, people just entering, perhaps, into the workforce, but if
72 houses were built and the current market value of the land is
1,139,000, that means that each housing unit -- it only gets applied
$15,000 worth of land. Taking the million one, divide it by 72 is
$15,818. When you take a look at the cost of what we're selling these
units for, land is not as material as I first thought it to be.
And then the fact is, do we have a mechanism to ensure the
long-term affordability of this housing unit such as some type of cap
on appreciation of value where we have gone into a partnership with
the land?
My suggestions are, after the comments, would be to partner with
the Collier County Housing Land Trust, allow the county to maintain
land ownership and receive an equity interest in the home's
appreciating value.
I would think the land that we're going to put into this equation
and receive an equity on each unit -- and as that unit goes through
people living in it and goes through sales and resales, we would
receive the proceeds from that, and the trust would be for the benefit
of the Collier citizens.
Some of the fundamentals that I've thought through is solutions
for providing workforce housing must be based on sound
market-based economic fundamentals. We must find ways to
Page 94
March 28, 2006
eliminate or reduce costs by leveraging our strengths.
Negotiating with private sector low-cost housing firms. There's
an awful lot of housing firms that have made a fortune building here in
Collier County, whether it be D.R. Horton and others, using the lowest
possible capital cost, the economies of scale, and using county
resources when appropriate. Why government? Residential
developers are simply not building affordable workforce housing units
in sufficient numbers. They're not out there.
Our focus must be to bring together comprehensive, sustainable,
and economically viable plans to make available housing to our
workforce who earn 35- to a $100,000 as a family. Working citizens
should also be able to have and enjoy the benefits of living in
paradise.
I recommend that we take a look and make a comprehensive
strategy to stimulate the private sector to solve this important issue.
We have significant leverage and we should use it, whether they be
density bonus, impact fees, zoning and permit rules, but we all are
collectively combined in doing what's right for our people, and that's
what I have to say.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. BARLOW: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. What direction do -- does the
staff need here in regards to where we stand at this point in time?
MR. MUDD: Well, what I've heard so far, Commissioner, is you
want -- or the board would like us to come back with a plethora of
alternatives ranging from rental units to housing using a trust fund
versus going out to the private sector with an RFP to try to come up
with what the board desires.
I believe we need to layout the alternatives for the board before
we go out to an RFP or decide to go to land trust so that we get an idea
Page 95
March 28, 2006
of what the board's vision is for the use of this particular property.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And once -- and once we have that -- so we need
to come back to the board and lay that on the board and have the
board tell us, okay, this is what we'd like to have as far as mix is
concerned and whatnot. And from there, we can -- we can either go
out to an RFP, or if the legislative language changes, that Florida
Statute that you saw earlier on one of Cormac's slides -- and that also
will give you some other options.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fellow Commissioners, is this the
direction that we want to make sure staff is marching -- their marching
orders are in this direction?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I do. I think we've got it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So all you need is some nods on this, I
believe. Okay.
MR. MUDD: Got enough, Cormac, or you need more?
MR. GIBLIN: I have that we want to research -- we want the
units to be for Board of County Commissioners' employees. Is that
100 percent of the units or half the units or other constitutional officers
also?
MR. MUDD: You want county employees, do you want schools,
your employees? Do you want constitutionals?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think county employees.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Under the County Manager or under --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Under the County Manager.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What about the sheriffs deputies, fire
department, so on?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about the schools and
everyone else, too? I mean, we've got to be -- we've got to start being
a little more site specific. If we open it up to the whole world, the few
units that are going to be there aren't going to mean anything.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Page 96
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Remember, you've got a 15
percent attrition rate in this county right now as far as --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Under the County Manager.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. GIBLIN: Okay. The second point I had was, you want a
mixture -- or at least to research the feasibility of rentals and
owner-occupied houses on--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Definitely.
MR. GIBLIN: -- in the plan, and some kind of vehicle that
would take the cost of the land out of the cost of the homes or
apartments but maintain the county's full interest in the land without
giving it away?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And one other thing was,
somebody who will manage this other than the county.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not interested in being in the
affordable housing business, right?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's right, managing this complex or
complexes.
MR. GIBLIN: Okay.
MR. MUDD: If you -- if you have rentals, you're going to need
somebody that can manage that complex. If you have straight owners,
then those owners have a share in that particular issue, so you really
don't need that management.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can tell you they can do it a lot
cheaper than we'll ever be able to do it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And of course, your standard --
standard protections with respect to who qualifies, how long it must be
affordable housing, any turnovers in sales, and what happens with
restricting the prices of sales and that sort of stuff, all those standard
things that you're doing now.
Page 97
March 28, 2006
MR. GIBLIN: In this case we may even go above the standard to
make it longer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And priced for our employees.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other direction here?
I believe we've given this a pretty good going over. Yes,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Again, I have a concern about
the disparity between our existing employees, and I think the board
really needs to understand that.
I think it will be healthy for that, whether it be complex,
apartment complex or whatever, to have a mixture of residents from
constitutional officers and the County Manager employees. So, I
mean, if I'm the only one that has that concern -- I heard
Commissioner Coletta strongly say that he just wants it for the county
commissioner employees, but I'd rather see a mixture myself.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was thinking a lot about
that, because I've heard where, you know, teachers don't all want to
live in the same place together and deputies don't always want to live
in the same place together. And I've given that a lot of thought, but
we have so many different departments in the county focusing on so
many different things, that I don't think that they would all get sick
and tired of each other. Most of them don't even work in the same
building.
And so I don't think that would be hazardous, but maybe we
could think of or consider if they haven't sold or if we're -- you know,
they're on the market for a long time, if we want to open it up to
constitutional officers, that could be an option.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You want to make sure the units
are going to be filled.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think they are, too.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 98
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I don't want to leave the
impression that we're trying to exclude anybody. But I think if you
take a look at the salary levels and the number of personnel in county
government that are on the lower end of the salary levels, you'll find
that we have more of those people than any constitutional officer.
Now, that does not mean that we're not trying to deal with the
broader issue for everybody, because we have approved 4,500, if I
remember correctly, affordable housing units in the past three years or
so and 2,700 in the past 12 months. So there are affordable housing
units that are being approved that can easily be used by anyone who
meets the qualifications.
So just because we want to take 70 units and say let's help our
employees, should not be interpreted as -- as a decision that's designed
to exclude any other government employees, including teachers or
anybody else, because we are working on that.
So the fact that we want 70 out of 4,500 for our employees, that's
a pretty good deal. I don't think we're discriminating against anybody
here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. And I think we're setting
examples for other --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, that's keen. That's very keen.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, we'll adjourn for lunch, and we'll
be back at 12 -- or 1: 10.
(A luncheon recess was has.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
Item #7B
Page 99
March 28, 2006
RESOLUTION 2006-79: V A-2005-AR-8693; EBERHARD
THIERMANN, REPRESENTED BY RICHARD D.
YOV ANOVICH, OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN, & JOHNSON,
P .A., IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED
10-FOOT REAR SETBACK FOR A SCREEN ENCLOSURE OF
3.2 FEET IN THE RSF-3 ZONING DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 117 CHANNEL DRIVE, IN
SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP, 48, RANGE 25, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, County Manager.
The Board of County Commissioners will reconvene the
afternoon session, and I believe we're going to start off with 7B.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, 7B. This Item requires that all
participants -- ladies and gentlemen, if you could please keep it down.
This is 7B. This Item requires that all participants be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's variance 2005-AR-8693. Eberhard Thiermann, represented
by Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson P.A.,
is requesting a variance from the required 10- foot rear setback for a
screen enclosure of 3.2 feet in the RSF-3 zoning district.
The subject property is located at 117 Channel Drive in Section
29, Township 48, Range 25, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All rise for -- to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Disclosures by commissioners, ex
parte, starting with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met with the petitioner and
the petitioner's agent, and I have also met with members of the
homeowners' association there, and -- who objected to the variance,
and I've also received emails on this subject.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
Page 100
~'--""'- -'--"-""
March 28,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is starting to look strangely
familiar, but I don't -- the only thing I recall receiving on this is some
email.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I had meetings with the presenter,
and meetings and emails with the citizens in the neighborhood.
And with that, I'll turn this over to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I've had -- I've spoken
with staff and I've spoken with residents in the area, and that's it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Received two emails, one from
the vice-president of Vanderbilt Beach -- Zoning Committee, is it?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe it is, yes, that's correct.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and one from B.J. Boyer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Savard-Boyer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I don't know what -- it
doesn't say whether she was an officer in any --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: She is the president of the homeowners'
association.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm not sure if
she's speaking on behalf of the homeowners' association, but she was
opposed to it also.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. Commissioner Halas, I
forgot, I do have in my hand, as a matter of fact, two emails that I also
received.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll mention, from Bruce
Burkhard and B.J. Savard-Boyer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I also talked with staff on this, too.
I think we're all clear.
Page 101
March 28, 2006
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Good afternoon. For the record,
Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. I will request that I be
allowed to review a copy of the emails that you're referring to, since
we were not provided a copy and were not aware that there were any
issues related to those emails.
As you can see from your staff report and what happened at the
planning commission, there were no objections at the planning
commission, and the one objector has written a letter withdrawing
their objection. So we're a little surprised if there are any objections to
this request.
The petition before you today is a request for a three-foot
variance from the 10- foot rear setback for a pool enclosure that has
existed in this location since 1976. The home was originally
constructed in 1973.
In 1976, a pool and pool enclosure was added to the property.
The county is not sure, and the county records are not really clear, if
there was or was not a permit for the enclosure, but it has existed since
1976.
Our client did not build the home or the pool enclosure
originally. Our client purchased the property on August 15, 1993. At
that time the pool and enclosure had been in existence for 17 years.
In 2001 our client was seeking bids for the planned renovations
to the home, and one of the contractors they interviewed was
Aluminum Store. Aluminum Store then took it upon themselves to
apply to the county for a permit for the pool enclosure without our
client's knowledge and, in fact, never did tell our client that they did
that. In fact, apparently they received a permit, but that was never to
the knowledge of our client.
In fact, our client didn't even know about Aluminum Store's prior
activities until they received a letter from the county in February of
'04.
Our client did not authorize American Aluminum (sic) to apply
Page 102
March 28, 2006
for the permit, and as I stated, was never aware that the permit was
applied for. Ironically, our client did retain Aluminum Store to build
the pool enclosure, and even Aluminum Store never told us that they
had applied for a previous permit. So the permit was a mystery to us
until the county brought it to our attention.
On April 24, 2001, our client received a permit to renovate the
home, and I have some pictures to show you about the home. Our
client acted as an owner/builder on the renovations and believed that
the pool -- the renovations included the removal and replacement of
the pool enclosure.
The renovations of the home were pretty extensive and included
adding a second story and replacing the roof, so the pool enclosure
had to be removed to complete the renovations.
The pool enclosure was, in fact, inspected by county inspectors in
front of my client. My client witnessed the inspections, and obviously
everything passed.
In fact, there was a time during the construction of the
renovations where our client was renovating the irrigation system and
the county said, stop, you need to go get a permit to do the irrigation
system. So the county was out there and knew what was and was not
permitted, at least my client believed the county knew what was and
was not permitted.
On April 25, 2002, a CO was issued. And let me show you the
before and the after pictures, if I can. The visualizer shows the
location, which is in your -- which is in your packet. It's 117 Channel
Drive.
This is the before. As you can see, there's the existing pool, the
existing enclosure. If you look closely, you can actually see where the
enclosure was affixed to the home.
Here's a picture of the after. As you can see, that the enclosure is
in the exact location as the before. The only real change, as you'll see,
is instead of a flat roof on the enclosure, you see a peaked roof. You
Page 103
March 28, 2006
can see that it's attached to the same location as the original enclosure
when it was attached to the home.
And here's a picture of the back of the home with the renovations
completed, which you can see that a partial second floor was added to
the home. And, again, you can see that the enclosure's in the same
location and affixed to the same location of the home when the
renovations were done.
What we are requesting is a variance to allow a pool enclosure to
remain that basically has been in place since 1976. The pool
enclosure met the 2001 code when it was constructed. Staff is
recommending or requiring that we get an after-the- fact building
permit for the 2001 -- to meet 2001 code and have it inspected
anecdotally.
And as Wilma came through, this screen enclosure did very well.
I would suggest probably significantly better than the 1976 pool
enclosure would have done. So we believe it actually has been a
benefit to the community to have the enclosure replaced with an
enclosure that meets the -- at the time of the 2001 code when it was
constructed.
The property owner is here, Mr. Thiermann, to answer any
questions.
The planning commission recommended 5-2 to recommend
approval of the variance. Your staff is recommending approval of the
vanance.
And with that, that concludes my introductory remarks, and we're
available to answer any questions you may have regarding the
petition.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have a report from staff?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I see the emails?
MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Heidi Williams, principal planner with zoning and land
development review.
Page 104
March 28, 2006
A little bit of background information on this property: Subject
property is located at 117 Channel Drive. It's zoned RSF-3. The
home was constructed in the '70s. A lot of this is repetitive. I'll kind
of go through it quickly, if that's all right.
A permit was obtained in 1976 for the swimming pool, and no
permit has been found for the original screen enclosure. The setback
at that time was 15 feet.
The current owner, today's applicant, obtained a permit for the
home addition. It is staffs opinion that that permit was only for the
addition and not for the screen enclosure. And because there was no
permit issued, there was no inspection of the screen enclosure.
It may not have been remarked by county staff on scene that they
needed a permit for that, but it remains that a permit is required for a
screen enclosure. They are typically, and to my knowledge, always
separate permits for additions and for the screen enclosure.
That being said, the screen enclosure has been replaced in the
same footprint that the structure existed from the mid '70s. So this is
an encroachment that has existed for 30 years now. The current
standard is a 10- foot rear yard setback. The newest survey indicates a
seven- foot setback, which requires a three-foot variance to be in
compliance.
Staffs review of the variance request was based on that eight
criteria listed in section 9.04.03 of the land development code. The
full analysis is located in the staff report; however, I'd like to note that,
in essence, this condition has existed and is seeking approval for a
condition that was there for 30 years. During that time, no negative
impacts to public health, safety, or welfare have been apparent.
The property to the north is located across a 100- foot canal, and
this decreases the impact to that particular neighbor.
The planning commission did recommend approval 5-2, and staff
does recommend approval with three stipulations. They're in your
executive summary, but to put them on the verbal record, they would
Page 105
March 28, 2006
be, the variance is limited to allow the existing screen enclosure that
encroaches into the required rear yard on the north side of the property
as depicted on the applicant's boundary survey to remain in place, and
that would reference the newly provided survey that shows the
seven- foot setback.
All proper after-the-fact permitting fees must be paid and permits
must be obtained, including obtaining certification that the structure
meets or exceeds the building code in effect in 2001 within 90 days of
the approval of the variance, and no further encroachments shall be
permitted.
I'd be happy to any answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How do we know that this
structure was built in the '70s, the pool enclosure, if there was no
permit?
MS. WILLIAMS: There was an estimate with the permit for the
swimming pool that estimated the cost of the screen enclosure. It is
pretty much a logical assumption that it was built then. And I have not
personally verified with aerials, but it is an assumption that it was built
at the same time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So on the -- we had a
permit for the pool enclosure?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, we did--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or--
MS. WILLIAMS: For the swimming pool, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Swimming pool, and that was,
I'm sure, dated, correct?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does anybody know at that time
what the code stated as far as what needs to be permitted and what did
not?
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure what the code says about what
Page 106
March 28, 2006
has to be permitted, but it lists setbacks for different structures. We
have a setback listed for swimming pool, we have a setback listed for
screened porch that's attached to the home. I don't -- and we have an
other accessory structure category listed in the code that doesn't
necessarily address what has to be permitted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it was stated this was done
in 1976. So does anybody know what the code was back in 1976?
MS. WILLIAMS: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Well, I don't think we
had a land development code then. In fact, I'm positive about that. But
does anybody know what had to be permitted? Obviously a pool did,
or somebody had -- at least the owner at that time had knowledge of --
it should have a permit.
MS. WILLIAMS: The standards that we worked off are an
adopted ordinance. There's -- this one is ordinance number 74-42, and
it is zoning regulations. It's not a land development code, but it does
specify certain Items regarding the development of the land. I think
that's a legal technicality on the difference, but there were some
standards in effect at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In 74-42, was there a
requirement of a permit for a screen enclosure?
MS. WILLIAMS: I haven't reviewed the entire ordinance. I
looked at it for the setbacks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But that's part of the
setbacks. And at that time, the setbacks still--
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. I've just been advised that that type of
information would probably not be in the zoning regulation but,
perhaps, that Bill Hammond or someone from the building department
would have that knowledge regarding permits.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well-- okay. 74-42 is a
zoning ordinance or is it a --
MS. WILLIAMS: The title references that it is a comprehensive
Page 107
March 28, 2006
zoning regulation for the unincorporated area of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: And much lengthier than that, of course.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And in that it has the
setbacks of that time?
MS. WILLIAMS: It does contain setbacks for accessory
structures, including swimming pool --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: -- and unlisted accessory uses. A further
amendment calls out screen -- attached screened porches. Those aren't
necessarily together but could be used as a standard to reference.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, right. Well, in -- back in
this zoning ordinance, does this now -- then screen enclosure fit the
setbacks, or was that in violation of that ordinance at that time?
MS. WILLIAMS: The swimming pool required a 15-foot
setback, and the permit we have for this swimming pool does not
address it -- what it shows is a proposed screen enclosure. It doesn't
spell out specifically that it also has to have a 15- foot setback, but it
indicates that it would meet that criteria.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, you know, I know
that very few people are left that was back, I mean, actually in the
county, working for the county, that are still here. And if there was a
15- foot setback for the pool, would they measure it from the pool
deck? I mean, I'm not even sure if anybody can answer that. I mean,
a pool is, to me, is a hole in the ground, and a pool deck is not a pool.
It just goes around the pool.
MS. WILLIAMS: The documentation I have doesn't show
exactly where the pool is supposed to be measured from. The arrow
on this plan says 15 feet and it shows to the deck.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, to the deck; okay, thank
you. That's -- oh, that's the zoning ordinance?
MS. WILLIAMS: This is included in information from code
Page 108
March 28, 2006
enforcement I received today, and it is the swimming pool permit. So
this arrow shows 15 feet to the deck, but that doesn't necessarily
indicate the regulation for the screen enclosure. That's for the
swimming pool.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So we just now --
MS. WILLIAMS: This maintains the swimming pool was
inspected by county inspectors and was CO'd at the time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we've just got to
figure out -- you know, my thing is, you know, back in the '70s, did
you need a permit for a screen enclosure around a pool or was that
included in part of the pool?
MS. WILLIAMS: My impression is that a permit was required;
however, we have not been able to locate one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And to your knowledge,
in asking some of your colleagues, did you get any information from
some of your colleagues, long-term standing?
MS. WILLIAMS: Regarding whether a permit was required?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. WILLIAMS: I have not specifically asked that question. I,
you know, based on previous cases, did think that it was required.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? I have a couple.
Is it my understanding that once -- in the case of a pool enclosure
where it's been removed, that that's more than 50 percent, and
therefore when you go ahead, whether the -- whether there was permit
pulled in 1976, that the point in time when more than 50 percent is
removed, that you have to bring that up to the standards of 2001 ?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. The new structure does need to meet
today's current standards.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And it also has to meet and fulfill
the requirements as far as any setbacks; is that correct?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, it does.
Page 109
March 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So whether -- whatever took
place in 1976 really doesn't enter into the equation here because we're
dealing with the structure now that was rebuilt in 2001; is that correct?
MS. WILLIAMS: The screen enclosure does need to obtain a
permit and meet the standards, including setbacks, for the current
code.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: And that is the reason for today's variance. It
is constructed with a seven-foot setback and needs a variance to be
compliant.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. But there was not a permit pulled
on this particular Item other than the Aluminum Store pulling it, which
he didn't -- he didn't use that permit to build that particular pool cage;
is that correct?
MS. WILLIAMS: The permit that was pulled exclusively for the
screen enclosure was expired and was never inspected and not acted
on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So who built the pool cage? Was that
built by the Aluminum Store under the auspices of the other permit?
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe there's some conflicting information
on that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And can we get that conflicting
information straightened out? Because what I read in my -- what I
read in my agenda here is, there were two permits pulled. The first
was granted February 2001 by Aluminum Store, and it gives the
permit number, and then with the notation that the permit was to bring
the old pool enclosure into today's standards, which I think is one of
our criteria for land development code, that once a structure, whether
it's a house or whatever else, if it has any setback problems, then it
needs to be brought into the current standard, is that correct, or am I
wrong on that?
MS. WILLIAMS: That's correct, and that's why that permit did
Page 110
March 28, 2006
say, to today's standards, which would be the 10- foot setback.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And so what we've got here, if I
look at this right, is that somebody decided not to have the pool cage
permit pulled on that knowing obviously -- because he was told -- the
person was told back in February of 2001 that there would be a
problem in regards to addressing a setback.
Now, my concern is, if the pool-- at the time that it was CO'd, it
was good, then at some point in time -- if it had this 15- foot setback,
then at some point in time somebody added more to the pool deck,
which was the first person. So this individual in regards to bringing
everything up to date -- and I believe most of the construction, even in
the house, was more than 50 percent; is that correct? That's what the
staff report says?
MS. WILLIAMS: That's what I have been advised is that the
improvements were more than 50 percent.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So in that case also, since we're
not really dealing with the house, but we're -- I just brought that out as
that was more than 50 percent.
But with the pool enclosure, it was way more than 50 percent
because we ended up taking down the whole pool enclosure and
rebuilding, right?
MS. WILLIAMS: What I have been advised about the
swimming pool is that the permit shows the 15- foot setback. At that
time inspectors were not necessarily checking that it met the setback.
It was constructed, it was CO'd. No spot survey was required at that
time, so it was COld at that time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But we're -- we'll forget about the 1976.
What we're talking about now is the year 2001. When the pool cage
was completely taken down, okay, which is greater than 50 percent --
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- that means that you have to bring
everything into compliance, is that correct, or ask for a variance before
Page III
March 28, 2006
the fact, get a permit.
MS. WILLIAMS: In 2001, it would have been required to meet
the land development code setback.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: And it doesn't, and that's why we're here
today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Who was next?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Does it cost money to apply
for a permit?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, I believe it does.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So in other words, this guy
who applied for a permit from the Aluminum Store with no
authorization to do that had to dig into his own pocket even though he
didn't have a sale? That kind of doesn't add up for me. But anyway,
that was my first question.
And then is it true that that first aluminum company -- and you
might not know this, maybe they know that -- that first aluminum
company who was not hired to build the pool cage actually told the
owner that he couldn't build it because it didn't meet the setbacks. Do
you --
MS. WILLIAMS: That's part of your conflicting information.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I answer that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can answer first, Heidi. He
doesn't have to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go ahead. I'm talking to you and
then he can come up. Don't be pushed away. It's okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: The conflicting information is that you have
one version from the owner and you have another version from the
Aluminum Store. And from a planning perspective, I didn't really
Page 112
March 28, 2006
evaluate those statements in making my recommendation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Push her out of there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't mean to push her out of there.
I'm sorry, Heidi. No, I didn't. But thanks for the coaching.
What happened, Commissioner Fiala, at the planning
commission, was an affidavit was read from Aluminum Store. Then
my client -- and he'll come up here and tell you in person under oath,
will tell you exactly what happened, that Aluminum Store was not, in
fact, authorized to get that permit, nor did they ever tell him that they
got the permit or had any comments.
In fact, Aluminum Store, as I stated, was the contractor hired by
my client to do the work. Why did Aluminum Store not say to my
client, I'm not going to perform the work because it's against a permit
that I've already requested and been told I can't do this? Why would
any contractor do that knowing that they would then immediately
subject themselves to a contractor licensing action because they're not
supposed to be doing work without a permit and they would have
already known that they didn't have the authorization to do the work?
If they -- I'm assuming a contractor would have said, I'm not
doing the work. I've already been told I can't do this, or they would
have at least told my client about that. That's the conflicting
testimony.
You had a person who was willing to stand here in person under
oath, and willing to do that today, and you don't have anybody from
Aluminum Store, to my knowledge, here to testify -- testify live and in
person to answer some of those questions, and I think the planning
commission was concerned about the fact that you didn't have any live
testimony from Aluminum Store, and that's how we got to where we
are. Aluminum Store did the work, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did the work?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They did the work.
Page 113
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It said here that they didn't do the
work.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, they did the work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That the owner couldn't remember
actually who actually did the work.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, he testified at the planning
commission that they did, in fact, do the work. So there's no question
that Aluminum Store did replace the screen enclosure, and that's, in
fact, what happened. And that will answer that question. If you have
any others, I will, but I have some statements I want to make on
rebuttal.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Yovanovich,
probably you would be the right one to answer the first part of my
question.
I guess the question is, is who's guilty and what the fitting
punishment is for whatever when they overlook. But tell me this, if
this commission does not grant this variance, what would be the
outcome? What would they be forced to do?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, if the -- first of all, we're allowed to
come in and ask for a variance, and if we meet the criteria, we can get
it, whether it's before or after the fact.
If the variance is not granted, the pool enclosure will be removed
and it cannot be replaced because the pool enclosure, to build it within
the 10- foot setback, would be inside the pool, okay? So it would be in
the water.
On your visualizer is a copy of the application for the permit, and
you will see on the right-hand side it says, 10-foot for the pool,
five- foot for what says encl, period. I'm assuming that means an
abbreviation for enclosure. So that was -- that was on the application.
So that's why there's question as to whether or not this was or was not
permitted in '76. There's no question that it was there since 1976.
Page 114
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But the pool itself and
the walkway around -- walk around the pool, the concrete itself, the
foundation of the pool, that isn't out of variance? I mean --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Pool itself meets the 10-foot
requirement -- correct, do we agree? The pool itself, not the enclosure
-- and the walkway doesn't matter because it's below 30 inches, so you
don't count it. It's the enclosure that needs the variance. And if we
were to move the enclosure back to the 10- foot requirement, it would
be inside the water.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just for my own -- I'm sorry.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The screen enclosure, that's all we're
asking for.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The screen enclosure itself,
what's the value of that, just for my own information?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: My client says 10. Joe says between 10
to 15. So you're talking about just throwing away that money for an
enclosure that's been there since 1976.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Question I have. I thought the earlier
testimony by staff was that the pool was at a 15-foot setback; is that
correct or not?
MS. WILLIAMS: Referring to the ordinance that has the land
development regulations, it lists a 15- foot setback. This permit
application for the swimming pool in 1976, handwritten in, has a rear
yard setback of 15 feet and then has 10 handwritten in for the pool.
The ordinance lists 15, so this handwritten information does not
comply with that ordinance. But the fact remains, it was -- it was
inspected and COld at the time, so we do consider that in compliance.
The screen enclosure we do not feel was included in this. There
is a setback handwritten in here of five feet but -- and it is -- it is
included in an estimate to the owner at the time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Estimate at what time, 2001?
Page 115
March 28, 2006
MS. WILLIAMS: In '76.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: There is Collier Custom Pools estimate that
has a price for the pool, it has a price for the enclosure. When it was
inspected, the price for the pool was listed, but not the price for the
enclosure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But again, when you have more than 50
percent -- is that correct? When you have more than -- something
greater than 50 percent that's been destroyed, you have to bring it up
to current codes; is that correct?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. And the screen enclosure does need to
be up to current code.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I -- the -- you know,
whether he got a permit or not, the question -- even though on the
permit it says enclosure, I understand about the nonconformity since
the land development code was changed, but the gentleman's been
taxed on it for 30 years.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. He bought -- didn't buy the
property .
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the property's been taxed
on the enclosure. Commissioner, my understanding about the 50
percent rule is you either don't make the improvement or you've got to
make the whole property come up to current standards. Is that where
you want to go with it?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's where I think it -- that's what our
land development code says. When you end up with -- where you
have -- you either destroy or you take down the property that's greater
than 50 percent, and then you have to comply with the current
regulations that are on the books.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And the whole structure
would have to come up to code.
Page 116
March 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The pool. In this case --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's where you want to go is
just the pool?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Because this is -- you basically
bring the pool structure up to conform with the current codes at the
time that you take it down, the pool cage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, but I think it just
becomes a non-conforming use since we changed the code.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I -- Commissioner Fiala, on the
visualizer for you is a copy of the contract to build the now existing
pool enclosure, and you'll see it's with Aluminum Store.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I noticed -- and it also says 2002
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's right. And it was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- instead of 2001, as it's stated here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's signed, date -- I believe it says -- I
can't read in that direction. April -- it says April 4, 2002, and that's
when --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you move that down to the bottom
here?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which way?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, move it to -- so I can see the top of
it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. It's Aluminum Store, and it's for the
enclosure. That's the company that built the enclosure and was
allegedly told they shouldn't.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got a question. The affidavit that's
given to us here, is this affidavit, the way that I read it then, does that
say that this person did not build the pool cage under the existing
permit that was pulled of2000 -- or 200 -- 2001021255? Is that the
affidavit that he's signed, that it was not built under that, but it was
built under -- it was built --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't -- which affidavit are you reading
Page 117
March 28, 2006
from, Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This was -- it's on page 58 of 86.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At no time did my company, the
Aluminum Store, build the pool enclosure located at 11 7 Channel
Drive. Then he says, permit 2001021255 was cancelled.
So are you telling me that he didn't build it under that permit but
he built it under the existing permit of the house?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm telling you that Aluminum Store built
the enclosure and it was pursuant to what Mr. Thiermann pulled -- the
permit he pulled that he believed included the pool enclosure.
So if Aluminum Store said they didn't build it according to the
original permit that they got -- they didn't build it according to the
original permit they got, they did, in fact, build the enclosure, and it
was under what Mr. Thiermann believed was a permit that included
the pool enclosure.
You know, that all doesn't really matter. The question is, do we
have a right under your code to come ask for a variance, and yes, we
have a right to come ask for the variance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, you do.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's what we're doing. And we're
saying, okay, give us a variance from the 10- foot encroachment for a
pool enclosure that has existed since 1976; otherwise, we have to
remove the pool enclosure and there will be no enclosure around the
pool because we cannot make the enclosure consistent with today's
code.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. My concern is, Mr. Thiermann
took on the responsibility when he pulled that permit to work on his
home as a builder, that he is legally responsible for obtaining all
necessary permits for the project for meeting all criteria of the land
development code and other applicable county ordinances.
And then when you sign the permit, it says on the permits that
Page 118
March 28, 2006
you are responsible to make sure that you are -- understand the code
and regulations.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No question. And believe me, he and I
have had some discussions about acting as an owner/builder. But you
know what, he's paying a price, and the price he's paying is going
through this process to ask for a variance.
The bottom line is, is it really necessary for him to rip out a pool
enclosure and go through that expense when there was a pool
enclosure there in the first place, there have been no complaints from
the neighbors? The one person that did complain at the planning
commission was across the canal, and they have since written a letter
saying they're not complaining.
You have -- the brief little email I got a copy of today basically
says they're complaining about process. Well, we're here to fix the
process, and that's what a variance is for, and that's what we're here to
do, get a variance for something that's existed since 1976.
I -- believe me, I don't represent myself in legal matters. You go
ahead and you hire someone who is dispassionate and not involved.
Being an owner/builder has some risks, and the risks are, he's going to
pay double the permit fees, he's paying me to be here today and go
through the planning commission and paying the application fees for
the variance. This has not been a cheap experience for Mr.
Thiermann.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. You're absolutely right what
you're saying. The thing that if -- when it was brought to his attention
by the Aluminum Store that he had a problem, that's the time that Mr.
Thiermann should have come before --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Mr. --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- the Board of County Commissioners
or before and said, hey, I'm looking for a variance for two and a half
feet, and not go ahead and build it and then say, I want forgiveness.
This is the problem that we've been incurring a number of times.
Page 119
March 28, 2006
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're assuming a fact that's not true.
You're assuming a fact that Aluminum Store went to him and told
him, you can't build that enclosure. That affidavit has been
contradicted by live testimony, and he'll come up here right now and
he'll tell you that he was never told by Aluminum Store not to do this.
And why did Aluminum Store do the work if they knew it
violated the code? They're licensed contractors. It makes no sense.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm just going by what staff gave me as
part of my package.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that, and I'm telling you that
staff -- your staff provided copies of an affidavit. They've never
verified whether it's true or not. That person's never been here to
testify in front of you. Mr. Thiermann is here to testify in front of you,
and you've got an affidavit from a contractor that said he didn't build
the enclosure, and I've showed you a contract that says he did build
the enclosure. Who's more credible?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now I've got a real calamity here. I'm
not sure if what staff gave me as part of my reading package, if they're
telling me the truth then.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think your staffs -- I think your--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, they're showing that--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Your staff is absolutely telling you the
truth as they know it in providing the evidence that was presented in
front of them. This is not an issue of your staff not telling you the
truth. It's an issue of an affidavit that is not -- I can't cross-examine
someone who provides a piece of paper.
Mr. Thiermann's here to answer your questions, and I think it will
be helpful if he does testify, and you can ask him those questions
directly, because I can't defend an affidavit. Anybody can write
something on a piece of paper, and if they're not here to talk about it
and support it, then I can't do anything to contradict that. If he's
willing to put himself through this, which he is, I think we should let
Page 120
March 28, 2006
him do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, my problem is that somebody's
signed a sworn affidavit. To me, you can use that in a court of law.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, you cannot. You cannot -- you
cannot use a sworn affidavit. That person needs to be there, they need
to testify, and they need to subject themselves to cross-examination.
That's not evidence.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other questions? If
not, we'll take on the public speakers, because I think we've got two of
them.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And they have -- each have three
minutes apiece.
MS. FILSON: I have two public speakers. Bruce Burkhard.
He'll be followed by Dr. Richard Bing.
MR. BURKHARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Excuse
me. My name is Bruce Burkhard. I live at 283 Oak Avenue. I'm a
director of Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association and
vice-chairman of the Vanderbilt Beach Zoning Committee.
Two weeks ago our association stood before you asking that you
reverse an after-the-fact variance granted by staff to a house with
multiple setback violations. Today we find ourselves here again
asking that you reverse the recommendations of staff to approve a
nonpermitted pool cage accessory structure encroaching 3.2 feet into
the rear yard setback.
We believe that you need to reinforce the message that the LDC
is not a document that can simply be skirted or ignored altogether, as
we find is the case here.
The law is clear that a permit is required to build an accessory
structure. It's also very clear that the structures must meet setback
requirements.
Following these basic rules promotes the health, safety and
Page 121
March 28, 2006
welfare of the whole community. Furthermore, if a few individuals are
permitted to ignore our laws and build larger structures than their
law-abiding neighbors, then they are advantaged. They get to live in a
larger house and are again advantaged when they sell their house
because in all likelihood they'll reap a larger net gain.
One should not be rewarded for ignoring the law. We'll never get
a handle on these seemingly endless setback violations if we continue
to recommend easy variances.
In today's case, the owner bought a legally non-conforming
house. He wanted a bigger one. He decided to remodel the place but
his plan didn't meet the setback requirements, as was pointed out by
his pool cage contractor.
At this point he had two legitimate choices that he could make,
keep the legal but non-conforming structure as it was, or redesign it
and comply with the current LDC. Apparently he chose to do neither.
Instead he became his own contractor, he pulled a permit for the
house but not for the pool cage.
It seems that he then built what he wanted to build, a two-story
house with a two-story pool cage that encroaches into the rear setback.
That's just plain wrong, in my opinion.
If you look at the LDC, section 9.04.03, a careful reading will
show that the county lacks the authority to grant this variance.
Criteria A, this is a standard lot meeting minimum criteria,
having no land-related difficulties.
Criteria B, no special conditions exist other than relating from
actions of the applicant himself.
Item C, staff has previously opined that hardship not inherent in
the land does not meet the hardship test.
Criteria D assumes that the parcel is so strangely configured that
a variance is required to make possible the reasonable use of the land,
the building, or the structure. Again, this is a standard lot. No other
people similarly situated are having difficulties making use of their
Page 122
March 28, 2006
property. Additionally, health, safety and welfare are not promoted by
granting a variance.
Item E, granting a variance will confer a special privilege on the
petitioner. Other neighbors rebuilding under the law would be denied
equal protection.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bruce, I have to cut you off.
MR. BURKHARD: Item F -- well, Mr. Yovanovich had a lot of
extra time seemingly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, no.
MR. BURKHARD: I just have about -- about another minute,
Mr. Chairman.
Granting this variance would not be in harmony with setback
regulations intending to reflect the community's desire to maintain
minimum safety, air, view and light standards.
There don't seem to be any natural or physically induced
conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation.
In each, granting the variance will probably be consistent with the
GMP but it's hardly a solid reason to grant a special privilege.
So failing seven out of the eight criteria, it only makes sense to
deny this variance. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON : Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Dr. Richard
Bing.
DR. BING: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
My name is Richard Bing, 10951 Gulf Shore Drive, president of the
Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association and chairman of Vanderbilt
Beach Zoning Committee.
And if I could have a minute that doesn't count against my three,
1'd like to bring up something that occurred the last time this was
discussed which directly relates to this situation, and that was a
variance -- administrative variance that we discussed two weeks ago.
And I need to apologize for using the word conspiracy. From my
Page 123
March 28, 2006
view, I had no correspondence with anybody on staff or anybody on
the committee that knew that this was coming last week before it was
actually issued.
And I heard Mr. Schmitt say during the course of the meeting
after I spoke that there was correspondence. And I asked our
committee to forward to me all their emails. And in fact, Joe had
forewarned two of our people, and I had not seen that; therefore, my
use of the word conspiracy, meaning in secret, was not true. We were
forewarned, and I apologize to Mr. Schmitt, his staff and
Commissioner Henning, who took offense to it. It was inappropriate
on my part for not doing my homework.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The clock starts running now.
DR. BING: Okay, thank you.
I think this is a very simple situation, although there's a lot of
confusion now since we started the meeting, and so I have to go on the
facts I knew that were published before this.
The owner told -- was told that his proposed design didn't meet
code, and now Rich is saying that that's not true, and I don't know.
And unless we get some other testimony, whether it's true or not--
that's what I understood.
The CCPC was told that this contractor, Aluminum X (sic), or
whatever it's called, installed it, and then since then they were told not
so through this affidavit. So either they did or didn't, and that seems
to be a lot of confusion.
But regardless of whoever did it, they did it without permit --
without a permit, and it's noncompliant, period. So however it got to
that point, that's what you have to deal with.
Bruce alluded to 9.04.03, and I count at least one, two, three,
four, five of those eight that are not met, those criteria that you can
look at to decide legally whether to issue a variance. So it's very easy
legally for you to deny this variance, and I assume you can consult
with the county attorney about that.
Page 124
March 28, 2006
Another point we need to make today that relates back to my first
comments, and that is, we were being accused of singling out 316
Flamingo Avenue two weeks ago. You need to demonstrate to the
community that 316 was not singled out, that you're being
even-handed in administering the code as commissioners.
Also, you heard from Rich that he had several letters, form
letters, from people who were neighbors that signed that said they had
no problem with this, and I'm not too sure how well educated they
were about all the details, that it wasn't permitted and doesn't meet
code and it could have been constructed differently.
And where Rich said that the new cage would go through the
pool, there was a drawing up here -- and I don't remember whose it
was -- but it did show the correct setback, and it did not go over the
pool, and that was shown earlier on the visualizer. I assume the dotted
line is the correct place, right?
MR. MUDD: Heidi, you need to answer that question, if you
would.
MS. WILLIAMS: Heidi Williams, for the record. That dashed
line is the 10- foot setback on the survey.
DR. BING: And it does not go through the pool.
So I request that you deny the variance on the reasons that we
just discussed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Is there any other -- that's
the last public speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll close the public hearing at this time.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I'm going to ask Mr. Thiermann
to come up in a second and answer some of the statements. I think it's
important to realize that neither Mr. Burkhard or -- I'm blanking on
your name -- Dr. Bing, I knew that -- Dr. Bing appeared at the
planning commission nor really had the courtesy to contact us and let
us know they had an issue.
Page 125
March 28, 2006
You know, we go out of our way with public notice to
associations about what's going on, and we have obligations to, you
know, address issues. I just would request that if we could start
showing the same courtesy back, that would be nice.
Dr. Bing, you know, has probably -- as far as I know, has never
been to the property, doesn't know -- or Mr. Burkhard, so they have no
personal knowledge of anything they just talked about.
But the bottom line is that the pool -- and what I said -- whoops,
sorry. What I said was that the pool enclosure will be in the pool is, in
fact, true, because you're forgetting you measure the pool enclosure
from the outside of the enclosure. That pool enclosure width is eight
inches. That will put it in the pool, okay.
So you're going to have a cage that you will not be able to walk
around the pool. That makes no sense. We cannot comply with
today's standards.
They both seem to harp on the fact that Aluminum Store said
they told us, or Mr. Thiermann, about the issue, and I'm going to ask
Mr. Thiermann to go ahead and address that question, because I think
that's important. I think what he knew or didn't know is very
important in how we got to where we are today.
Mr. Thiermann, would you please.
MR. THIERMANN: My name is Eberhard Thiermann. I live at
117 Channel Drive.
To comment to the questions of Commissioner Halas, yes, I
testified already, and there is an affidavit in your packet saying that
we had no idea and we did not know that the Aluminum Store was
taking out a permit.
We proceeded with our applications and permits for the
remodeling of the home without the knowledge that there ever was
taken out a permit from the Aluminum Store.
The knowledge that there was a permit taken out by the
Aluminum Store came long, long, long after we received a certificate
Page 126
March 28, 2006
of occupancy on the remodeling of the home. At that time the pool
enclosure was constructed. It was inspected twice in my presence
from the county inspectors. Everybody was under the understanding,
including me, that the permit which I held for the addition and
alteration was covering the pool enclosure.
So basically the questions of whether or whether or not the
enclosure needed to have a variance came up three years after we
received the certificate of occupancy on that enclosure.
I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. So you say that Aluminum
Store applied for this permit without your knowledge?
MR. THIERMANN: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you think he just picked your
house at random to apply for a permit from? Really.
MR. THIERMANN: No. Basically how it works is, before we
started construction, we went out and we -- to find the cost of the
remodeling of the home with some various contractors or
subcontractors to get pricing. One of the contractors was Aluminum
Store. They gave us a proposal with a price on it, and that was it.
After that, I didn't hear from these people anymore. I didn't
contact these people anymore. And to my knowledge, I found later
out, in the earlier days, it was possible for a contractor to go to the
county, obtain a permit, a construction permit, for a homeowner's
work or building arrangements without the consent of the homeowner.
And that was common practice. I've been told then that
contractors would go out and get permits in order to make it difficult
to switch over to a different contractor by deciding where you want to
go with. 1've been told it's called -- at that time it was called jamming.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I believe that you have to
Page 127
March 28, 2006
give them permission or notice -- for a notice of commencement when
they go into community development to pull a permit. They have to
have a written consent from the property owner.
MR. THIERMANN: Today this is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. THIERMANN: In 2001 they did not need that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Really?
MR. THIERMANN: Yeah. The law was changed on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you learn something new
every day.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question -- I have a question
from staff. In 2001 what did it cost somebody to go in and get a
permit? I can't believe they just go out and buy permits and not be
guaranteed they were going to have the job.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, community
development/ environmental services division administrator.
To answer your question, its permit is based on the cost of
construction. There's a construction valuation table. The value of the
construction that was provided by the contractor, we take that value
and that's how we assign a fee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So what would the price be back in
2001?
MR. SCHMITT: I don't know, Commissioner. 1'd have to go
back -- maybe $300, $350.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So that was $350 that the contractor
would just pull out of his pocket out of -- because he was a great guy?
MR. SCHMITT: I can't answer that. Can I just bring things back
into perspective here? And I understand we're here for the variance.
The information provided regarding the contract, we do have
conflicting information. You have an affidavit. I sent out contractor
licensing because it was said that contractor -- that the homeowner,
acting as ownerlbuilder -- who was responsible and we made that cleara
Page 128
March 28, 2006
in our staff report -- owner/builder is acting as the prime contractor,
hires subs. He is legally responsible for ensuring that all permits are
obtained.
And we have an affidavit. My contracting -- contracting
licensing inspector went out, conducted the interview with the
Aluminum Store, and basically they swore that they never executed
the permit. Now, whether they built it or not, we have no proof of
that. Naturally, that would be nice to know, but--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's the question.
MR. SCHMITT: The issue here is, the pool cage was built, I'm
sure, by some reputable company, it was built without a permit. And
when Mr. Thiermann states that there was a CO issued -- the CO -- we
have an inspector go out and we do a final on the house, and that also
includes to ensure that the child safety barrier system, some kind of
system, is up.
They probably -- and I would guess in this case here, 2001, never
went back to ensure that there was a valid permit for the pool cage.
That was not relevant at that -- or at least not an issue at that time
when that inspector went out. All they do is inspect to ensure that
everything was completed in accordance with requirements of the
Florida Building Code and that the child safety barrier system is up.
The pool cage is part of the child safety barrier system. If the
pool cage wasn't there, they would need a fence.
I also want to point out, when this pool cage was built, it was a
permit from 2001. I would have to assume -- I would -- we didn't
validate it because I wasn't in that kind of detail in this because it's a
variance. But at that time you needed a space between the edge of the
pool and the pool cage and -- in the '98 code. That changed in 2002.
You can actually build a pool cage now right up almost to the edge of
the pool.
But at that time when this was built, you needed to have -- and
my recollection is 22 inches between the edge of the pool and pool
Page 129
March 28, 2006
cage. That's no longer required. Interesting change, but you can now
build a pool cage right up to the edge of the pool.
And I just want to make sure you understand, at that time, or
probably when this pool cage was designed by the Aluminum Store,
they made sure there was enough space between the edge of the pool
and where the cage is now located. So that's just information.
But again, whoever built it, we have an affidavit to say they
didn't do it but, of course, the builder -- or the homeowner says they
did.
The issue here is -- the issue here is that a variance is required
because they triggered the 50 percent rule. And as Mr. Y ovanovich
noted, to make this legal, it's within your authority to either grant or
not grant the variance.
And I will turn it over to Heidi to summarize in regards to how
we applied the criteria. Of course, staff is recommending approval
with all the understanding, but certainly there is a lot of history behind
this. And in actuality, it is what it is. The builder was advised and
built the pool cage or had somebody build the pool cage regardless.
And you're correct, Commissioner Halas, he was responsible to ensure
that it was properly permitted.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question. When the inspector
went out there and gave the CO --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- gave the CO for the house, he
probably didn't realize that there was a new pool cage put up because
there was no permit, or he assumed that that pool cage was the
existing pool cage?
MR. SCHMITT: That could possibly be. I cannot assume what
he had in his mind at the time -- that time. There was no inspection of
the pool cage because there was no permit for the pool cage.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So he --
MR. SCHMITT: There was no CO for the pool cage. He went
Page 130
March 28, 2006
out and actually CO'd the house. And when he CO'd the house, he just
ensures that the child safety barrier system is in place. The pool cage
functions as that child's safety barrier. And then the CO was issued.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coletta, I believe
you were next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think so. Yeah, okay. I'm
going to go back to that -- what we have in front of us, the receipt
from Aluminum Store. Aluminum Store says they did not, at any
point in time, build this cage; however, we have a receipt from them,
we have a check number. I mean, if this is a forgery, this is a pretty
good one.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They didn't say they didn't build the
enclosure. They said they didn't build the enclosure pursuant to the
permit they pulled.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ahh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So they built the enclosure. And in fact,
if you look at the proposal we got that's up on your visualizer, it says
-- it says, to be built in compliance with March 1, 2002, code. So the
contract -- subcontractor -- and they had their license number on there.
They told my client what they were building was consistent with
code. Okay?
Now Joe and nobody else knows. The Aluminum Store is not
here to say anything. My client says Aluminum Store never told them
that the first permit was noted as not meeting code.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: When did they build the -- when did they
build the pool screen, 2002?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So then they had to comply with -- you
could still build that pool cage under the new existing rules of 2002
then, right?
MR. SCHMITT: You still need a variance.
Page 131
March 28,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I realize that, but--
MR. SCHMITT: Now, I want to make sure, for the record, page
57 of 86, MGO, is Mike Ossorio, he is -- he is a contractor licensing
investigator, that is his note. I just want to make sure that you
understand -- again, that this appears to be relevant to your decision.
But the affidavit, and that is his note to his boss, Bill. He
conducted the inquiry, and he goes on to state how he conducted the
inquiry, and he was informed by Mr. Gereau (phonetic), homeowner
cancelled contract with the Aluminum Store. Copy of contract was
provided to our office.
So basically that inspection revealed, in what was reported to my
contractor licensing investigator, that the contract was never executed.
Now, naturally somebody is not telling the truth. But be that as it
may, it may have some relevance in your decision-making, but all that
information is really somewhat noise and chatter because we're here
for the variance, and the variance is the issue at hand in regards to
whether they're going to get the 3.2 feet to legalize what was illegally
built.
They still have to come back in and pay four times the permitting
fees, and we still want an affidavit from someone to attest that this
thing actually met the code at the time so we can CO it, because we
have not CO'd anything out there in relation to the pool cage.
So even though staff recommends approval, I mean, there's a lot
of kind of anxiety again and emotion behind this issue, as there are in
most every one of these.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. You mentioned that the -- if
the pool cage were torn out and put right next to the pool, it couldn't
be because you said there were eight inches, and of course, I can only
think of my pool cage, and I don't know that it's two inches.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know when your pool cage was
built. But the current code -- I'm telling you -- I've been out there.
Page 132
March 28, 2006
I've been out to the site.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean the aluminum base?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The aluminum base, the aluminum base
is eight inches. The client will testify to that. These things are built --
it did well in Wilma, okay? Most -- a lot of pool enclosures didn't do
well in Wilma.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mine did. It was built in '74.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. So I mean, I'm sure -- and if you
look at the difference between the two structures, you will see how
much stronger this structure is. And maybe I need to put that back up.
Do you know where those last pictures are?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then the last thing, they were
saying that the -- that the Aluminum Store said. But here in his own
affidavit he said, at no time, it didn't just say with regard to that
permit. He said, at no time did my company build the pool.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that is clearly not the case. He was
paid. He did the work. He signed -- we signed a contract, and he was
paid to do the work, you know. So that gives you further evidence, I
believe, that his affidavit's not completely true.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we could bring this guy before the
contractor's board, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely, and I think you should.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If he's lying.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got to say one thing about being a
commissioner here in Collier County, I think all five of us are going to
be qualified for a judge eventually. We'll have a -- we'll be able to be
a judge in the courthouse over there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're getting some good education on
that stuff especially. But, you know, Commissioner, you know, we're
trying to look at it from a practical standpoint. This pool enclosure's
been there since 1976. It's not hurting anybody.
Page 133
March 28, 2006
We've actually made it better by bringing it up to the 2001 code.
It's safer for the community. You know, would you really want a pool
enclosure right up against the edge of the pool? If your kid fell-- a
little baby fell into that pool and was next to the screen enclosure,
could they pull themselves out? No, they'd have nowhere to get out.
I mean, why the code was even revised to even allow that, I have
no idea. But, you know, we are where we are. We're not hurting
anybody. Nobody was complaining until someone started some
investigation into this, and we've had several up in the area go through
this process, and I can assure you, it's not been enjoyable for my
client.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, let me just put it in this
perspective, okay? There are land development codes. There's 1,000
homes that are built each year in Collier County, and out of those
1,000 homes we have very few problems. There are some people that
-- some builders, okay, that try to push the envelope, and what they do
is, they're really violating the person that really works diligently to
make sure that they respect the codes, and they also look at the
uniformity that needs to take place in the neighborhoods.
Now, if we don't have uniformity, and not just in the -- my
district. I'm talking in all districts. That's why we have rules and
regulations in regards to how you present and how you build homes in
a particular neighborhood or a subdivision.
So I understand that there's times when there is an error done by
-- and it's an honest mistake, okay, and the error could be two or three
inches or four inches, but we're running into all these problems where,
throughout the county, where a lot of these errors are anywheres from
two to 16 feet for variances. Something is definitely amiss here, and
I'm not sure how it can be addressed, okay?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the -- some of those are
new structures that are caught by a spot survey after the improvement
Page 134
March 28, 2006
was done on a new house, you discover that.
You know, the thing that I go back to is, this structure -- well, the
existing structure was built 30 years ago and taxed upon for 30 years,
and now we have something that meets, maybe not the setbacks, but
the wind code.
And, you know, I -- I'm not going to vote to play hard shot on our
residents. I'm going to make a motion that we approve this variance
and the finding of the planning commission and the recommendations
of our staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion on there
motion?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, the motion is on the floor
to approve this variance --and if there's no further discussion -- it was
-- motion was made by Commissioner Henning, and seconded by
Commissioner Coletta.
If there's no further discussion on this, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, like sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So what was the vote?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think it passes 3-2.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got one thing I'd like to say before
we go into the next topic. It's my understanding that we have a
number of these that are coming up, and I believe that we shouldn't be
Page 135
March 28, 2006
wasting the time of the Board of County Commissioners, and I believe
that what we should do is put together a group that's strictly for the
Board of Zoning Appeals and make that -- designate that board as five
people, one from each district, to address these issues so that we don't
sit here and consume a lot of time, and that the Board of Zoning
Appeals would be the people that would address this issue, and I think
that would be a better way of addressing this, especially if we've got a
number of these. I was told that -- first of all it was seven and now I
believe there's almost the possibility of 27.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where are they at?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, they're all up in District 2 that took
place, and I'm sure there's a lot that are in other districts that are going
to be looked at.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I?
MR. SCHMITT: Just to set the record straight. We started this
over -- about three years ago when, of course, the commissioners
directed staff to investigate many of the complaints up in the
Vanderbilt Beach area.
There were originally 38 properties identified, 10 were cleared.
You've only -- there are only five variances been submitted. Today
was the -- actually you approved now three and denied one. There's
only one left that's in the system, but there are 27 remaining open
cases where the property owners and homeowners have done nothing
to date. So they are still open code cases. And these were all building
permits or issues done early to mid '90s, so these are --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And in early 2000, all the way to about
2002, we had some violations.
MR. SCHMITT: Most -- from 2002 on, all spot surveys -- none
of -- no more are they done at the front counter. They're all done in
the -- by the review staff, submitted. Spot surveys are no longer done,
where they used to be a walk-in process, and that's where they frankly
-- I'll use the word, pull the wool over some of the reviewers' eyes, and
Page 136
March 28, 2006
now it's done in the back in a separate review section.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And we also have cases presently where
people have inadvertently put the house in the wrong spot, and we go
through that.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, you do have those.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I really think that we need to put a--
have a separate board that answers under the county commission that
addresses all these issues so that it doesn't end up being an issue that's
-- because we're elected officials, and these people can probably
address a lot of these a lot better.
MR. SCHMITT: Or we resurrect the hearing examiner again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's where I was going to go.
You know, maybe it's time to go back looking at the idea of the
hearing examiner. I really do think so. I'd like to, at some point in
time, have that come back to us for review.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm not sure if it's a hearing examiner. I
would think that if you got more people on the board, it would be a
better cross-section of --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we've already got a
planning commission, and you've got a, you know, numerous other
things coming through and offer some advice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with Commissioner
Fiala.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you. For the record,
Marjorie Student-Stirling, assistant county attorney. We have a
special act that's also involved here that provides for Board of Zoning
Appeals. And as you gentlemen know, you all sit as the Board of
Zoning Appeals presently.
So the issue would be, do you want to, I guess, deconstitute
yourselves as that and appoint another one, or do you want to appoint
a special Board of Zoning Appeals just to look at these issues in the
Page 137
March 28, 2006
Vanderbilt Beach area? All of which we'd have to look into just and
can't give you an opinion today without looking at the special act and
trying to also discern further what it is that the board wants to do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't think it's just Vanderbilt Beach
area. I think all of -- it's the whole county.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. So it would be for -- the
Board of Zoning Appeals presently is tasked with conditional use
review and also variance review. So would that be for both of those or
just variances or -- the special ex. just deals with variances, as I recall.
But in our land code, it's broader and it deals with variances. This is
involved code changes and things like that. It's possibly -- possibly,
possibly --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, what I heard by
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- depending.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the majority of the
commissioners, they want to revisit the hearing officer.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll give staff direction to look
at that again.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm going to ask the question here
real quick to make sure I got your firm direction here, because I spent
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We don't change in the middle of the
stream.
MR. MUDD: I spent a year, okay, with seven citizens selecting,
going through actual interviews, bringing people all over the country
to take a look at these fine layers that came before us, and we were
prepared to come to the board with a recommendation on three and
have the board select out of that three of the top of -- and there were --
I believe there were at least over 20 that we looked at. We went
through a whole year.
Page 138
March 28, 2006
I want to make sure if the board's saying, you want to examine--
if you want the County Manager to go after a hearing examiner again,
we'll go after -- and we'll go through that same process, I'll go -- and
I'll come back to you as far as concerned citizens are concerned as we
go through this selection process.
But after I bring it forward to you again and all of a sudden the
planning commission comes forward and says, well, we want to do
that stuff and we'll do it for you and the board says, no, we don't want
to do that. So I just want to make sure, if you want me to go after the
hearing examiner, we'll go after it, and I'll go after it full bore, and I'll
come to this board with the best candidates that I can actually recruit
and interview, and I'll try to do that with a citizen corps of very
interested bodies.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I also would like to -- if we do
that, then what we can do is expand the body of the planning
commission and get with them to get after some of the Items that
really need to be taken care of by the planning commission,
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand the County Manager's
frustration with the way this was done the last time. I think the only
way we can make sure it doesn't happen this time is that we start out
with a clear statement of responsibilities and duties of the hearing
examiner and layout exactly what they're going to use, what the
guidelines are for them to make a decision.
And if -- I think if the staff and the county attorney can come
back to us with some recommendations about that, I would feel a lot
more comfortable. The thing I'm still not certain of is, just what types
of things are they going to be hearing and what information and/or
basis of law will they be using for making that decision?
I believe there is guidance that we should be able to provide to
anyone that we appoint which will help them arrive at an appropriate
Page 139
March 28, 2006
decision that will be in the best interest of our community. I'd like to
see that first before I commit to you that, yes, I will proceed with the
hearing examiner vote. But I --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just possibly, as
Commissioner Halas was talking about, a group of citizens, well,
maybe it could -- as we move forward, I absolutely agree with you, we
have to know what we're looking for before we know who to hire. But
maybe the planning commission could hear these things and then give
their recommendation to this hearing officer, hearing -- no, you don't
think that's a good idea?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Nope, it won't work, nope. I think it
needs to be where the hearing examiner -- we give the authority to the
hearing examiner -- I think, as Commissioner Coyle brought up, we
give them the guidelines that they need to follow in regards to doing
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's called the LDC.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it goes beyond that, but that's
all right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: All right. Yes, if I may. In Lee
County I have some knowledge how that works because the hearing
officer there was a classmate of mine in law school, and we are
friends.
And what happens is, there the hearing officer has final order
authority on conditional uses and variances utilizing the criteria set
forth in the land development code.
On rezones the hearing officer makes a recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners, and they write -- the hearing officer
writes findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the criteria in
the land development code as part of their order on the conditional use
and the variance, and then I believe they submit a recommended order
Page 140
March 28, 2006
on rezones to the Board of County Commissioners, and the Board of
County Commissioners has an opportunity at a public hearing to either
uphold the findings of the hearing officer or deny them and so on.
That's my general understanding of how it operates in Lee County.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I just don't want to end up to
where we're spending an hour and a half on each one of these, okay? I
think we're wasting our time. We've got a lot of big issues in this
county that we've got to go after instead of worrying about 10 inches,
two foot or 14 foot.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I was just going to say
what Marjorie said about what they do in Lee County. The -- but also
what we could do is on these things in Vanderbilt Beach is put a time
limit on code issues and just say if -- you know, if it's missed, let's
excuse it, because, I mean, I'm seeing some things, not so much in
Vanderbilt, where there's -- there's no statute of limitation on our land
use, but there's a statute of limitation on criminal activities such as
bank robbers. So we're holding up our citizens on a higher degree
than some criminals.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think the case that was just
before us -- we're not saying anybody's a criminal. What we're saying
is that the criteria is pretty clear in our land development code that if
somebody reconstructs their property and it's more than 50 percent,
that they have to bring everything up to code, and that's the bottom
line.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, I wasn't
talking about this case. But there are several within code enforcement
board that they hear that is 30 and 40 years old.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I'm not sure what -- I'd have to be
-- I guess I'd have to have more specifics. But we have codes, and
they need to be adhered to, and I feel that we're spinning our wheels
and spending our time needlessly on variances that we need to find a
Page 141
March 28, 2006
way to get after it and get this addressed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I think he has a good idea, in
my opinion because, you know, if somebody's been living with
something for years and years and years and years and nobody's ever
had a problem with it, and 25 years later somebody decides there's a
problem, laws have changed or whatever, I just don't think it's right for
that person to be penalized for something that was okay for 25 years.
I agree with the statute of limitations. You know, maybe give them 10
years or five years or something, but you know, there should be some
limit to that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's what I was talking
about, a set of instructions about what people should do.
I think there's some common sense applications of the land
development code that sometimes we don't pay much attention to, and
it wouldn't be a bad idea to include that in a set of instructions that we
provide the people about how they make decisions, and one of those
could be a statute of limitations.
And just let me take this past case and just give a very quick
example as to how complex it can become. Commissioner Halas has
stated that when you tear down something and it's more than 50
percent of the value, that you have to bring it back into code.
Well, in this case that's exactly what the petitioner did. They tore
down a screen enclosure and they brought it back specifically in
accordance with the new building code for screen enclosures.
Now, the thing that didn't happen was that it wasn't the proper
setback, but the setback was pretty much determined by the pool and
the pool platform. So we've got to get people to differentiate between
those kinds of things, and we've got to give those kinds of instructions
to a hearing examiner if we really want to do what is necessary to
benefit the community. But that's just an example of what I was
talking about when I said we need to develop some instructions and
Page 142
March 28, 2006
guidelines.
Okay. You're the vice-chair. You're in--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- charge now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Quiet, will ya?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're adjourned now.
(Chairman Halas reentered the hearing room.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Can we give staff some
direction here so we can move on?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We just did. Everything's taken care
of.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We didn't pay any attention to what
you said.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the board said to come back with a
hearing examiner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good.
MR. MUDD: What I plan -- what I plan to do is to follow those
instructions, come back to this board with what kind of things you
want that hearing examiner to do, okay, so I can define that before I
go out for an advertisement for that particular position, and then I'll
take a look at the selection committee and come back to the board and
see what the board wants to do with that selection committee.
And with that, then I'll march on and do the board's desire on a
hearing examiner and try to get that done.
So we'll have one more opportunity, and this way if the planning
commission has some druthers about that, maybe we can hear about
them ahead of time before we go on -- before I go on this adventure
again and before hearing it after we've already been there and we were
at the destination and came forward and said no, we're not going to go
there.
But I'm not blaming the board on that. Hey, the board -- we do
Page 143
March 28, 2006
whatever the board wants. I just want to make sure we're in the
ballpark before I go out again. And my biggest part wasn't staff time
that we burned. We burned a lot of civilian volunteers' times, and
those folks were -- they're involved in this community and they gave
-- they gave me their heartfelt attention for almost a year as we went
through this process, from developing the criteria, what we were
looking for, the questions we were going to ask those particular people
and everything else. So I just want to make sure I'm in the ballpark
before I go off again. And oh, by the way, I didn't throwaway the last
packet either.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. Well, the thing I'm going to also
just bring up for conversation is that, in no we're going to do away
with the planning commission. The planning commission, I think we
could give them duties to -- that need to be addressed in regards to
how we're going to accomplish all the growth and the needs that we
need in this county. So they're not going to be abolished by any
means.
Okay. Let's move on. Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we going to take a break for the
court reporter?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Let's take a --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ten minutes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, 12-minute break. We'll be back at
2:48.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Love this guy.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're back in session with the Board of
Commissioners.
And where'd we leave off at, sir?
Page 144
March 28, 2006
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2006-14: THIS AMENDMENT OF THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS (AHDB) RATING
SYSTEM IS CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 28, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING OF LDC AMENDMENT 2005 CYCLE 2. THE
BOARD DIRECTED THAT STAFF PROVIDE DATA TO
SUPPORT THE REQUESTED INCREASE IN BONUS UNIT
AWARDS ACROSS THE LEVELS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
INCOME PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 2.06.03 TABLE A-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to Item 8A, and this
is an advertised public hearing. And the first Item and the only Item
under advertised public hearing is, this is an amendment of the
affordable housing density bonus, AHDB rating system, is continued
from the February 28,2006, public hearing of the land development
code amendment 2005, cycle two.
The board directed that staff provide data to support the
requested increase in bonus unit awards across the level of affordable
housing income provided for in section 2.06.03, table A.
MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. Good afternoon,
Commissioners. For the record, Catherine Fabacher, principal
planner, land development code, with zoning and land development
reVIew.
Just a brief recap. This is the -- this will be a continuation of the
public hearing for the very last Item that's of the 2005 cycle two LDC
amendments. As you requested, we have the additional information
today.
I wanted to say just a couple things that we -- as Mr. Mudd
mentioned, this meeting was continued legally from the last, so we
didn't have any advertising obligations, so we are in compliance with
Page 145
March 28, 2006
the public notification requirements.
Margie asked me to remind you that you need to state the
conditions, that it's conforming with the GMP, as a condition of
approving it, and that we need a supermajority vote.
And also, under the last ordinance of this cycle, we did pass the
affordable housing and the gap housing definition, so I think Cormac
is going to address that or has it on a handout for you.
So anything else being -- nothing else being said, I'm going to
turn it over to Cormac. Thank you.
MR. GIBLIN: Good afternoon again, Commissioners. Again,
Cormac Giblin, your housing and grants manager.
This is, as Catherine and Mr. Mudd mentioned, a continuation of
the only -- the last -- the last outstanding LDC amendment of the cycle
which has to deal with the affordable housing density bonus rating
system.
At the hearing on February 28th, you directed staff to ask a
consultant or hire a consultant, an economist to look at these numbers,
look at the proposed bonuses in real-world scenarios and determine if,
in fact, the bonuses were appropriate, if they're right, if they're too
generous in some respects, or if they were -- if they needed more
encouragement in other respects.
Catherine did mention that I did pass out during the break at each
one of your desks the new table, the proposed table, which is -- which
was arrived at using that financial analysis model that we'd contracted
for, and then stapled to it on the second page are the new definitions
that you enacted at the February 28th hearing of affordable-workforce
housing and gap housing.
You'll notice that the term affordable-workforce housing had a
line added to the -- added to the end of the definition that states,
owner-occupied gap housing, 81 percent to 150 percent of median
income is now contained within the definition of affordable-workforce
housing.
Page 146
March 28, 2006
The board also created entirely -- or a separate new definition
specific only to gap housing which reads the same way, housing from
81 to 150 percent of median income. So that for the purposes of
comprehensive plan, land development code, anywhere we see the
words affordable-workforce housing, it is meant to be all-inclusive of
everything from less than 50 percent of median, all the way up to 150
percent of median as one catch-all phrase for affordable-workforce
housing.
And in most case it should be followed up by the specific
percentage of median income that that particular citation is meant to
address.
So since your last meeting, we have contracted with an
economist, Fishkind and Associates to develop an analysis,
development analyzed models, analyzing density and how that affects
the marketability and the viability of certain projects in Collier
County, and Mr. Russ Wire with Fishkind and Associates has been
kind enough to share his results with us, and he has a short
presentation he'd like to go forward with.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one commissioner who has a
question at this time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Unless you -- yes. The way I
remember it -- forgive me if I don't remember it correctly -- when we
last discussed this, we were, because of professional housing not
qualifying for any of the -- any of the financial -- you know, any of
the dollars that are out there because, you know, it isn't part of that
affordable dollar market and it doesn't have the same requirements to
it -- the way I understood it, we were going to separate it.
And actually what I was going to do now, and I've talked to both
our County Manager and Joe Schmitt, was take the committee, and I
was going to sunset it and then have a specific gap committee just
dealing with the issues that that particular range deals with, which is
totally separate from the other because you've got different incomes
Page 147
March 28, 2006
that you're dealing with and so forth, although, to be honest with you,
when we were discussing density, we wanted to make sure that there
-- even if they were voting in a gap density at the time -- we had
requested four units -- we wanted to make sure there was one
affordable in there, two gap, over and above the stuff that the
affordable housing commission is already working on.
We wanted to make sure to give them part of this, too, because
it's an important part of the gap housing, and then one market rate.
That's the only incentive we, as the Gap Housing Committee, had to
any developer to build it all, was -- no dollars or anything, but four
units.
But now, what you're doing is, we're losing that, as I see,
according to this anyway, because now affordable workforce remains
affordable workforce and it doesn't have a separate component. Is that
what I'm seeing here?
MR. GIBLIN: As far as the definitions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, it's not what we've done. It's--
this is what the board voted on on February 28th. These are your--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We voted to -- not to have that, even
though --
MR. GIBLIN : You voted for both. You have the gap housing
income level included in affordable-workforce --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then what --
MR. GIBLIN: -- and you have a separate definition specifically
for gap housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's what I thought. But
then what -- the comments that you said in the beginning were this
housing, affordable-workforce, then you said--
MR. GIBLIN: It is an all-inclusive -- now, the way that the
board directed us to amend the LDC, affordable-workforce housing is
an all-inclusive term that includes up to and including gap housing.
Page 148
March 28, 2006
So it would be a little bit redundant to say affordable-workforce
housing and gap housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought it was supposed to have a
separate category.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It does.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it doesn't. He just said it
doesn't.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Eighty-one through 150 percent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I know that, but I'm talking
about -- right? There isn't a separate category, right? It's all under
one.
MR. GIBLIN: There are about six separate categories of
affordable-workforce housing. Gap housing is one of them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Maybe we ought to listen, have the
presenter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's do that, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Maybe that will clarify some of this.
MR. WIRE: Thank you, Commissioners, for having me today.
For the record, I'm Russ Wire. I'm a senior associate with Fishkind
and Associates and also chairman of the Southwest Florida District
Council of the Urban Land Institute.
I was asked by staff to take a look at the density bonus program
that was originally submitted for your edification and to take a look at
it from a financial perspective and a fiscal perspective to see how it
works and works within the economies of our county, if you will.
So what we've done -- let me do a little bit of background for
you. We did the initial density program, which was, again, proposed
to the commissioners, to all of you. We first looked at the subsidized
housing arranged back a while ago. It was 50, 60 and 80 percent of the
median income.
And currently the median income is at $66,100 here in the
county . We basically followed the table in the land development code
Page 149
March 28, 2006
at that time.
Commissioner Fiala's Gap Housing Committee had
recommended that gap housing table in the incentive, with the bonus
which would include one market and two gap, one affordable, which
was brought forward to you.
The commissioners, again, at that point had asked staff to look at
the table financially to see how it actually works. So we were asked
to do that.
So for the past month or so we've been working on this one.
Give a little bit of our background, we're -- we have extensive
affordable housing analysis experience. We do it around the state.
We are also a team member in the development of the East
Central Florida Regional Planning Council's methodology, which is
also now used in the fiscal impact model. That is being rolled out by
the state.
We're currently working with the Department of Community
Affairs to refine and upgrade that methodology, and also we've
performed detailed financial analyses for both the public and the
private sectors of our economy around the state and locally as well.
Our task plan was threefold. First was to developed the financial
income statement to test the proposed bonus tables, table, and to test
any changes to that table.
Second, we were to review the proposed bonus table in light of
its final feasibility. And third, to suggest refinements to the table
based primarily on the financial incentives that would generate to the
development community.
And the first part of this, development of the financial income
statement to test the proposed bonus table, we set up a hypothetical
development cash flow statement, which again, Cormac will have
when we are completed here.
It assumed 20 acres, which is an average size development,
density of four units per acre, and allowed for an affordable housing
Page 150
March 28, 2006
pricing mix. So we set up the table so that we not only had the sale of
market rate units, but we also had the sale of the gap, from the 81 to
150, the low, the very low, and the very low affordable, so we had all
four categories put in there.
We also -- we had some assumptions in there that the per acre
purchase price was $250,000. And there's a note on that, and the bonus
only is allowed in the urban area, and the land costs there are
exorbitant, as you aware. When you get further east, again, there the
land costs are a little bit less, but also those have been set up with your
rural land stewardship program.
The infrastructure is set at about $110,000 per acre in the market.
That's pretty average. May even just be a little bit low, because at the
rate that concrete and steel are going, it's starting to ramp up pretty
quickly.
The market rate sales price we set at about $400,000. It was
discounted from 435,000, which was an average that we have found in
our studies around the area to accommodate some market resistance of
having the affordable housing in -- within the project, but it still was
within a reasonable price range. And then we had an assumption of a
six-year build-out, and that's also important to remember.
Second part of this, we reviewed the proposed bonus table in
light of its financial feasibility. We first looked at the base case
development. Then what we did is, before we allowed any bonuses or
anything, we first took a look at -- we changed the land plan to take
away eight market rate units and just added eight 150 percent median
income units, which at this time the median income units were at
about 330,000 at that, when you're at the 150 price.
And in the base case, you see this with 20 acres, your density of
four, it gives you 80 units, your land cost, your infrastructure, your
construction cost at about $150 a square foot, and I reconfirmed that
again today with one of our clients. It is about average.
The sales price of 435,000 a unit on the market rate and the sales
Page 151
March 28, 2006
price on the 150 percent of median is 330,000. So when you take
those two and you don't add any bonuses or anything to that, here's
what happens without -- first of all, without the bonus, without the
median income units, they have a return on investment of 19 percent.
And again, remember, that's over six years, so you divide that by six,
they're only making three or four percent a year on that.
So if you take away those units and you add the other units to it,
so you're losing on the revenue side, you're also -- your cost of sales
come down a little bit because those units are actually smaller, of
course. They were 1,700 on average for the market rate, and about
1,500 on average for the 150 percent.
Their return drops to 2.21 percent. That's without any bonus. So
that's just so you understand, if you were to add those eight units in
there and take away from the market rate, that's what would happen in
a developer's instance.
I'm sorry? Eight gap units, correct. I'm sorry. Make sure I get
that terminology correct.
Number two, in reviewing the proposed bonus table in light of its
financial feasibility, we reviewed the table with the county staff, spent
quite a bit of time -- Cormac and I are seeing double numbers at the
moment, but we did run through a number of iterations.
We ran all the scenarios through the pro forma, and found in
general that the returns were close to appropriate in low percentage
area -- in the low percentage areas; in other words, from the third or
from the 50 to 80 percent, those were appropriate where we were at,
and 10 to about 40 percent or so, Cormac?
And then we also found that the returns needed some additional
incentives at the higher percentage area. So if you were going to do
40 to 60 percent of affordable housing units, you needed actually to
have a little bit more bonus than what we had in that table.
Additionally, in the gap incentive we thought was too high
because -- and the problem was, is the gap unit prices were very close,
Page 152
~--_._,... -'-...--_._"-;...._--~....-
March 28, 2006
or pretty close to what the market rates were, and when you ran the
numbers through, they were profitable compared to the affordable
housing ones which weren't quite as profitable. Actually in some -- in
most instances weren't profitable.
So we felt that they could be lowered due to that small difference
in price from the market rate. Essentially what we did is, with the
recommended table, we pushed the gap housing table to the right a
little bit so that the incentives start at about 30 percent.
This was your proposed density table that was presented back
about a month or so ago. As you can see, when we started, we had
one, two, three, four, five, and six in the gap housing range, and it
went down and across accordingly, being capped at eight because of
the Growth Management Plan reasons, and also you couldn't go over
16 units per acre, so we tracked -- all along we were tracking the
bonus -- or the densities of each situation.
So one thing I wanted for all of you to understand with our
median income at 66,100, what they can afford as far as housing units
are concerned. At 120 percent -- and I actually put some extra
categories in there just so you get an idea of the range.
At 150 percent, their income is at 99,150. They can afford a
$330,000 house. If they're at 120 percent of median income, it's
79,000 as income. You get a $264,000 house. Right at median
income you can afford a $220,000 priced house, and on down the line,
as you can see. When you get to 50 percent, you can afford a
$110,000 house.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This isn't household income, right?
This is individual income?
MR. WIRE: This -- household. It is household income.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is household income.
MR. WIRE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It doesn't say that, so --
MR. WIRE: I'm sorry. I should have put household out there.
Page 153
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right.
MR. WIRE: It is household.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just asking.
MR. WIRE: Okay. And my last slide to show to you is what we
are -- what we had found worked the best within the financial
.
scenanos.
And I actually have it color coded a little bit. First of all, the blue
ones are very incentivized and can be done. When you start to get at
about 50 percent of affordable housing and more within a project that
you have market rate units in, it goes upside-down. The developers
just can't make money on it.
So the red ones you'll -- really, for the most part, will never see a
proposal come forward with those red ones. The blue one is where the
-- you will see the most activity.
And again, in that 30 to 40 percent of a project being in the
affordable housing range, as you can see, we increased it from the 50
to 80 percent, five units to eight units, and six to eight and seven to
eight. That's where we incentivize the table even more. And, again,
on the gap housing, we pushed it off a little bit to the right. And those
scenarios worked, and that's where we ended up.
At this point I will take questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have any questions before we
call public speakers?
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, if you would, let's take the
situation where we have 61 to 80 percent of the median family
income, and 40 percent of the development is being planned for that
particular category. Try to tell me what eight bonus density units
really does to you. Do you have a detailed computation of that
particular category?
MR. WIRE: I don't have that particular scenario with me, but we
can run it. Because we ran them through the scenarios, and I can
Page 154
March 28,2006
provide that for you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Can you tell him -- you used an example where
you had 20 acres and the base density was four units per acres. Can
you try to explain that to the commissioner where he's talking about
the 40 percent on that chart based on that example, a 20-acre parcel
where its base density it four units per acre?
MR. WIRE: Again, Commissioner Coyle, which --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We're talking about -- I
can't see the figures on the left-hand side, but I think it might be --
MR. WIRE: You talking about 80 percent there?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sixty percent, wasn't it, 60 to 80?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know what that one -- what
those numbers are.
MR. MUDD: You said 61 to 80. It's the second -- it's the second
row down.
MR. WIRE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And let's take the 40 percent of the
development that's going to be that category of housing. Explain to
me how we arrive at eight as the optimum density bonus.
MR. GIBLIN: Well, we're -- again, for the record, Cormac
Giblin. I'll work you through how the chart works, then Russ can
determine how we determined that eight was the optimum there, but -_
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, wait a minute. I know how
the chart works.
MR. GIBLIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay? I just need somebody to
work me through how you got up to eight as the optimum number.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What was the criteria you used to come
up with that?
MR. WIRE: What we did is, when we set up the development
Page 155
March 28, 2006
bonus table, we ran the numbers through and ended up with a density
that says it would be eight plus -- how many total on that one would
be. It would be 12 total units per acre on the density.
So then when we plugged into the table based under the price
ranges and the cost and that sort of thing, that the eight units on the
market rate and the -- or those would be 12 on the market rate, and
then it would be -- is that right, 12 -- 12 on the market and then you'd
have the -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. GIBLIN: You have a 20-acre piece of property, base
zoning is four units per acre. Today that developer could go in and
build 80 market rate homes. Using this scenario that you chose there,
that 40 percent of the development at 80 percent of median, they
would qualify for density bonus of eight extra units per acre. So now
you've got the same 20 acres at 12 units to the acre, they're building
240 units on the same piece of property; 96 of those, or 40 percent,
need to be affordable housing. The other 144 can be market.
He ends up with, in actuality, 64 extra market rate units to
subsidize the cost of those 96 affordable units, and that is all fed into
the spreadsheet Mr. Wire developed. And do you want to show that?
MR. WIRE: Right. At that point, what we did is we plugged it
in. And where the price ranges were, we would have the 64 affordable
housing units, and then the regular market rate units, and that was
driven by the price that we had created based on the income levels at
the 30 percent level, and then also on the cost and the size of the units,
and then when it ran through the spreadsheet, it came up with a return
of anywhere from 20 percent up to 30 percent.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What were you using for the price of the
land?
MR. WIRE: Price of land was $250,000 an acre.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Two hundred fifty thousand an acre?
MR. WIRE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- well, you're going to have to
Page 156
March 28, 2006
show me the computations before I can really understand how you did
that. But I think they're in the packet that was given to us -- was it
yesterday -- last night, which, you know, I didn't go through last night.
But I guess -- all right. Now, we're getting closer to it.
Now, what is the primary -- are you using a targeted amount of
revenue and/or absolute profit in order to determine what the ratios
should be?
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, the driving force behind the
density bonus table was, if on the open market you can expect a return
of X percent on your investment, we need to develop incentives to
entice people to voluntarily come in and build these products with an
expectation that if they do, they can get a little bit more of a return on
their investment.
And the more affordable you build, the more that return should
be to entice people to build more affordable. And the lower levels of
affordability they target, again, the more return on their investment,
they should be able to take advantage of.
So that's the underlying theory of the table is that the more -- the
more per -- the bigger, greater percentage of affordable units and the
more affordable you keep those units, the more return you can achieve
on your investment, and running through numerous, numerous
scenarios, the numbers that translate into the table, we think, are, you
know, applicable to the current market.
MR. WIRE: Commissioner Coyle, I'm going to show you on --
this was the table that we used to drive those numbers. As you can
see, we had the market rate number of units, and then in this case we
had 50 percent, 60 percent, 80 percent and 150 percent.
And this shows you, going across, we started out with the total
number of units on it, and we kept testing it -- testing it through the
model. We had goals that going across, trying to incentivize, again,
like we talk about the developers, going further down the table to be
more incentivized to do that, to provide more affordable housing. So
Page 157
March 28, 2006
we had to keep running the numbers through the table to come up with
the optimum amount for each of the density bonus units on the
percentage basis.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the outcome depends entirely
upon the parameters of the model that you have selected, so let's get to
that. That's where I really want to go, okay.
So show me where you are. Go back to the model. Now, just a
couple of quick questions. Why did you select $435,000? Well,
you've actually selected $400,000 as a market rate sales price per
home.
MR. WIRE: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why?
MR. WIRE: Well, in a project in this case, when it worked out
with all of those cost factors that were involved, the $400,000, the four
hundred and actually 40 thousand dollars, created a profitable return
of 20 percent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So let's suppose that sale the
price of that home is $500,000.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or 600,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or six, yeah.
MR. WIRE: That could -- that will definitely change the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That will make a big, big
difference in the number of density bonuses that are necessary to
arrive at the appropriate incentive profit.
MR. WIRE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what I'm trying to arrive at is,
how do we make sure we give enough density bonuses to encourage
people to build without awarding too many density bonuses?
There are two principles here. One is, every time we allow
excessive density bonuses, we increase the price of land, right?
Because if you can make 30 percent or even 40 percent by getting
density bonuses, the next time you're going to go buy property,
Page 158
March 28, 2006
somebody's going to charge you more money for it because they know
your profit margin is going up.
So the value of the land is going to go up if we give excessive
density bonuses.
MR. WIRE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nobody will buy affordable -- or
build affordable housing if we don't provide enough density bonuses.
So our challenge is to try to find somewhere where it makes sense.
And if the median price of the home is $500,000 in Collier
County right now, why not use $500,000 for that figure? Quite
frankly, there isn't much difference between the $400,000 figure and
the 300,000 -- $333,000 figure for gap housing.
MR. WIRE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what we're really saying is that
if you -- if you were to make a 10 percent -- and I would suspect it's
more than this, but let's just be conservative -- 10 percent profit on a
$500,000 house, you've got $50,000.
Now, how many market rate units does it takes to make up your
loss, if there is a loss, for gap housing of 333,000? Probably none.
Now, that leads us to, the other question is, does the private sector
have a responsibility to build affordable housing if they can do so
without decreasing their profit on a project?
MR. WIRE: As long as they're not decreasing on the project, I
would believe so, sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, because they have
employees, too, and they have just as big a stake in this community as
anybody else.
MR. WIRE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So why wouldn't a private sector
development, developer or investor, be willing to build some
affordable housing on a project if they were able to make just a little
bit more money than if they built their basic --
Page 159
March 28, 2006
MR. WIRE: Well, there are market--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- basic density?
MR. WIRE: I understand that. There are other market forces out
there, of course, that you have to be aware of as well. You know, for
a $500,000 unit, that price may not be at $500,000. If it's a mixed-use
type of project, you may be a little bit lower, and I've seen that happen
in a number of our projects that we have analyzed before. So it's
going to take a little bit more on the affordable side.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure, I understand, and I don't
think anybody should be giving things away free. I think -- I believe
in the free enterprise system.
And I just want to get a reasonable bonus so that people are
inclined to build these homes, but I don't want to be taken to the
cleaners on the bonus units.
And then here's my fundamental problem. You've based it on a
sales price of a home of $400,000, but suppose someone walks in the
door and says, okay, I'm going to build $500,000 homes and I want
some affordable housing, and I want eight affordable housing units in
order to do that; that isn't economically justifiable, in my opinion.
So how do we develop a model and a bonus table that reflects the
cost of -- or the sales price of the market price homes that are being
offered for sale?
MR. WIRE: Maybe there's a way to develop the model where
it's a percentage of the units as opposed to actual units in there, you
see, where your table would be on a percentage basis --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. WIRE: -- as opposed to a table basis.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. WIRE: Or an exact unit basis. That would allow you to use
it in a lot of different scenarios.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is another way of dealing
with it, and that is to specify the maximum density bonuses that are
Page 160
March 28, 2006
available in each of the categories, as we've done it here, but to clearly
specify that they would have to be economically justifiable by the
developer so that each developer, based upon their economic model
and the price of homes they're going to be building for market rate
homes and the percentage of other affordable homes, the number of
bonuses will be determined entirely upon their economic model.
MR. WIRE: That's another way of going through it. And, you
know, we have talked about that as well before, then you're going to
have to target your return on investments --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, yes.
MR. WIRE: -- at that point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct.
MR. WIRE: But that is another direction to go in.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Now, finally, then
I'll quit belaboring this point. If someone has 20 acres and they can
put 80 units on 20 acres, and they can sell them for a half-million
dollars, that provides them a certain total revenue and a certain
absolute profit based upon the profit margin of 20 percent of whatever
you want to call it. What's wrong with using that as the target plus a
small percentage higher for them to build affordable housing?
MR. WIRE: Yeah, we did that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. WIRE: We ran those numbers as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I --
MR. WIRE: Be happy to provide you with those tables when
,
we re --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I guess, bottom line, I
would -- I would -- these things are so variable we don't know what
the developer's going to come in with. We don't know what level of
market rate housing he's going to come in with, what density, so it
would appear to me that the best thing to do --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just--
Page 161
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- is to base the final determination
of the density on their proposal of the number of market rate units
they're going to build and what -- how much we're going to charge for
them, and then that way you can make a very specific determination
about how many density units it takes to make up for the loss to
develop the market rate housing and to provide them a sufficient
incentive to permit them to go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think the percentage is the way to go
also.
Commissioner Fiala, I believe you were next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. As you're pursuing this -- and
I think it's important. Of course, we've heard over and over again that
they have to make sure that the developers are incentivized by the
profit.
We didn't mention how much money is obtained by them to build
this in the first place because there are government dollars, not for
gap, but for everything else. There are government dollars available
also to offset some of their expenses, and I don't know if this is figured
in here or not.
I think once -- that's why you have people who specialize in
affordable housing itself and they do really, really well because they
have all of these other funds coming in, number one.
Number two, of course, the impact fees are deferred so they don't
have to come up with that either, and that's another bonus that they
really don't have to encounter.
And by the way, I don't know why but these figures, the one that
we had in our book and these, are quite a bit different, why?
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, the difference between the ones
that were in the book -- the ones in the book are the ones that were
presented on February 28th. Those are the ones that the board asked
for us to go and refine using an economic analysis. The new ones that
were handed out today were done using that economic analysis to
Page 162
March 28, 2006
determine exactly what bonuses were appropriate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, only the top line
has changed? Everything else remains the same, right.
MR. GIBLIN : Not entirely. I mean, there are some changes
toward -- in the middle of the chart at the bottom.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've been trying to compare, and
maybe I don't see them. Oh, yeah, there's eight. Well, okay.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. I can help you here a little bit,
because I went through the same thing you did. I took these numbers
and tried to write them down on the old chart. If you go down -- and
let's take the top chart, because there's even -- there's even an error in
this sheet that was passed out. No, leave that red thing up, okay?
MR. SCHMITT: There's all the numbers, old and new.
MR. MUDD: Sure. Put the -- put the red numbers, please.
Okay. When you take the red numbers and you look and you try
to put them against your chart, and even when you put them against
this chart that was handed out -- I'm on the top line -- and I would like
you to make a correction to where it says gap, and go to the column
where it says 40 percent, and I want you to cross that two out and
make it a one, because if you look at the chart in front of you, that's
exactly what it says.
And I want you to go right next door where it says 50 percent,
and I want you to take that three and make it a two, okay, and then
that chart that was handed out is exactly what you see on that slide
over there.
Now, ma'am, in your particular case, on the chart where it used to
say -- at 10 percent on gap where it said one, it's now a zero. At 20
percent where it used to say a two it's now zero. Where it's 30 percent
-- where it used to be three, it is now a one. Forty percent, where it
used to say on the gap line, where it used to say four, it is now a one.
Fifty percent column where it used to say it's a five, it's now two.
Sixty percent, where it used to say six, it's now three, and it's three all
Page 163
March 28, 2006
the way across after that.
When you go to the 80 percent MI, in the old column under 30
percent where it used to say four, it is now five. Where it used to say
40 percent, where it used to say five, it is now eight.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't mean to interrupt you,
but my point is -- and I guess I'm getting pretty tired, and maybe I
should just give in let you guys do what you please, because I can see
that it's -- I seem to be working on this alone.
My biggest concern is, now, as I said, there are no incentives for
gap housing other than a bonus. Obviously that's been pretty well
eliminated. And when you eliminate it -- and it's great that you're
building the affordable housing and you can get all you please, but
then there's going to be nobody to teach them, nobody to rescue them,
nobody to nurse them, nobody to put out the fires for them because
you have no incentives for gap. And what have you accomplished?
Aren't you supposed to be trying to build a well-balanced program for
all of the workforce in our entire county? But it seems that I'm alone
on that. I don't understand why.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, the original chart that you had
before you on February 28th was based on --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think it's funny either. I
know you keep smiling, but I don't think it's so funny.
MR. GIBLIN: -- was based on the Gap Housing Committee's
recommendations. It was the board that directed us to put science and
economics behind each of these numbers, and that's what the revised
table shows.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Now, Commissioner -- Commissioner Fiala's got a
valid point, because I believe Commissioner Coyle hit upon a point.
He said, what did you use for the market rate value of that unit, and it
was 400,000.
And I believe Commissioner Coyle hit the point and said, I
Page 164
March 28, 2006
believe that value's too low because we know in Collier County that
that number is right around $500,000.
Now, what this chart tells me -- and I'm looking at the one that's
on the chart -- it's saying, the difference between this 150 percent
market rate house and that market value, Commissioner, of 400,000 is
too close, so therefore your numbers are smaller.
But Commissioner Coyle basically said, I believe there was an
assumption that was made in the analysis where it said that the market
rate was $400,000, that it was incorrect, because that is not a good
representation of what we see in the marketplace in Collier County.
So I believe we need to get the board to give us some guidance
on what we think that is. Is it $600,000? Is that -- and it gets into,
what's that percentage -- what is that market rate value that the
developer's going to come forward and try to offer to the community
at market rate and what sells out there? And is it 500,000 or is it
600,000?
And depending on those numbers, Commissioner, I believe that
there is going to be a big difference between your gap housing amount
that people can afford and what this number needs to be on the thing.
I think it's understated based on the fact that Commissioner Coyle
brought out on what they use for market value. Did I miss anything,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had suggested at my gap
committee that the limit, the top price -- I don't go for all of the
percentages. Top price was 290,000. I said that right from the start. I
was told I couldn't do that. It had to be percentage of median income.
But I kept saying, top price should be 290-. My concern is also,
build it and they will come. So if we build for one section of the
workforce, that's who will be here. And if we don't build for the other,
then they won't be here.
And so then, we're going to have a deficit someplace else, and
Page 165
March 28,2006
everybody's going to run around in two years and say, oh, my
goodness, we've got a deficit. We should do something. Well, I guess
that, you know, they don't want to do it now, so we'll just have to wait
and see what happens.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, I think also we
need to look at, there's a lot of communities that they're going to be
coming in for zoning, and I'm sure some of those homes are going to
be somewheres between 8- and $900,000, and I think that's a great
opportunity when we go by percentage to approach the gap housing
thing. I think that's a great point for us.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'd like to go back and
revisit the 400,000 that you came up with in your analysis, the first
part of what it was. Were you doing -- you coming up with 400,000
because of this price range that you would be dealing with if you put
affordable through gap in there? And it would be very difficult to put
a $600,000 house in there with ones that are 200-, 300,000.
MR. WIRE: That's part of the equation, but the other part of the
equation is, as you increase your density, you're going away from
single- family to multifamily. And your multifamily pricing of units
which are smaller are, you know, going to bring that average down.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the other one was, explain
to me one more time how you arrived at this particular chart, the
science that you used. Explain the science that you put into place.
Was this inventory out there of what was needed? Was it based upon
sales that were existing? How did you arrive at this particular graph
and the dispersion of the credits?
MR. WIRE: Well, again, we set up the developer cash flow
statement and pro forma, if you will, and then we ran all the scenarios
out based on the table, running from the density of whatever that total
density would be based on the bonus, then we took -- and we would
run the different scenarios up above. If you had 10 percent -- like for
Page 166
March 28, 2006
instance, if you had 150 percent of median income, and so you were
required to not only do that, but you had to do 10 percent of -- like
what it says up there, we had to do 10 percent at or below at 80, so we
ran those percentages up above, and then would plug those numbers
over into the pro forma into the number of units being sold. And as
we kept running those numbers, we would watch the change in the
return on investment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And my last question is,
so I can understand it, if we were to transpose this over to a percentage
based upon the sale price, tell me how that would work.
MR. WIRE: I would have to sit and work out how we would
work the scenario out and create not only the table -- well, first of all,
we'd have to create the table where we would run the same situation
through the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we'd have to assume the
selling price of the units that are going to be built to begin with to be
able to start the table; is that correct?
MR. WIRE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, if someone
came forward and they wanted to do it, they would have to
predetermine what the value of what these units would be selling for
maybe two years ahead of time?
MR. WIRE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's impossible.
MR. WIRE: You know, a lot of times what they do -- and what
most of our clients do, they do run, you know, scenarios under the
assumption of what the growth is going to be, you know, two years
down the road, three years down the road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I really don't quite
understand it, but I'm willing to listen to anything.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- you know, Commissioner Fiala
Page 167
March 28, 2006
is not in this alone. I think we need to adjust that top line maybe back
to where it was before or part of the way, but we shouldn't be asking
anybody to build affordable housing, gap housing, if we don't give
them a little incentive. So I don't see any reason to have zeros here.
But that's because you chose $400,000 as your sales price. If
you'd chosen $500,000 as your sales price, you would have had a
bonus unit there probably, or more, right? And 600 you'd have more
bonus units and so forth and so on.
So what I'm suggesting is, why don't we go back -- and I don't
care whether we go back to the original chart or whether we take the
first line of the original chart and transpose it on the second chart and
leave all the other bonuses the same because they're all increased then,
everything is higher than it is now in the new chart -- did I make that
clear? Do you understand what I'm talking about?
MR. WIRE: Yeah, I understand, uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I've got it a little convoluted
here. But if we say that -- and Commissioner Fiala, you follow me
where I'm talking about gap housing?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You take the bonus densities that
were previously allowed in the original chart that you've got in your
packet that starts off with one, two, three, four?
MR. WIRE: Five, six.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put that over in this new chart,
okay, keep those densities for gap housing, and also keep the
increased densities that the staff has recommended in the new chart.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I got a suggestion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute, I haven't finished
with this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me get my thought completed
here.
Page 168
March 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's -- if we do that and say, these
are the maximum density bonuses you can expect based upon your
financial model and that gives a developer the opportunity to choose
whatever sale price they want to have, and if they're going to have
things selling at $600,000, then run it through the model, and then we
determine what the density bonus will be. And that way you'll get
more density bonuses than you would if you built less expensive
homes.
So now, tell me what's the problem with that? I know there's a
disadvantage to this, doing it that way, what is it?
MR. WIRE: Well, you're really incentive -- first of all, you're
really incentivizing the gap, which I understand. I think maybe there's
an in between, either we take -- retake a look at the gap side and run
those numbers again based on a different sales price, or you
incentivize if you're going to do that gap because that does create such
a profit that maybe you add on more of the affordable from 80 and
below. Where you're only requiring 10 percent now, maybe you do a
little bit more.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's -- you know, originally
that's why I asked to be separate from this particular thing so that its
density bonus was also separate. It was four, period; four, period.
One affordable, we wanted to make sure to include them. Two gap,
one market rate across the board, and it wasn't supposed to be
involved with this. It was -- it was supposed to have its own heading,
just as I'd said before, rather than be tucked under that, so that then it
would have its own density bonus. And both ends, both elements of
our -- of our housing would be met. Actually all three, because then
the market rate would offset the affordable, and the problem was
solved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could I make a suggestion? You started
off with 400,000. Why don't you make another chart with 400,000,
Page 169
March 28, 2006
600,000, and 800,000, using this scenario? And I think then we'll see
what's going on here -- down here with the gap housing and those
other affordable housing, okay?
MR. WIRE: We can do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we do that and make it very
simplified so that we can sit up here and get a quick synopsis of
exactly what's going on.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you bring members of
the building industry with you to tell us if it is absolutely practical for
them to build an $8,000 (sic) house in the same development they're
going to have 150- to 300-hundred some thousand dollar houses?
MR. WIRE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whether they would do it,
because this is meaningless, absolutely meaningless if the building
industry says they're not going to do it. We can play shuffle -- we hire
the expert, we ask them to come back here with numbers, he brings it
back to us, and we immediately start trying to adjust it based upon
what we understand the world's put together. I'm having a problem
with it.
And now we want to redo the whole thing all over again and send
it back out to figure percentages, figure this, figure that. It shouldn't
be all that difficult to figure out where we stand on this and just be
able to go forward. Either it's going to work or it's not going to work.
If you want to take the gap and shift it all over and move it over
to the ones and the twos and the threes over, let's do that and get on
with it, I mean, if that's the only thing it's going to take to be able to
move this to the next level.
But I think we're at the right direction with the 400,000. As time
goes along and the price of houses go up and the median income goes
up, we have to adjust it. But we've got to be realistic about it. They're
not going to build 600- and $800,000 houses of that magnitude in the
Page 170
March 28, 2006
middle of some that are of lesser value. You'd seen the resistance you
got when they wanted to build $800,000 houses in a $2 million
neighborhood and they were calling them trash, remember that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we got all-- we've got
inclusionary housing, too, that we can --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know we do. We're not there
yet. This is the first step towards it.
MR. GIBLIN: And Commissioners, just keep in mind, this is
only one section of your affordable housing density bonus portion of
the LDC. There are other sections in that -- of that that require that all
the units built in the development that utilizes the affordable housing
density bonus must be of similar size, quality, and amenities.
So really we have other sections of the code that say that you
can't have $800,000 homes next to $100,000 homes. The affordable
ones need to be built -- everything needs to be built at the same quality
and comparable level.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the $400,000 was based
upon that particular number?
MR. GIBLIN: Well, it was based on the median home price for
single-family homes as around 500, but for multifamily is closer to
300-. So that $400,000 was compromised.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're not going to get this
resolved today. Can you bring members of the building industry in
the next time to be able to tell us what is practical and what isn't?
We're not builders here.
MR. GIBLIN : Well, Mr. Coyle's suggestion, I think, has merit,
the one about taking the top line of the gap housing incentives from
the previous chart, superimposing it on the new chart, and that would
be the new chart.
The part that is difficult to implement though is running an
individual economic analysis on every project that would come
through looking for a bonus specifically at rezone time. You know,
Page 171
March 28, 2006
this procedure has been in our LDC now for greater than 10 years.
Historically we've only seen two or three developments per year take
advantage of it, so clearly there has not been a run on the store of
people wanting to go take advantage --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I have to take advantage of
one last question here. If we do shift this over and we move that back,
and based upon the science that you came up with to come up with
this formula that -- what would that do for the rest of it, from the 80
percent down? Would gap housing become the preferred type of
building? I see heads nodding over three in the background.
MR. GIBLIN: It would be -- it would be an incentive. But the
way we've developed the formula is, you cannot do gap housing on its
own, the way that Commissioner Fiala's -- we took the advise of
Commissioner Fiala's committee saying that you can only build gap
housing and get an incentive for that if you also include some
affordable housing alongside it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I would like to see a
realistic chart come back telling me exactly what we can expect
against the actual need that's out there so we can compare the two
charts and see how close they are, rather than us trying to guess at it.
And if we're going to build this, let's build it on science. If we're
going to make determinations that don't follow the science, let's at
least know what we're doing, what the parameters are we're working
with.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, then I'd like to call
the public speakers. We've got three of them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. We have been debating this
for a long time, and we've got to resolve it. We can't have it come
back. Let's just make a decision.
The staff has made some recommendations to us. The only
quarrel I have with them is that I think you need to have some gap
housing incentives for the 10 to 20 percent categories. Maybe go back
Page 1 72
March 28, 2006
to the original --
MR. GIBLIN: We'd be happy to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- line, and just say that -- that this
represents the maximum allowable density bonuses to which you will
be eligible. And then when a developer comes before us, they will
argue why they should get the maximum or some lesser amount. It's
that easy. And then we make a decision. Nobody has to make any
determinations about value or sale prices of the homes. Even at
rezone time, this would be applicable just like it is on any other
maximum density. We make the density decisions later on.
So, you know, let's do it and let's get it over with; otherwise, we'll
debate it forever.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Want to make a --let's listen to the
public.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's get the public -- I think we've got
three speakers signed up?
MS. FILSON : Yes, Mr. Chairman. The first one is Brian Sette.
He'll be followed by Jeff Cecil.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir -- this gentleman, this is three
minutes, or as close to three minutes as we can.
MR. SETTE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brian Sette.
I do appreciate your time for just a few minutes. This is the first time
I've seen the revised density bonuses.
But as the vice-president of human resources for NCH Healthcare
System and also the chairman of the board for the Collier County
Housing Development Corporation, I am engaged in and I am almost
passionate about providing reasonably priced housing, whether you
call it gap or affordable.
And I would encourage you -- in fact, I urge you to take positive
action, if not today, as soon as you have the information that you need
to take action. I agree with Commissioner Coyle that this has been on
Page 173
March 28, 2006
the agenda for too long. And if we can't get resolution in the near
future, then we will not have a future.
I urge you to take action, not for me, but for my workforce, for
my employees, for your children, for our grandchildren. We must
have reasonably priced housing in this community. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jeff Cecil. He'll be followed
by Bob Krasowski.
MR. CECIL: Good afternoon. I was here this morning, now I'm
back. Jeff Cecil, as chair of the Affordable Housing Commission, as
well as the treasurer of the HDC.
We need to make a decision today. It has been too long. It is --
every day we lose -- we lose ground to the affordable housing gap, the
gap that's between our workforce and what's being built here. So
anything you do is going to be better than what we have.
So let's get on with it, and that's all I have to say, thanks.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Bob
Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon. I've been following this
issue with interest over a period of time. And although I understand
some of what is explained, there's a lot of it that just doesn't seem to
connect with reality or make sense.
I see many houses for sale throughout neighborhoods, especially
now. A few months ago that wasn't the case; now there are. I think
that new people coming here should -- your program shouldn't
undermine the sales of existing houses, especially when you're going
to provide some type of design assistance to people who make
$100,000 a year. That goes well beyond what many people that live
in the community now own houses might consider -- or are trying to
tell them now, you're going to be building houses and arranging for
these things to be sold under the market price of the properties that are
Page 174
March 28, 2006
available now.
I think -- I'm not totally insensitive to people who need housing
or this situation, but I think the hospital and the county government
and the school district and other businesses that need employees
should put money in a large pool.
Maybe you can -- the reason we're here today is because for
years and years builders were allowed to build properties without
consideration of the people that were going to be needed to service
these people.
So various aspects of the community should put money into a
pool, and maybe that pool could be used to help assist -- financial
assistance for some people to get into entry-level housing.
You can -- you have 50-year mortgages. You have 99-year
mortgages. Some people take out a 99-year mortgage on a nice, big
investment property, and their family lives in it for generations. You
can do that for people. Then they own the property, they build on the
equity of it, not as fast as if they had paid up front, but that could be
formulated to work.
When people move into Collier County, if they're a young
teacher or new teacher, whatever job, they're not entitled to a house.
Who gets a house the first time out from university or high school or
that?
You can build apartments and you can charge a fair rate, and then
the apartment buildings can be nice and well managed, and the cost
could be recovered because you're not looking to a profit, but that
could be provided to people in that range.
If things slow down -- I know the state projects 1,000 people a
week, or whatever, to move into Florida, that's not going to last
forever. So if things slow down a bit, then we might have an over
abundance of houses and the markets fall through.
I say, don't monkey with the free enterprise system. I've heard
that comment today, and I agree. Let the free enterprise system work.
Page 175
March 28, 2006
You can help a little bit.
And then in -- a while ago I heard what I thought was a good
idea, that no density bonuses would be given to a development unless
it was entirely affordable, and I think that kind of made sense, too, if
you do go with the density bonus type of thing. So thanks for hearing
my comments.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, at this time, if there's no other
public speakers registered, I'll close the public hearing and I'll
entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion that
we accept the new density bonus and we change the top part there for
the gap going across to, where it says zero now, start going across,
shift everything over to be one, one, two, two, three, three, four, six,
SIX.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion on the floor. And that's
on the top of the gap?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, and the rest of it as is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- just a clarification. Just
using the -- what's in our agenda packet, the top line, and putting it
under gap so everybody could follow us.
MR. MUDD: It should look -- it should look something like this.
From what I was -- what I was gathering from the board, what I heard
before, you said, make the top line --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's not in my motion.
MR. MUDD: No, that's not your motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what I thought it was.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. No, I'm trying to bring
some sort of balance here so we don't make it so favorable for gap that
we never have the rest of the affordable housing take place.
Page 176
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to remove my second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Can I make a motion
then?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure, make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion that we take the
same densities that appear in our current packet on page 6 and transfer
them to the new -- to the new chart that was handed out to us, and that,
in fact, does provide also more density bonuses for the other
categories of affordable housing, so it doesn't -- it isn't imbalanced,
and I would like that this be titled the maximum density bonus.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're talking page 6 of7, the top line?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep, yep. Under gap housing, gap
housing, on page 6 of7.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, 150--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry; 150 percent MI.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's gap housing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Take those figures and
transfer them to the top line, gap housing, on the new chart that they
handed out to us just a little while ago.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So you're saying at 60 percent --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hundred and fifty percent.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: On the 150 percent -- 81 to 150 percent,
on the 60 percent line, you're looking at six units?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that correct? Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but what we'll find out is that
makes no difference because nobody's going to do it. So it doesn't
make any difference. Once you get by the 50 percent character, or 50
percent figure, you can ignore just about anything there, okay. But to
make it simple, let's do it, and just --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll second that motion.
Page 177
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and just title it, the maximum
allowable density bonuses available. And then when it comes before
us, we have the option of saying, yeah, you can have up to that
number if you justify it, or maybe you can have half that number, but
whatever you can justify for us, we'll let you have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So on the -- it says here, no
evidence shall maximum gross density allowable to exceed 16 units
per acre. You're leaving that in there?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, absolutely, yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what are you saying about
the maximum density? I'm--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All I'm saying is that this
particular figure, I mean these figures, will fluctuate based upon what
ultimate price you attach to your homes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And so if someone comes in
and says okay, I'm going to build some homes in the $700,000
category, then there'll be a slightly different bonus here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If they're going to build them in the
$400,000 category, there'll be more bonuses, you see.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or if there's a million dollars.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And what that does is it sort
of tends to get us to get more lower priced homes built, because -- I
think it will have that effect ultimately. But you have a chance of
making that decision when you see the development come before you,
and then you can make a decision.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And if they don't want to build those
homes in there, then the developer's got to find land someplace else to
Page 178
March 28, 2006
put those homes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I wasn't done. I've heard
this several times about let the free market reign. Well, it has, and
here's what we have today. We've got what we've got. And if I -- if
that's what we want, then we should leave it alone, but I don't think
that's in the best interest of the community.
It's not like we're not putting any tax dollars. We're just trying to
incentivize it without putting tax dollars to the action today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sometimes a little tweaking is a
good thing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It can be.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It can be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we'll see in the next few
years whether this action pans out.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just one question. If -- say, for
instance, this passes, could Mr. Developer say, well, I want to build --
I want to build a couple kinds of housing. I not only want to put gap
in here, I'd like some workforce and I'd even like some low. Would
then they be able to get those incentives depending on how much
they're building so that they build like a -- they build a balanced
community so that they have it all?
MR. GIBLIN: Yes, Commissioner. That's the whole premise of
the chart is to encourage the blending of different market points. And
these density bonuses are stackable. So you can qualify for one bonus
at the gap line, another bonus at the workforce line --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great.
MR. GIBLIN: -- another bonus, and use them all together.
MR. MUDD: But you can't exceed 16 total.
MR. GIBLIN: Eight total bonus; 16 total no matter what.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other discussion? If not, I'll
Page 1 79
March 28, 2006
get ready to call the question. The motion's on the floor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait a minute. How did he get 16
when it's eight maximum?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you're allowed--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For example, you could get eight
very low and eight low, and that would max you out.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sixteen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, the maximum affordable housing
density bonus from any and all categories added together cannot
exceed eight. Now --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What does that mean then with 16?
MR. GIBLIN: The maximum density in the urban area is 16
units to an acre. So you can get -- you have four units of your base
density, a maximum of eight from affordable housing bonus, and then
there are other density bonuses out there that people can apply to a
property. But in no event can everything added together add up to
more than 16.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle for -- you want to state your motion again? I
think we already got it stated.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think you've got it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And it was seconded by
Commissioner Halas.
I'll call the question. All those in favor of the density bonus as
we discussed it, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Page 180
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign.
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And I just wanted to make sure
your motion includes the finding of consistency with the Growth
Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You bet. It's consistent --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- with the Growth Management
Plan.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, it is. It's consistent with the Growth
Management Plan.
Item #10F
FOUR FRINGE BENEFIT PROGRAM INITIATIVES FOR NON-
BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES IN ORDER TO COMBAT
TURNOVER AND TO IMPROVE THE RECRUITMENT AND
RETENTION OF EMPLOYEES - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to -- that brings us to
10 --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: F.
MR. MUDD: -- F, and that is a recommendation to approve four
fringe benefit program initiatives for non-bargaining unit employees in
order to combat turnover and to improve the recruitment and retention
of employees. And Ms. Len Price, you're administrator for
Administrative Services, will present.
MS. PRICE: Good afternoon. Len Price, Administrator for
administrative services.
Page 181
March 28, 2006
Your HR department continually monitors and proactively looks
at trends in human resources. Today we'd like to talk to you about a
few trends that are beginning to concern us, and some measures that
we've come up with that might help alleviate them to some extent.
We're going to show you today four proposals that we're looking
at for midyear adjustment. One is vacation sell back, we're looking at
new hire bonus, an amendment vacation -- current vacation accrual,
and some change to employee life insurance.
And let me just give you a little bit of background information.
I'm not going to read all of this to you. You can look at it at your
leisure, but I think we all recognize that turnover has increased
dramatically . We are -- we're looking at 41 percent turnover since
2003 . We're running at a rate of over 15 percent for last year, and this
year is beginning to look even worse.
We've got a lot of circumstances that add -- contribute to that.
We've got certain positions that are extremely difficult for us to recruit
for. There's a lot of competition out in the private market. We have
some trouble competing with that. We can't even always find out
what their salaries are so that we can compete with them.
So what we're looking at doing -- of course, you know, cost of
living out here is a major contributing factor, and there are a number
of others.
There was a time when working for the government was a very
lucrative way to go. The benefits package was better, and the private
market has seen that and has started to match some of the things that
we've done to make it more attractive to work for the government.
And so it's time for us to look at what we're doing and see if
some modifications are necessary. And we've brought four of them to
you today.
Currently we have a vacation sell back program where you can
sell back at 85 percent of the value on the day you sell back. We'd
like to increase that to 100 percent.
Page 182
March 28, 2006
We'd also like to allow folks to sell back -- or to retain only 60
hours. We've always made that 80 hours. And we want to be able to
do that at any time during the year. We've currently doing it at four
times during the year.
We also would like to reduce the minimum that you can sell to
10 hours. Cost for that, we approximate, if everyone took advantage
of that, at $70,000.
We would like to institute a hiring bonus for very difficult to
recruit for positions. We would be able to set some criteria so that it
would not be overused but would be used to the same benefit -- the
same as in the private industry, trying to attract folks to come work for
Collier County government.
We're looking at offering a maximum of two months' salary, up
to a total maximum of$10,000, and that would not be something that's
done automatically, but under very strictly governed criteria. We're
estimating the cost for that to be approximately $165,000 per year.
You can see our current vacation bonus -- our vacation accrual
changes at five years and again at 10 years. We've done some
research and we've discovered that while we were thinking that most
of our folks stay to the six- and 10-year range, we're finding that our
average turnover is taking place at 4.4 years.
And so we'd like to provide an incentive before that time and
have the vacation increase after two years of service and again after --
at six years of service, with a maximum of five years. What this does
over a 25-year career starting under the new circumstances, is it would
increase about six weeks of vacation time to our staff, and this does
compete very well with what other markets are doing.
I believe we looked at Charlotte County. Lee County is not quite
there yet. It also matches what the current -- what private industry is
doing to some extent.
We would also want to increase the maximum accrual so that
folks who are adding vacation time more quickly don't find
Page 183
March 28, 2006
themselves up at the max, and would have the opportunity to use their
vacation time. There's no actual cost associated with that except for
the liability of payback at termination.
Group life insurance is right now provided at one times an
employee's salary. We would propose that we would increase that to
two times the salary. We're finding that a lot of agencies are doing
that as well. We believe that this is a low-cost solution that would
help folks in terms of purchasing excess life insurance.
And for those people who are doing that now -- it would actually
put some more money into their pocket, because they wouldn't have to
pay for that excess.
Total cost for the package that I've brought to you today,
assuming that the maximum number of people accept it, would be
$531,000. That's an annual amount, since we would hope to
implement this at half a year. For this current year, we would be
looking at approximately half of that. And we believe with the high
attrition rate that we're having, that the budget would allow us to cover
it without having to take money out of reserves for this year. We
would ask that these incentives take effect April 1 st.
Now, if you've got any questions of me or any comments you'd
like to make.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was our attrition rate that
-- in our budget guidance? Was that still two and a half, County
Manager?
MR. MUDD: Sir, it was at 2 percent the -- last year, and that was
-- that was a -- and I'm talking about this year's budget. The budget
guidance this year, we talked about it. What we actually saw as far as
the dollar amounts were concerned, because you took some overtime
away from it, was around three, three and a half percent. Our
recommendation was to keep it at two.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Wouldn't that result in a
Page 184
March 28, 2006
higher surplus of revenues?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could. I basically gave you
what we -- what we saw for the end of the year at 3.25. Mike
Smykowski and I talked about that before, trying to increase that
particular amount, but you still have the large vacancies, and you're
trying to get the job done, so you've got folks that are drawing on
overtime.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So couldn't the funds
come out of that?
MS. PRICE: The funds for this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MS. PRICE: We're expecting that this would come out of
attrition and not even impact that 2 percent -- that it would come out
of vacancies. I'm sorry. I'm using the incorrect terms. It would come
out of the vacancies we have right now.
MR. MUDD: It's not coming out of reserve. It would be coming
out of that particular money, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Are you going to give us
that detail of carry forward during the budget?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because I thought we were
getting actual information, but actually what we're given is
recommended information.
Ms. Price, the incentive -- hiring incentive bonuses, would that be
just for out-of-town people applying, coming from out of town?
MS. PRICE: Not necessarily only out-of-towners. It would be
for outside folks, not for someone -- for an internal individual, and it
would be in the event that we can demonstrate that we've had very low
or no applicants, qualified applicants, for position, that it's been open
for a significant period of time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you consider the
constitutional officer's external positions?
Page 185
March 28, 2006
MS. PRICE: That's a good question. I believe that we generally
do when we hire.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Infernal, but not external.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So actually we can give one of
the constitutional officer's employees $10,000 more to come to the
county to fill a hard position to fill?
MS. PRICE: It would be a maximum of 10,000, also looking at
two months' salary, so that would have to be a position that paid over
$5,000 -- or at or over $5,000 a month. As well, it would have to be a
position that has been vacant for a long time, has been difficult for us
to recruit for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that right for us to say to our
constitutional officers, which actually comes out of our budget, their
budget, is there's a possibility that we're going to grab some of your
existing employees?
I mean, I can just see what happened -- has happened in the past
in the unions, such as fire and EMS, San Carlos Fire Department,
Lehigh, they just keep on upping the ante and we just keep on stealing
from each other.
And actually we're not doing justice to the taxpayers when we do
that, because when one does it, the other one needs to raise it. I mean,
and it keeps going like this, climbing the ladder. And I'm not sure if
we're -- in that case we're doing justice to anybody.
MR. MUDD: Sure. Commissioner, we can exclude them. I
mean, you can exclude inner transfers between offices.
But you bring up a great point, and it has everything to do with
equity across the board for benefits for every constitutional officer in
Collier County, and that is not the case in this county.
You've got some constitutionals paying 100 percent of their
medical. And I will tell you, on our employees, if you want to go
back to 100 percent medical payment, they would be thrilled, and let's
forget about this, because I can't hire a constitutional -- and I'll give
Page 186
March 28, 2006
you a perfect example.
We tried to hire a person -- a person from the tax collector's
office basically signed up for a position that was a higher paid position
in the county, in the County Manager's agency, but when they found
out that they would have to pay 20 percent of their medical, they
basically said, forget it, I'm going back where I went to because I was
getting 100 percent payment for my medical in that particular office.
So we have some problems. But I agree with you, to have an
in- fight between constitutionals on stuff, on incentives, is not good at
all. I think it's detrimental to county government, and it's a very good
point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you suggesting that you
want to work with the constitutional officers on pay and benefits?
MR. MUDD: I believe the productivity committee has done just
exactly that, and they're going to come back to this board and give you
their recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Would this be a good
start to start with this, say that we're not going to rob from other
governments within Collier County?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I think it would be -- well, I have no
problem making sure that we don't take an incentive payment and put
it to a bonus, a sign-on bonus issue if it's internal -- if it's an internal
position from one of the constitutionals to the County Manager's
agency. I think -- I think that is very doable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And not the school board
or anything else -- just stick -- I mean, just stick to the constitutional
officers?
MR. MUDD: Yeah. I have no control over the school board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no, it's just --
MR. MUDD: The school board salary's based on 180 days. I
mean, how do you -- there's--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the point is, the example
Page 187
March 28, 2006
that I gave you is between fire departments within different
communities and actually, again, it's all the taxpayers' money. Bottom
line, it's all taxpayers' money.
MS. PRICE: Absolutely. And if I might add--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So why don't we make a policy
that we won't steal from any Collier County government?
MS. PRICE: I would hate to say that--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know.
MS. PRICE: -- you know, somebody couldn't promote into
another position. I understand what you're talking about with the
incentive. But in terms of not permitting a -- an interagency transfer,
I'm not sure if we would want to limit our -- you know, collectively,
our employees to that.
I can add to you though, the positions that we generally have a
lot of difficulty in recruiting for, project managers, planners, are
positions that are not -- do not exist within the other constitutional
offices, but that's not to say that at some point in the future that
couldn't happen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. But they do --
MS. PRICE: I can certainly understand what you're saying about
the incentive program. But I wouldn't want to limit our promotability
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. PRICE: -- from those groups.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the school board does have
planners and that, and I cannot support a plan, the ultimate effects
affects the taxpayers. I understand what you're trying to do, but I
think that we can put limits on it and still accomplish our goals. That's
all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think you have to have
both sides participating in that process; otherwise, it's not going to
Page 188
March 28, 2006
work. And I think the first step is to try to get some degree of
cross-leveling of benefits and that sort of thing among all the
constitutionals.
I mean, it would be foolish for us to say we won't hire somebody
from another department if that department, in fact, is offering more
attractive benefits to attract people to them. So I think we need to
have a mutual agreement if we're going to do that. And I think we
should work toward that goal, and we have been. And I was
personally involved in that a year and a half ago, and it's very difficult
to come by, and --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I was involved in that also with the
productivity group, and I want to tell you that it's a difficult issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep, it sure is.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's one of the things that I
was going to bring to you under comments. They're looking to bring
it back. They want to -- they have their information together. They're
ready to make their recommendations, and they'd like to get on the
county's meeting agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who, the productivity committee?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, the productivity
committee. And maybe I won't have to bring it us, since I brought it
up now, under comments, because I've got other things to bring up,
too.
But I -- we're there, they're ready to go. They've got their act
together, and they'd like to be able to move on it.
But what I'd like to point out to you is that where we're hearing
about the 15 percent, 16 percent attrition rate that we're having, that's
overall. We have some parts of our county government that are in
total meltdown.
And the one that I'd like to be most specific is Joe Schmitt's
department. I don't know if you had the pleasure of reading Joe's
Page 189
March 28, 2006
weekly activity report from last week, but we are continuing to have a
difficult time retaining staff, just review, comprehensive planning has
14 employees. In the past year, we have lost or will lose 11
employees; over 70 percent attrition and possibly growing, which in
the context of comprehensive planning, the Florida planning
knowledge required in the length of each and every product level of
turnover could be seen is more acute than simple -- similar turnovers
in other operating departments.
And then he went on to list all the employees that have recently
left for better paying jobs. And the trend from above is, is we are a
training ground where employees leave for employment where they
receive an upgrade in position, a higher salary and a lower cost of
living, they can purchase a home, in parenthesis, therefore it is
essential to bring in employees at a higher level, due to the complexity
of comprehensive planning in Florida. Unfortunately, attracting
qualifying applicants has been difficult.
Then he goes on to explain it. But I mean, this isn't news to us.
This is the worst possible situation that we can have. And from there,
we start to go to the other departments where maybe the attrition isn't
quite up to 70 percent, but it's serious.
You can't maintain something if you don't offer the benefits and
the pay that's comparable to the private sector and other government
agencies out there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other thing, too, is that once you
spend an awful lot of taxpayers' money training these people -- and if
we can't come up with salaries that are equal to what's being provided
out in the private sector and we lose those people, we've lost a lot.
We've lost a lot of taxpayers' money in training these people, and now
they're of no use to us. So I've got some concerns about that.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for providing some
of the information I asked about the exiting poll. The -- and I agree, I
Page 190
March 28,2006
did some scoring, and most of it is pay, but some of it is management.
Is there a possibility of -- well, not -- I should say not everybody
agrees with management, but it seems to be pretty high up there, and
benefits are real low . Is there any management training?
MS. PRICE: Yes, sir. We've got a number of management
training opportunities that we're putting together, and we continue to
seek out additional training opportunities as well to try and manage
some of these issues, either on a career development type program or
globally for the entire agency. So, yes, we've been looking at that.
And while we recognize that folks generally don't necessarily
place benefits as the very number one Item, this is -- again, this is an
interim solution to try and make our whole employee situation a little
bit better, and we keep looking at salaries surveys. And I'm sure that
in October, or during the budget process, we'll be looking at some
other things. What we were trying not to do was bring something that
would be a budget buster this year, and try and come up with some
small incremental steps to get us to where we need to be.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Do you recognize the fact
that we may have to act differently within different departments
within the county depending on -- I know one time, for example,
EMS, we went out of our way to get their contract rewritten in such a
way that we could attract the EMS personnel to fill our ambulances. It
was a crisis at one point, and we managed to turn it around. Do you
agree that we have a crisis going on in Joe Schmitt's department?
MS. PRICE: I can tell you that we look at each -- we've got a lot
of flexibilities within our policies, and look at each situation
individually and independently and try and take the actions that are
going to meet what the problem is, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we're not addressing the
worst situation first; we're just trying to address the whole situation
overall; is that what you're doing here?
Page 191
March 28, 2006
MS. PRICE: That's part of what we're doing right here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And do you think that these
measures here will have any measurable effect on Mr. Schmitt's
department, or do you think it will --
MS. PRICE: I believe that the hiring bonus will help him attract
folks. I think that's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When you have people that are
getting offered $30,000 or more to leave as a higher end bonus, we're
going to offer $10,000, which if they leave within five years they have
to pay us back, do you really think that's going to have an effect? I'm
just curious.
MS. PRICE: I believe that it is going to help, and I can tell you
that I can't stand here today and give you the total answer package,
much like we can't solve the affordable housing problem in one fell
swoop, nor can we solve this problem in one fell swoop. But we are
trying to take measured steps to get us to where we need to be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But in some cases, the funding
that's out there, such as Mr. Schmitt's department -- which gives me
great concern, because I get a tremendous amount of complaints about
actions that isn't taking place and the length of time it takes to get
permits, and now we're hearing about the fact that we may have to
limit the number of permits that we issue in any given week because
of the lack of personnel to do it.
Something like that, do we recognize that as a different situation
that might require emergency action separate and above everything
else, or aren't we going to treat this as a different situation?
MS. PRICE: We treat each situation individually, yes, sir. We
are going to give that the utmost attention.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have, with Joe. I believe that in
his shop last year the board increased the number of new positions for
his particular department.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What good is that if you can't
Page 192
March 28,2006
fill them?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I'm not arguing a point. And I believe
he's down to about 14 openings at this particular juncture in his entire
department.
His biggest -- his biggest concern or what I'm seeing that
becomes -- that becomes somewhat of a disturbing trend is the fact
that as soon as he gets them trained, when they get fully up to speed in
our land development plan and our Growth Management Plan,
industry -- the development industry basically steals them. They
basically pull them out and they offer them a good thing.
I believe we have to do a better job in identifying his planners,
determining when they get to be completely competent in -- subject
matter experts in our land development code. And at that particular
juncture, there needs to be some kind of an increase in their pay
because of a skill where they become -- you know, there's a skill
qualification kind of issue.
And at that juncture, I believe there needs to be an increase, and
we're going to take a look at that. We've taken a look at that across
the board. We have about 45 percent or so of our job descriptions
done as far as -- I won't call them step increases. It's basically
skill-based increases --
MS. PRICE: Career progression.
MR. MUDD: -- along their career.
MS. PRICE: Career progression is what we call them.
MR. MUDD: Career progression, okay? And I believe in Joe's
particular case, he needs to pay attention and develop a career
progression in the planning department, not only in comp., but in his
regular everyday current planning organization.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just going to leave you with
this thought, and then I'll be done. You've solved the problem with
the EMS problem when we had it. You need to solve the problem that
we're having now within the county. I mean, this attrition rate is
Page 193
March 28, 2006
totally unacceptable.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We can't be training grounds.
We can't be charging people the fees, collecting the taxes, and not
providing the services.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I -- yes, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hopefully you can wrap this up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, we will. I just wanted to say
that I agree that we -- I'm glad that we all seem to think the same
about having our limitations as far as not going in -- you know,
offering any of these wonderful incentives to any of the constitutional
office group, because we have to respect them, and we hope that they
will respect us in the same way. So I think that that's an important
criteria that -- maybe can you work that into this somehow?
MS. PRICE: Yes. Yes, ma'am, we can.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that if you include that
into that -- okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we make it with any county
government?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We don't have the jurisdiction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I can't support it,
because I've seen it happen in the fire departments where we just keep
on raISIng.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we've got a motion on the floor and a
second in regards to approving this -- the updates in the budget
requirements here.
Page 194
March 28, 2006
Any others discussion?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question.
MR. MUDD: Can I -- can I just maybe try to alleviate some
concern? The sign-on bonus is not for every position that we recruit.
It's only for those hard-to- fill positions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. 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.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carries. Thank you very
much.
Item #10G
AUTHORIZATION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT OF A PUBLIC
HEARING IN REGARD TO INCREASING COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT (CAT) BUS FARES TO BE SCHEDULED ON MAY 23,
2006 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to lOG, and that's a
recommendation that the board authorize the advertisement of a public
hearing in regard to increasing Collier Area Transit, CAT, bus fares to
be scheduled to May 23,2006. And Ms. Diane Flagg, your director of
alternative transportation mode is here to present.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
Page 195
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very good, Diane.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- motion on the floor by Commissioner
Coletta, seconded by Coyle, I believe.
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?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just, can I have a comment? Okay,
just a comment.
As you're doing this poll and everything that we've talked about,
being that I think most poor people, you know, people that can't afford
newspapers and so forth, but that do ride the CAT system would never
respond to anything anyway. They wouldn't read a newspaper. But
possibly if we had three-by-five cards in the buses or something, that
-- and a little pencil or something there, they might be able to respond
that way.
MS. FLAGG: We're going to do that on all the buses, and we'll
do it both -- in Spanish, English, and Creole.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just as a side note, I want to
tell you, there's a fellow in a wheelchair that's up at the corner of
Lakewood Boulevard and U. S. 41 every morning at seven a.m. getting
on that CAT bus. I see him, and, you know, it's given him his
independence to go to work. I see him coming home at 4:30. It's just
such a wonderful service, and I just want to commend you for all
you've done on this bus service. Thank you.
Page 196
March 28, 2006
MS. FLAGG: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carried.
Item #10H
CONTRACT 06-3924 TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $4,369,400, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
RECLAIMED WATER AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY
SYSTEM, APPROVE WORK ORDER HDR-FT-3785-06 UNDER
CONTRACT 05-3785 WITH HDR, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING INSPECTION SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$167,800, AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT FOR PROJECT 74030 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10H, and
that's a recommendation to award contract 06-3924 to Douglas N.
Higgins, Inc., in the amount of $4,369,400, for the construction of a
reclaimed water aquifer storage and recovery system, approve work
order HDR-FT -3785-406 under contract 05-3785, with HDR, Inc., for
construction engineering inspection services in the amount of
$167,800, and approve the necessary budget amendment for project
74030, and Mrs. Alicia Abbott, senior project manager for public
utilities, will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala, for
approval of this budget amendment.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Page 197
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed -- any opposition? Opposed, by
like sign?
(No response)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You wanted to make a presentation.
MS. ABBOTT: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is a long overdue project,
okay, and it's been -- working on it for five years. Thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just would have loved to have
heard her accent a little bit.
MR. MUDD: I was afraid somebody was going to come back
from Costa Rica.
Item #101
RESOLUTION 2006-80: OPPOSING ENACTMENT INTO LAW
PROPOSED FLORIDA HOUSE BILL 1199 RELATING TO
CABLE TELEVISION AND VIDEO PROGRAMMING
SERVICES, REMOVING ALL LOCAL CABLE TELEVISION
FRANCHISE AUTHORITY AND PROVISIONS TO GRANT OR
RENEW ANY CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE
CERTIFICATES - ADOPTED
The next Item is 101, and that used to be 16A6, and that is a
recommendation to adopt a resolution opposing enactment into law
proposed by Florida House Bill 1199 relating to cable television and
video programming services, removing all local cable television
franchise authority, and provisions to grant or renew any cable
television franchise certificates.
Page 198
March 28, 2006
This pretty much has the same kind of readings in the next two,
and if -- if I have the commission's approval, I'll go to the next two.
The --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please do.
Item #10J
RESOLUTION 2006-81: OPPOSING ENACTMENT INTO LAW
PROPOSED FLORIDA SENATE BILL 1984 RELATING TO
CABLE TELEVISION AND VIDEO PROGRAMMING
SERVICES, PROHIBITING THE REQUIRING OF IN-KIND
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISES,
TO INCLUDE SUPPORTING THE USE OR CONSTRUCTION OF
PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL OR GOVERNMENT (PEG) ACCESS
FACILITIES - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: 10J, which used to be 16A7, deals with the same
particular issue about a law that's proposed. But this on -- in the
Florida Senate Bill, which is 1984, relating to cable television video
programming services, prohibiting the requiring of in-kind
contributions from cable television franchises to include supporting
the use for construction of public education or governmental (PEG)
access facilities.
Item #10K
RESOLUTION 2006-82: RESOLUTION OPPOSING
ENACTMENT INTO LAW PROPOSED UNITED STATES (U.S.)
SENATE BILL 1504 RELATING TO CABLE TELEVISION AND
VIDEO PROGRAMMING SERVICES, PREEMPTING ALL
LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER THE PROVISION OF CABLE AND
VIDEO SERVICES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, INCLUDING
Page 199
March 28,2006
THE ABILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PROVIDE
APPROPRIATE OVERSIGHT TO ENTITIES CONDUCTING
SUCH BUSINESS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, INCLUDING
LOCAL PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY -ADOPTED
And the last one is Item 10K, and that used to be Item 16A8, and
this is a U.S. Senate Bill 1504 on the same subject relating to cable
television and video programming services, preempting all local
authority over the provision of cable and video services within the
community, including the ability of local governments to provide
appropriate oversight to entities, conducting such business within its
jurisdiction, including local public rights-of-way, and this, again, was
at Commissioner Halas's request.
The reason I bring all three up is Jamie French is the subj ect
matter expert on this particular issue. And if you have any questions
about anyone of these bills, he'll be glad to answer your questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve all three.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion on the floor to approve
all three by Commissioner Coyle, and seconded by Commissioner
Coletta.
And I would just like to say, the reason I pulled these is because
I'm very, very concerned -- and I believe the populous here, not only
in the State of Florida, but all through the whole U.S., ought to realize
what's happening here, and that is that years ago when cable was in its
infancy, they lobbied the legislatures, both in states and in the federal
government, for right-of-way, that they wanted to be treated as a
utility, and, therefore, they got the right-of-way.
And now, all of a sudden, now that the infrastructure's in -- and
oh, by the way, when they -- when they came forward and said we
want to be looked at as a utility, they also said, we're going to provide
a means for the public in these communities to come forth with
Page 200
March 28, 2006
groups, civic groups, that want to put issues on cable television, it
would be a special channel for them, it would be a special channel in
the case of a city or a special channel for -- now in the county.
And now what they're saying is, oh, by the way, now we've got
the infrastructure in, we want to be treated as a commercial identity.
And if we feel that it's not making money, we're going to kick the
local channels off, including possibly PBS, and I have some real
concerns with that.
MR. FRENCH: I'd be happy to comment on that, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure, if you would.
MR. FRENCH: For the record, Jamie French, regulations and
operations manager, CDES. Commissioner, this is -- this -- all three of
these bills are sponsored by Verizon and Bell South. In fact, I'm
joined today by Maureen Sistari (phonetic), who's my government
liaison for ComCast. And ComCast has got people both in our state
capitol as well as Washington that are fighting this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's good to hear because --
MR. FRENCH: So this is -- the cable industry back a few years
ago as you remember, when the communications service tax, they
helped the counties, or we teamed up to develop the communication
service tax, and they're satisfied with the way things are. But what's
happening is that your telecommunications companies now want to
get into the arena, and they want nothing to do with local government.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe we should cancel all of our
contracts with the telecommunications industry that is supporting this
thing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't it in the proposed bill not to
allow local government to have that tax on the -- that appears on those
bills?
MR. FRENCH: Well, what it is, it's the communications service
Page 201
March 28, 2006
tax. And what it's proposing is a replacement, but it does not give us
detail. And the only thing it does do is it does tell us that it would not
exceed 5 percent. And, of course, that 5 percent would be subtracted
out of their management cost or operating cost. It's very complicated
and -- but yet, it's also very vague.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we don't have an
answer what it is being proposed on?
MR. FRENCH: No, sir. That is still in committee right now, but
the language so far as we can read is that it would limit and
completely erode our current cable franchise law that's in effect in
Collier County, and it would limit any type of PEG channels, and
those are your public education and government channels that we
receive for free or in-kind contributions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. FRENCH: Those would be gone.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah, I understand that.
But everybody always refers to that as the hidden government tax on
their bills. That's the only thing I was questioning.
MR. FRENCH: Basically what that -- what that's for is,
essentially, it's for the use of public right-of-way. This is private
industry using public lands, and this -- these are funds that come back
to go into our general fund --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. FRENCH: -- that we can use to offset ad valorem.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But we don't charge the
Florida Power and Light for that.
MR. FRENCH: That's correct, and that's based on a Florida
statute, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Well, maybe that's a
better way just to tell that -- the payers of those bills, Verizon, because
I see them too, is it's really a hidden tax?
MR. FRENCH: And I can certainly bring those comments back
Page 202
March 28, 2006
to the Florida DOR, sir. But that really is outside of our purview.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know. I just -- I know
we don't want to erode the public access to government, but there's
also the other side of the story.
MR. FRENCH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're asking to eliminate the
hidden tax.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a crazy comment. Can you
imagine how many lobbying dollars are being spent from those two
companies to try and pass that? That's all I wanted to say.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further comment?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I'm going to call the question. All
those in favor of approving the three bills that we discussed --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We oppose?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah -- oppose those three bills, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It passes unanimously.
MR. MUDD: How's our court reporter doing? She needs a
break, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. I think we better take a break, sir.
Take a break and be back at 4:30 -- 4:40. We'll make it 4:40. We'll
round off the number here.
Page 203
March 28,2006
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Collier County Commission is back in
session off of a break and -
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next Item,
which is 10L.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that dinner, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, it was. I borrowed one of those breath
mints from Sue over there at the table.
Move 16D1 to 10L. 10L is a recommendation to approve the
creation of a trust fund to distribute available funding to citizens
affected by future natural disasters and to create an individual care
coordinating council for managing the distribution of these funds.
This Item was pulled at Commissioner Henning's request, and
Mr. Barry Williams is here to answer any questions. Do you want to
go to the next one until Commissioner Henning comes back?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Maybe he's indisposed at this particular time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, all three of them are
Commissioner Henning's.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, well, then the last one is mine,
16C 1, if you want to go to that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: lOP, right?
MS. FILSON: Yours is 16El.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh,16E1.
MS. FILSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't have my glasses on.
Item #100
AWARD CONTRACT #06-3914, CONSTRUCTION
Page 204
March 28,2006
MANAGEMENT AT RISK SERVICES FOR THE COLLIER
COUNTY FLEET FACILITIES, TO WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION
CORP., PROJECTS 52009 AND 35010, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$44,070 FOR PRE-CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, AND TO
APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WORK ORDER WITH
CH2MHILL FOR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND
OVERSIGHT IN THE AMOUNT OF $293~380 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: 16E1 is 100, and let me read 16E1 for you. It is a
recommendation to award contract number 06-3914, Construction
Management at Risk Services for the Collier County Fleet Facilities to
Wright Construction Corporation, projects 52009 and 35010 in the
amount of $44,070 for pre-construction services and to approve a
professional services work order with CH2MHill for construction
inspection and oversight in the amount of $293,380.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you -- rather than -- Ron,
thank you so much. Rather than have anybody make any
presentations or anything, let me just jump into why I pulled it off,
okay?
I had a lot of questions after I read this, and I'm sorry I didn't read
it until last night so I wasn't able to ask the County Manager in my
office yesterday. So in order to get my questions answered, I had to
ask you today.
And so let me just say, first of all, I was going to ask you how tall
the tower is.
MR. HOVELL: For the record, Ron Hovell, Principal Project
Manager in the Facilities Management Department. There's an
existing tower on site that has guy wires on it. That tower's
approximately 280 feet. It's being replaced. Building permit's already
issued. Construction's underway with another 280- foot tower, so it's a
similar tower.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I've already asked the
Page 205
March 28, 2006
County Manager who owns the holdout property, and he's explained
that to me, and so I don't think we need to have that on the record.
How noisy -- once you combine all of these things on this one
property, how noisy will it be to surrounding neighbors?
MR. HOVELL: I'm not sure I can quantify noise without some
type of study, but I can tell you that the plan has always been to
include a wall, a solid wall, around the perimeter, where also, as the
executive summary mentions, as we go forward, we're looking at
acquiring some adjacent properties to allow both for additional
buffering and for additional parking.
But the main functions will be on the currently-owned 10-acre
parcel. And there are ordinances about retaining noise within your
own site.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And that's good, because I
didn't realize that -- I thought that the two adjoining acreages that you
were trying to acquire were just for expansion. I didn't realize they
were for, like, parking lots and a noise buffer, but you say there's even
a plan to put a wall in there.
MR. HOVELL: Yes, ma'am. The original plan was a wall all
the way around.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will there be lights all night long or
anything to -- for a security measure?
MR. HOVELL: Well, again, lights are also required, much like
the noise, to be retained on your own property. So while -- I don't
know the plans for which number of them might be on at night. I'm
sure even now there's some amount for security purposes. But again,
with the land development code requirements, it will be to retain the
light on site.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But probably nothing like is in a
park.
MR. HOVELL: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know at the Eagle Lakes
Page 206
March 28, 2006
Community Park, they can see that a mile away.
MR. HOVELL: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Let's see. You
might have to condemn the property next door, I read --
MR. HOVELL: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because you cannot get a response
from that owner, right?
MR. HOVELL: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many residential properties are
on this road, and how will they be affected, if at all?
MR. HOVELL: I'm afraid I don't have that count ahead of time.
There are some residential properties up and down the road. The--
but as you know, the road is planned for widening in the near future.
The traffic study related to this site incorporated and looked at
whether or not the traffic would be significantly increased. And I do
have the meeting minutes from the planning commission about a year
ago when we rezoned the property from estates to public.
And at the time it says that the trip generation submitted by this
application, 91 additional vehicles hours per hour, will be generated
by the expansion of the peak p.m. hours.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ninety-one?
MR. HOVELL: Ninety-one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And is this going to be a
transfer station for the CAT system?
MR. HOVELL: No. This is just the place where the buses park
and get maintained, and the drivers pick it up. The current transfer -- I
believe the only transfer site is at the Lorenzo Walker Institute.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I know they don't want to keep
it there.
MR. HOVELL: There's no plan to move it to County Barn.
MR. MUDD: I believe there's a change of thought in the
leadership there that this is probably a good place to keep it. So things
Page 207
March 28, 2006
change over time, and they've had a little bit of a change of heart. So
Ms. Flagg is working with them diligently to figure out the best way
to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's very good. And my last
question, are there any homes behind this property that might be
affected?
MR. HOVELL: When I've reviewed the aerial maps of the area,
right now there's no residential behind it. I believe there's a PUD
that's to the -- that would be east. But I'm pretty sure the area adjacent
to the County Barn is part of the preserve area. I don't think there's
anything planned.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then I'd like to make a
motion to approve. Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a second? Okay, second.
Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala 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)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much, Ron. I
appreciate it.
Item #1 OL
THE CREATION OF A TRUST FUND TO DISTRIBUTE
AVAILABLE FUNDING TO CITIZENS AFFECTED BY FUTURE
Page 208
March 28,2006
NATURAL DISASTERS AND TO CREATE AN INDIVIDUAL
CARE COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR MANAGING THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THESE FUNDS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us back to Item 10L,
which is 16 -- used to be 16D 1. That was a recommendation to
approve the creation of a trust fund to distribute available funding to --
excuse me -- funding to citizens affected by future natural disasters
and to create an individual care coordinating council for managing the
distribution of these funds.
This Item was moved at Commissioner Henning's request, and
Mr. Barry Williams, public services --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Williams, I appreciate it,
the need, because of Hurricane Wilma. I would like to table this to
contact the Salvation Army -- for you to contact the Salvation Army
and area churches instead of for us to set up something that needs to
be managed.
MR. WILLIAMS: Just if I may, Commissioner, Barry Williams,
for the record, Human Services Director. The concept that we're
bringing forward is one where we would establish a cost center or trust
fund that, during times of need, such as what we experienced with
Hurricane Wilma, we could look for donations that could come.
And from our understanding -- and we've been working with the
emergency manager, Mr. Summers, on this concept. The
accountability that the county would provide from our department in
gathering these donations is one aspect of doing this. In other words,
we would fully intend to involve faith-based and nonprofits in this
process.
And we work -- currently with United Way, there is a FEMA
board that meets twice a year, and we would like to approach United
Way to be this group of people. And so what we would seek is
monies that would come in, and then we would seek to distribute the
Page 209
March 28, 2006
monies through those nonprofit faith-based organizations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The only problem is,
you're circumventing the Clerk of the Court on that, and I can't --
MR. WILLIAMS: No, we wouldn't attempt to do that, sir. The
concept of the trust fund is that the monies will be fully accounted for.
The trust fund or the cost center, the processes that we have now that
account for our expenditures, we would impose on those funds and
how they are spent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, but you're saying this
organization will disperse, and really the Clerk of Court disperses --
MR. WILLIAMS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- all of our funds.
MR. WILLIAMS: We would like to bring back to you a
recommendation of how the funds would be distributed. We -- our
department would distribute the funds. We would account for them.
We would take input from these other organizations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You're going to collect
these funds, and you're going to disperse them?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Where does the Clerk of
Court come in?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, right now, currently, if we receive
funds that aren't budgeted -- for example, we may get donations from
time to time. We will bring that and recognize that revenue through
the Board of County Commissioners.
And once that revenue's recognized, that money's placed in
whatever appropriate account. And in this case, what we're suggesting
is an account be established for this very purpose. So we would go
through that same process that we do now if we get funds from other
sources that we haven't planned for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And those same funds get
dispersed by the Clerk of Court?
Page 210
March 28, 2006
MR. WILLIAMS: We recognize the revenue. We'll bring those
issues to you, ask for your approval. And upon recognizing those
revenues, we'll do a budget amendment, and those funds are accounted
for through the system that's available, through the Clerk of Courts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What system is it?
MR. WILLIAMS: Through finance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Through the finance of the
Clerk of Court?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Would you take into
consideration the time sensitive -- I mean, I think that we need to just
set up some criteria for --
MR. WILLIAMS: And that's what we'd like to bring back to
you, sir, if --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- if establishing this trust fund, we'd like to
bring those -- that criteria back. And that is an issue, the time
sensitive nature. And we want to develop a mechanism that can be
quick. And what we experienced with Wilma is those funds came in,
and the ability to distribute them very quickly, that would be an
important part of what we'd want to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. Motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala to
approve this.
If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Page 211
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Item #10M
A BUDGET AMENDMENT AND AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATION
OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WORK ORDER WITH BSSW
ARCHITECTS (CONTRACT #01-3235) NOT TO EXCEED
$78,000 AND AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATION OF A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WORK ORDER WITH Q. GRADY
MINOR & ASSOCIATES (CONTRACT #01-3290) NOT TO
EXCEED $110,000 FOR A NEW EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES FACILITY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10M, which
used to be 16F3, and it's a recommendation to approve a budget
amendment and authorize negotiations of a professional service work
order with BSSW Architects, contract number 01-3235, not to exceed
$78,000, and authorization negotiations of a professional service work
order with Q. Grady Minor and Associates, contract number 01-3290,
not to exceed $110,000 for a new emergency medical services facility,
proj ect number 55160.
This Item was pulled at Commissioner Henning's request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I -- Barnie, Schmidt and
Summer and Weaver is doing the Golden Gate library, and I
understand they're doing the East Naples library, from the emails that I
get.
Page 212
March 28, 2006
And it looks like a typical architect where they want to make a
statement on a building, this one being a public facility. And my
opinion is, it doesn't -- it doesn't function as well as typical buildings,
and the cost of construction and maintenance is not something I can
approve. I just can't vote in favor of these -- Item 16F3 and 4 with the
architect of BSSW.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know it doesn't pertain to this, but
if they're the same ones that are doing the library in East Naples --
they aren't? They are or they aren't?
MR. HOVELL: For the record, Ron Hovell, Facilities
Management Department, Principal Project Manager. The only
libraries under design right now are the south regional library with
Schenkel, Shultz. That's out in Lely Resort. The Golden Gate library
on Golden Gate Boulevard, next to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it's the same architects?
MR. HOVELL: No. That was with BSSW. And then the Marco
Island library addition, which is also BSSW. So when you say East
Naples, that's not --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: South regional library is BSSW?
MR. HOVELL: No, Schenkel, Shultz.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Schenkel, Shultz, not the same one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My mistake. I apologize.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. I didn't know at all,
so --
MR. HOVELL: If I could briefly address the design issue for the
EMS stations. I've put a rendering up on the screen. This is EMS 19.
And other than being a little bit old related to the codes, the intent of
both this Item and the next Item on your agenda to go to BSSW, who
designed EMS 19, is for them to update this design and use it for both
locations. And actually I believe the EMS department has plans to
come forward with two more locations. They're just in the process of
Page 213
March 28, 2006
trying to identify where those are. So to, in essence, update the EMS
19 design for up to four or even more locations as they become
available in --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is that?
MR. HOVELL: -- reacting to your AUIR direction. EMS 19 is
under construction right now roughly at the corner of Santa Barbara
Boulevard and Davis Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to talk to you later after we're
done with this, I mean, under commissioner's comments about the
south regional library , now that it's a different architect. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a motion here on this
particular Item?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, just -- one more question. Are
they the architects for the Golden Gate library, BSSW?
MR. HOVELL: BSSW's doing Golden Gate library, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's what's causing the
problem here, I think, is that -- I mean, I liked this that I saw. This
looked pretty nice, this station 19, but I think the problem lies in that
the Golden Gate people are not too happy with the design for that, but
that's probably a different subject, right?
MR. HOVELL: That's not my understanding from the emails
that I received forwarded from Katie Tuff, but perhaps there are some
people that are not happy with it. I would just say in general, that
architects react to what the customer wants. And sometimes if the
customer doesn't have specific desires, they may attempt to make a
statement, but in other cases, if they're provided specific guidelines,
they'll comply with those guidelines.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, wait till I talk to you about the
Page 214
March 28, 2006
south regional.
MR. HOVELL: Yes, ma'am. We're coming to see you on
Monday, by the way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further discussion?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a motion, either to approve or
rej ect?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala, and that
is to approve this expenditure for this particular -- these EMS stations.
With no further -- no further discussion, I'm going to 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, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carries.
Item #10N
REALLOCATE REAL PROPERTY PURCHASED UNDER THE
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD 6-LANING PROJECT (PROJECT
NO. 63051) TO COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES TO UTILIZE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF EMS
STATION 72, PROJECT 55150, APPROVE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $420,000 AND
Page 215
March 28, 2006
AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
WORK ORDER WITH BSSW ARCHITECTS NOT TO EXCEED
$40,000 AND Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES NOT TO
EXCEED $130~000 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next Item is number -- is ION.
It used to be 16F4. It's a recommendation to reallocate real property
purchased under the Vanderbilt Beach Road six-laning project, project
number 63051, to Collier County Emergency Medical Services to
utilize for the construction of EMS station 72.
It's project 55-150. Approve a budget amendment in the amount
of $420,000 and authorize negotiation of a professional service work
order with BSSW Architects not to exceed $40,000, and Q. Grady
Minor and Associates, not to exceed $130,000. This Item was pulled
at Commissioner Henning's request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, if you guys want to
approve it, that's fine. I just -- I'm not going to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to hear what your concerns are
concernIng --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, again, it is the architects,
and it is -- the whole thing is redesign. And I think that we should be
building functional buildings --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's got windows and doors in it, doesn't
it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- with architectural standards in
it, but the building that I reviewed last Monday, along with the civic
association, it's not functional. And this is all about a redesign for the
one to fit, and -- I mean, we have an EMS station, fire station of two
fire departments on Airport Road, I would say, that has a lot of
functional features in it, but it also has a lot of architectural features in
it that cost the taxpayers more money.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Architectural features in regards to what,
Page 216
March 28, 2006
sir? I'm kind of interested.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you've been to the -- I
know that you were there at the ribbon cutting at the facility on
Airport Road.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Grey Oaks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Grey Oaks facility. That
has a lot of expensive features in it that I think is something that's
really not called for.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I just wanted to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't have to please me.
Just make a motion, I'll just vote against it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's fine, but your
comments do deserve -- you know, you've got an opinion on it. The
thing is, is that, I don't know, the ambience of our county is a much
higher scale than you'd find most places.
I don't -- I think that some enhancements on these buildings to
make them appealing to the neighborhood is very well called for. I
mean, I'd hate to have a square-box building out there. I mean, we
even require the Wal-Marts to put up all sorts of changes to theirs as
far as the front of the buildings and the plantings. And I think we
should hold ourselves to the same standard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm not saying that we
should deviate from standards. But as I showed the County Manager,
when you start building rounded walls, then you have to fit it with
special rounded furniture or have unusable space, and the maintenance
of that buildings -- those buildings are usually more.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, he's talking about the Golden
Gate City library expansion to 17,000 cubic yards. The architect
basically, to fit 17,000 next to the 7,000 facility that needed to exist,
had to basically fit it in, we had to -- we have to basically vacate part
Page 217
March 28, 2006
of the road, if you remember correctly --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: -- one of the lanes. And commissioners got some
questions about, the road looks like it has a series of fans, okay, that
are -- thanks, Skip, that will help a lot.
It has a series of fan structures to it, and he's -- and he's basically
saying that those rounded -- those rounded edges to that building
might be hard to maintain.
The interior piece looks something like that -- excuse me, let me
get it centered -- looks something like that so it can get -- you can link
with the existing facility and try to get all the retainage and everything
else together.
I've asked staff to, based on Commissioner Henning's concerns,
to get and take a look and see if we can't limit some of that
circularness of this particular issue, and I've even asked them, if you're
trying to fit that much square footage on a small -- a small stamp, I
said, think of a second floor if you have to and make it more square.
So we're -- we've -- I've asked Marla to have her folks take a look
at that and see if it's doable, thereby, if there's anything on the second
floor, that it would be administrative and/or a meeting room per say
and that the primary library functions would be on the base floor.
The reason I say that is, library books weigh a lot, you put that
dead weight up on a top floor, you have problems as far as how you
design it. It gets to be more costly.
But in this -- but in this particular case, what staffs trying to do is
to basically use a concept that was mentioned one time prior -- and I
wish I would have applied it to libraries at this particular juncture -- is
to basically come up with a standard concept of what one looks like,
and, therefore, use it.
And I believe what staff is trying to do with these -- both of these
EMS stations is to take a very functional design and standardize it to a
series of locations up to four so that we don't have to pay this architect
Page 218
March 28, 2006
or pay, you know, half a million dollars for an architectural rendering
and plan when we already have one and we can basically put them on
different sites and we just have to adjust them to the site.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that what we're doing with these two
EMS stations?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I'm trying to figure out how this
played into -- with the library.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's not going to come
back for us to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What, this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the design won't, but neither
will the EMS station. We won't see it. We're just giving the okay to
hire these contractors. We don't approve designs. The only thing that
we approve is right-of-way taking on roads with the designs.
MR. MUDD: Well, you basically -- if you're going to start with
a construction contract and you're going to approve the construction
contract, I would -- I would, in most cases where we -- unless it's a
road and they basically tell you what it is. But if it's a building, you
normally get an idea of what that building's going to be before you bid
on it for the construction before you approve it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We never see the designs of
buildings.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that's for staff to do, I would think.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's why we've empowered the staff to
do this for us.
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, your facilities
management director. And in the past, what we've done is we've had a
professional architect design the buildings.
And in more times than I can count, we have put that rendering
Page 219
March 28, 2006
on the executive floor, the policymaker floor, this floor, the second
floor, left them there for three days and listened to comments. That's
been a policy that we've done for general government buildings for the
25 years that I've been here.
The architect has to make that design suitable for surrounding
buildings, the surrounding communities, work within the land
development code, and that's been our policy, which is -- in the past,
has worked very well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know why you're trying
to please me. I just am infuriated that somebody would bring
something, and also the concerns I heard about the roof wind load in
hurricanes with the building that you see part of on the viewer.
I'll make a motion not to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second. I think it's a lousy
design.
MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner, you're not approving this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want to approve (sic) that.
MR. MUDD: You want to approve this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want to disapprove this.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Then we're not --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're not talking about the EMS. Get
on the track here. Take that off and put the EMS on there, will you?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why can't I disapprove this thing?
MR. MUDD: Yes, you can, sir. If you want to -- if you want to
make a motion specifically relating to what's on your overhead and
you want to kill this design, I have no problem with that. But let's not
get it confused with ION ovember, which I read into the record.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion to kill this design.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. You want to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You need a vote on that one?
Page 220
March 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You want to vote on that one?
MR. MUDD: You've got a motion on the floor to kill --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We've got a motion to kill the
library design in Golden Gate City, and I have a second by
Commissioner Henning.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we not
approve the Item on our agenda. There's not a second, so let's move
on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioners Coyle, did you want to
say anything?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I just wanted to tell you how
bad I thought that design was.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't give him an open.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it so we can get
gOIng.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we've got a second. I've got a motion
to, I believe, approve this by Commissioner Henning --
MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, by Commissioner Fiala, and a
second by Commissioner Henning.
MS. FILSON: No, by Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm so damned confused.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Henning--
Page 221
March 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I mean, here it is five o'clock and we're
screwing around with the library when we're supposed to be messing
around with the EMS station.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Henning voted to deny it, didn't
get a second. Commissioner Fiala voted to approve, and a second
with Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We got this straight now. We're
going to approve this EMS medical service facility, EMS 19, and this
is being proposed by -- or the motion was made by Commissioner
Fiala, and it was seconded by Commissioner Coyle.
MS. FILSON: Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Coletta. All right. It starts with a C. If
there's no further discussion, I'm going to 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, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Passes 4-1.
Item #10P
AWARD CONTRACT 05-3838R, "LAND DEVELOPMENT,
CONDITIONAL USE REZONE, AND PERMITTING SERVICES
FOR THE SOLID WASTE PARK" FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
WITH POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC., FOR THE
SITE OF THE SOLID WASTE PARK, PROJECT 59007, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $569~049 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next Item,
Page 222
March 28, 2006
which is --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're all done.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no.
MR. MUDD: -- which is -- no, which is lOP, and that used to be
16C 1, and that was pulled by Commissioner Coletta, and that reads,
it's a recommendation to award a contract, 05-3838R, land
development, conditional use rezone, and permitting services for the
solid waste park for Collier County with Post, Buckley, Schuh, and
Jernigan, Inc., for the site of the solid waste park, project 59007, in the
amount of $569,049.
And I believe Mr. Dan Rodriguez is here to present. He's your
Director of Solid Waste.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your solid
waste management department director. I have a presentation for you,
Commissioners, or I can answer your questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I believe we need a very brief
presentation. It was per the request of Bob Krasnowski that's out there
in the audience and --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We also got one public speaker on this,
too.
Everything's getting tired.
MR. MUDD: Let's go to the visualizer. Come on. Let's get off
of that.
MR. COX: My apologies. For the record, Shane Cox, public
utilities engineering. I'm the senior project manager for all the solid
waste projects right now.
Staffs recommendation is to award this contract to Post,
Buckley.
Brief history was, the property was purchased back in the '80s,
early '90s. About three years ago, we had the solid waste integrated
Page 223
March 28,2006
strategy get under way. Malcolm Pirnie developed a conceptual
design, which is what you see here. That was somewhat hastily thrown
together, so what we'll be doing could wind up looking much
different.
In April 2004 the plan was presented to county planners to see if
it passed muster as far as the Growth Management Plan, and it did.
There were no objections.
Could I go to --
MR. MUDD: Tell me when you want me to flip.
MR. COX: Four, please. Thank you.
Some of the scope of the project will be to apply for, seek a
conditional use permit. By the way, as an aside, it is currently zoned
ago It would stay ago with a conditional use put on it.
Surveying the entire property which, keep in mind, is 360 acres.
It also has a heavy tree canopy, which prevents the use of much GIS.
Environmental services will be accomplished. That would
include environmental impact statement. I'll need to do several animal
habitat surveys. There is a known Red-cockaded Woodpecker there,
Gopher Tortoises, Indigo Snakes. And the easternmost portion of the
property extends into panther habitat, as we're told.
Master planning services, which would be where this could be
altered to suit what is out there environmentally.
Traffic impact statement, and the first thing we do once the
planning is in order, is to establish that uppermost portion on the left
for storm debris, which is something we're anxious to get into right
away as soon as we can in lieu of -- I mean, in light of the fact that
hurricane season's coming up.
The benefits of the overall project would be to provide a location
for the facilities that have been proposed or the potential facilities of
the solid waste integrated strategy, such as the Material Recovery
Facility, the MRF that we just finished the report on, feasibility report,
the gas-to-energy facility, the storm debris staging area I just spoke of,
Page 224
March 28, 2006
and the artificial reef program, which has been ongoing but needs
more space. All of these, of course, and others would be constructed
with board approval.
We would be moving forward with sticking to a good neighbor
policy, paying attention to things like odor and noise. And, of course,
as I mentioned, the environment is a particular concern out there due
to the habitats, wetlands, and so on.
And the goal, of course, again, is to provide an improved,
up-to-date solid waste facility park to serve the citizens of Collier
County.
So, again, our recommendation, award the permitting contract to
Post, Buckley.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, my answer -- my question
was answered, but I think the -- Dan, I think you did an outstanding
job with the site locations for the vegetation and waste in the
hurricane. I mean, I -- strategically planned in different parts of the
community for convenience. That's all.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, thanks for your support,
Commissioner. For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste
Director. And the key to having a successful debris management
recovery effort is strategically locating them within the communities
where the worst damage is, you're correct.
Thank you for your support.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: For the -- for the commissioners that can't see this
diagram, basically right now on the landfill you've got white goods
being separated, you've got construction debris being separated,
you've got vegetative debris being separated. You name it, it's being
separated from going on the hill.
Well, we finished -- cell six was a big cell that goes -- it's on the
north side, and it goes east to west. And now we're working on the
Page 225
March 28, 2006
ancillary cells on the south side. Sooner or later, that will become one
big, huge area, okay, to about 105 feet, I believe is what our permit
says that it can go to.
In order to work in those particular areas, we have to get those
ancillary functions where separation is transpiring out of that landfill
area so that those places can be lined and we can put trash for the
future there.
So you own 360 acres. At one time that was going to be the
second landfill for Collier County. The land was purchased. About
50 percent of it is wetland. Your Growth Management Plan says in
that particular sections of land that you can have those activities there,
but you must maintain a 50 percent cover, vegetative cover, in that
particular area.
So you really can only use about 180 acres of that 360 acres that's
there, and you've got to work it around the wetlands and those critical
habitat areas if you run into gopher tortoises to try to work around it.
So that's kind of a conceptual design. It's the next phase. It is not
putting another landfill and extending it there. It's just to get the
separation areas out of the current landfill so that we can use it more
efficiently.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. I believe we've got one
speaker signed up for the public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you please call him?
MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hi. I'm Bob Krasowski. I'll come over here
because this is where the map is.
I have a couple of concerns when I read the executive summary.
But if you look at this map here, at the bottom portion is the existing
landfill. It doesn't show it very well. It's just the top -- the norther
part of the landfill.
The center line in between here is the road. So in order to get to
Page 226
March 28, 2006
this facility in the back, you have to drive between the big cells. The
cell six actually runs north to south, and it's on the west side of the
road, and it's just north of the interstate.
And then on the right side you have the new cell you're
developing, and then all those white goods and all that other stuff,
which would be moved over to this -- to this area.
Now, in the future, it was always projected that once those two
sides of the road were filled to a certain level, then another cell would
go in between those, so you'd be covering up your road that gets you
back into there.
I think this is why it's good to have these presentations or
workshop meetings with the public and any interested commissioners
or whatever first off, because what you're doing is you're traveling
through this area and blocking where you'll be putting waste in the
beginning.
Now, it would be much better if the county would look at the
property to the left, to the west of the existing landfill which is
available, and trade or purchase that land, because then you could
come off from the existing road that's being used, and then have this --
this resource recovery park, and that's in California terms, resource
recovery park here, in Florida, in Collier County, also includes the
potential for a burning technology, okay?
And so the California version of the resource recovery park,
probably where this came from when Malcolm Pirnie probably took it
from the Zero Waste workshop charette we had in 2003, in April, and
then this came out as a Malcolm Pirnie work in August of 2003. But
anyway, that's beside the point.
So what -- here, as in this document now, which I want to address
today in particular, is that on the first page of the executive summary
it mentions in the third paragraph, the future land uses element states,
public facilities including solid waste and resource recovery facilities
can be put at this location.
Page 227
March 28, 2006
And then on page number one of attachment A, the worksheet for
the engineer that you're considering giving this job to, it says -- it
mentions a number of uses. And it says, other uses may be considered
by the county for sites subsequent to the environmental impact
assessment.
So what I would like to see included here is a statement from the
county commission that no incinerators, pyrolysis, plasma art
technology, what it's now referred to, that whole collection of the
processes, is referred to conversion technology. Now, there are some
conversion technologies that involved water treatment and some other
processes. And -- excuse me, if I may go on and finish up. I'mjust
about done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You'll have 30 seconds.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you. So to the conversion
technology concept, I'd like to see you commit to not putting in a
conversion technology that emits heavy metals, chemical pollution
and particulate on this site ever, just remove that. And there are
different processes that could -- you can use, you know, that don't do
that on this site, but it should be unnecessary.
So that pretty much covers it. But we'd like to have input in this
process as this develops. I think you should invite the community.
Because unless that language that I've suggested goes in there, all
these people have to be alerted that the potential exists that, as you've
mentioned in your AUIR, Mr. Halas, you've mentioned plasma art
technology -- plasma art, yeah.
And then Mr. Coyle, who's absent from here -- I don't know if
people can see that he walked off -- he mentioned incineration, that
you'd keep -- Mr. DeLony would keep that open, those options open.
So I don't think we need that here or want that here, okay? So
thank you. Any questions?
Page 228
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, Bob. The Growth
Management Plan doesn't allow that. What you're talking about is
solid waste facilities that is not allowed on this section. Now--
MR. KRASOWSKI: Is that right? Is that -- it's in the Growth
Management Plan? I'll research that. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And a future board might
change it.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they're not asking for that.
It would have to -- I don't know whether they're coming through as a
conditional use or a --
MR. MUDD: This is for a conditional use on this particular
Issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It would have to be
amended --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- again.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So there's several public
hearings, if you had any concern about that, that people have a chance
to voice their opinion.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Wonderful. Thank you very much. I know
there's a lot of activity at the state level, and we're wondering how it's
connected to local as far as incineration. But thank you very much for
-- I'll further research that and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: You know, I know it's after the fact, but
this is a lot of money, but it seems like this proj ect, if it is as it is, is a
good way to go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it is.
Page 229
March 28, 2006
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's been a motion by Commissioner
Coletta and a second by Commissioner Henning. I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to our next Item,
which is paragraph 11, which is Public Comments on General Topics.
Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker, Kenneth
Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: Well, we're back to the lights again. Look,
I'm telling you, you going to have to do something about the man's
lights. I'll be damned if I can sit there with steel beams lights in my
face all night long, and he's a-using them -- he's a-using them for a
priority thing.
He shines them in your face all night through your bedroom for a
reason. He does dirty tricks under the damn lights. You can't see
what's going on. And in the back of the boathouse he's got a boy in
Page 230
March 28, 2006
there named Dirk Higgins, and he's got more garbage going on in and
out of there all night long than you've ever seen.
And he's give him a cell phone so he can call these people. One
bunch will leave, another bunch will come. One bunch will come, the
other ones -- I called the sheriff out there to these people, and they
won't do nothing.
Oh, they'll be, we'll patrol there, or, yeah, they go right out to
Bayshore Drive and leave again. So I don't know what you going to
do with Don Hunter. Damn -- it's time to get that man out of office
and get somebody in there -- or just put your own gun on. I'm telling
you.
I have had it. I've had it with the lights. Please get me some help
with the lights. My wife won't say nothing, and if you don't, I'm going
to have to leave, because I tell you, we've been married 40 years the
3rd of March, and she was 70 years old the 27th of January, and I was
70 years old the 24th of March, and that calls her the boss and me
nothing, so she's the boss of nothing.
So I'm trying to tell you. Now listen, Mr. Mudd, you can stop
this, and I know you can as the County Manager. He has been here,
he's cut things down on other people's property. I put him in court.
I've done everything.
He goes to court and lies. That lot one through five goes down
Bayshore Drive, right there in front of my wife's property. He goes
over and he cuts down trees this big, mangrove trees. I put him in
DEP in Fort Myers. They lied to me. They make like they come
down, and I know who's doing it. It's the guy -- Kevin in code
enforcement that is a -- backing these people up.
You should see how he slaughtered the Mangrove Trees. I have
never seen nothing like it. And if I was going to break a limb off, I'd
go to jail.
I need you to help me with the lights. If you don't do nothing
else in your lifetime, take them lights and give them to him where he
Page 231
March 28, 2006
can't -- turn the things down. Drive out there at night and watch and
see what you -- it's terrible, it's just terrible. And I don't need to have
to keep coming back here. I ain't in no shape to come back here.
And I want to apologize to Michelle Arnold back there. She said
I called her a racist. I've been called a racist, I've been called
everything in the damn book. But you know something, the book
don't exist anymore.
You shouldn't have given Waste Management nothing because
they can't even clean the garbage up off the street. Go down to Van
Buren. You want to see something? Go down them side streets,
Coco, Van Buren and all them streets. You really want to see, it's the
worst -- worst habitat I've ever seen with garbage. It's piled all out in
the streets, 'frigerator, cars. Go look. I was down there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MR. THOMPSON: Please help me with the lights, okay? And
I'll keep you the chairman, right on, you know, because you're doing a
great job. But you better watch who you're drinking with, I'll tell you
that.
Item #12A
RESOLUTION 2006-83: SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 94-
136, AND PROVIDING GUIDELINES FOR CONSIDERATION
OF APPLICANTS FOR APPOINTMENT TO ADVISORY
BOARDS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, the next Item is 12A. This Item
was continued from the January 24, 2006, BCC meeting and was
further continued from the February 14,2006, BCC meeting, to the
March 28, 2006 BCC meeting. It's a recommendation the Board of
County Commissioners adopt a resolution superseding resolution
number 94-136, and providing guidelines for consideration of
Page 232
March 28, 2006
applicants for appointment to advisory boards.
It's a county attorney report. I believe Mr. Weigel--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Still with us?
MR. WEIGEL: I was healthy when the day started, and I've
come down with a cold. No. Actually, I'm fine.
This has come back. We think we've fine-tuned it so it addresses
the discussions that have come up along the way relating to the
advisory committees and their recommendations to the board and also
the ability to provide a little extra time for them to provide
recommendations when they can't make a quorum.
We hope that it's ready to go, and I'll answer any further
questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions by fellow
commissioners in regards to this?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion, approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner
Coletta and a second by --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Commissioner Fiala for approval of
the advisory committees and to supersede regulation -- or resolution
number 94-136.
If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Page 233
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to staff and
commissioner general communications.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Manager, do you have
anything to bring forward to us?
MR. MUDD: Yeah, Commissioner, there's just --
Commissioners, there's just one thing. We haven't forgotten that this
board told us to come back and talk to us about the 640 acres, part of
the agreement for the South Golden Gate Estates and the N obles/Dohr
(phonetic) lawsuit. We tried to get her back to this meeting.
We're going to bring that forward to the Board of County
Commissioners on the 11 th of April. We have notified the petitioner.
He was in to talk to Mr. Ochs, and mentioned that to him. He was fine
with the 11 th April particular issue.
And we'll get that locked in, and we'll also try to get a time
certain because Commissioner Coletta asked for it because he has
some people in his district that are -- that are -- would like to come
talk on that particular Item, and we'll get it advertised as such, if that's
okay with the Board Of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any discussion on that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
Page 234
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we have you look at other
areas besides Lake Trafford spoil area that possibly we might be able
to get for potential ATV use?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that was -- Clarence Tears, who's
the director of the Big Cypress Basin Board, basically looked at 19
areas -- potential areas for this 640 acres, which is one square section
or thereabouts for their part of the agreement that was supposed to be
turned over to the county on 1 October 2005.
In every one of those particular instances, he was shut down.
Either there wasn't a willing seller, they didn't want to do it, or he got
himself into a predicament where there is a particular chemical in the
soil that bonds to the ingredients of the soil that basically stabilizes it.
And if it used for A TV use, that would do damage to the soil, and then
the runoff wouldn't be good for the environment. And he looked at
those particular issues.
Now, in talking to Clarence today, based on the letter that you
received from your visit when you were up in Tallahassee,
Commissioner, I talked to them about those particular tracts. He had
only talked to those folks about the farthest one over to the east. He
didn't talk to the one closer to the west. And I asked him ifhe'd take a
look at that, and he said he would.
He also told me that he is going to receive a list of surplus lands
from the state from Representative Davis. I believe it's the same list
that you've asked for that you're going to get. He's just being copied
on it. And with that, he's going to try to find a more suitable location
for that 640 acres, sir.
What I'm basically saying, it was their requirement to find it, and
I'm just trying to relay to you what I know that he has passed to me in
previous conversations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, do you have anything
to offer?
Page 235
March 28, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thank you; just one Item.
Our office, working with the County Manager's staff, continue to
monitor and review the Diamond Shores situation, particularly in the
areas of health, safety and welfare issues that came up concerning the
residential units that were there.
And I wanted to kind of take the measure, temperature of the
board as to whether at this point in time, based upon our information,
your information, independent sources of information that you have --
may have, and from the residents that are there, if, in fact, you wish to
consider directing the county attorney to file a lawsuit for injunctive
relief, to look to have a court order obtained to take care of some of
these health, safety and welfare issues. Particularly I would suggest
things such as mold, electrical wiring issues, water and sewer,
plumbing issues, things of that nature.
Now, when we review something like this, we ask ourselves the
question, would report to you, you know, what are the pros and cons
of going forward and initiating something of this sort in the court
forum.
And I can tell you a couple of pros and a couple of cons. The
pros are, of course, yes, the county does have the authority to go
forward and initiate a lawsuit of this nature, and we believe that the
County Attorney Office, with some assistance from staff, but
essentially County Attorney Office, can carry the argument and the
facts forward in a workmanlike professional manner in court.
The cons are -- and incidentally, we'd be dealing with the
ownership interests as they exist of record, which are Botino
(phonetic), the Botino companies and the Steinberg companies. If a
lawsuit is filed, do we achieve some leveraging that we otherwise
might not have? Yes, that's a possibility. That happens in many
lawsuits, different kinds of lawsuits. Prior to getting to the
culmination of a verdict or a judgment, things sometimes tend to work
out because there's an incentive to work them out. The burr is put
Page 236
March 28, 2006
under the saddle, as it were.
Now, additionally though, from a con standpoint, we do not
know what the landlords -- I should say the ownership interests and
landlords, what they may attempt to do upon any basis of a lawsuit
that they have to respond to. Would they, in fact, take some kind of
measures that would affect the residents there? We don't know.
We know that based on common news and feedback from the
residents, there have been statements made and letters written that
would tent to lean toward these people having to leave the premises,
regardless of what the county has done or not done up to this point in
time.
So with that brief discussion, I open myself to any questions.
And if the board would wish to direct us at this time or take it under
advisement and potentially direct us at a later point in time, either
way.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any discussion on this
matter? Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'll just throw in that I've
been receiving a number of calls over the last couple weeks of people
who apparently are negotiating with these owners to buy the property.
In every single case, they've been talking about wanting to build
affordable housing, so they were trying to find out how much they can
build, how much will be accommodated.
So I'm sure that you're taking that into consideration. But in case
you haven't heard, there's a lot of action out there.
MR. WEIGEL: I knew there was some action. I also felt it was
important to get that back to you as a collective board rather than you
individually. And I think to some extent even having this discussion
right now, whether there is direction for the office to go forward from
a legal standpoint or not, may be productive, and that was another
reason to bring it forward at this point in time. It may have a positive
result outside of decision or no decision in regard to court action at
Page 237
March 28, 2006
this time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any discussion?
MR. WEIGEL: We'll stay in touch.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, what's your
recommendation, David? What do you think -- what positive results
do you think might occur if we were to take action?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, if you authorize, on behalf of the county,
the County Attorney Office, to file a lawsuit, it will place them in
court in a defensive position. And there are several -- several things
that come from that.
One is, attention to the matter generally, whether it's from the
media and other areas, which mayor may not have positive results in
regard to how the ownership interests wish to be perceived in the
community and go forward.
From the lawsuit standpoint, I think that there is a real likelihood
of having a potential achieved success because there appear to be,
based on the information that we have, have been, verifiable true
health, safety, welfare issues.
To the extent that things are being remedied on an individual
basis, that is -- that's very good. And if the thought is that we've got
something going here which doesn't need the additional sting of the
lash of going to court, at this moment anyway, my thought is then, let
me just keep you advised and you keep me advised as well, and that --
I wanted to let you know though that we are ready to go forward at
any point in time and have even -- have even prepared drafts of the
papers to file, if need be.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, I would defer to
Commissioner Fiala, but it seems to me that there's been a lot of delay
here, and maybe a little firm stance by the county might provide some
impetus for change in a positive way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I agree, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I would -- I would support
Page 238
March 28, 2006
taking some stronger action, quite frankly.
MR. WEIGEL: Mike indicates that -- and typically -- typically
in a situation like this, yes, there often is a countersuit claiming that,
potentially, damages of some kind or another.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So do you need a vote on this or do you
just need a nod in the direction of what we need to do to take care of
this matter?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, a nod would work. A vote is preferable.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion that we authorize
the county to take more aggressive legal action concerning this issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion's on the floor to have
more aggressive legal action in regard to this problem --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- by Commissioner Coyle, and second
by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
MR. WEIGEL: Before you vote, what I will interpret that to
mean is that you -- and more aggressive action is everything including
the filing of a lawsuit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
MR. WEIGEL: And so to the extent that we may achieve some
progress or other communication indicating the endorsement of the
board, up to and including a lawsuit, we will take those measures prior
to filing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commission Coyle, is that in your
motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's it. You've got it. That's it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, is that in your
second?
Page 239
March 28, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 4-1.
Anything else?
MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'd like to start off in regards to
what we accomplished in the legis -- on the Southwest Florida
Legislative Consortium, the legislative day. That was March 23rd in
Tallahassee. Yeah, boy.
I'd like to read just briefly, and then I'm going to turn this over to
Commissioner Coyle, because he had some behind-the-door sessions,
and I think maybe he can bring forth some of what was accomplished
there.
The Southwest Florida Legislative Consortium, comprised of
Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, Lee and Sarasota County, was
established several years ago when a group of county and city leaders
got together and decided it was the best interest in their communities
to coordinate their efforts with the goals of strengthening their
regional voices in Tallahassee.
Last week the Southwest Florida Consortium, with the largest
contingents from Collier and Lee County, traveled to Tallahassee as a
Page 240
March 28, 2006
unified body for the 2006 legislative day, hosted this year by Collier
County.
Joining me on the trip for Collier County were Commissioner
Fred Coyle, Commissioner Jim Coletta, and Commissioner Donna
Fiala, as well as County Manager Jim Mudd, County Attorney David
Weigel, and Assistant County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow, and the
Assistant to the County Manager, Debbie Wight.
And I am pleased to -- and proud to report that 28 county
commissioners, city leaders, county/city government staff and our
lobbyist joined together first at our opening breakfast at the capitol, in
which our guest speakers included members of our own Collier
County legislative delegation, Senator Burt Saunders, Representative
1. Dudley Goodlette and Representative Mike Davis.
Following the breakfast, the consortium broke into two groups
led by myself as chairman of Collier County Commission, and Lee
County Commission woman -- chairwoman, Tammy Hall, who then
left for a series of scheduled appointments with state legislators and
presented them with the consortium's list of the 2000 legislative
priorities. And I'll read the priorities, and then I'll turn this over.
We opposed the affordability of homestead exemptions,
supporting the extension of the FRS drop program for existing
participants an additional five years, support gas tax indexing, support
mandatory statewide seat belt law, to increase federal transportation
funding, support additional funding for red tide and red drift algae
research, and then we also made sure that the growth management
glitch bill, Senate Bill 360, was looked after, and we are also
addressing impact fee reform, and also the last Item, which is of great
importance to a lot of people, and that's any eminent domain
legislation.
At this point I'll turn this over to Commissioner Coyle, because I
believe he had some meetings up there in regards to some of the issues
we had with the glitch bill 360.
Page 241
March 28, 2006
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. Certainly one of our big issues was the recent growth
management legislation that deprived us of the opportunity to
effectively manage at least transportation infrastructure in Collier
County .
And most people, I think, know that our legislators are trying to
-- that is, the Southwest Florida delegation is trying to get that
legislation changed. They agreed to sponsor language which we
provided to them, but everyone advised us that that particular
language probably was not going to pass.
So we spent a considerable amount of time in Tallahassee trying
to understand the competing interests there and what it would take to
get something into the legislation.
And one of the key people in that process is Senator Bennett.
And you might recall that Senator Bennett was the person who
sponsored the anti-Coyle amendments.
And we did meet with Senator Bennett. We didn't have time to
discuss the issue in great detail, but he was kind enough to carve out
some time in his schedule later in the day, and I had a chance to meet
with him one on one, and it was a very, very productive meeting.
He was interested in understanding Collier County's concurrency
management system. He was interested in understanding how it
worked and what it produced, and I told him all these things.
And at the end of that meeting -- and it was probably 45 minutes
or so. At end of that meeting he said, I'll do what I can do, but I think
we have a -- we can craft a compromise. And he said, I'll call you
before Tuesday, which is today. And he, in fact, did call me yesterday
morning first thing, and he said, we've got it done.
And he included in his bill yesterday a couple of things. He
removed the anti -Coy Ie amendments, which you might recall changed
the vote on rezones from a supermajority to a regular majority. He
Page 242
March 28, 2006
has taken that out of his bill. And the other was a prohibition against a
stricter concurrency management system. He has taken that out of his
bill.
And he has inserted in his bill, and it passed today, or yesterday
-- it passed yesterday out of committee, the language that we have
suggested with only a couple of very minor, maybe two word changes
that we're recommending right now.
Now, we've been in contact with Representative Goodlette and
our lobbyist, Keith Arnold. We have given them those two changes,
those two words to be changed, and it looks good.
The problem is, we've got to go through the entire Senate and the
entire House. We can't pretend that we've got this solved yet. But I
can say to you that at least we have a senator who has been very
strong in opposition who is now on our side, and we have, of course,
Dudley Goodlette who is pushing our amendment from the House
side, and there's reason to hope that it might come out on the other end
approved.
If it does, it gives us pretty much everything we've been asking
for, which is a real-time concurrency system. And so we're hopeful.
And I was very happy with Senator Bennett's reaction and his
subsequent support. And if this thing -- if this thing gets through, we
might want to have a proclamation honoring Senator Bennett because
he has certainly been very helpful.
There's one other point that I have to mention to you. During our
discussions with a number of legislators, something that I was aware
of was emphasized, and that is that the legislators have a feeling that
local governments have access to great amounts of money and they
don't manage it very well. And at least one legislator actually came
out and brought that issue up, and it was the topic of conversation.
And it's no surprise to me, but it certainly indicates, we need to
do a better job of keeping them informed about what we do at the
local level to manage taxpayer funds and to spend taxpayer funds
Page 243
March 28, 2006
wisely, because they don't really have a good appreciation for that at
all. And I think therein lies one of the problems with unfunded
mandates and other things that they want to shift back to us because
they think that we can fund it very easily. So they get if off their back,
they give it to us, they think we've got access to funds, and we can --
we can solve it. And it clearly isn't the case, so we've got to work
harder to make sure they're better informed about -- about that issue at
local government level. And that concludes my report.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have anything to bring forward
about your meetings with Secretary Thadeus Cohen?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I did -- I did
jump over that. Secretary Cohen spoke at our luncheon on Thursday.
And I read to him a policy that was contained in the Florida
Department of Transportation model ordinance for proportionate fair
share contributions, and that model ordinance essentially said that
counties have the right to implement stricter concurrency provisions
than those allowed by the state. That's the first time any of us has seen
that in writing anywhere.
So it grabbed my attention. I took the document to the luncheon.
I read that statement to Thadeus Cohen, and Secretary Cohen said,
yes, that was his policy. To make sure there was no
misunderstanding, I sat down with him after lunch, with Keith Arnold,
and three more times I asked him if that was official policy, and three
more times he told me, yes, his people -- although he had not read the
language -- his people were involved in developing it, and that was his
policy and that we could depend upon it. And so we are working
under that assumption.
And so I don't want to overemphasize that. That is not a law. It
was something that was contained in an FDOT document, but it's
better than nothing, and it clearly indicates that somebody's been
listening to us.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just wanted to say, to wrap it up, I
Page 244
March 28, 2006
appreciate that -- all the effort that was put into this, especially by
Debbie Wight in regards to making sure that everything ran smoothly,
and I want to tell you, hats off.
And I also want to thank everybody that was in -- that went to
Tallahassee, because I believe that when we showed up in force, not
only from Collier County but from the other counties and the cities
and other counties that were involved in this, I believe that it had an
impact. I believe that that helped us address some of our concerns,
which leads me into the fact that my travel budget is -- I have a
shortage in that, and I'm wondering if some of the fellow
commissioners would lend me some of their money in travel budgets,
because I think that we're going to probably incur some more expenses
before the end of the new budget process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Quit traveling so much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I can do that, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that wasn't going to be my
suggestion. If this commission would agree, why don't we just put all
our travel money together in one pool? Because the truth of the
matter is, unless it's legislative, everything has to come back before
this commission for approval in the back of our agenda, just until we
can get through the rest of this year.
I know that Commissioner Henning's doing more traveling this
year, I'm doing about the same amount, and I normally run out about
-- usually about September, if not before, and we'll deal with it as we
get down to it, because obviously the people that are giving of their
time to go to these places, they shouldn't have to go through begging,
you know, for each time for the money.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm begging.
MS. FILSON: I do have one option that we could use. I have
that line Item for the F AC, if the chairman makes special trips to there,
Page 245
March 28, 2006
that I could do a budget amendment and transfer some of that into
Commissioner Halas's -- it's $2,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that just takes care of that
part of the problem. I've got a feeling before we get to the end of our
budget year, we're going to find myself and possibly Commissioner
Henning also running out of money.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll come back begging. I don't
mind begging.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we just thought we'd take
your money now --
MS. FILSON: I think Commissioner Henning's okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd be happy to donate to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't like the idea of just
throwing it in one pot, but I don't have any problem transferring some
of mine to somebody who needs it.
My only concern is that if we're going to have all these trips, that
there be a purpose for the trip and that the board approve the trip. And
I -- you know, I just don't think we need to get on planes and start
flying all over the world just doing whatever we want to do because
the money's there. If there is a reason for it, the board approves the
reason, I think we ought to find the money to fund it, but --
MS. FILSON: I think a part of the problem is -- if I can interject.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't.
MS. FILSON: -- is when -- your daily lunches and the things
that you go to daily to support the citizens, that eats up a lot of the
budget money.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think that trips --
MS. FILSON: The functions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I know my trips are either with FAC--
and it deals with Items of interest for Collier County citizens, so that's
where lots of it goes. And we made a trip, Washington. Again, we
Page 246
March 28, 2006
have federal lobbyist there, and I think we were there to try to make
sure that our --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, how much you need?
How much you need?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't know. I'm not sure, but I--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, why don't I get with Ms.
Filson and have her take a look at my travel budget and see if I can't
transfer some to you so -- cover your shortage?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll--
MS. FILSON: Yours is zero.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The only thing is, the caveat, I
don't mind giving anybody money -- excess money I've got, but I want
to withhold approval authority for their trip.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, if you would donate your aircraft
MS. FILSON: It won't be placed on the agenda unless it deals
with government.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If I could get Commissioner Coyle to
donate his aircraft, we might not be -- have to worry about the travel
funds.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a good point.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, are you
completed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm finished, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, two Items. One, I
mentioned it earlier, the Productivity Committee would like to be
scheduled in to be able to make their report and recommendations, be
it a meeting, a budget cycle, whatever you -- whatever you deem's
appropriate, Mr. Mudd, if this board so directs you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you direct me, we need to get a
workshop probably for this one, because it's probably going to go for a
Page 247
March 28, 2006
couple hours. Is that the direction of the Board of County
Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sounds good to me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other thing is, is that I'd like
us to make a future agenda Item to discuss the management of our
own office staff to be able to see if we can come up with a better way
to do it.
I supplied you with documentation. I don't like to surprise
anybody at the end of a meeting with a whole bunch of information
and try to overwhelm you. So ahead of time I sent you the
information of what was the outcome of a survey that we've taken that
showed that out of the total counties that were reached, six of them
had no staff, three of them didn't respond, some of them actually used
the clerk. The -- used the BCC that controls their own staff, it's 24,
and the manager is 27.
I would just like to bring it up under discussion to weigh all the
possibilities and see what would be the best way to go. And if this
commission so agrees, we could bring it up for discussion at another
meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to let you know that there's
some other information that -- I had this researched today, and it's
more in detail exactly what took place, and that's -- all the counties are
listed here, so it gives you some idea of who directly reports, and it
was filled out, so it gives you some idea so that maybe in a future
discussion, that we can cover this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want to put it on an agenda or
you want to have a workshop?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to have it on a--
MR. MUDD: Let's put it on --let's put it on the agenda for next
meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It shouldn't be a lot. It shouldn't
be anything that will --
Page 248
March 28, 2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there's hardly any more lands use
stuffuntil the first two meetings in June.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why is that?
MR. MUDD: I have no clue. But I will tell you, the first two
meetings in June are just jammed, so--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't -- Commissioner
Coletta, why don't you just put it on the agenda with your thoughts
and what --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's what we just
suggested --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- is just put it right on the
agenda. That's the best idea. I don't think--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Under nine?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Under what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Under nine, where you would
write the agenda Item and what the recommendations are and what
you would like to see as far as what's the oversight of the County
Manager's Office.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'd be happy to.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I'll present -- I'll give you this to put
in there also --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if you would, please.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- because I think we need as much
information in there as possible.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good.
Any other -- Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's your turn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I have three. I'll make two
very quick, and the other one not too bad. Uh-oh, the evil eye.
Page 249
March 28, 2006
I'm just going to mention one more time, just to keep these
thoughts in our heads, that I still would like to see maybe our
affordable housing group or somebody in that area think about maybe
building rental units over strip malls. I just think it's a wonderful idea,
and I'm just trying to encourage somebody to think about it and maybe
figure it out or something. It's another way for us to address
specifically rental units, but they could be for sale product also.
Second thing I'm -- I want to talk about is, there's some property
that's adjacent to the CREW property. It's almost 400 acres. There
are two different parcels and -- totaling 368 acres actually.
The gentleman that has it wants to sell it, from what I understand,
and it's adjacent to the CREW lands. And he's contacted Conservation
Collier about this. And he says he wants to -- he wants to sell it to
Conservation Collier -- it's called the Starnes property, in case
anybody knows of the property -- rather than sell it to development.
And so we might have to act upon it quickly sometime here
rather than wait for a different session. And Alex Sulecki looked that
up and said, yes, it can be done. If they get the information, they get
the nod from him as far as price goes, she would like to bring it back,
and I'm just kind of giving you heads-up that that might be coming
back to us out of order, but -- you know, as Conservation Collier
usually brings it, but it might be coming to us.
And the last thing I wanted to talk about was the south county
regional library , and you heard just a little bit about it, and -- but it
looks like maybe we're going to be moving, I hope, on this.
F or years now you've probably heard me say it, and you're
probably tired of hearing me say it -- we've been asking our library
system way back when John Jones was here yet for a library that
would be designed in an Old Florida style. We're hoping for it to set
the tone for other building that will be taking place in East Naples
because we felt it had a warm and friendly connotation to Old Florida
style, not only that, but we're living in Florida, so why not design it
Page 250
March 28, 2006
after Old Florida?
But somehow the model -- they had a scale model set up for us
that was presented was -- well, it was brought to the East Naples Civic
Association. And to be kind, it was awful. And everybody was kind
of aghast.
And we had thought for all these years -- and I've said it over and
over again all of these years, we were looking forward to that design.
And then today Ron Hovell and somebody else was even saying, you
know, we want to build to please the neighbors. We want to build it
as the neighborhoods want it, so we were all quite surprised that they
weren't doing that. But I understand we've got some meetings coming
up. I think Ron -- oh, good, Skip. And so possibly --
MR. MUDD: First one's 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And supposedly this architect's going to
show us some Old Florida design.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was interesting was, as Bob
Murray was talking with them at one of the meetings, and the guy
said, well, just show me what Old Florida is. Here's the architect
saying this to Bob Murray. Well, show me what this is. And Bob said,
I'm not the architect, you are. You know, if you're told to do Old
Florida, you don't do these wild roofs, which, by the way, in Venice
they've built a church facility there. The same architect firm designed
it, and it was built and now all they have problems upon problems
with roofs leaking and so forth. And so we're hoping that a new
design will emerge.
MR. CAMP: Monday.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, Skip. Thank you very
much for letting me air all of this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you think we could look at
this Starnes property for a fill pit, or is it a wrong location? For dirt,
Page 251
March 28, 2006
for our roads.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I don't know that. I
could ask about that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that might be a good idea.
I'm going to be up in Tallahassee the first week in April, and the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission is meeting to discuss the boat
speed limits in the 10,000 Islands and beyond. Don't know if
anybody's seen the article in the Naples Daily News.
The -- anyways, from what I gather -- and what I'd like to do--
what I gather is, the data shows there should not be any change, or
may not effect any changes. It's really not -- the report isn't specific.
And if we're going to do any changes to speed boat limitations, I
think it should be done under science, and they're going to do that,
collect -- start doing a study and have it done by January 2007, so
they're going to do it today -- or this year.
So I would like to see the Board of Commissioners either give
direction to the chairman to write a letter to the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Commission not to do any changes until new data comes
forward for any speed changes within the 10,000 Islands area or, while
I'm up there, I can either deliver that letter or speak on behalf of the
board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You went up to Tallahassee, I believe, to
look at some lands that might be available. Did you ever -- what --
did you ever come up with that when you went up to Tallahassee the
first time? Did you ever come up with any lands that were available?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do we want to do with this
boat speed issue?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I want to -- first of all I want to ask
you what you -- you know, what lands that you got, or found anything
up there, if you did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm -- they're going to
forward me some information as soon as they compile it.
Page 252
March 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can this issue be addressed down here,
or is it going to be special up in Tallahassee?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: April 5th, the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Commission is going to address it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the favor of the board?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You want a letter, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, by the chairman not to
change anything unless there's good data compiled to show the need
for change.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I agree with that,
because sometimes the data that we get is -- can be questioned and it
needs to be researched a little bit more, so I don't see any problem
with maybe putting it on hold until we get all of the data in, and that's
what you're mainly saying, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It says, it may be adequate, but
merits continued monitoring. Well, I mean, that really doesn't say
anything. If we get a strong message from the Board of
Commissioners of saying, don't change anything until you've got good
data to show the need for change for boat speeds.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I tell you what, I think it's great,
especially if we can show support for the local concern that's here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A tremendous --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a major industry here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, it is, it is, and there's
extreme concern. I just don't want to send out something that's so
wishy-washy or watered down or evasive that is doesn't serve a
purpose. But if we can take a firm stance in support of the access
Page 253
March 28, 2006
issue, I would love to see the Chair write a letter.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. You want us to write a letter in
regards to supporting no changes at this point in time until such time
as that -- the committee that's out there that's doing the necessary
research --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no. I--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- research for -- to find out what kind of
science that's involved in --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not really. I'll be honest with
you, because my concern there is --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe that's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- you're going to upset the
whole natural balance if you give them -- if they say, okay, our
research indicates this -- that if we don't do this, there'll be two more
Manatees that will live every 10 years, and so that's a justification for
not going forward in limiting the access to that.
We've got people that own homes down there that are worth a
million dollars or -- half million to a million dollars on the waterfront.
They're going to be almost worthless if they haven't got access to that
waterway.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't think it was so much not to--
access to the waterway. It was speed limits; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it could be access, too.
How about this, to ask the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission not
to do any changes to limitation of public access whether in boat speed
or access --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- because there is no good data
to warrant any change?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And is there a group that's out
there looking at new data --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
Page 254
March 28, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- scientific data?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The boat marine does it, Florida
Fish and Wildlife does it, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Conservation does it,
and they compile all that information.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear direction on that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next thing is -- I don't know
who you were talking to, the concerns of the representative up in
Tallahassee about how we spend our money, if you'd like to, I can talk
to him.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, talk to all of them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. How we spend the
money?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Depends on what you're going to
say.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I also would like the
commissioner's car, too, that week.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Oh, the county car to drive up there?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
MS. FILSON: I'll schedule that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's go home.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any more?
(N 0 response)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, we're adjourned.
Page 255
March 28,2006
***** 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
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "PINE AIR LAKES UNIT
SIX"
Item #16A2
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "CALDECOTT",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
AWARD RFP #05-3888 TO URS CORPORATION SOUTHERN,
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FINAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE RAILHEAD SCRUB PRESERVE, A CONSERVATION
COLLIER PROPERTY, AND A TEMPLATE FOR A FINAL
MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT CAN BE APPLIED TO ALL
CONSERVATION COLLIER PRESERVES AT A COST OF
$38,821 - TO FOCUS ON LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
ON ACQUIRED PROPERTIES
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2006-66: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Page 256
March 28, 2006
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "BANYAN WOODS" THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A5
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2006-05: PETITION CARNY-06-AR-9339,
DUANE WHEELER, CARNIVAL CO-CHAIRMAN, ROTARY
CLUB OF IMMOKALEE REQUESTING A PERMIT TO
CONDUCT A CARNIVAL ON APRIL 3RD THROUGH APRIL 6TH,
2006, AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT LOCATED
AT 165 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, IMMOKALEE FLORIDA-
W/WAIVING OF THE SURETY BOND
Item #16A6 - Moved to Item #101
Item # 16A 7 - Moved to Item # 1 OJ
Item #16A8 - Moved to Item 10K
Item # 16A9
DENYING THE REQUEST FOR A LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE (LDC) SPECIAL CYCLE TO SPECIFICALLY AMEND
THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE
DISTRICT (MUD) OVERLAYS IN ORDER TO ADOPT AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DEVIATION PROCESS DURING THE LDC
SPECIAL CYCLE 2006 lA - INSTEAD THE AMENDMENTS
WILL BE INTRODUCED IN THE CURRENT REGULAR LDC
AMENDMENT CYCLE
Page 257
March 28, 2006
Item #16Bl
CONTRACT #06-3905 "FIXED TERM ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
SERVICES" TO THREE (3) FIRMS AT AN ESTIMATED COST
OF $180,000 ANNUALLY -AWARDED TO KITTELSON &
ASSOCIATES, INC., V ANESSE HANGEN BRUSTIN, INC. AND
TBE GROUP~ INC.
Item #16B2
QUITCLAIM DEED FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD AND RADIO
ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AT NO FISCAL IMPACT - FROM
BRIARWOOD SHOPPING CENTER, LLC. TO FULFILL A
CONDITION OF THE PURCHASE OF THE BRIARWOOD
PLAZA PROPERTY BY LOWE'S HOME CENTERS~ INC.
Item #16B3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE
RECEIVED FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
DISADV ANT AGED PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF
$26~804.73 - FOR HURRICANE SHUTTLE ASSISTANCE
Item #16B4
CHANGE ORDER NO.2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT NO. 04-3587 IN THE AMOUNT OF $398,713 FOR
ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH AMERICAN
CONSUL TING ENGINEERS OF FLORIDA, LLC FOR DESIGN
ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE COUNTY BARN
ROAD EXPANSION PROJECT FORM RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK ROAD TO DAVIS BLVD., PROJECT NO. 60101-
Page 258
March 28, 2006
FOR THE RELOCATION OF UTILITY LINES
Item #16B5
AN ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT FOR THE
HALDEMAN CREEK DREDGING PROJECT AND ESTABLISH
AN MSTU FOR FUTURE DREDGING NEEDS - TO DEEPEN
AND PROVIDE ACCEPT ABLE NAVIGATION DEPTHS IN THE
CHANNEL WHILE RESTORING FLOWS IN THE CREEK
Item #16Cl - Moved to Item #10P
Item #16C2
CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO FPL FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES
TO PROVIDE ELECTRIC SERVICES TO THE SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 12-MGD REVERSE
OSMOSIS EXPANSION AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $27.00,
PROJECT #700971 - TO IMPROVE SERVICE RELIABILITY
Item #16C3
SATISFACTIONS FOR CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER
IMPACT - FISCAL IMPACT IS $68.50 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2006-67: TO APPROVE THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
Page 259
March 28, 2006
SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item #16C5
RESOLUTION 2006-68: 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 $60.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item #16C6
RESOLUTION 2006-69: 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 ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C7
RESOLUTION 2006-70: 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
Page 260
March 28, 2006
ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $50.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item #16C8
RESOLUTION 2006-71: 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
Item #16C9
RESOLUTION 2006-72: 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 $100.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item #16CI0
AWARD CONSTRUCTION WORK ORDER UC-195 UNDER
FIXED TERM UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CONTRACT 04-
3535 TO MITCHELL AND STARK, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$110,000 FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE EMERGENCY
STORAGE BLEACH FACILITY AND TO AWARD WORK
ORDER CHM-FT-3291-06-02 UNDER FIXED TERM
Page 261
March 28, 2006
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT 01-3291 TO CH2M
HILL, INC. IN AN AMOUNT OF $46,900 FOR TIME AND
MATERIALS TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
INSPECTION SERVICES TO SERVE THE NORTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF) AND APPROVE
THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $156,900, PROJECT NUMBER 73966 - TO ENHANCE THE
RELIABILITY AND SAFETY OF THE CHLORINE BLEACH
SYSTEM AT THE NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY
Item #16Cll
TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF SOLE-SOURCE
EQUIPMENT, FOR SPECIFIC REHABILITATION PROJECTS IN
THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED OF $281,000 FOR THE
NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
REHABILITATION, PROJECT 725321 - FOR THE
REPLACEMENT OF THREE DETERIORATED BARSCREENS
PURCHASED FROM PARKSON CORPORATION
Item #16C12
WORK ORDER CAE-FT-3785-06-02 WITH CAROLLO
ENGINEERS, P.C. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR HIGH PRESSURE REVERSE OSMOSIS
DEMONSTRATION SCALE TESTING AT THE NORTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
(NCRWTP) IN THE AMOUNT OF $264,900, PROJECT NUMBER
70094 - TO PROVIDE FURTHER IMPROVED SYSTEM
RELIABILITY AT THE PLANT
Page 262
March 28, 2006
Item #16C13
WORK ORDER CDM-FT-3785-06-07 WITH CAMP, DRESSER,
AND MCKEE, INC., FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR THE PROPOSAL AND WRITING SERVICES OF
UP TO 24 GRANT APPLICATION SUBMITTALS TO THE
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
(SFWMD) AND BIG CYPRESS BASIN (BCB) FOR THE LOWER
WEST COAST WATER SUPPLY PLAN (L WCWSP) IN
RELATION TO THE ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY (AWS)
FUNDING, AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $99,850 FOR PROJECT
NUMBER 75009 - TO SAVE THE RATE PAYERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY
Item #16Dl - Moved to Item #10L
Item #16D2
A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,230 AND APPROVAL OF
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, FOR THE CONTINUATION OF
THE FLORIDA YARDS & NEIGHBORHOODS PROGRAM
THROUGH COLLIER COUNTY UNIVERSITY EXTENSION -
TO PROMOTE CONSERVATION MEASURER THROUGH THE
PROGRAM
Item #16D3
PUBLIC SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN THE ANNUAL
APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FROM THE UNITED WAY
Page 263
March 28, 2006
THRU THE 4H FOUNDATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,000-
TO SUPPORT A HALF-TIME 4H CUSTOMER SERVICE
POSITION IN THE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
Item #16D4
BID #06-3936 FOR FOOD FOR THE SUMMER MEAL
PROGRAM FOR PARKS AND RECREATION TO CHENEY
BROTHERS, INC. AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $150,000 - TO
PROVIDE FREE NUTRITIOUS MEALS DURING THE SUMMER
TO COLLIER COUNTY CHILDREN LIVING IN
DISADVANTAGED NEIGHBORHOODS
Item #16D5
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING $35,000 FROM
RESERVES TO FUND THE INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SITE
ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIAL ACTION IN RESPONSE TO
THE FUEL SPILL AT CAXAMBAS PARK - TO COMPLY WITH
STATE (DEP) REGULATIONS
Item #16D6
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING $200,000 FROM
RESERVES TO FUND THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW FUEL
SYSTEM AT CAXAMBAS PARK - TO SELL FUEL TO THE
PATRONSOFCAXAMBUSPARK
Item #16El - Moved to Item #100
Item #16E2
Page 264
March 28,2006
BID NO. 06-3890 FOR THE PURCHASE OF IRRIGATION
PARTS TO BOYNTON PUMP AND IRRIGATION SUPPLY, INC.
AND FLORIDA IRRIGATION SUPPLY - FOR THE PURCHASE
OF IRRIGATIONS PARTS
Item # 16E3
A PLAN TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
FOR NEW COUNTY HIRES AND/OR INTERNS - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E4
THE RELEASE OF WORK ORDER #PBS-02-52, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $178,450.00, ISSUED TO WALL SYSTEMS INC.
OF SOUTH WEST FLORIDA, DOING BUSINESS AS
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS (PBS). THIS WORK
ORDER IS FOR REMODELING THE RISK MANAGEMENT
CLINIC AND OFFICE AREAS IN BUILDING "D" AND IS
ISSUED UNDER ANNUAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR
CONTRACT RFP # 02-3349 - TO PROVIDE "ONSITE PRIMARY
CARE HEALTH SERVICES" FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES
Item #16E5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND 516, PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,530,280
TO PAY THE COST OF PROPERTY INSURANCE CLAIMS
RELATED TO HURRICANE WILMA AND TO RECOGNIZE
CORRESPONDING REINSURANCE AND FEMA RECOVERIES
IN THE AMOUNT OF $12~492~780
Page 265
March 28, 2006
Item #16Fl
BID #06-3951 HORTICULTURE DEBRIS HAULING AND
DISPOSAL TO WHERRY TRUCK LINES, INC., FOR PELICAN
BAY DEBRIS CLEANUP - FISCAL IMPACT IS $40~000
Item # 16F2
A MODIFICATION TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2006 EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS & ASSISTANCE GRANT
ACCEPTING $42,018 AND APPROVE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE THE
REVENUE - FOR LOCAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS
Item #16F3 - Moved to Item #10M
Item #16F4 - Moved to Item #10N
Item #16F5
BID #06-3948 OAKMONT RETAINING WALL IN PELICAN
BAY TO INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTING, LLC. AND TO
APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$134,800.00, PROJECT 51104 AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE STANDARD CONTRACT AFTER
REVIEW BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY - LOCATED ALONG
THE OAKMONT LAKE BANK WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY
WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Item #16F6
Page 266
March 28, 2006
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $171,000 TO BE
USED TOWARD THE PURCHASE OF ONE REPLACEMENT
AMBULANCE FOR THE EMS DEPARTMENT
Item #16F7
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - #06-163~ #06-174~ #06-175
Item #16Gl
SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND GRANT APPLICANTS WITHIN THE
BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA - FOR AN IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT WITH OZL YN GARDEN VILLAS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION~ INC.
Item #16Hl
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
COLETTA TO ATTEND AND SPEAK AT THE 3RD ANNUAL
FLORIDA TRADEPORT BRIEFING AND BARBECUE
SPONSORED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
OF COLLIER COUNTY ON MARCH 31, 2006, $40.00 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER'S TRAVEL BUDGET-
LOCATED IN IMMOKALEE~ FLORIDA
Item #16H2
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
COLETTA TO ATTEND THE LEADERSHIP COLLIER CLASS
Page 267
March 28, 2006
OF 2006 GRADUATION CEREMONIES ON MAY 10, 2006 AND
IS REQUESTING PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $50.00, TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER'S TRAVEL BUDGET - TO
BE HELD AT THE NAPLES BEACH HOTEL AND GOLF CLUB,
851 GULF SHORE BLVD. NORTH
Item #16H3
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
FIALA TO ATTEND THE MARCO ISLAND CIVIL AIR
PATROL CELEBRATION ON APRIL 10TH, 2006 AT THE
MARCO ISLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH; $15.00 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H4
PAYMENT FOR COMMISSIONER HALAS TO ATTEND THE
NAPLES ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S ANNUAL ADVOCACY
DINNER ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006; $35 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT
THE COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES, 185 BURNING TREE
DRIVE
Item #1611
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 268
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
March 28, 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 25, 2006 through March 3, 2006.
B. Districts:
(1) Verona Walk Community Development District: Proposed
2006/2007 Fiscal Year Budget.
C. Minutes:
(1 ) Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of February 13, 2006; Agenda of March 13, 2006
(2) Domestic Animal Services Advisorv Committee: Minutes of
February 21, 2006.
(3) Lelv Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of March 16, 2006; Minutes of February 16, 2006.
(4) Historic & Archeological Preservation Board: Agenda of March
15, 2006; Minutes of February 15, 2006.
(5) Hispanic Affairs Advisorv Board: Minutes of January 26, 2006.
(6) Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes of February
14,2006; Agenda of March 14,2006.
(7) Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisorv Committee: Minutes
of January 17, 2006; Agenda of February 21, 2006; Agenda of
March 21,2006; Minutes of February 21,2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\FORM BLANK MISC
CRSP.doc
(8) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Minutes
of March 6, 2006.
(9) Contractors' Licensing Board: Agenda of March 15, 2006.
(10) Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda of March 16,
2006; Minutes of December 20, 2005; Minutes of January 5,
2006; Minutes of Special Session (AUIR) of January 5,2006;
Minutes of Special Session (AUIR) January 13, 2006; Minutes
of January 19,2006
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\FORM BLANK MISC
CRSP.doc
March 28, 2006
Item #16Jl - Continued Indefinitely
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZE THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO
FILE THE STATE OF FLORIDA ANNUAL LOCAL
GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
2004-2005 AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 218.32. A
COpy OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ANNUAL LOCAL
GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
2004-2005 IS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CLERK OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT'S FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING
OFFICE
Item #16J2
THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS COLLECTED UNDER
ORDINANCE 04-42 TO THE CLERK OF COURTS TO FUND
THE SECOND YEAR OF THE COLLIER COUNTY JUVENILE
ASSESSMENT CENTER AGREEMENT WITH THE DAVID
LAWRENCE CENTER - FOR THE AMOUNT OF $61 ~ 700
Item #16Kl
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCELS 166A AND
166B IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JUAN
RAMIREZ, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-5166-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD
PROJECT NO. 60018). (FISCAL IMPACT $94.153.50)
Item #16K2
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NO. 126 IN
Page 269
March 28, 2006
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. NORTH NAPLES
FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-
1702-CA, GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD PROJECT #60134
(FISCAL IMPACT $210~980.43)
Item #16K3
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO MAKE A BUSINESS
DAMAGE OFFER TO SETTLE A CLAIM FOR BUSINESS
DAMAGES BY GOLDEN GATE NURSERY, INC. RESULTING
FROM THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 140 IN THE CASE
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ROSA A. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 05-1033-CA, COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951)
PROJECT #65061 (FISCAL IMPACT~ IF ACCEPTED IS $162~500)
Item #16K4
RELEASE AND SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR 2642 44TH
TERRACE SW, NAPLES, FOR ANY CLAIM OF LIEN ARISING
OUT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. 2006-04 -
ISSUED AGAINST THE CURRENT OWNERS, RUSSELL AND
KA YDEE L. TUFF
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2006-73: PETITION AVESMT2005-AR8891 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF TRACT R AND A
PORTION OF A 10 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ACCORDING
TO THE PLAT OF "CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK- UNIT
TWO"
Page 270
March 28, 2006
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2006-12: AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-75, AS AMENDED, THE PUBLIC
VEHICLE FOR HIRE ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING
SUBSECTION 142-52(6) TO "GRANDFATHER" TWO (2)
VEHICLE FOR HIRE BUSINESSES CURRENTLY
CERTIFICATED BY THE PUBLIC VEHICLE FOR HIRE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT HAD "TAXI," "CAB" OR
"TAXICAB" IN ITS TRADE NAME AS OF DECEMBER 11,2002
BUT DO NOT PROVIDE MILEAGE METERED SERVICE; ALSO
AMENDING SUBSECTION 142-54 (A)(10) TO DELETE THE
NOW OUTDATED REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE A
NOTARIZED COPY OF PROOF OF ADVERTISING FOR A
FICTITIOUS NAME
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2006-13: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-37
IN ORDER TO CORRECT AN ERROR IN THE METES AND
BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE WENTWORTH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Item #17D - Moved from Item #7A
RESOLUTION 2006-74: PETITION SE-2006-AR-9097,
SCRIVENERS ERROR PETITION TO CORRECT THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTION THAT REPLACES AND SUPERSEDES
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-432, WHICH GRANTED AN AFTER-
THE-FACT VARIANCE FOR A 5.3-FOOT ENCROACHMENT
INTO THE REQUIRED TEN (10) FOOT REAR YARD
(ACCESSORY) SETBACK, ON A WATERFRONT LOT AT 175
Page 271
March 28, 2006
BA YVIEW AVENUE
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:37 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~~~/
FRANK HALAS, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHTE. BROCK, CLERK
, .l-j
~; .~~~.o.(.
..,.' I I
.t.... .1!'..
These minutes /ved by the Board on-.Bp('"d 26,(.01>(0
presented or as corrected
, as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 272