BCC Minutes 05/09/2006 R
May 9, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, May 9, 2006
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Frank Halas
Jim Coletta
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Derek J ohnssen, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
tI~...
,
"
q,.,.,,,,.,.,... <"
--=
AGENDA
May 9, 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. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
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,
May 9, 2006
Page 1
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
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
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. April 12, 2006 - BCC/Collier County School Board J oint Workshop
C. April 13, 2006 - BCC/Immokalee Initiative Workshop
D. April 17, 2006 - BCC/Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Special Meeting
E. April 18, 2006 - BCC/EAR Special Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards
Five Y ear Award
May 9, 2006
Page 2
1) N. Rex Ashley, CPA for services on the Health Facilities Authority
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing the Marco Island Historical Society and The
Founding Ladies of that Society for their accomplishments and continuing
efforts in the preservation of the history of the Marco Island Area. To be
accepted by: Cindy Anderson, Marco Island Historical Society President,
Joyce Martindell and Jackie Roseboom, daughter and granddaughter of the
late Carol Campbell, Founder and President, who are co-chairing the
Founders Tea, and Mary Lou Jankowski, daughter of the late Jane Hittler,
Founder and Community Leader of Marco. Jane Hittler gave the first $1000
to start the museum drive.
B. Proclamation recognizing May, 2006 as Mental Health Awareness Month to
be accepted by Petra Jones, Exec. Dir., The Mental Health Assoc. of Collier
County, Don Williams, Program Director and Roger Munz, President.
C. Proclamation designating May 15-19, 2006 as National Salvation Army
Week. To be accepted by Captain Alejandro Castillo, Major Timothy
Roberts and Dr. Don Thomsen.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Isles of Capri fire Control and Rescue
District for the improved Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating within the
District.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Tony Ferro to discuss Old 41 T Recycling Facility-
temporary conditional use permit request.
B. Public Petition request by Charles Lam to discuss median openings allowing
access to 70th Street SW.
C. Public Petition request by Mr. Jim Rice to discuss waiving address
ordinance to rename neighborhood park "Oakes Neighborhood Park" .
May 9, 2006
Page 3
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
Resolution to apply the annual indexing adjustment, which equals a 4%
increase per land use category, to the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee rates
thereby amending the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee rate schedule,
which is Schedule Four of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Code of Laws and Ordinances the same being the Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, as amended, and provide for a delayed
effective date of June 12, 2006.
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance amending Schedule Six of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance), to reflect the amended rates set forth
in the impact fee study; providing for the incorporation by reference of the
impact fee study entitled Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study,
establishing the methodology for the annual indexing adjustment to the
Educational Facilities Impact Fee Rates, and providing for a delayed
effective date of June 30, 2006.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Affordable Housing Commission.
C. Appointment of member to the Utility Authority.
D. Appointment of members to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
E. Discussion regarding waiving the $10 per hour fees for the Immokalee
Community Park meeting rooms for both the Immokalee Coordinating
Council and the Immokalee Civic Association as a valid public purpose
(Commissioner Coletta).
May 9, 2006
Page 4
Council and the Immokalee Civic Association as a valid public purpose
(Commissioner Coletta).
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to formally adopt
a Strategic Plan. (Winona Stone, Assistant to the County Manager)
B. Recommendation to award Bid Number 06-3957 for underground utility
supplies to Mainline Supply Co Ferguson Enterprises, Inc, Corce1 Co, A&L
Plumbing & Septic Supplies, Inc and Hughes Supply Co in the anticipated
amount of $2,500,000. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
C. Receive and approve the Progress Report for the Year 2005, Collier County
Floodplain Management Plan, Section 7 of the Collier County Hazard
Mitigation Plan (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development and Environmental Services)
D. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider the
alternatives for conducting hearings on, and making final decisions for,
variances and specified administrative review matters, and holding hearings
and making recommendations on conditional uses. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development and Environmental Services)
E. Recommendation to conduct the Conservation Collier Annual Public
Meeting to provide an update on the programs past activities, for soliciting
proposals and applications, and to approve the 4th Cycle Target Protection
Areas (TP A) mailing strategy (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development and Environmental Services)
F. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the fee simple and
easement acquisition of property by condemnation for the purpose of
constructing stormwater improvements to alleviate flooding in the East
Naples area known as Phase One of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement
Project (LASIP). Fiscal Impact $1,838,000 (Project 511012) (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
G. Recommendation to approve selection of Consul- Tech Construction
Management, Inc. a Qualified Firm, and award a Contract under ITN 06-
3583 CEI Services for Collier County Road Projects, for Project No. 62081
May 9, 2006
Page 5
Santa Barbara Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to Copper Leaf Lane in the
amount of $2,405,006. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
Services)
H. Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of
$1,975,530.87 to Energy Resources, Inc. and allocate $197,553.09 (10% of
the construction cost) for contingency purposes to dredge Haldeman Creek,
Project Number 510111, Bid No. 06-3960 and approve the necessary Budget
Amendment and approve a change order to Contract Number 01-3216
Haldeman Creek Restoration Project to Woods Hole Group, Inc. in the
amount of $264,074.00. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
Services)
I. This item to be heard immediately followinl! Item 14A. Recommendation
for the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and the
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to authorize the County
Manager or his designee to coordinate with all appropriate entities to secure
and structure a loan in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000 from a
commercial lender selected via RFP (Bank RFP) in order to purchase certain
real property within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment Agency; direct the County Manager or his designee to
execute a commitment letter with the selected lender and to negotiate and
prepare for subsequent approval all required enabling documents to pledge
CRA funds as the loan repayment source; authorize the execution of the real
estate contract, authorize a Phase I survey, and authorize all necessary
budget amendments. (David Jackson, Executive Director,
Bayshore/Gateway CRA) (Companion to Item 14A)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. This item to be heard at 2:00 p.m. Recommendation for the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and the Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) to authorize the County Manager or his designee to
May 9, 2006
Page 6
coordinate with all appropriate entities to secure and structure a loan in an
amount not to exceed $7,000,000 from a commercial lender selected via
RFP (Bank RFP) in order to purchase certain real property within the
Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency; direct the
County Manager or his designee to execute a commitment letter with the
selected lender and to negotiate and prepare for subsequent approval all
required enabling documents to pledge CRA funds as the loan repayment
source; authorize the execution of the real estate contract, authorize a Phase I
survey, and authorize all necessary budget amendments. (Companion to Item
101)
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve an Interlocal Agreement identifying
responsibilities in a management partnership between Collier County
and the City of Marco Island for the Otter Mound Preserve.
2) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Valencia
Golf and Country Club Phase 2A, approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
3) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfaction of Code
Enforcement Liens for payments received.
4) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Cabreo at
Mediterra, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
May 9, 2006
Page 7
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Quail Creek County Club Golf Course Maintenance
Facility.
6) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Delasol Phase One. The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Veronawalk Model Center.
8) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Reflection
Lakes at Naples Phase 2E, approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
9) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Veronawalk Phase 1 A.
The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained.
10) Recommendation to approve three budget amendments to create and
recognize a new Fund 111 cost center for the current budget year
named Operations Support and Housing (OSH) Grants.
11) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of
Veronawalk Phase 4A, approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
12) Approve an Amendment No.2 of the FEMA Floodplain Mapping
Study Interlocal Agreement with the City of Naples to provide
funding for additional services requested by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development and Environmental Services Division)
13) Recommendation to approve an Access Request and Release form
allowing Roy DeLotelle of DeLotelle and Guthrie, Inc. to access
Conservation Collier lands, to approve the donation of in-kind
consulting services for conducting red-cockaded woodpecker studies
May 9, 2006
Page 8
and to authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Access Request
and Release form.
14) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the application by Advanced Medical Center, LLC for the Advanced
Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program and the Fee Payment
Assistance Program and approve a reimbursement of$126,742.68 of
Transportation Impact Fees paid related to the Site Development Plan
(SDP) for the specified project, in accordance with the provisions of
Section 10.02.07 of the Land Development Code (LDC), which will
instead be paid with budgeted Fee Payment Assistance Program funds
upon the execution of a binding Fee Payment Assistance Program
Agreement.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommends Board's approval of Adopt-A-Road Agreements (5) for
the following: Christopher Realty, Laura Faustino Century 21,
Stoney's Citrus Farms, Anchor Health Centers and Valle Professional
Services
2) Recommendation to approve a declaration setting aside county-owned
lands for road right-of-way, drainage and utility facilities. (Fiscal
impact: $18.50)
3) Recommendation to award Bid #06-3967 Davis Boulevard (SR 84)
Phase I (US 41 East to Airport Pulling) landscape installation to Vila
and Son Landscaping Corporation with a base amount of$136,684.10
and 10% contingency of$13,668.41 for a total of$150,352.51.
4) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment for a Work Order
to PH&A, Inc. to provide Professional Services for the West Eustis
Ave. Stormwater Improvements in lmmokalee in the amount of
$80,000.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve Change Order 3 to Contract 05-3766R
with Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. for the construction of a Pigging
Station for Immokalee Road 30-inch Force Main in the amount of
May 9, 2006
Page 9
$12,142.71. Project 73943.
2) Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment in the amount of
$60,000 for the construction and systems programming relating to the
South Collier Water Reclamation Facility SCADA Reliability
Improvements, Project 72514.
3) Recommendation to award Bid Number 06-3921 for the purchase of
anhydrous ammonia for use by the Water Department in the estimated
annual amount of $100,000 to Tanner Industries, Incorporated.
4) Recommendation to approve the sole source purchase of cartridge
filters from the George S. Edwards Company in the estimated amount
of $900,000.
5) Recommendation to award Work Order BE-FT-3785-06-04 with
Boyle Engineering Corporation, for professional services for the
Henderson Creek Potable Water System Rehabilitation in the amount
of$180,280 - Project Number 71010.
6) Recommendation to approve a contract amendment with the South
Florida Water Management District to participate in the surface water
monitoring for the Picayune Strand Hydrologic Restoration in the
amount of $40,000.
7) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the external auditing
contract, 03-3497 Auditing Services for Collier County between
KPMG, LLP and Collier County, in an amount not to exceed $87,453
for the purpose of performing an Internal Control Review and Risk
Assessment of the Public Utilities Divisions core processes for billing,
receipting, recording and safeguarding revenue generated from the
utility enterprise activities conducted within the Division.
8) Recommendation to execute a potable water bulk services agreement
between the Collier County Water-Sewer District and the City of
Marco Island in order to provide long term potable water services to
the Hammock Bay water service area.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
May 9, 2006
Page 10
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the use of$71,943 from the Human Services Department to be used as
a part of a local match requirement to obtain State and Federal
funding to continue operation of the Horizons Primary Care Clinic in
the Golden Gate area.
2) Agreement Between Collier County and the Collier County Sheriffs
Office to Designate Collier County Domestic Animal Services in
Charge of Managing the Sale and Disposition of Impounded Animals
and Animals Found in Distress Pursuant to Chapter 588 and Chapter
828, Florida Statutes, and 14, Article II, Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Collier County, Florida Statutes.
3) Recommendation to approve the creation of a Program Leader Sports
Coordinator position to be split funded by the Tourism and Parks and
Recreation Departments.
4) This item continued from the April 25. 2006 BCC Meetin2:.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve a
Memorandum of Understanding with the School District of Collier
County to Provide for Employee Screening in Compliance with the
Jessica Lundsford Act.
5) Recommendation to approve purchase of furnishings for the Senior
Center addition to East Naples Community Center in the amount of
$48,516.33 from Office Furniture and Design Concepts.
6) Recommendation to approve a Letter of Understanding and Fee
Schedule with Muller-Thompson and Naples Funeral Homes for
indigent burial services.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
2) Recommendation to approve Amendment No.6, for the Design of
Annex fourth floor, update Complex Master Plan, specify furniture &
furnishings for Annex and provide a sprinkler design for the parking
garage to Contract # 00-3173 with Spillis Candela DMJM in the
May 9, 2006
Page 11
amount of $280,560.00.
3) Recommendation to approve Amendment No. 01 to the Agreement
with Collier County District School Board for the Driver Education
Grant Program.
4) Recommendation to approve change order number one (1) to work
order number SCD-FT-05-01, under Contract 05-3850, Architectural
Engineering Services for the Collier County Government Center, for
the design and construction services for the chiller plant expansion
with Spillis Candela DMJM in the amount of$339,920.00, and to
approve Amendment #1 to Contract 05-3850, which will increase the
annual total initial compensation for Work Orders issued to Spillis
Candella, from $500,000 to $2,000,000.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Award RFP 06-3902, Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services
for Coastal Zone Management Projects to Humiston & Moore
Engineers and Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. in an estimated
annual amount of $1 ,000,000.
2) Recommendation to recognize the increase in Consultant Fees for the
Medical Director of Emergency Medical Services in the amount of
$25,000 due to added scope of responsibilities as well as the annual
five percent (5%) increases as described in the Emergency Medical
Services Medical Consultant Contract, which were approved by the
Board through the annual budget process.
3) Recommendation to approve the renewal of a one-year contract with
HealthStream, Inc. to provide Distance Learning Software for Collier
County Emergency Medical Services at a cost of $28,080 and to
approve a Budget Amendment to transfer funds in Fund 490,
budgeted as a capital expense, to an operating account.
4) Recommendation to approve the hiring of twenty-eight (28) new
paramedics in the Emergency Medical Services Department and to
approve a Budget Amendment to fund those hires at a cost of
$469,756.
May 9, 2006
Page 12
5) Recommendation to award Bid # 06-3974 for the purchase of
emergency medications to Alliance Medical, Boundtree Medical, Sun
Belt Medical and Tri-Anim Health Services for the Emergency
Medical Services Department for an estimated cost for FY 06 of
$60,700.
6) Approve budget amendments.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
budget amendment in the amount of $128,300 for personal services,
operating expenses and capital outlay to provide startup funds for the
North Collier Government Services Center.
8) Recommendation to adopt a joint resolution with Charlotte, Collier,
Hendry and Lee Counties in support of a Sister Region partnership
with the City ofYantai, Shandong Province, China to promote
economic development, friendship and cooperation.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attending the
Forida Association of Counties 77th Annual Conference and
Educational Exposition in Marco Island, Florida. $407.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Halas' travel budget for hotel accommodations
for 3 nights.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the Lt. General Garner Luncheon on March
30,2006 and is requesting reimbursement in the amount of$25.00, to
be paid from his travel budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce 3rd Annual
Distinguished Public Service Awards serving a valid pubic purpose.
Attended The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce 3rd Annual
May 9, 2006
Page 13
Distinguished Public Service Award on Wednesday, April 19th, 2006
at the Hilton Hotel in Naples, Florida; $20.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for payment for
attending an upcoming function serving a valid public purpose.
Scheduled to attend The 2006 Tourism Week Celebration Sand Dollar
Awards Luncheon at Naples Grand Resort & Club, Naples, Florida on
May 19th, 2006 at l2:00p.m.; $25.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence to file for record with action as
directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to Approve an Agreed Order for Expert Fees and
Costs Relating to the Acquisition of Parcels 106 and 806 in Collier
County v. Tree Plateau Co., Inc., et aI., Case No. 03-0519-CA,
Immokalee Road Project #60018. (Fiscal Impact: $12,487.50).
2) Recommendation to Approve an Agreed Order for Attorneys Fees
Relating to the Acquisition of Parcel 150 in Collier County v. April
Circle, Ltd., et aI., Case No. 04-3679-CA, Immokalee Road Project
#66042. (Fiscal Impact: $3,510.00)
3) Recommendation to approve the Offer of Judgment in the amount of
$17,700.00 as to Parcel 144 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Thomas A. Torrella, et aI., Case No. 04-393-CA (Vanderbilt Beach
Road Project No. 63051). (Fiscal Impact $3,900.00)
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Authorize
the County Attorneys Office to Make a Business Damage Counter-
offer to Settle a Claim for Business Damages by J.S. Roath Corp.
Resulting from the Acquisition of Parcels 860 and 960 in the Case
Styled Board of County Commissioners v. J.S. Roath Corp., et aI.,
May 9, 2006
Page 14
Case No. 05-1093-CA (SCRWTP RO Wellfield Expansion Project
No. 70892) (Fiscal Impact, if accepted, is $16,500.00)
5) Recommendation to approve settlement prior to completion of
discovery in the lawsuit entitled Salkiewicz v. Howe, et aI., filed in
the Twentieth Judicial Circuit In and for Collier County, Florida, Case
No. 05-1606-CA, for $2,000.00.
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
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. Recommendation to approve Petition A VESMT -2005-AR-7656 to disclaim,
renounce and vacate the Countys and the Publics interest in a 10 foot utility
easement located in the Meadows at Quail Creek Village, Section 20,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East and recorded in O.R. Book 1457 Page
1492, Public Records of Collier County, Florida and accept a 10 foot wide
utility easement over the existing force main.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Petition: PUDA-2005-
AR-8745 Curtis Gunther of II Regalo, LLC, requesting a PUD Amendment
for Carlisle Regency PUD. The PUD Amendment proposes to allow for a
two-story single-family or two-family home as a replacement for the current
one-story single-family or two-family home. The amendment is also
requesting to revise the ownership of the PUD. The subject property consists
of 11.7 acres and is located ~n the south side of Orange Blossom Drive,
immediately east of Yarberry Lane, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range
25 East, Collier County, Florida.
May 9, 2006
Page 15
C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Petition: CU-2005-AR-
8081 (CV) La Playa Golf Club LLC, represented by Fred Reischl, AICP, of
Agnoli, Barber & Brundage Inc. and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel
& Andress, is requesting a conditional use allowed per LDC Section 2.04.03
of the RSF-3 (Residential Single Family) zoning district for a Golf Course
Maintenance Facility. This proposed conditional use will permit a
reconfiguration of the site and construction of a new maintenance structure.
The subject property, consisting of2.5 acres, is located at 220 Cypress Way
East, in Section 24, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
May 9, 2006
Page 16
May 9, 2006
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
It's a pleasure to have the Board of County Commissioners for Collier
County in session this morning.
Would you all rise for the invocation followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.
This morning's invocation will be given by the County Manager,
Jim Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Let us pray.
Oh, Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings on these proceedings
and all who are gathered here. We ask a special blessing on this
Board of County Commissioners, guide them in their deliberations,
grant them the wisdom and vision to meet the trials of this day and the
days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight.
Your will be done, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll get started this morning.
County Manager, do you have any additions or corrections in
regards to today's agenda?
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' Meeting, May 9, 2006.
First item is add -- is an add-on item, and that's 14B. That's a
Page 2
~ ~~~~. .~ ~_.,. ~-'~'~~'-'--
May 9, 2006
recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency, eRA,
approve the expenditure of up to $65,088.50 of the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle Trust Fund for the FY -'06 Fund 186 budget, and to waive the
competitive process to permit and pave lime rock residential streets
within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle boundary, and that item is at
staffs request. And all commissioners have been provided that
executive summary, which came in on Friday.
Next item is to move item 16A13 to 10J. That's a
recommendation to approve an access request and release form
allowing Roy DeLotelle of DeLotelle and Guthrie, Inc., to access
Conservation Collier lands, to approve the donation of in-kind
consulting services for conducting Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
studies, and to authorize the chairman to sign the attached access
request and release form, and that item was asked to be moved by
Commissioner Henning.
Next item is item 16D2. The following line is to be added to the
fiscal impact section of the executive summary: Cost to the county
should not increase over past practices, and that was at Commissioner
Henning's request.
The next item is to move item 16E4 to 10K, and that's a
recommendation to approve change order number one to work order
number SCD-FT-05-01 under contract 05-3850, Architectural
Engineering Services for the Collier County Government Center for
the design and construction services for chiller plant expansion with
Spillis Candela DMJM in the amount of $339,920, and to approve
amendment number one to contract 05-3850, which will increase the
annual total initial compensation for work orders issued to Spillis
Candela from $500,000 to $2 million, and that item was moved at
Commissioner Henning's request.
The next item is item 16E 1. Following is a clarification of
number 10 under the administrative change order report. This change
order alters the contract reimbursement methodology to a total annual
Page 3
r ....-
May 9, 2006
budget. Identifiable -- identifiable, eligible costs specified in the cost
proposal as attachment three of the agreement dated nine -- the 27th of
September, 2005, will continue to be provided, and that change
clarification was at staffs request.
We have several items of note. Item 1 OF. It is noted that Exhibit
D, the condemnation resolution for LASIP phase one memorandum
contains several grammatical scrivener errors, and that note was at
staff's request.
And I have a cleaned-up copy of Exhibit D, and I will give that to
the court reporter right after I get done with all the changes.
The next item is item 8B. The date on the front page of the final
report should be April 26, 2006, rather than April 26, 2005, and that
clarification is at staff's request.
And then you have a time certain item today, and that's item 14A
to be heard at two p.m., and that's a recommendation for the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners, BCC, and the Community
Development Agency, CRA, to authorize the County Manager or his
designee to coordinate with all appropriate entities to secure and
structure a loan in an amount not to exceed $7 million from a
commercial lender selected via RFP, which is a bank RFP, in order to
purchase certain real property within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Community Redevelopment Agency; and direct the County Manager
or his designees to execute a commitment letter with a selected lender,
and to negotiate and prepare subsequent approval all required enabling
documents to pledge CRA funds as the loan repayment source;
authorize the execution of the real estate contract; authorize a phase
one survey, and authorize all necessary budget amendments.
Oh, by the way, 14 -- and 14A is connected with 101. It's a
duplicate item. 14A, the board will act as the CRA; 101, the board
will act as BCC. And of note, 14B follows 14A because we have all
the CRA items together right around two o'clock.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Page 4
T .--
May 9, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
County Attorney, do you have any additions or corrections
today?
MR. WEIGEL: No additions at this time. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At this time I'll ask for the
commissioners to weigh in as far as ex parte on the summary agenda
and if they have any concerns on the consent agenda. Starting off
with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no ex parte
communication on today's summary agenda, and I have no further
changes to today's consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have nothing to change, nothing to
add, and I do have something to declare. On 17CI I had meetings and
phone calls regarding LaPlaya.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
I, myself, have just one item for ex parte, and that is on 17C I had
a meeting with the attorney on that case.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have no changes to the
agenda, and I do want to declare on the summary agenda, item 17C. I
had meetings and received emails, and they're available in my folder
for anyone that wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta -- or Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no further changes to the
consent agenda. And with respect to the summary agenda, I have an
ex parte item for 17C. I have received correspondence concerning this
particular petition, and the correspondence is included in my
correspondence file.
Page 5
May 9, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time I'd like to entertain a
motion for approval of today's regular consent and summary agenda as
amended.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
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?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 6
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Mav 9. 2006
Add On Item 14B: Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve
the expenditure of up to $65,088.50 of Bayshore Gateway Triangle Trust Funds from FY-06 Fund
187 budget, and to waive the competitive process to permit and pave lime rock residential streets
within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle boundary. (Staff's request.)
Move Item 16A13 to 10J: Recommendation to approve an Access Request and Release form
allowing Roy DeLotelle of DeLotelle and Guthrie, Inc. to access Conservation Collier lands, to
approve the donation of in-kind consulting services for conducting red-cockaded woodpecker
studies and to authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Access Request and Release form.
(Commissioner Henning's request.)
Item 1602: The following line is to be added to the Fiscal Impact section of the Executive
Summary: "Cost to the County should not increase over past practices." (Commissioner
Henning's request.)
Move Item 16E4 to 10K: Recommendation to approve change order number one (1) to work order
number SCD-FT-05-01, under Contract 05-3850, Architectural Engineering Services for the Collier
County Government Center, for the design and construction services for the chiller plant
expansion with Spillis Candela DMJM in the amount of $339,920.00 and to approve Amendment
#1 to Contract 05-3850, which will increase the annual total initial compensation for Work Orders
issued to Spillis Candela, from $500,000 to $2,000,000. (Commissioner Henning's request.)
Item 16E1: Following is clarification of #10 under the "Administrative Change Order Report":
This change order alters the contract reimbursement methodology to a total annual budget.
Identifiable, eligible costs as specified in the cost proposal as attachment 3 of the agreement
dated 9/27/05 will continue to be provided. (Staff's request.)
NOTE:
Item 10F: It is noted that Exhibit "0" the Condemnation Resolution for LASIP Phase 1
memorandum contains several grammatical scrivener errors. (Staff's request.)
Item 8B: The date on the front page of the Final Report should be April 26, 2006 (rather than April
26, 2005. (Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 14A to be heard at 2:00 p.m. Recommendation for the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to authorize the County
Manager or his designee to coordinate with all appropriate entities to secure and structure a loan
in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000 from a commercial lender selected via RFP (Bank RFP) in
order to purchase certain real property within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment Agency; direct the County Manager or his designee to execute a commitment
letter with the selected lender and to negotiate and prepare subsequent approval all required
enabling documents to pledge CRA funds as the loan repayment source; authorize the execution
of the real estate contract, authorize a Phase I survey, and authorize all necessary budget
amendments.
May 9, 2006
Item #2B, #2C, #2D and #2E
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 2006 BCC/COLLIER COUNTY
SCHOOL BOARD JOINT WORKSHOP; THE APRIL 13, 2006
BCC/IMMOKALEE INITIATIVE WORKSHOP; THE APRIL 17,
2006 BCC/V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION SPECIAL
MEETING AND THE APRIL 18, 2006 BCC/EAR SPECIAL
MEETING - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
I'd like to have a motion for approval of the April 12, 2006,
BCC/Collier County School Board Joint workshop; April 13, 2006,
BCC/Immokalee Initiative Workshop; and April 17, 2006,
BCC/Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Special Meeting; and April
18, 2006, BCC/EAR Special Meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion to approve the
following -- what we repeated here, and I have 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: Motion carries unanimously.
I believe now we're in the service awards, County Manager.
Item #3A
PRESENTATION OF THE FIVE-YEAR ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Page 7
- -----r--.- -.-.
May 9, 2006
SERVICE AWARD TO N. REX ASHLEY - NOT PRESENT TO
ACCEPT AWARD
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And I would -- I would suggest that you
do it right from there because we only have one; is that okay?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
MR. MUDD: Sir, this is paragraph 3A, Advisory Committee
Service Awards, and we have one five-year award, and that's for Mr.
N. Rex Ashley, CPA for services on the Health Facilities Authority.
Mr. Ashley, could you come forward, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's not here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think he's here.
MR. MUDD: He's not here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Not here.
MR. MUDD: Then we'll get that award to him in the mail.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE MARCO ISLAND
HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND THE FOUNDING LADIES OF THE
SOCIETY FOR THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND
CONTINUING EFFORTS IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE
HISTORY OF THE MARCO ISLAND AREA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: We have a series of proclamations today under
paragraph four. And I'll start with the first one, it's 4A. This is a
proclamation recognizing the Marco Island Historical Society and the
founding ladies of that society for their accomplishments and
continuing efforts in the preservation of the history of the Marco
Island area.
To be accepted by Betsy Perdichizzi. I hope I -- Perdichizzi --
Page 8
May 9, 2006
thanks Leo -- founding member and past president; Joyce Martindell
and Jacquelyn Roseboom, daughter and granddaughter of the late
Carol Campbell, founder and president, who are co-chairing the
Founders Tea; and Mary Lou Jankowski, daughter of the late Jane
Hitler -- yeah, Hitler, founder and community leader of Marco. Jane
Hitler gave the first $1,000 to start the museum drive.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about you guys coming up, if
you would?
I'm truly honored to be able to read this proclamation, I think
because I'm a relic up here, you know. I fit right into the history
society.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Should we put you in the museum?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm going there next week. If you
would -- and you can face the audience.
Proclamation: Whereas, the Marco Island Historical Society
would like to honor the vision of 33 women who met in May of 1994
to establish a historical society for the collection, preservation, and
documentation of the Marco and Collier County unique historical and
archaeological artifacts and information; and,
Whereas, the vision of these women has led to contributions to
the county and Southwest Florida of a magnitude worthy of special
recognition by the county; and,
Whereas, in 1995 the Marco Island Historical Society took the
lead in co-sponsoring an archaeological dig in Old Marco adjacent to
the site at Pepper-Hearst Excavation, 8CR-48, and whose efforts were
of such magnitude that the county recognized them by proclamation;
and,
Whereas, the Marco Island Historical Society has successfully
secured the loan of the Smithsonian Institute's panther lion God,
America's national treasure, otherwise known as the Key Marco Cat,
for display at the Collier County Museum of Naples in 1995 and again
at the Citizens Community Bank of Marco Island in the year 2000;
Page 9
T
May 9, 2006
and,
Whereas, the Marco Island Historical Society was instrumental in
helping preserve two historic sites in Collier County, the Church of
God, which was the first church on Marco Island, and the Otter
Mound Park property, one of the few remaining archaeologically and
anthropologically significant sites which is owned by Collier County;
and,
Whereas, the vision of these women has progressed to the point
that Marco Island Historical Society is leading a community effort to
build a county museum and cultural center on Marco Island to
preserve the history and heritage of Collier County recognizing its
unique place in history.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the Marco Island
Historical Society and the founding ladies of that society be
recognized for the accomplishments and continuing efforts in the
preservation of our history of the Marco Island area.
Done and ordered this 9th day of May, 2006, Collier County
Commissioners, Board of -- Board of County Commissioners, Collier
County, Florida, Frank Halas, Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We've got a motion on the floor
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?
Page 10
----.-.---------...-r-----------
May 9, 2006
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for being here today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. PERDICHIZZI: Come see our museum.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it's so beautiful. Yes, I'll see you
at the tea, Betsy. They're going to want to take your picture, so would
you hold it up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Do you want to say something?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you like to say something,
Betsy?
MR. MUDD: No, right here at the microphone.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ask for money.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, ask for money. Tell them
you're on a campaign.
Thanks, Jim.
MS. PERDICHIZZI: My name is Betsy Perdichizzi, so you did
it very nicely.
We want to thank the commissioners for this wonderful
recognition. As you know, it's not very often that a private -- a
non-profit group and volunteers all can lead this drive for -- to build a
county museum, and so we're all very pleased to have this recognition
here in Naples, and we know that we have your support behind us, we
have the city support, and now we are looking for the business world
and all the other residents to help us build this museum, and we're
going to do it. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
Page 11
May 9, 2006
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING MAY, 2006 AS MENTAL
HEALTH AWARENESS MONTH - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is 4B. It's a
proclamation recognizing May, 2006 as Mental Health Awareness
Month, to be accepted by Petra Jones, Executive Director, The Mental
Health Association of Collier County, Don Williams -- and Don
Williams, Program Director, and Lillian Layton, who's a board
member. Please come forward.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, would you please come up
front.
MR. WILLIAMS: The other two are not able to be here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. You have the
proxy for them. We're glad you're here today, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's my pleasure to be able to
read this proclamation.
Whereas, mental health is essential to everyone's overall physical
health and emotion well-being; and,
Whereas, mental illness will strike one in five adults and children
in a given year regardless of age, gender, race, ethic (sic), religious
(sic) or economic status; and,
Whereas, people who have mental illness can recover and lead
full, productive lives; and,
Whereas, in an estimated two-thirds of adults and young people
who have mental health disorders are not receiving the help they need;
and,
Whereas, the cost of untreated and mistreated mental illness,
addiction disorders to American businesses, government and families
is growing to 113 billion annually; and,
Whereas, community-based services that respond to individual
and family needs are cost-effective and beneficial to consumers and
Page 12
May 9, 2006
the community; and,
Whereas, the National Mental Health Association, The Mental
Health Association of Southwest Florida, and its national partners
observe Mental Health Awareness Month every May to raise
awareness and understanding of mental health and illness.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that May, 2006 be
proclaimed as Mental Health Awareness Month, and that we call upon
the citizens, government agencies, public and private institutions,
businesses and schools in Collier County, Florida, to recommend our
community to increase awareness and understanding of mental health
and the needs for appropriate and accessible service for all people who
have mental illnesses.
Done and ordered this 9th day of May, 2006, Frank Halas,
Chairman.
And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion for
approval of this proclamation and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes unanimously.
(Applause.)
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you like to say a couple
Page 13
U-^T---------'-
May 9, 2006
words?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I'll be very brief.
Thank you, Commissioners, for recognizing Mayas both national
and local Mental Health Awareness Month.
As the proclamation states, many of us are affected by mental
health and mental health issues. Approximately one-fourth of all
people will receive a mental illness diagnosis sometime in their
lifetime. And I would suggest that all of us, as family members,
suffered in some way from mental illness. We appreciate the
opportunity to bring awareness to this.
And I would like to briefly close by inviting everyone to join us
this coming Thursday for a showing of Harold and Maude. It will be
in the Norris Center. So everybody join us at the Norris Center. It
will be free at 7:30, and we'll have a discussion of that movie
following it. It's a humorous movie that has mental illness issues
involved in it.
So enjoy Mental Health Awareness Month, and I look forward to
seeing you next May. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 15-19,2006 AS
NATIONAL SALVATION ARMY WEEK-ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation is proclamation 4C. It's a
proclamation designating May 15th through the 19th, 2006 as
National Salvation Army Week. To be accepted by Captain Alejandro
Castillo and Major Timothy Roberts and Dr. Don Thomsen.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you gentlemen step forward? It
gives me great privilege to read this proclamation. I feel very highly
proud to the fact that what -- the work that the Salvation Army does
Page 14
May 9, 2006
throughout the world.
So at this time I'd like to start by saying: Whereas, the Salvation
Army is motivated by love of God and the love for mankind; and,
Whereas, the Salvation Army serves as a symbol of compassion
and an active participant in the provisions of services to thousands of
men, women, and children in Collier County; and,
Whereas, the Salvation Army Naples Corps provides spiritual
counseling and basic human necessities to the needy and the hurting
on a daily basis; and,
Whereas, the Salvation Army has touched the lives of so many
by providing programs and services to residents for more than 20
years; and,
Whereas, the Salvation Army was a vital partner in the
emergency disaster service after Hurricanes Katrina, Dennis, Rita and
Wilma; and,
Whereas, the Salvation Army provides its service with
compassion to all people in need without discrimination.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that May 15th through the
19th, 2006, be designated as National Salvation Army Week and urge
all citizens to join us in honoring the dedicated officers, employees,
and volunteers and supporters of the Salvation Army.
Done and ordered this 9th day of May, 2006, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Chairman, Frank Halas.
And I move that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 15
T~ ~--"-
May 9, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passed unanimously. Thank you so
much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for all you do for the
community.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir; appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much for your
work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don, how long have you been with
them?
MR. THOMSEN: Twenty-three years.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would either one of you gentlemen like
to say a few words after we take a picture?
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. THOMSEN: Thank you. We strive to live up to our new
logo, doing the most good, and each of you who has contributed to the
Salvation Army can proudly proclaim, we are the Salvation Army.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
PRESENTATION RECOGNIZING THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE
CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FOR THE IMPROVED
INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE (ISO) RATING WITHIN THE
Page 16
, .--.--
May 9, 2006
DISTRICT - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the next item is
presentations, 5A. It's a recommendation to recognize the Isles of
Capri Fire Control and Rescue District for improved insurance
services office rate -- excuse me -- the improved insurance services
office rating with the district. And the presentation will be by Mr.
Dan Summers.
MR. SUMMERS: Chairman Halas -- good morning,
Commissioners, Dan Summers, Director of your Bureau of
Emergency Services.
I'm as proud this morning as a coach whose team has just won a
championship, because indeed, this is a great deal of work and a
significant accomplishment on behalf of the Isles of Capri Fire
Department.
The recent inspection by the insurance services office for the
Isles of Capri Fire Department resulted in a substantial rate reduction
and an improved classification for their fire department, ranking them
from a class nine department to a class four department. And for an
organization to make that many steps in a short period of time since
their last rating is a significant accomplishment.
This rating places significant demonstrated capabilities on the
shoulders of the fire department, and it is a very rigorous inspection
and auditing type process.
This substantial rating increase will allow homeowners to enjoy a
discounted rate on their basic fire policy for single-family homes and
some additional discounts for commercial structures.
The insurance organization has reported to us that this rating will
go into effect on or about August 1 st of this year.
This effort is, indeed, a partnership with efforts from the Bureau
of Emergency Services, purchasing, managing and budget, and
especially our public utilities division who's worked with the
Page 17
May 9, 2006
department for fire flow, hydrant placement. And special recognition
to Jim DeLony and his team as well. All of this contributes heavily to
their improved rating.
Commissioners, I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if -- we have a
plaque there in front of you to award to Isles of Capri Fire
Department, and accepting that award today is Chief Rod Rodrigueze
and Assistant Chief Alan McClaughlin. Commissioner?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Unbelievable.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's quite a feat, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fantastic.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow. I'm so proud of you guys.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: These guys are part of the flock, I
want you to know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's why they're so good,
Donna. They've got the best commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you very
much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good job.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY TONY FERRO TO DISCUSS
THE OLD 41 T RECYCLING FACILITY TEMPORARY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST - PRESENTED AND
DISCUSSED
Page 18
"". "'--r __m - <<------
May 9, 2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public petitions.
It's 6A. It's a public petition request by Tony Ferro to discuss old 14T
Recycling Facility, temporary conditional use permit request.
Mr. Ferro, if you could come forward, please. To either podium,
sir; to either podium.
State your name for the record.
MR. FERRO: Good morning. My name is Anthony Ferro,
known as Tony; make it simple.
I'm here today to ask the commissioners to consider a piece of
property that I have owned for the past almost four years on Old 41 in
the north part of Naples.
I started a recycling business in Naples in the early '90s, '92, and
I believe I was one of the first to start concrete recycling and putting --
making a product instead of it going into the landfill.
In the meantime, due to a few environmental concerns that took
an additional few years to reach this stage, we finally have received
our SDP. And upon advice from my consulting engineers not to
submit the conditional use simultaneously, it caused me another delay.
And upon reading earlier this year that the commissioners were
concerned about losing sites for the upcoming hurricane season, I
thought it would be an opportune time for me to visit. And I did visit
Mr. Gonzalez of your solid waste department, who was very enthused,
spoke to a few other gentlemen, and asked my engineers to contact
Mr. Mudd, County Manager, to see if there was some way a
temporary conditional use could be granted.
I have submitted the second conditional use application in the
past two weeks, and I understand it could take six to nine months for
the final approval.
So I'm here today to ask consideration, if the commissioners
could grant a temporary use which will enable the commissioners and
the county to actually observe, expedite, in the event we do have a
hurricane, and see how our operation will work.
Page 19
May 9, 2006
I think that's about all I have to say. I hope you will consider it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a question for you.
MR. FERRO: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Have you gone through the process of
having public hearings and neighborhood meetings in regards to this
operation?
MR. FERRO: No. Like I said, originally we had submitted, and
upon my engineer's advice, we withdrew and just recently submitted,
within the past two weeks, a conditional use, which has the steps, I
believe -- might take a few months before the public hearings will be
heard.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Have you gone through all the
processes such as EAC and the Planning Commission? Are you
scheduled for those?
MR. FERRO: EAC was very enthused about the operation, was
-- and was a unanimous vote to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But has it gone through the Planning
Commission and through the other areas of the -- that it needs to be
processed?
MR. FERRO: Yes. All the approvals have been granted. It's in
the final stage now of the attorney preparing an affidavit for me to
sign for a conservation easement that I donated to the county for scrub
oaks, otherwise --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're saying it has gone through the
Planning Commission?
MR. FERRO: Yes. It's been approved, SDP approval.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If the board grants this
temporary use, does it still need to go through the permitting process,
County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It's temporary. The staff doesn't have
authority to grant a temporary -- we can grant a temporary use, but it's
Page 20
T
May 9, 2006
only for a couple of weeks. We can't go for a prolonged period into
six months or nine months.
I believe the SDP has been approved, but the conditional use has
just been put in. I don't believe it has gone through the advisory
boards, the Planning Commission, nor has it had advertised public
hearings yet.
If the board decides that because it was a previous -- it was
previously used as a -- as a recycling center for concrete, if the board
decides to grant Mr. Ferro the temporary use, it still has to go through
the conditional use requirement and go through the formal process
because it is temporary in nature, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it -- your estimate,
how long will it -- if the board grants a temporary use, how long will it
take for him to use the property for the temporary use?
MR. MUDD: I'm going to have to turn over to Mr. Schmitt and
have him tell the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because I think the whole
reason for the public petition is to try to get things set up before the
hurricane. That's what I'm understanding.
MR. FERRO: Yes, yes.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, your Administrator
for Community Development/Environmental Services Division.
Let me clarify, just for the records. The application for the
conditional use, we had the pre-app. on April 26th, but there has been
no application submitted to date, so there has been no dates
programmed for the Planning Commission nor for the Board of
County Commissioners.
So the applicant has had a pre-app. for the CU, but there's been
no follow-up in actually submitting the actual application for the
conditional use.
What we were referring to initially was the SDP. The SDP has
gone through almost two years of review. Actually it's been through
Page 21
""T. .
May 9, 2006
five submittals, primarily having to do with the applicant's engineering
team disputing preserve requirements and other issues on site.
Those have all been resolved, and actually what went before the
EAC was the EIS associated with this site, so that's what's been
approved through the Environmental Advisory Council having to do
with the SDP.
So the SDP's approved. Why they waited for the SDP to be
approved before applying for the CU, I can't answer that. But we're
now in the conditional use process. We have not had a neighborhood
information meeting even scheduled yet nor have the Planning
Commission or the Board of County Commissioner meetings been
scheduled yet.
They usually are right upon application. We usually schedule
within six months of the application. Of course, the application -- the
speed of the process is totally dependent upon the application and
getting through the review process and how many times it goes back
and forth.
I don't think this is going to be that big of an issue being that we
already have an approved SDP, but we still have to go through the
public hearings. We're dealing with noise issues. You may be dealing
with dust and other type of issues associated with the recycling.
So I just caution the board, if you allow this request, it certainly
sets a precedence for anybody to come in and ask to use a site prior to
action at public hearings.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager, I don't think I
had my question answered, or maybe you can explain it to me where
my question was answered.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe you asked the question
that, how long would this temporary -- if the board approves a
temporary use, would that be the final action --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. MUDD: -- on a particular item.
Page 22
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not correct.
MR. MUDD: Now, the next -- the next -- I believe--
MR. SCHMITT: There's no --
MR. MUDD: Now, hang on, Joseph.
And then the next item was, how long? I believe if that -- the
answer is, no, it's not the final item. Then how long would it be
temporary?
And I believe Mr. Schmitt in his comments basically said, once
they have the application, they basically schedule the meeting six
months after the application with the Board of County Commissioners
being the final -- the final okay. So it's a six-month period of time, sir,
that it would be temporary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Henning, I believe what you're
asking -- if you approve it today, he can start today. It's your
prerogative how long you want to allow him to use it on a temporary
basis until the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: That's the board's prerogative. You want to set
a date, you can set that today. I'll have to turn to the County Attorney
whether there's an actual limit, but I -- as far as I know, there is none.
We have a -- we can use a -- we can do it for 29 days. The board
certainly can extend that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I would -- as the commissioner of that
district, I believe that this needs to go before the public process in
regards to making sure that everything is addressed accordingly and
needs to go through the Planning Commission and then to the Board
of County Commissioners.
So, sir, I believe that's the direction we need to go on this.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Joe, what guidance have you
guys given him, I mean, being that he's been in the process two years?
Page 23
May 9, 2006
You know, I've long been advocating an ombudsman or
somebody to help people, especially like the gentleman, he doesn't
even know what the -- he didn't even know what a Planning
Commission was. He's trying to answer the question. He didn't even
know what Commissioner Halas was saying.
So do we have somebody to guide these people --
MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- especially when they see it's a
prolonged issue?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. We've been advising his team. He's been
working with Coastal Engineering Consultants. We've been advising
them for over two years in this project. I've had meetings with the
applicant and with the applicant's team. They had known for almost
two years they needed a conditional use for this site.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you didn't tell them they should
get the conditional use at the same time when they told him not to?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, we did. His team advised against it. I
can't answer that. That's -- his consultant advised to go through the
planning process first as far as the SDP and then come in and apply for
the conditional use. Why, I don't know. I don't know why they didn't
do it concurrently.
I think you were told over two years ago that the site required a
conditional use, and they certainly could have applied for what I call,
quote, the zoning while they were going through the review process. I
mean, that's an -- I have to turn to the applicant and ask why they
didn't do what they did (sic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right, that's all right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. It's a very arduous process
we have to go through. And we've heard this time and time again.
But it is a process that has to take place to protect the good -- will of
the public.
Page 24
-r
May 9, 2006
If this was a true emergency and there was little or no
repercussions, I think you might find this commission willing to listen
to what you have to suggest. But the problem is, is there may be
environmental concerns that haven't been addressed yet.
To give you permission to go forward, we may undo something
as far as like a gopher tortoise preserve that should be in place, you
may be doing something in wetlands that would be something that
can't be repaired. Plus, I'd be very concerned about the people in that
area not being able to have due process to be able to come in and say
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- that they're opposed to it or
they're for it. It's just one of the things that has to take place. I'm
sorry that it takes so long. And to be honest with you, it is our fault
that it is taking so long. We put together the process. We're
responsible for the process, not staff.
But the only thing I can tell you is, please, hang in there. I'm
sure you're going to reach your goal in the end.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've had my question answered.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much for your
time, sir.
MR. FERRO: I just want to add that I did give the county a
check for $500 on 4/26 for the second conditional use application.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 6B. It's a public
petition by Charles Lam to discuss --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, you had a question? Sorry.
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was stated that -- and I hear
this more and more -- about a conservation easement. And as I read
Page 25
May 9, 2006
the Land Development Code, I see preserves where the Board of
County Commissioners are requesting preserve areas. But I don't see
where it calls for conservation easements. So if somebody can help
me find where the Board of Commissioners authorized that, I'd
appreciate it.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY CHARLES LAM TO DISCUSS
MEDIAN OPENINGS ALLOWING ACCESS TO 70TH STREET SW
- PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED WITH TRANSPORTATION
STAFF
The next item is 6B. It's a public petition request by Charles
Lam to discuss median openings allowing access to 70th Street
Southwest.
MR. LAM: Good morning, and thank you very much. My name
is Charles Lam. I'm here to petition the Board of County
Commissioners regarding the removal of the median openings
allowing access to our neighborhood along 70th Street Southwest.
I come here on behalf of my uncle, who lives on the north side of
70th Street Southwest. He apologizes that he cannot be here this
morning.
If you're not already aware of the change, pretty much they're
going to remove the median access allowing access to both the north
and the south portion of 70th Street Southwest. This will require those
on the north side wanting to make a left onto their street from
Livingston Road to instead continue on down the road and make an
unprotected U-Turn at 68th Street.
F or those on the south side it will be even more inconvenient.
They will actually, to go into town, have to continue on through -- or
Page 26
May 9, 2006
sorry -- to go into their homes from Golden Gate, they'll have to
continue through the intersection, make a U-Turn at Naples Grande,
come back through the intersection again to make the right turn into
their neighborhood.
Why we oppose this. First and foremost -- and this is an issue at
the top of everyone's agenda that I spoke with in the neighborhood.
And in front of you I have placed copies of signatures, the originals of
which I gave to Ms. Filson -- is safety.
We feel that just making a left across traffic is far easier and
quicker than making an unprotected U-Turn and having to merge
across those lanes of traffic and make a right. And this was the
unanimous thought of everyone I spoke with.
I knocked on every single door within the neighborhood last
night on the north side, and every single person who answered the
door agreed with me and signed the petition.
Furthermore, there are many older residents in the neighborhood.
You'll notice in the petition, in the signatures, they have noted their
age in some places. For those with slower reaction times, this would
be of even greater concern.
Furthermore, one might -- it is my reasoning and the reasoning of
several other residents, that there will be a greater willingness to take
risk, make risky U-Turns, considering that there will be a pile-up of
people behind them. That social pressure to take those risks, we feel,
will increase the risk for accidents. Furthermore, there has already
been one fatal accident at that intersection.
Secondly, we feel that this would be a waste of taxpayer dollars.
About a year and a half ago this entire intersection was redone. So I
believe it -- I was not at the community meeting, but I believe it -- Mr.
Ahmad mentioned that the reason why they put those openings in in
the first place was in response to community concern and comment.
That is still our very strong position.
Finally -- and, of course, it would be very inconvenient. Not
Page 27
T
May 9, 2006
only would it make us go further out of our way and take more time, it
would be especially inconvenient for those who have trailers boats and
RVs. A very large proportion of the residents, considering it is a rural
area -- and many do keep those additional vehicles on their lots.
Furthermore, there was no -- or very minimal community input
and involvement. It is stated on the Department of Transportation's
website that, and I quote, public meetings are generally held at the 30
percent, 60 percent and 90 percent design phases of all projects.
When I called and spoke with the Department of Transportation,
they said, well, considering this was a rather inconsequential proj ect to
the community, they didn't feel it was necessary to hold those sort of
inputs.
They only held the 90 percent completion meeting. And while,
again, unfortunately I was not there, it is the input to me from several
residents that they felt very railroaded, that their concerns were not
listened to nor addressed reasonably.
And finally, we feel that it would have a negative impact on our
property values given the much more limited access, especially on the
south side. Can you imagine having to go through the major
intersection of Golden Gate and Livingston twice just to turn onto
your street?
What we ask of the board. One, this is a great thing. Just wait,
please. We feel this is an unnecessary change. The Department of
Transportation has stated that this is necessary to account for the
anticipated increase in left-turn traffic at that location, as they will be
extending the left -- outer left turn lane there.
We feel that the current left turn lane volume is really only due to
the construction along Golden Gate Parkway. They closed one or two
lanes through there. It's construction traffic.
They've reduced the speed, and it's more difficult to make a left
turn at Airport. But once the multi-million-dollar improvement to that
intersection is completed, that will be one of the easiest left turns to
Page 28
May 9, 2006
make in the county.
The left turn at Livingston Road really only serves the
commercial park there as well as Radio Road. We feel -- and it has
been commented to me by other of my neighbors that it will be far
easier for most people once the project is done just to take advantage
of that improvement and make a left turn and go south on Airport
Road in the future. That will be a far easier and more efficient turn.
So just wait. See if there's really -- see if an issue develops when the
construction is finished.
Two, please, perhaps, do a study. See how many of the people
making a left turn at Livingston Road are actually accessing that area
locally or whether they would be as well or even better served by
making the left turn at Airport once the construction there is finished.
And finally, we do not intend to present the board with an
ultimatum or anything like that. Weare open to working with the
Department of Transportation on a solution agreeable to both.
If they feel it is absolutely necessary to extend the outer left turn
lane there and close the access to our neighborhoods, we would then
ask that they at least install a light at the intersection of Golden Gate
Parkway and 68th Street allowing for a protected U-Turn.
And so that's -- in closing, thank you very much. I feel that this
is a great opportunity for you, our elected officials, to consider and
hopefully act on an issue of great community concern and import.
Thank you again, and I'd like to open it up to questions and
comments.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I drove by that
intersection this morning to get to this building, and I know how you
feel, because I live near an intersection that will be closing for me to
make -- the median opening will be closing; therefore, I would have to
go a little bit out of my way to make a U-Turn to get to my destination
Page 29
May 9, 2006
if I want to go north on Logan Boulevard.
After thinking about it, I would rather have that and I'd rather
have my family to use a safe access through a U-Turn than a full
median opening right next to a major intersection, which is Pine Ridge
and Logan Boulevard.
I understand how you feel, but it's the greater good of the public,
and it's really better safety, from what I understand and what I have
experienced, to do a U-Turn instead of going across three lanes of
traffic in order to make a left-hand turn. But I do empathize with what
you have to do to get to your destination.
MR. LAM: And I appreciate that. And our concern is not just
that want of convenience, but like you said, of safety. I spoke with
several families that had little kids, and they said, well, oftentimes
there are large openings for them to easily and safely get through the
traffic there, and they do feel -- and this was unanimous -- that it was
easier to cross those lanes of traffic directly from the median than to
make the unprotected U-Turn and merge.
But given the Department of Transportation's feelings contrary to
that, like I said, we would be happy and we plead our case to the
board, that if they do feel that is necessary for the greater good of the
public, which we disagree with, to at least please put in a traffic light
at the intersection of 68th to provide for a protected U-Turn.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The transportation staff, did
they have a meeting with the residents about --
MR. LAM: Like I mentioned, they only had one as opposed to
the three that they --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me tell you that the Board
of Commissioners has authorized the transportation staff to do any
median modifications or closures in Collier County.
MR. LAM: Oh, I'm not saying that they stepped out of their
bounds of authorization. I'm just stating that they deviated from their
stated policy.
Page 30
r
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's the policy of the
Board of Commissioners that we gave that authority to them. They
didn't have to have a public meeting.
MR. LAM: Well -- and irrespective of that, we do feel it is
unnecessary -- we do feel that the majority of the traffic making the
left turn there is just because of the construction, and we just ask --
they're doing this change and they're being proactive, and we
appreciate that, but, please, wait until there is actually an issue to solve
before impacting our lives so greatly. Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I drive that every day, and there
is a bottleneck there in making a left-hand turn. I'm not in the
construction trade, and I do see a lot of vehicles trying to make a left
turn from Golden Gate to Livingston.
MR. LAM: Okay. Then may I refer to -- again, we're more than
happy and willing to work with the Department of Transportation --
perhaps, put in a light then for our safety at the intersection of 68th to
allow for a protected U-Turn?
We feel that -- it was mentioned to me they expect volumes up to
50,000 cars per day along that street. It will be one of the busiest
corridors in Collier County once the access to 1-75 interchange there is
completed. We feel that it would be very difficult to make a U-Turn
there given that constant traffic.
Please, put in a light, a traffic light, allowing for a protected
U-Turn before they remove the median access to our neighborhoods.
Is that a reasonable request? Comments, questions?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's our transportation. Could they
come up -- step up and tell us exactly what's going on, since we're not
transportation engineers, and I believe that you'll probably give us
some insight of what the gentleman's talking.
MR. FEDER: Yes, Commissioner. We have some detailed
information for you if need be, but let me just hit on a couple things
very quickly, and then I'll give it over to staff.
Page 3 1
. .. T
May 9,2006
For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator.
We did hold a meeting with the community. When we say 30, 60,
90, that is typically on a major project some three miles or longer.
This was one particular median opening, and so we didn't meet with
the community on this issue.
What I will also tell you is, when we built Livingston Road, that's
the year and a half when we modified this area that originally was a
full opening. It went to discussion. We told the community at that
time we didn't know how long we'd be able to keep that with the
growth of traffic along Livingston nearby, and in particular, the
evolution of the interchange and improvements along the Golden Gate
corridor.
We now -- and we can show you details on that -- already have
some level of backup that's occurring through the existing turn lane we
need to extend. That is here today. The other note is that we do
expect even greater volumes in the future.
The issue of the improvements down at Airport and why not wait
for those and that they might divert some of the traffic, it's also going
to have that much more traffic and demand at that same time the new
interchange would be open at 1-75.
I'll ask staff just to show you some of the graphics and some of
the details to get you fully acquainted.
MR. AHMAD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
My name is Jay Ahmad. I'm the director of transportation
. .
englneenng.
Good morning, Mr. Lam, as well.
We have on the proj ector there the roadway improvements that
we are proposing. And 1'11-- if I may -- is this microphone on?
MR. MUDD: Yes, it works.
MR. AHMAD: Sorry about that. What you're looking at is --
this is Livingston Road, and north is looking up, and this is Golden
Gate Parkway. Seventieth Street is this intersection that is located
Page 32
r
May 9, 2006
approximately 600 feet to the east.
And what we're proposing to do is -- currently there's an
eastbound left turn to those folks on 70th Street, as well as a
westbound left turn to those folks on 70th Street on the south side.
What we're proposing to do is extend the left-turn lane for
approximately 1,000 feet to accommodate existing traffic and
proj ected future traffic that will come as a result of 1-75 interchange.
And I have some photos that were taken just recently that explains
why we're doing this.
What you're looking at is, you're looking east along Golden Gate
Parkway. And as you can see, the double left-turn lanes -- this is
actually a photo that was taken from our existing computerized system
that we have in place and an existing camera at the location.
On the right side there, the double left turns heading south on
Livingston Road, and the three through lanes that exist on Golden
Gate Parkway and the right-turn lane.
Route -- 70th Street is up in the middle of the picture there. And
as you can see, it is being blocked by the double left-turn lanes, the
turning volume that's turning south on Livingston Road.
And if that -- a person that's heading east making a turn to 70th
Street is actually -- would have to negotiate and make a turn through
those vehicles.
If I may get the second photo.
This is a second condition, and it's precisely where we're doing
this project. Again, not only the double lefts are completely full, but
also the through traffic is blocking that intersection.
We believe this is a very unsafe condition to make that left turn
in such conditions like this.
Again, this is taken looking westbound on Golden Gate. This is
the beginning of that left-turn lane that's heading eastbound turning
left onto 70th Street. Again, the vehicles are blocking that opening
well beyond that opening. And a second picture of the same thing.
Page 33
T
May 9,2006
Again, Mr. Lam presented a few concerns, and we met with those
folks on April 6th. We've explained the conditions and the -- our
proposal. We understand that it is inconvenient. And we wish we
don't have to do this. But I think it's for their safety and for the safety
of the traveling public that we need to do this.
As far as, wait till 1-75 and do this, as you can see, it is currently
an existing problem. We think an additional 15,000 cars on Golden
Gate Parkway will just complicate this condition. And I think it's the
right thing to do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your
presentation. Also in regards to the traffic light, I think that that will
be left up to the Transportation Department to decide whether it meets
warrants or not, but I think that's where we need to go with this.
MR. AHMAD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We looked at the volumes
of that intersection. And just from experience, even in off season,
there are volumes coming out of 68th Street at that signal. We don't
think it will meet warrants in the future and today. And, perhaps, we
can look at it at a certain time after 1-75 opens. And if things change,
we certainly will look at it again.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if I may get a final word
in there. I know it's very uncomfortable for commissioners to have to
tell a member of the public that we can't do something.
But in this case, when it comes to a warrant study, if we don't
follow them to the letter, we'd have total chaos. Since this
commission, the present commission -- well, three commissioners that
have been here since 2000, we've never overturned a staff warrant
study, and the reason is very simple. Once we overturn one, it will fall
like dominos.
We have to stand to our own constituents on a regular basis who
absolutely demand that their street is the exception for a red light
while every other place shouldn't have one. And, of course, it can't
Page 34
on_.. -------r------------
May 9, 2006
work.
So what we have to do is we defer to staff on this particular thing.
And we, as a general rule, we haven't in all these six years now,
overturned a warrant study.
But I do appreciate hearing your views on this. But I didn't want
you to think this was a commissioner or commissioners picking on
you unfairly. I mean, this is across the board. I recently went through
something like this very similar in Orangetree where I had 100-some
people that were very, very angry because they couldn't get exactly
what they wanted at their exit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we, too, with the new Super
W al- Mart in Eagle Creek, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I told them the same thing
I'm telling you, and, of course, they didn't appreciate what I told them.
They expect that the commissioner is going to make an exception for
their one case, and it can't be done. And it is with great pain we have
to tell you that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your time, sir.
MR. LAM: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Appreciate it.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. JIM RICE TO DISCUSS
THE WAIVING OF THE ADDRESS ORDINANCE TO RENAME
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK "OAKES NEIGHBORHOOD PARK"-
TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE NEXT BCC MEETING
UNDER THE CONSENT SECTION OF 16A
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next public
petition, and that's 6C. It's a public petition request by Mr. Jim Rice to
discuss waiving address ordinance to rename neighborhood -- the
Page 35
May 9, 2006
neighborhood park to Oakes Neighborhood Park.
Mr. Rice?
MR. RICE: Good morning. I bring you greetings from The
Oakes Advisory, a civic society or organization that was set up about
five years ago, six years ago, to work with the county on issues that
were affecting our neighborhood, such as traffic volume, rezoning, all
those various issues.
And about three and a half years ago the centerpiece of our
association became a neighborhood park proj ect. We found a
five-acre parcel that was right across the street from my house, which
makes me the park chairman in our civic association that was held by
the Golden Gate Land Trust designated for the school board.
This property was identified as a possible site for a neighborhood
park. And we approached the Golden Gate Land Trust, which was a
very interesting process, to see if this land was available. It was.
Since it was dedicated for the school board, the school board was
-- it was necessary for the school board to sign off on this piece of
property, and then it was given to the Parks and Recreation
Department.
The Parks and Recreation Department then started us through the
process of all the things that you have to do to get a neighborhood
park. And this was right at the end of the Naples Park scenario, and so
we were very -- we were very -- dotting all our I's and crossing all our
T's to go through this process for this park.
And it turned out to be a very bright spot, not only for our
neighborhood, but for the Parks and Recreation Department.
The process has been ongoing now for about three and a half
years. The Brazilian Peppers and Melaleucas have been cleared off of
it. We're in the process of engineering drawings with Parks and
Recreation to complete this park.
I am here today to ask -- in the meantime, all this has been done
in the last three and a half years under the monocle of the Oakes
Page 36
May 9, 2006
Neighborhood Park. And I'm here today to ask for an exemption in
the ordinance for overused names so that we can keep our Oakes
Neighborhood Park in place.
Now, we appreciate and understand the public safety concerns
that an overused name can cause, which was one of the major factors
in our neighborhood, our Oakes neighborhood, renaming our streets
with oak names instead of numbers so that the fire and rescue would
be better served in finding our streets, but it also caused some of the
problem because now all the streets are Standing Oakes, Burr Oakes,
Autumn Oakes. But we felt that it was a much better safety issue for
us in that regard.
Now, this five-acre parcel, less than one -- less than an acre will
be used for the park; 4.25 acres will be kept as a preserve. And we felt
this is a very low risk for safety, because of the bare-bones nature of
the park.
We're going to have a fishing platform on the canal where the
kids can fish off the neighbor -- off the bank, a very limited amount of
playground equipment, a nature walk, with no public parking, no
lights, and no activities.
Now, the address ordinance prohibits duplication for names for
developments, buildings, streets and subdivisions to prevent confusion
for the general public and to preserve public safety.
Since our park is none of the above and because of the very
limited usage of facilities and the fact it is the only park in this
neighborhood and no other park has a similar name warrants
exemption, we're asking for keeping our name on this park, Oakes
Neighborhood Park, which is what it's been for three and a half years.
But what's the point? The point is we can reach our goal of
balancing the demands of growth and the demands of the community
by applying some exemption to this situation.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir.
Page 37
r
May 9, 2006
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question for the County
Attorney. I've seen several examples of growing Collier County
Government, the name Collier County Government. But my question
is, does this have to come back in the -- on another meeting, or can we
give direction to our staff to allow the use of the name Oakes for this
park, this government facility?
MR. WEIGEL: In the normal context it would come back, this
being public petition. I guess my response would be to the extent that
this board is explicit today, should be explicit and were to give
direction, it may be that it may not have to come back, but I can't --
unfortunately, I can't tell you just off the top of my head, and I should
be able to, that if you were to give such direction today that it
absolutely wouldn't have to come back.
But to the extent that you're very explicit today, it may be that it
cannot, or I can tell you a little better in a few minutes, I suppose. I
didn't know if the staff had any further comment in regard to that.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you -- if you decide today that
you want -- if you basically think that the gentleman's petition for the
naming the park Oakes Neighborhood Park should be what you want
and you want to give him a variance to the address issue -- and I use
the word variance very loosely, okay, in exception, in which you can
-- we would come back to the board with an item probably on 16A
with that particular thing being done at the next board meeting.
If the board says, well, we want to talk about it some more, then I
would bring it back on the regular agenda as 10, and then we would go
through the discussion and formal vote at the next meeting, and that's
my take on those two items.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Well, that answers
my question. I'm in favor of approving it if it gets on the regular
agenda. I don't think that my colleagues want to hear the overuse of
the word government in Collier County.
Page 38
r
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I agree with you, by the way.
I'm next anyway. I agree with you. I even talked with some people
from the Parks Department to ask them if they had a problem with it,
and they don't have a problem with it at all. And I think that they're
keeping in the theme of the Oakes area, right?
MR. RICE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so -- and you know what, I
think I'm so inclined to approve it because you so seldom hear
anybody saying, we're trying to get a park in our neighborhood and
we're doing it. Instead, everybody's boycotting it. So it's a wonderful
thing.
MR. RICE: It has been a wonderful thing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's wrong with Best Friends
Park?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So my question is, some of the stuff that
I read in the agenda package, I guess, wouldn't be involved in this, and
that is the letters from the fire department and EMS in regards to the
usage of Oakes in a park wouldn't have an effect as far as locating this
item as far as if there was an emergency?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would just suggest that you don't
name another one Oakes Neighborhood Park, and I think you'll
probably be okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All right.
MR. WEIGEL: And I respond also, Mr. Chairman, that those are
elements that you as the commission take into account and staff does
as well, obviously, up to this point, but you're the ultimate
decision-maker in that regard.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All right.
MR. MUDD: And, Commissioner, the reason I made that
statement to Commissioner Henning and to you about where we
would put it, so far I have two nods to give them a waiver and I'm
waiting for the -- now I have the third.
Page 39
~"~"----"..""" " T
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Nods head.)
MR. MUDD: What we'll do is bring this back as a 16A item at
the next board meeting, and if anybody, anybody -- and I don't think
there will be -- anybody that doesn't like it will have the opportunity to
basically let their comments be known at the next meeting, okay?
Because under public petition you don't allow public comments, so
that keeps everything squared away.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just have one question to ask
Commissioner Henning. What was your -- what were you trying to
get at when you said Collier County government? I was -- can you be
more --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just think that we're creating
way too much government in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. In regards to what, I guess? Is
this part of government, naming a road or a street or a park? I'm not
sure what you're trying --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we better drop it because
you really don't want me going on and on and on about how much
government we've created in the last four years.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay. Have we grown any as far as
a community?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you taken a look at our
budget?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. What's the next subject?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Thank you. It will come back to the next meeting,
Mr. Rice.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll take--
MR. RICE: Come back to the next meeting?
MR. MUDD: It will come back on the --
MR. RICE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- on the agenda next meeting.
Page 40
------,"-" "
May 9, 2006
MR. RICE: Thank you, thank you.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2006-117: APPOINTING MARGARET PEGGY
HARRIS TO THE GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item, sir, is 9A, and that's appointment of
a member to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the applicant.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have -- on item 9A, in
regards to Golden Gate Beautification MSTU, we have a--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Margaret Harris.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. We have a motion for approval and
a second. Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, 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: I -- not me. I'm okay.
MR. MUDD: It's 5-0, unanimous.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 5-0, 5-0, yep.
Item #9B
Page 41
--.....- 'T ..
May 9, 2006
RESOLUTION 2006-118: CONFIRMING LARRY FLEMING,
REPRESENTING THE CITY OF NAPLES, TO THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMISSION - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 9B. It's appointment of member
to the Affordable Housing Commission.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to confirm the appointment
of Larry Fleming.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
for the Affordable Housing Commission and -- confirmation of Larry
Fleming. We have a motion.
And I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes unanimously.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2006-119: RE-APPOINTING ROBERT C.
BENNETT, W/W AIVER OF TERM LIMITS, TO THE UTILITY
AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 9C, appointment of a member to the Utility Authority.
Page 42
,
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion that we
reappoint Robert Bennett.
MS. FILSON: And Commissioner, does that include waiving
section 7B of 2005-55?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is that part of your motion also--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- or your second? Okay.
We have a motion on the floor for Collier County Utility
Authority, Kenneth R. Rech and Robert C. Bennett to be reappointed,
along with the stipulation under subsection b --
MS. FILSON: Commissioner, I'm sorry. I didn't understand
what you just said. It's only the appointment of one person.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And a reappointment of other person,
right?
MS. FILSON: No. It's -- we're only appointing one member.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Okay. Then you have to have
two motions; is that correct?
MS. FILSON: No. We're just -- we're just reappointing Robert
Bennett, and the other fellow isn't getting appointed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, I'm sorry. Excuse me. I had both
of those names here.
Okay. All those in favor for appointment of Robert Bennett,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
Page 43
..'~."'.'.T.'. .......-.--
May 9, 2006
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2006-120: RE-APPOINTING DAVID CORREA,
W/W AIVER OF TERM LIMITS AND JAMES A. VANFLEET AND
APPOINTING LILY DEBLIEX AND GARY D. HOLLOWAY TO
THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 9D. It's appointment of members to the Hispanic Affairs
Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the
committee's recommendations and to waive the necessary term of
office.
MS. FILSON: 7B of2001-55.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry?
MS. FILSON: 7B of2001-55.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion on the
floor and a second for the approval of the people listed on the
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
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: Motion carries.
Item #9E
Page 44
I
May 9, 2006
DISCUSSION REGARDING WAIVING THE $10 PER HOUR
FEES FOR THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY PARK MEETING
ROOMS FOR BOTH THE IMMOKALEE COORDINATING
COUNCIL AND THE IMMOKALEE CIVIC ASSOCIATION -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 9E. It's a discussion regarding waiving the $10 per hour fees
for the Immokalee Community Park meeting rooms for both the
Immokalee Coordinating Council and the Immokalee Civic
Association, as they are a valid public purpose, and that's at
Commissioner Coletta's request to have this item on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I think I can keep this very
short. We already, for civic associations, make numerous exceptions,
and Immokalee Civic Association, in the past we did make an
exception for them to be able to use the community center, and I hope
that we reaffirm that again today.
The Wilma Coordinating Council was an offshoot from the
hurricane that -- Wilma that happened last year, and it's a coordinating
council that's carrying forward to prepare Immokalee for the next
storm when it comes.
It's a civic-minded group that was very concerned when they
heard they may have a $10 charge, plus $10 an hour. They're more
than willing to go someplace else, but I think it would be a terrible
loss for government at this point in time to turn their back on them,
and I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Okay. There's been a motion of
approval -- a motion for approval in regards to waiving the $10 fee for
Immokalee Community Park, and there's a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 45
.---......,
May 9, 2006
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.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good job.
Item #10A
FORMAL ADOPTION OF A STRATEGIC PLAN - APPROVED
W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is item lOA. This is a recommendation of the Board of County
Commissioners to formally adopt a strategic plan, and Ms. Winona
Stone, assistant to the County Manager, will present.
MS. STONE: Good morning, Commissioners. Winona Stone,
assistant to the County Manager. I have a briefPowerPoint
presentation that I'm trying to get up on the computer here.
MR. MUDD: And if you quit poking, I'll get it going.
MS. STONE: Okay, thank you.
Anyway, item lOA is your 10-year proposed strategic plan, fiscal
year 2007 through 2016. Thank you.
Bear with me just a minute and I'll pull up the brief PowerPoint
presentation, after which I will be glad to address any questions that
you may have on the plan.
The strategic plan in process date so far, back in February, 2005
at your strategic planning workshop, you directed the County Manager
to update and redevelop the agency's strategic plan.
Page 46
......"..-... .,._,,--
May 9, 2006
This year in the February, 2006 workshop you actually approved
the conceptual plan as we had presented it during your strategic
planning workshop and authorized the County Manager to solicit
comments from stakeholder -- various stakeholder groups. We
actually identified 29 stakeholder groups and sent out letters to them
in early March.
We actually received 22 of 29 responses, I believe about 76
percent, which I thought was a very good response rate. The
responses were overwhelmingly supportive of the plan. There were
suggestions for some additions and changes, and we've looked at all of
those on a staff level. And the next step today, hopefully, for you to
finally adopt the 10-year strategic plan.
During the strategic planning process, your senior leadership
revised a vision statement, mission statement, our guiding principles
or values. We also came up with six -- identified six strategic focus
areas and the strategic goals associated with each of those six areas.
And we also crafted, as to my knowledge, our first ever motto.
Our first motto is, exceeding expectations every day. This may
sound very family to you. As you're aware, our previous mission
statement included very similar wording, and we felt that that fit much
better as a motto than an actual mission statement.
Our new vision statement is, we strive to be the best community
in America, to live, work, and play.
And the new mission statement, to deliver high quality,
best-value, public services, programs, and facilities to our residents
and visitors.
And we did go through another exercise of developing our values
or guiding principles that staff and the commission all believe, and
these are very important values for us to have as constituents and staff
for the public.
Honesty and integrity, service, accountability, quality, respect,
knowledge, stewardship, and collaboration. And in your packet on
Page 47
I
May 9, 2006
page 6, the actual -- we actually went in and defined each of those
values, which you also saw those at your workshop, so I'm not going
to go into the definitions, but they are there for the public to see.
The six strategic focus areas that we identified. The first one is
neighborhood preservation and enhancement, and the strategic goal
associated with that is to preserve and enhance the safety, quality,
value, character and heritage of our neighborhoods, communities and
region.
The second strategic focus area is growth management with the
corresponding goal to responsibly manage community growth,
development, and redevelopment while enhancing the natural
environment.
Your third strategic focus area is community health and human
services. And the goal for that strategic focus area is to improve the
quality of life and promote personal self-reliance and independence
through improved access to community healthcare and human services
for those most in need.
Mobility, or transportation, is our fourth goal here -- strategic
focus area with the goal to provide for the various mobility needs of
the community and the region while respecting and enhancing the
character of our diverse neighborhoods.
The fifth strategic focus area is economic development with the
goal to help create a business climate that promotes a diversified
growing economy consistent with established growth management
plans and community desires.
And then your last focus area is local government with a goal to
sustain public trust and confidence in county government through
sound public policy decisions, expert professional management, and
active citizen participation.
Now, in line with these six strategic focus areas, we also
identified community outcomes, what we want to provide to the
community, and the objectives to get to those, and that's what you
Page 48
,- ...--
May 9, 2006
have seen in the strategic plan, the two-page strategic plan that you
have in your packet.
We've also done some drill down into that identifying task and
goals, the task and action items associated with each of those
objectives.
In coming up with the strategic objectives, the focus areas and
doing a swat analysis, we identified three different categories of issues
that we feel like we're facing in Collier County, and we will actually
identify all the objectives into these three different kinds of categories.
Strategic issues, which we think will take one to 10 years to
overcome; operational issues, that will take one to five years to fix;
and tactical issues, which we believe we can address in one to two
years.
The next steps for staff in the strategic planning process are to
further identify and incorporate specific task or action items for each
objective, to assign personnel responsible for completing the task, to
set time lines and milestones for completion of the task, to identify
cost and potential revenue streams for each task, and I don't have it
listed here, but we need to identify benchmarking and best practices
for all of those areas. We are looking at that throughout the state and
outside -- in the whole country, too. So we're looking at those.
The next step for the board, for you, is adoption of the final plan,
hopefully today, allocation of resources during the budget process,
assessing the FY -'07 performance because this plan relates to fiscal
year '07, and resume the process for fiscal year '08.
For the next three to five years we envision that the 10-year
strategic plan will be the guiding framework for supporting
intermediate range business plans, annual work plans, and eventually
ultimately actually going all the way drilling into individual employee
performance plans. So we hope to have all these tied together.
If there are any questions, I'll be happy to address those.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
Page 49
.-w
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I think you've
done an excellent job, and I commend staff for the many things that
they've put in there.
Now, I do have two concerns that I would like to bring up for
discussion with my fellow commissioners, to also poll them to see if
we might be able to grow this just a little bit more to include the needs
of all our citizens.
One of them is the -- under public access. And I do think that we
covered it fairly well when we talked about boat access and beach
access. But I'm also concerned about such as A TV s. We've had a
tremendous response, not so much that we can directly provide the
service, but we can certainly be a mentor in bringing it around to the
point that we can be a player in it to see that our citizens have -- it's
made available to them. Mike Davis has been a tremendous advocate,
and I think we could follow on his coattails.
The other one is to recognize the traditional enjoyments of the
land that the public has had for generations here, and that's also
hunting and fishing. I think that the admission of that is glaring. If
this was 20 years ago, the room would have been packed. It's obvious
that there is still a number of people out there that have an interest in
it, done in a correct and humane way.
MS. STONE: I think that would add in very easily under the
recreation facilities that we want to provide to the public.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I very much appreciate if
that would be included in there.
MR. WEIGEL: All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the other thing -- and this is
something new that my commissioners -- I hope that they'll chime in
on. It would be a public use of a wireless network for the Internet that
would allow for the educational opportunities that are missing,
business advancement, and the seemless government operations.
I think if we put that in our strategic plan -- I mean, I'm working
Page 50
--- ----- T
May 9, 2006
on some efforts right now in the Immokalee community, and from
what I understand, it's going to grow to public places throughout the
county, that that's a good start for it. But if we recognize it within our
strategic plan and the commissioners stay on tune on this, we may see
this eventually come to the point where the citizenry of Collier County
will have an availability, a network that would either be free or very
affordable, and be made -- be made a part of our infrastructure.
MS. STONE: Commissioner, if I may, that was also
recommended by your EDC. And what we have -- you were not
supplied with it, but we have a drill-down version where we've had
staff put in taskers and it's more complicated. It's like 10 or 12 pages
now. But we did, as far as technology, that would be wi-fi, I think,
would be under -- we do mention technology in the two-page version,
and so that is in the drill-down, but I just don't see it there. If you
think it needs to be --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would appreciate it if we could
grow even the summary agenda on this and what we'd make available
to the public so that it includes some language recognizing the efforts
of the government in the future, because this is going to be the wave
of the future. There won't be a community left in the United States in
another 20 years that isn't seemlessly tied to together with Internet.
And I think Collier County, being the progressive county that we are,
we should be on the forefront of this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The only thing is, is what's the
cost-related portion of it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what's the cost-related not
to get involved to some degree? I mean, right now we're already
coming up with money from our -- for our economic development for
the putting in of hard wiring of new businesses, especially in the
Immokalee area, and allowing a large amount of money. If it was
wireless, you could cover a much bigger area and could still apply that
money towards it.
Page 51
1
May 9, 2006
I mean, there's all sorts of possibilities. I mean, cost factor is
negligible compared to what the service would provide. And it's just
something that I wanted to get in front of this commission at this time,
and hopefully you'd want to include it in the strategic plan so that
we're looking at it as a necessary component of our way of living.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes, excuse me.
Under public relations, we used to do a program a while back
where each one of the commissioners each month would get up, and
they would highlight something. It was kind of like a personal look at
inside the government, whether it be we walked through the landfill or
a water treatment plant or something that we specially were concerned
with in our community in our individual areas or whatever districts,
and I find that was kind of popular. It brought the public like inside
our walls, as well as it made the county government seem, you know,
more understandable.
Most people that come in don't even really know what it's all
about. I know our East Naples Civic Association next week, this
week -- this week is going to take a tour of the landfill. We're going to
have lunch at the landfill and then go to a water -- they're going to
provide a lunch at the landfill -- no, not really. Excuse me. I just had
to throw that in. Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're doing good. You're on a
roll, Donna. Don't stop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And take a tour of the water
treatment plant, and I thought that, you know -- you don't know
anything about it?
MR. DeLONY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you do. Are you coming with
us?
MR. DeLONY: I'd love to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right. And so things like that, I
Page 52
~r ~---
May 9, 2006
think, would be a wonderful thing to do, and maybe each one of us
each month could come up with something that they would like to do
to show the human interest side of our county government.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What human interest side of our
county government?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you're not included.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm just kidding.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure I understand the
business about the Internet access and that sort of thing. There are a
lot of private companies that provide services such as that. There's
also Naples Free Net that is doing quite well. I don't know whether
the intent was to get the government involved in operating a server for
an Internet service for people in the county or whether it was just a
recommendation to further encourage the prewiring of new buildings
for technology.
So I'm not sure if it -- if it is a recommendation which would
involve the government in creating some sort of free Internet service
for citizens. I would not be interested in pursuing that because it can
get quite expensive. And there are many private Internet activity
services that are available to the public at very minimal charge. So
I'm not sure I understand the intent of that particular issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I appreciate you
asking the question. I didn't give enough detail, that's for sure, and I'm
the first to admit that.
Let me give you some examples. At present there's a vendor
that's working with the school system on supplying cable to the school
system throughout Collier County. And it's part of their outreach, and
they're working to deal mainly with the school system.
They want to provide Internet locations throughout the county at
public places that would be free for the public to be able to use, such
Page 53
I
May 9, 2006
as the parks, the beaches, library -- well, libraries already have it -- but
at numerous locations just to be able to go to sit down with your
computer and use it.
This would involve nothing from the county other than the
right-of-way permission to be able to run the wires to be able to put
the antenna. I would never commit the county to take on something as
large and as big and expensive as putting together a wireless network
by itself.
I've been talking to -- as early as this morning I had a meeting
with a gentleman from the Time Warner Company. There's all sorts
of possibilities out there, but there's no reason why we can't be a
player and represent the best interest of the public.
We do that all the time when it comes to the use of cable
television. They have to come before us to be able to use the
right-of-ways, and we weigh these things with certain degrees. The
state weighs in in even larger degree.
So I do see this as something that we are a player, as are many
communities in the United States that are involved in this.
Now, where we would fit in the whole thing as far as what part of
it would be our responsibility, I would say that it wouldn't be any
more than we're doing now with the economic development funds that
we're working with to hard wire a building. It might be something in
that direction that we'd recognize economic development and maybe
money being redirected for a certain element to be able to encourage a
business park someplace.
But the -- it's endless. But as far as a financial commitment on
the part of the county, no, that wasn't the direction I was going. More
of a guidance type principle to come forward with.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I don't see anything wrong
with that. I would caution, however, that we be very, very careful
about people who provide free services. And I -- there are a number
of examples of organizations, particularly high technology
Page 54
.
May 9, 2006
organizations and, in fact, Internet and cable vision organizations that
have provided free services to schools and other governmental
agencIes.
But remember that these people do these things to make a profit,
and these people did it by channeling their advertisements to school
children and to governmental agencies. And that is -- that's a very
slippery slope, and we've got to be careful that we don't give
somebody an exclusive.
If we're going to do something like this, we have to make sure
that it is competitively procured because these are -- these are --
people just don't do things for free. There's something they expect
from them. And so we have to be careful. But the concept is
certainly, certainly laudable, and just -- we need to proceed with
caution is my only concern.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Of course. No such thing as a free
lunch.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Winona, thank you for the
presentation this morning. What does -- is there any anticipation
about the fiscal impacts on this strategic plan?
MS. STONE: We have not -- staff has not as yet gotten that far
down. They have prepared their budgets for the FY -'07 cycle. But as
far as seeing it in this format, we have not put in the who, what, when,
at a cost of, and to be completed by such and such a date. That's what
we'll be working on for the FY -'07 plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you heard any comments
from your colleagues about fiscal impacts?
MS. STONE: Not to my knowledge, no. Some of the
stakeholder comments were asking questions about prioritization of
them and that type of thing, and different revenue sources. But as far
as this layout itself, we haven't gone in and identified all the costs
Page 55
T
May 9, 2006
associated with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, I understand. But I didn't
know if there was any -- somebody -- any -- threw anything out there
of how much it would cost.
MS. STONE: For the whole --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your answer is saying no.
MS. STONE: I will tell you, we have a lot more work to do at
the staff level, too, to fit all these into those three different categories
that I told you about for the time lines of how long it will take to
accomplish them and prioritization of what needs to be -- you know,
that's up to you as far as the budget process as to what you're going to
find.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. STONE: So we'll be coming back to you with that in the
normal planning process each year. This is the very beginning of this
plan. I'm very excited about it, but it is a lot of work.
I'm looking forward to actually seeing it fully implemented. And
what we as staff envision it will be able to provide you in the next five
years, sometime in the three- to five-year time frame of, you know,
showing the public with the metrics and measures that we're going to
develop to go along with these identifying best practices, and that type
of thing, for you to be able to go out and show the public what we
have been able to do and measure ourselves.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's good to hear. I
think measurable performances is a good thing, but a lot of things
we're already doing. So I see that possibility of expansion. Give you
an example, of neighborhood preservation. We do that and -- through
many different sources, and we also encourage for neighborhood
groups to have a visioning session, something similar to Naples Park.
What we did, tried to do, or we thought, what the residents wanted,
which we were wrong.
The other thing that I see is we have -- I mean, there's a lot of
Page 56
T ...-
May 9, 2006
things about public information, public engagement, public -- just
public information, and we have grown that a lot. And taking out --
like Commissioner Fiala stated, it's taking out the people, the five
people who really should be interacting with the public to more of a
news media type atmosphere.
And I think that we -- my personnel opinion, that's up to the news
media to provide. I don't want to see any more growth in public
information, personally. I think a redirection in some of that, those
duties, of providing service to the residents would probably a better
spent ( sic) of ad valorem dollars.
But I do agree with Commissioner Coletta on public access to
public lands and try to partnership (sic) with the state and federal
government to do things such as Commissioner Coletta suggested of
hunting and fishing, camping and those activities that the families
really enjoy. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, and then
we'll take a break before we make a decision on which way we're
going to go on this. Hopefully, we can get this approved as an
adoption on the five-year plan.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can see how hard everybody has
worked. It's a wonderful plan, and what this does is bring the
humanness back into our county government, I believe. In everything
here we're trying to determine and then follow through on what our
community needs, what it expects, what it wants.
And, you know, over the past few years, we've seen our
community kind of divided. And, in fact, with all of the walls and
with all of the gates, the sense of community seems to be begun as
well as county government has gone to look cold.
And I think that this is our -- all of our effort to erase that and to
bring back the human side, the personal side of county government,
and I'm so glad we're going to do this.
Page 57
I
May 9, 2006
Once this is approved, then with our next steps, besides, you
know, just determining where you want to go and what you want to
do, do we then include this in some kind of -- you know, any of our
rules and regulations, EAR-based or, you know, AUIR, anything at
all? Does it get incorporated in something like that, or is this a
separate entity all together?
MS. STONE: Jim? County Manager, would you want to --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what I would say to that answer is,
we run it as -- we run it as a long-term strategic plan. The outcomes
that you have under the different objectives could enter into the AUIR,
the Land Development Code, the Growth Management Plan, all of
those things that you basically talked about.
It's basically how we take these particular objectives and
implement them, and there's several avenues for the board to do that.
If, for instance, on recreation, the community and the board come
and basically say, and staffs recommendation is, you need to have a
new regional park out in Immokalee someplace, then that would go
into our AUIR process, it would also go into our capital budget for
that particular item, and you'd get it in there.
If somebody -- if somebody says, we want to have more friendly
neighborhood type environments where businesses, they front up to
the street and you have walkways -- and you've seen some of those in
the community character type of issues. We've seen those in an idea
about U.S. 41 in the East Naples side and in Commissioner Henning's
district on Golden Gate Parkway.
Those particular aspects would transpire into a Growth
Management Plan amendment and/or Land Development Codes. And
those are just a few examples. This is multifaceted, and it basically
touches on everything that we will do as a government over the next
10 years, and it kind of gives us a focus on where we want to head.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Maybe -- we'll take a 10-minute break
Page 58
..
May 9, 2006
here, but maybe staff can fill us in on what we've accomplished in the
last five years on our five-year plan, and I think that maybe will give
us a little more guidance of what we accomplished and how many
objectives we accomplished and what we had planned to accomplish
with the strategic plan in the next five years and 10 years. I think
maybe that will clear up some ambiguities.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
Board of County Commissioners is now back in session from
recess, and I think I left off with a question to the County Manager.
How about Commissioner Coyle first. Commissioner Coyle first,
and then --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I don't have a question, but I
really do have to take issue with this idea that something -- that there's
a coldness about government and that we haven't been communicating
with people and that our public relations effort has not been beneficial.
I don't know where this is coming from. I have never in my life
-- and I've -- I've lived in 11 states and 20 cities in the United States
alone. I have never seen a government more open and cooperative
than the Collier County government, and certainly the government
that this commission inherited was not better than this one.
Our staff is very cooperative. We have done a lot with respect to
getting the development and environmental communities working
together. We listen to homeowner associations. We have gotten
people onto our advisory boards that represent a broader spectrum of
the community than we used to have.
In many cases in the past advisory boards were a rubber stamp
for only maybe one segment of the whole community. So there has
been a tremendous improvement here.
Page 59
. .u_
May 9, 2006
And I am disturbed that some of the members of the commission
think there's been a deterioration, because I don't -- I don't see it.
The people I talk with are -- are very praiseworthy of our public
relations. They appreciate the kinds of things we're putting on
television, they appreciate the mailings and the informative
information we're sending out to the public.
So I have to tell you, I am -- I am shocked that there are
commissioners who believe that there has been a deterioration in
communication with the public. I think it sends a wrong message to
the public to even suggest that that sort of thing has happened, because
I think there's been just a wonderful improvement in communications
with the public and a fairness with which the public is treated here in
Collier County.
And I think the staff, County Manager, and the commissioners
are all responsible for that. That was one of the things we set out to do.
So -- and heaven forbid that the media be the only source of
information concerning Collier County government. There are many
things that have to be said that are not said because they're not
newsworthy but they are important from the standpoint of the citizens.
So I -- I just had to say that because I think it really, really sends
the wrong message to the public if we're -- if we're telling them that
things have deteriorated here and that there's a coldness about Collier
County government, and I certainly don't see it.
Every administrator we have goes out of his or her way to
address public concerns and have public meetings about almost
everything we do. So with that -- I just had to say that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well said, Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that prompted
from the comments that I made, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not really, not necessarily.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, they were mine.
Page 60
.
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there has been a
disconnect between the members of this board and the public. It's
more of County Manager's staff getting out to the public.
And I mean, there was opportunities that we had previously
where elected officials had the opportunity to appear on shows on
particular topics. I don't remember the last time I've seen any of my
colleagues on there. And I -- I think that we -- we have provided a lot
of public information.
But all I'm saying is, is I think we ought to allow the media, who
that's their job, to also get out information. And we do tell our story.
We tell it well. But the real responsibility of elected officials, it
should be a go-between between the citizenry and government, and I
just think that has eroded, and sorry you disagree with that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I disagree with you because, for
instance, I have a District 2 forum that meets once a month, and there's
probably at least 50 people that show up that represent homeowner
groups, and we get out there with the message every month. So I'm
not sure -- we're doing our part. And I'm not sure what's happening in
the other areas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When's the last time you've
been on a public channel on a particular topic of a segment of
government, whether it be parks, libraries, animal control or anything?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I'm not sure where you're leading
this to, but I -- there's times when, each commission meeting, where
we are interviewed separately, and that gets on the government
channel in regards to what our concerns are and our wishes are. So I
think that we're getting out there in front of the --
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, if I could help just a second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me -- let me just talk about that
briefly, because I agree with Commissioner Henning on that point. I
haven't been on any television show for probably a year and a half, I
would guess at least that long, but I just figured it's because they didn't
Page 61
.
May 9, 2006
like the way I had done it in the past.
And I also think that maybe a good reason for me not being on
the show is because I'm running for reelection, and there shouldn't --
shouldn't be any increased visibility through the government television
channel during a campaign, as far as I'm concerned.
But Commissioner Henning is absolutely right, there has been a
reduction of that kind of input and participation. But I was talking in
terms of the overall communication with the public, and I think it has
improved dramatically.
The fact that I'm not on television as much as I used to be at one
point in time is probably just like Dan Rather, he wore out his
welcome or something. I don't know. But --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think that's the case. No
opposition.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Anyway, that's where I'm at. I
agree with you on that point, and -- but we -- we do have control over
how well we communicate to our community, and each of us has
unique circumstances.
I have a lot of homeowner associations. I can go to those
homeowner associations just about any time I want to, and it helps me.
And I'm helped by the City of Naples because I go attend their
workshops, and those are televised. So, you know, I have a different
circumstance than some of the other commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're on television.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I'm on television. But
nevertheless, I just wanted to explain that. I was not in total
disagreement with what Commissioner Henning was saying.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm in agreement with you.
And it was me that brought it up, and so let me just say that what I felt
was -- I think we've done a lot as far as reaching out. All of us, every
single commissioner sitting up here gets out into their community all
the time. I think that -- I don't know -- I've never seen such a response
Page 62
,----
May 9, 2006
of commission before, quite frankly, nor county government, nor staff.
Our staff is out in that community all the time, and any time
anybody ever wants to meet with them. I've never had a no yet from
any staff member when I said, could you come in and talk with me
about so and so, or I have a little group. Everybody is communicative.
And I never meant to infer that they weren't, because that would
certainly not be the case.
Also I feel that we've done a lot as far as communication. But I
felt that I would like to, through our communication, give the more
personal or more human side rather than the newspaper carrying it
because, you know, we -- you know, we don't tell the newspaper what
to write. They write what they see or interpret or whatever.
And I think that little things, as I said before, touring a dump or --
I mean a landfill or something like that, or something that is of
interest, you know, maybe like Commissioner Halas would have an
interesting thing going on in his community he would love to let
everybody know about or -- I don't know whose district the new park
is going to be in, but I think it would be so much fun to have a
commissioner over there with Marla and some of the park people
taking a little stroll and watching the people play in the new water
things, you know, just things like that to bring back that personal
touch that we used to give before. That's -- and that's where I was
going. If it sounded like I was demeaning what we have, I -- I'm not.
I just wanted to give the more personal feeling.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifwe could get back on track here so we
can get this --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was on track.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. No, I meant -- I meant as far as
the issue about the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was the issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- strategic plan here.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. So far I've got -- and I'm prepared to talk
Page 63
I
May 9, 2006
about what we've done in the last five years as far as the previous
strategic plan, if the board would like.
But I've got AT -- included, Commissioner Coletta. was talking
about, A TV access needs to be -- to address them in the strategic plan
along with hunting and fishing opportunities, also talked about
encouraged public use or wireless technology in the forms of
prewiring existing buildings or new buildings.
I believe I heard that -- basically no financial help or a big
financial outlay outside of what we already do for, not wireless, but
broadband, and no exclusivity as far as just doing one particular
person or outfit because of their advisement structure and what they --
what they bring forward as far as the ability to provide a service that is
reduced in price and/or free.
Commissioner Fiala brought up the fact that she would like to
have the monthly programs by the commissioners brought back on the
channel to talk about new topics that we have. She's right, we haven't
done that in a while. And I've taken that down, and I don't believe
that's a problem at all, and so that's not an issue.
And Commissioner Henning basically was very concerned about
the cost of the particular program and how it relates over the next 10
years, and I believe in those particular cases the board will be able to
take a look at the strategic plan, take a look at the costs as they go
through the budget cycle, be able to address some in the AUIR before
the budget cycle even starts to happen. Those things are to come, and
it's a 10-year plan.
So the price tag hasn't been figured out and nor have we
dedicated the staff to lay that out until the board basically says, this is
the plan that they would like to do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion we approve the
plan --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 64
l' ..----
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- with those additions that you see
just stated.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a -- there's a motion
on the floor to approve the plan and to adopt -- also included in the
plan is the items that the County Manager brought forth, and we have
a second.
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. (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Thanks, Winona.
Item #10B
AWARD BID NUMBER 06-3957 FOR UNDERGROUND
UTILITY SUPPLIES TO MAINLINE SUPPLY CO., FERGUSON
ENTERPRISES, INC., CORCEL CO, A&L PLUMBING & SEPTIC
SUPPLIES, INC. AND HUGHES SUPPLY CO. IN THE
ANTICIPATED AMOUNT OF $2~500~OOO - APPROVED
Sir, the next item is lOB, and that is a recommendation to award
bid number 06-3957 for underground utility supplies to Mainline
Supply Company, Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., Corcel Company, A&L
Plumbing & Septic Supplies, Inc., and Hughes Supply Company in
Page 65
I
May 9, 2006
the anticipated amount of $2,500,000. And Mr. Paul Mattausch, your
Director of Water, will present.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Commissioners, good morning. Paul Mattausch, for the record,
Public Utilities Division, Water Department Director.
You have before you agenda item lOB. Jim has already gone
through the title of that.
The Public Utilities Division is responsible for the operation and
maintenance of the infrastructure required to move water from the raw
water source to the water treatment plants and then to the end user.
In a similar manner, we're responsible to move water from--
wastewater from the point source to wastewater or water reclamation
facilities, and then we move irrigation quality water from the water
reclamation facility to the end user.
In order to ensure that the infrastructure is properly maintained
and that any repairs are completed in a timely manner, an inventory of
underground supply parts must be maintained.
Included in this bid are also certain parts necessary to maintain
both the water treatment and the water reclamation plant processes.
This recommended action today provides the vehicle to maintain the
critical parts inventory.
And staff recommendation is to award the contract to the selected
firms. I have a short presentation prepared if you so desire. I'm
prepared to answer any questions that you may have concerning this
agenda item.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would just -- just for the
record, can you tell our audience and can you tell the public how bids
are actually gone through and what participation the commissioners
have in any of the bids, please?
MR. MATTAUSCH: Certainly. The bid documents were
received from -- thank you for that lead-in -- were received from five
Page 66
,
May 9, 2006
vendors. They were asked to respond with quotes on 33 different
categories of parts that include over 500 different items, different parts
that we have to use in all of that infrastructure to maintain that
infrastructure.
Staff then reviews those bids with the purchasing department and
staff that are set up to review those bids, and they ensure that the
lowest qualified bidders are selected in that -- in that process.
Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it does. I just thought maybe
the public didn't realize that we never even know when bids are sent
out, we don't know who responds, we don't know when you guys meet
down in purchasing to go through all of these bid packages and
determine who's qualified and who isn't, and then, you know, who the
best bidders are. We never see that until we find it here, just like
today on our agenda.
And in case there was any confusion out there, I thought I would
just clear that up.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. When -- even when staff goes
through and selects the firms after the RFP goes out, that entire
process is taped.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, is it really?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. It's taped to make sure there's no
underhandedness, there's no hanky-panky, there's no preference given,
that it's very --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fair.
MR. MUDD: -- clear-cut and fair for everybody that basically
does and submits to that RFP. And I've had people on the outside
come in and take a look at how we go through our program. And in
some cases, I've had -- my old deputy in Rock Island came down one
time and took a look. And he said, you know, you're probably fairer
than the federal government is as far as --
MR. DeLONY: Absolutely.
Page 67
. ".--
May 9, 2006
MR. MUDD: -- awarding contracts and the process that you go
through, because we've eliminated any of that and any aspect of it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I'm so proud of the way
everybody does this, because anybody can come in and scrutinize
anything, and we never have to hang our head or apologize for
anything, and I'm very proud of that. And I just feel that the
community ought to -- you know, they can see how this is handled,
but I wanted to just put that on the record today. Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: One last thing, ma'am. Jim DeLony, your
public utilities administrator. Mr. Carnell's not here, but on his behalf,
let me just say, if there's anyone that wants to do business with our
county, we invite them to do that. And the way to do that is to contact
Mr. Carnell and his staff through our website or by the telephone, and
we can channel them into the product line that they're interested in
bidding on and participating in.
We have a standing list of people that we said, okay, we're going
to do this, we shoot out a notification, hey, the county's thinking about
buying this, doing this, soliciting this particular item, and our
procurement staff is very aggressive in casting as wide a net as
possible to capture as much competition that we can to ensure that
we're delivering best value decisions with regard to procurement.
So I'm putting a plug in for strategic communications here from a
standpoint of a good business practice. And we just got through
discussing how important that was. But I just want to let you know
that's in place. And Mr. Carnell is ably leading that effort.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you've answered most of my
questions, but I'd like to carry it just a little bit further.
Have you ever, ever had a commissioner involve themselves in
any procurement decision with respect to this?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I've been here four years coming next
month, actually the 16th of June is my fourth year anniversary. I've
Page 68
I
May 9, 2006
been here four years with this commission and a few that are not here
with us more.
As an administrator and speaking on behalf of my division, I
have never had any involvement by a commissioner on any
procurement action other than maybe questions at this very dais. And
at that time, that's our public process, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we don't have to vote on this;
we just let you do it?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir. But part of our process requires that all
of our procurement policy, all of the policies associated it, if it's not in
the policy where you have expressly delegated authority
commensurate with the responsibility to the administrator or his
designee, we come to the board for approval on all procurement items.
And the expression of delegation is very narrow and very defined.
And the bottom line is, if you haven't told us we could do it, then we
have to come in here and receive permission to do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much for your
presentation.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I'll call the question. Do you have
MR. DeLONY: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay. All those in favor of
approving this executive summary in regards to the purchase of
equipment for the utilities department, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 69
1
May 9, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
MR. DeLONY: Mr. Chairman, with a little indulgence, while I
have Mr. Mattausch here, could I take a moment of your time and
bring you up to speed on the water situation in Collier County?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. Yes, please do.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Yeah. At your discretion that you just
gave me, I'm prepared to provide you a brief update on the current
situation with the lengthy dry period that we've had.
This is really not an anomaly. We have, in Southwest Florida, a
dry season and a rainy season. We're in the dry season. And although
we've had an extended period without precipitation -- in fact, February
4th and 5th was our last real significant precipitation that we had here
in Collier County.
In fact, I remember flying to Albuquerque for a conference, and I
remember sitting on the runway for an hour and a half that Saturday
morning on February 4th waiting for the storm swells to pass through
so that we could actually take off. So that was our last event that we
had.
We've had similar dry conditions. If you'll remember four years
ago we were here in this board room on a Saturday afternoon on
Easter weekend with an emergency request for essential uses only. We
were in a dry period then but under a very different level of reliability
and sustainability for our utility.
I would like to thank this board for your support in the A UIR
process, in the master planning process, in the budgeting process, and
for giving us the authority on a case-by-case basis, just as you just did,
to buy our underground utility parts to allow us to sustain the
infrastructure that's necessary to provide the level of service.
Page 70
1
May 9, 2006
We -- we have a capital improvements program that we've been
doing with your -- under your direction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're laughing, Paul--
MR. MUDD: It's raining out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because it's pouring down rain
outside. You obviously --
MR. MATTAUSCH: I'm done.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You must be the rain god.
MR. MUDD: If you can make it rain, you can come up and talk
anytime you want.
MR. MATTAUSCH: That's appropriate, that's appropriate.
Thank you. Although I cannot take credit for that rain.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would try though.
MR. MATT AUSCH: You've given us the authorization for a
capital improvements program to position this utility to be a
sustainable, reliable utility, and that is -- that is greatly appreciated.
We've been able, for the first year since 2000, to sustain
throughout the season our level of service. That's why you have not
seen weekly reports from this department this year for the first year in
four years, okay? We've not had to provide you those weekly reports
because you have helped us position ourselves to be a sustainable,
reliable utility, and we greatly appreciate that.
My message today to the public, because I know I'm talking to
the public here in addition to talking to you, is even though it is
raining outside right now, use water wisely, think when you turn on
the faucet, think when you turn on the sprinkler, think about the
resources that you're using. Use that water wisely . We are -- we're
well into uncharted territory. And if I can --
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. MATTAUSCH: -- I'd just like to show you this -- this
chart. You can see for March, April and so far in May, we are -- we
Page 71
.,
May 9, 2006
are above in our demand curve, and that -- that curve is this blue line,
and that blue line is where we are currently at.
That is -- that is both above -- and we've had lengthy discussions
in the AUIR process about reliability and levels of reliability.
The green and the red line that you see below that is that 10-state
standards definition of reliability of our public water supply system.
You can see that we're above that for the last three months.
You can also see that that same line is also the FDEP requirement
through the Florida Administrative Code. When we -- when we
exceed that 75 percent of our capacity of the system, we are required
under F AC requirements to submit to FDEP a program to address that
capacity issue.
We have done that for the last couple years. We will do that
again this year with your support through the master plan that you will
see the first board meeting in June, and we will provide that master
plan as our plan to address the capacity issues that we see in this
public potable water supply.
And, again, I thank you for your support, and I thank other
powers for the rain that we're currently getting. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You know that we love
supporting you. But we only respond to what you give us. You guys
put the plan in place, you guys tell us what we need. We sure don't
know that we need those parts. We don't know what kind of wells we
need to dig and everything. You guys put that in place, and you have
been so aggressive about improving our water situation.
I remember when we came onboard, at least Commissioner
Henning and I, the water treatment plants were seeping at the seams,
and people were up in arms and they couldn't get water. And look at
us now. We're enjoying even -- I've been here 32 years, and I don't
ever remember it being this dry ever in my 32 years, and yet we have
water when we turn on our faucet. And so I just want to thank you for
Page 72
......T.......--.--
May 9,2006
all that you've done to turn this whole situation around.
And second of all, I had a question, but you can't answer it, I
don't think anybody here can. But I was throwing out a question to
Dan Summers just recently. Being that I don't remember such a dry
season, I wonder what prediction he has for hurricane season. Does
dry season somehow have anything to do with what to expect from
our hurricane season coming up? And who knows, maybe he would
want to come to a meeting and let us know if there is an effect.
Anyway, just throwing that on the floor for discussion,
MR. MATTAUSCH: Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate
that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was from last time. Thank
you.
Item #IOC
RECEIPT AND APPROVAL OF THE PROGRESS REPORT FOR
THE YEAR 2005, COLLIER COUNTY FLOODPLAIN
MANAGEMENT PLAN, SECTION 7 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN - PRESENTED AND
DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is lOCo It's to see and approve the progress report for the year
2005, Collier County Floodplain Management Plan, Section 7 of the
Collier County Hazard Mitigation Plan. And Mr. Robert Wiley, who
is your floodplain expert, okay, your stormwater expert, in the
department of Engineering and Community Development's
Environmental Services, will present.
MR. WILEY: For the record, my name is Robert Wiley with
your Engineering Services Department. We have prepared for you
Page 73
^ ^^^~.r----
May 9, 2006
and presented with your executive summary just a brief progress
report on the Floodplain Management Plan.
The plan is a requirement since we are a class seven community
under the community rating system, and we put it together as a part of
the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Within the documentation I've given to you, it goes through and
identifies all of the goals and objective statements within the Hazard
Mitigation Plan, and then we put answers for those portions which
were applicable to floodplain management.
So as you look at what's presented to you, some goal and
objective statements may not be specifically addressed because they
encompass just simply more than just simply the floodplain
management.
The document you have is based upon my personal experience
with a lot of issues. Some of the issues though were answers directly
received from other departments, and I simply put their responses into
these when I sent out the different departments requesting their
assistance to do so.
If you have any particular questions regarding the progress
report, I'll be glad to try to address them. But primarily my goal here
today in giving the presentation is to fulfill the requirements of our
community rating system where we have to annually give you a
progress report on the plan.
And then it has attached with it here six recommendations where
we're, as staff and the County Manager, asking for direction on how
you'd like for us to proceed in certain issues. And so if you have no
questions related specifically to the progress report, I'd like to go right
now into those six issues.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please do.
MR. WILEY: Okay. The first issue we want to talk about is
repetitive loss properties. The county has 28 repetitive loss properties.
That's based upon a listing through the Insurance Service Offices,
Page 74
~~-~T~ ~~~ - ~--
May 9,2006
that's ISO. That's the agency which handles the flood insurance
claims through the Nation Flood Insurance Program.
We get that listing, and every year we notify the people that they
are on a -- they are a repetitive loss property. In addition to that, we
have to identify a parameter area.
Now, we have the ability to set our parameter, and that's basically
upon the general topography that we have, and then we have to notify
every property owner within that perimeter of a repetitive loss, so it's a
lot of letters that go out. A lot of people call back, say, I've never
flooded. And that's true. Many of them may not have.
But they get a letter which says, you're near a repetitive loss.
And so we do a lot of explaining as to what our letter said, because
when you get the letter, you think, oh, I'm in trouble. And it doesn't
mean that, but it's simply an advisory letter. However, for repetitive
loss properties, that affects somewhat our flood insurance rating.
The goal of the Floodplain Management Plan, the overall goal is
to resolve and mitigate the issues for repetitive loss of properties. So
that's the first issue we want to discuss here, and basically it amounts
to providing mitigation. If a house has historically flooded, more than
-- well, it has to have flooded twice within a 1 O-year period in which
the claim was for $1,000 or more.
But once you get on a repetitive loss list, you never get off of it
until you mitigate. And you can mitigate by either elevating the
house, protecting it in some fashion, producing stormwater
improvements to reduce the level of the flooding which will occur. A
lot of different activities are available out there.
But we keep seeing, year after year, the list stays basically the
same given a fluctuation of one or two. Particularly when people
come in with the rebuilding effort that's occurring in the county, we'll
see a house demolished and then a new one built, and when it's built, it
is built in compliance with the new flood maps that we have.
So what we bring before you today is asking your direction, do
Page 75
I
May 9, 2006
you want us to be proactive in coming up with ways to mitigate the
repetitive loss of properties, or do you just want us to sit back and
keep identifying them and continue the program we're going? And
that's really the direction I'm asking for you today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: When you mitigate the property, is--
what you're saying is once we get the residents out of that particular
floodplain, does that give us a better rating as far as insurance rating
then?
MR. WILEY: What it does, it affects our insurance rating when
we get down below a certain number of repetitive loss properties. We
drop out of a class C to a class B to a class A.
The better your class is, the better your rating gets. It affects
your overall scoring. It also affects, somewhat so, the insurance
premium rates that people are charged throughout the county. But
primarily it is for those individual properties that are a repetitive loss
that receive the continual damage and repeating over and over and
over again. Some of them are only twice. We have some out there
that are -- many, many times, have flooded.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What percentage do you have to get--
do you have to mitigate before the rating goes up?
MR. WILEY: That's a question (sic) I don't have for you right
now. That really depends upon how we submit our annual report to
ISO, and then they come back with their annual recertification rating
for us. And every year they do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Robert, I lean toward being
proactive on this particular issue, but I don't have a real good feel for
what your alternatives are with respect to solving some of the
problems.
I can understand requiring that a place be rebuilt at higher level,
but what happens when you have a small community that floods
regularly even during a heavy thunderstorm? What do we do under
Page 76
1-.....-...... '-"--
May 9, 2006
those circumstances? How do we go about solving that problem on a
more permanent basis?
MR. WILEY: Where it is an entire community, you basically
address that issue by providing improved conveyance to remove the
stormwater, assuming it is not tidally induced. Most of the flooding
that we have is a result of single units placed in various locations of
the county which are typically much older and built very low-lying.
We don't really have the large communities where it gets in the
buildings by a massive number of buildings. We have street flooding
in a lot of places. But to actually get in the building, those are fairly
isolated units.
In the case that I can think of right off the top in the Gateway
Triangle area, we have a lot of repetitive flooding through there as far
as street and yard flooding that will get right up against buildings, but
not that often do we have it repeatedly get in the same buildings from
the same events.
And those are situations to where the construction of facilities to
eliminate the whole regions from flooding are the way that is better to
mitigate than trying to address each individual and building elevate
them.
As they come in for redevelopment, yes, they will build up to
code, and that itself is a form of mitigation. The issues I'm talking
about deal primarily with the individual homeowner who owns a
house but doesn't know how they can come up with the typical 25
percent matching funding it would take for them to mitigate a house.
Federal grants are out there, but typically it's a 25/75 match. And
so people have talked to me, and they basically want to know, how
can the county help them. And our position basically is, they need to
submit a letter, they can send it to me, they can send it to the
Emergency Management office. We will bring it before the local
mitigation strategy work group, which is the group that you have set
up to address Emergency Management issues as far as the Hazard
Page 77
... ..---
May 9, 2006
Mitigation Plan.
We will evaluate their request to be put on for a grant funding.
And if we vote to put them on the list, then they become eligible
should there be a federal disaster declaration. But still, that requires
the homeowner at that time to commit in writing that they're good for
up to 25 percent of that cost. And most of these people come in and
simply say, well, we can't afford that. So they walk away, and that
house still sits there and is ready for flooding again.
The option is out there, are there certain situations that it's more
advantageous for the county to take the aggressive step to try to buy
the property, is it located in a situation that it is really not a place
where you'd want someone to have a house in the first place, a very
low, subject to flooding -- my phrase is, every time it gets cloudy, but
that's not really what happens. But, you know, the major storm events
happen.
So these are directions that I'm -- do you want us to put them into
a plan so that we can begin to, at staff level, promote this to the
various people? And so I'm asking how you want us to proceed with
this, or just maintain the status quo, which we can maintain a status
quo if that's your direction. But every year I have to report this in our
floodplain management progress report. And one of the objective
statements there basically is to eliminate the repetitive loss properties.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if I could just follow up on
my question, Robert. Although I want you -- my personal feeling is
I'd like to be proactive on these things, that decision is affected by the
cost of being proactive and the source of funds for being proactive.
So without that kind of information, it's impossible for me to
provide you with explicit guidance. But if we could get some
information concerning that, what would be the cost of relocating
those homes that are repetitively flooded, as an example? How many
of them are there? What is the source of government funding? What
could we likely expect as far as government funding is concerned?
Page 78
..r---.
May 9, 2006
Could we, as the county, put up the 25 percent matching funds to get
the house relocated? And what would the implications be to the
person who owned the house?
You know, those are questions that I would have. And I know
that you probably don't have all those answers right now. But,
perhaps, if we could get that information I would be in a better
position to give you specific guidance.
MR. WILEY: Well, that's the direction I'm asking today. Is that
what you want us to come as staff and present to you, that kind of a
program?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to do that. I don't
know how the other commissioners feel.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I would. I'd like to know what's out
there as far as grants that are available and what the cost share is on
those grants.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wanted to know, if and when
you come back, those places that you feel eliminated -- must be
eliminated, what are the requirements there, and also, you know, what
happens to those people?
According -- you know, just like Commissioner Coyle said -- he
said it so succinctly, but I also wanted to know what type of
enforcement. If somebody says, I don't want to sell, you know, I want
to stay right here, then are we going to -- you know, is there going to
be some kind of enforcement, or are we going to just say, that's fine,
you know?
MR. WILEY: Well, our goal is not to be the heavy hand to force
someone out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
MR. WILEY: The goal of the program that we're trying to talk
about here this morning basically says, what kind of a proactive
approach do you want staff to come to you to get your approval so we
Page 79
- T-----
May 9, 2006
can go out and let these people know, these are options available to
you should you desire to take the initiative to improve your condition
and not have repetitive flooding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. WILEY: And that's our goal. It's not to run people off.
Some people may say, well, I would just as soon sell. What we need
to know, does the county commission want to look at an option of a
willing seller to sell their property? And that's where I'm coming from.
I'm not trying to evict people.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It would be a voluntary program.
MR. WILEY: It would -- the intention is to be entirely
voluntary, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'm glad to get that on the
record.
MR. WILEY: It's not a forcing out at all. I hope that didn't come
across that way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it doesn't now because you've
made that very clear.
MR. WILEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the people need to
disclose any defects of the property if they want to sell it. And what I
hear you're saying is, is it possibly that the county would buy that
piece of property because the property floods; am I correct?
MR. WILEY: That would be an option the county could have
should they choose to want to sell, versus making improvements to it
on their own.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But don't you have the option
today to inform these homeowners that there are programs to improve
their property so it doesn't flood?
Page 80
I
May 9, 2006
MR. WILEY: And we do that every year through our letter that
we send out. But should they come back and say, well, I would like to
do this but I can't afford it -- and what I'm asking, do you want us to
bring forward a possibility for a proactive program where we could
provide assistance to help them?
And I'm not envisioning the system where the county gives the
owner the money with no strings attached. The idea being, it would
be in the form of a loan or something that even if it were provided to
them, you attach a lien to the property. Should they ever sell the
property, the county's refunded.
It's not to give -- my thoughts are not to have it give an individual
benefits to their property at the overall taxpayers' expense. It's to
benefit the overall good to the community. Because as things flood,
there are emergency services, things that go in that have to resolve
issues. And we're trying to make our community more resistant to
flooding,
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, could you -- could we
give the direction that we use CDBG monies to do so? I'm -- if it's --
if it's a --
MR. WILEY: We will pursue any direction you give us, and
we'll go to the County Attorney's Office to -- for legalities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, assistance through that.
But, you know, it's kind of scary where we're kind of going.
Hopefully the other ones are a lot easier than this.
MR. WILEY : Well, I hope so. What I just wanted was to get
some direction, do you want us to put together a series of program
options and bring them back to you as a proactive approach? That's
the direction I'm asking for on this particular issue today. I'm not
saying make decisions. We'll come back to you. But it was just to get
some direction from you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would be in favor of it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, I would also, see what our options
Page 81
I
May 9,2006
are.
MR. WILEY: Okay. Let's go to the next issue, and that is the
issue of floodplain management compared to stormwater management.
The county right now is set up in a situation that you have a
stormwater management department with the transportation division,
and they're charged with designing and constructing capital
improvements to over -- to make regions that are flooding less
susceptible to flooding.
You have the development services division, and we have new
permitting coming in, and new permitting brings about the issue of
stormwater. You've got the Big Cypress Basin with managing their
canal systems. Things work fairly well between staff, fairly well.
There are differences of opinion quite often, but mostly we work them
out among ourselves.
But the general public doesn't have a clue. And when a problem
occurs, it's like mass hysteria at times. Who do I contact? Who do I
contact?
One of the issues in the floodplain management concept is to
have a central organization. And I'm not politicking for the job; don't
take it wrong. I'm not doing that. I'm trying to follow the Floodplain
Management Planning concept to where you address all issues of how
you handle the rainfall that falls on the ground, the coastal surge that
comes inland, and you put that together in a total program so you've
got your planning, your construction, everything is organized together
in a central focused organization.
And historically the county has never had that because it's always
been parcel to part. So I'm asking again, do you want to give staff
direction? Do we stay as is? Do you want us to focus together as a
single unit? And we're asking because this affects how we provide
responses in the Floodplain Management Planning effort when I put
out the progress report which goes to ISO.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does this have any effect with the
Page 82
May 9, 2006
watershed management?
MR. WILEY: It could potentially have a very serious effect with
watershed management because you address the floodplain at the
same time you address what is the quality of the water within the
whole watershed, not simply addressing, do I reduce my flooding to a
certain level. It's a very broad concept.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So they're tied together?
MR. WILEY: They are tied together. That's what we're saying,
conceptually they're tied together, but organizationally, we may not
necessarily be quite so tied together here in the county. And we're just
asking, do you want us to stay as is to the County Manager? Do you
want to give us direction to refocus? How do we address this issue?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. What does staff feel?
MR. WILEY: Well, personal opinion, having been here for 19
years --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. WILEY: -- is we need to be a single organization. I've said
that for a number of years, a long time.
The issues that rise up basically get one department telling the
other department, it's your responsibility. They look back and say, no,
it's your responsibility. And that's the kind of friction that does not
need to be occurring when you need to have an overall planning for
single focus of resolution of a problem which is basically countywide.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I think it's -- I think it's a
great idea to study -- or put together a plan for that where everybody
that has to do with any kind of watershed or, you know, flooding or
whatever, work together as a team.
Maybe, you know, so you have representatives from CDES, for
instance, who might be concerned with some kind of flooding in a
certain development, and you've got -- you've got our stormwater
management and our floodplain management, but all working together
Page 83
May 9, 2006
in full cooperation so everybody knows what everybody else is doing
and can assist them. It sounds like a good plan to me.
MR. WILEY: Okay. We'll start working on that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Did Norm want to say
something?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, Norm, do you have anything to
add to this conversation?
MR. FEDER: If I could very quickly. I think any effort to try
and look at how we better coordinate and communicate and be more
effective is viable. I'll only point out to you, at one time we had a
structure where our stormwater issues, along with CDES, were all in
one entity, and there are different issues in the three layers and
different items to be handled.
My concern is, is that the planning efforts which you need to
happen are not the same as the implementation. You set up
stormwater utility to get some projects completed, and I think we're
starting to show fruit on that, and I don't want us to get buried into the
expanded area in some of those activities.
So what I would say is, my own initial reaction -- but I'm open to
any approach -- would be that there be an effort at a coordinating
committee on this issue, getting the various entities involved from
pollution control, that's utilities, transportation, and CDES, and
making sure that all of our planning and efforts are fully coordinated,
but I'm not sure the implementation is necessarily housed in one area
because of the very nature of how that is structured.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear,
but I agree with you. You know, as I said, a representation like from
CDES, but I didn't mean to -- you know, I didn't mean then they
should leave CDES. I just think that it's good to have a local
coordinating board so that everybody knows what each other is doing.
I'm so pleased with what they're doing to the LASIP project right
now. I sure wouldn't want to interrupt any of that.
May 9, 2006
MR. FEDER: No. I understand. The other thing I would add to
that is getting Big Cypress Basin, the water management district, as
part of that coordinating effort, very definitely.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm just concerned that we make sure
that we have all the people that are going to be involved in this issue,
whether it's watershed, whether it's stormwater, or whether it's dealing
with flooding in small communities, that we're all together at the table
sO we can look at the overall big picture to make sure that we address
the concerns of the citizens here in the county.
So as long as we are going to have some type of cohesiveness in
regards to getting all the players at the table so everybody understands
what we have to do to address the problem, I'm in favor of that.
MR. WILEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have enough nods on that? Okay.
Does that give you enough direction on that?
MR. WILEY: It gives us enough to get started.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WILEY: Let's look at the third issue, and that is,
establishment of Floodplain Management Planning committee.
When we put together the Floodplain Management Plan, just to
give you a little bit of history upon it, we were required to produce this
plan when we were classified as a class seven community. And
because we have a certain number of repetitive loss properties, we
have to actually implement a Floodplain Management Plan.
So just sort of backtracking a little bit as to the history of what
happened to show you from my previous statement about how things
go.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aren't these two tied together?
MR. WILEY: They really are tied together.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It all ties together.
MR. WILEY: In preparation of the Floodplain Management
Plan, one entity said, well, they're doing it; no, they're doing it. And I
Page 85
I
May 9, 2006
asked for it so I could submit it, and everyone said, well, we didn't do
it. So there was a couple of us that -- we spent a lot of long nights
rapidly pulling this thing together. We got a time extension. And
that's the coordination I'm talking about that we don't really -- we
haven't seen. So we'll take your direction and work on that.
But the requirement is, in a Floodplain Management Plan, that
you actually have an established committee. Now, what we were able
to do because we were pulling together simultaneously the hazardous
mitigation plan, underneath the flood insurance programs rules, that
also classifies as a sufficient public forum for vetting the issues.
So we pulled this document together, it was reviewed by this
group of staff and citizens, and then we tucked it into section seven in
our hazards mitigation plan.
But what's before you is a listing of most of the different type of
staff that the community rating system recommends that you have
established on a planning committee, and then you go out to the public
and you begin to get the public input.
So you'll see you're talking about having the Building
Department, the Zoning Department, Comprehensive Planning,
Emergency Management. You know, all these are listed here.
These are specific memberships in a committee that have a
responsibility to produce and implement the Floodplain Management
Plan.
And so we're just asking, basically, from staff's perspective, for
you to authorize the establishment of such a committee, because we're
supposed to go back and review our plan on basically an every-year,
but sometimes it's a biannual basis, whereas, to get the plan.
Our current plan was submitted in the 2004 recertification
program; 2005, it was accepted again. But it's time for us to start
working. By the time we get to our five-year cycle coming around to
have totally revised -- you have to update these plans to get the
committee going. So that's what we're asking you to do, that we were
Page 86
May 9, 2006
in compliance with all the requirements of the CRS.
But the official committee has not been established. So do you
want us to come to you with a resolution to establish a committee?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Robert, you remember the old
saying that a camel is a horse designed by a committee?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't like committees. But are
you telling me that the -- the regulations, the law requires a
committee?
MR. WILEY: It does. We have been able to use the local
mitigation strategy work group as the committee. We can continue to
do so. But keep in mind, their focus is in overall hazard mitigation. It
is not in the development of a Floodplain Management Plan.
So by default, there were, two of us sat down and pulled this
thing together, and that's really not the intention behind the CRS
program.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. What would be wrong with
using any of our existing advisory boards as a committee to review the
Floodplain Management Plan? What about the Planning
Commission? Wouldn't -- you know, they're very qualified, they
spend a lot of time looking at patterns of development and what goes
where and things like that. Would they not be qualified to review that
program?
MR. WILEY: It's not so much a review as it is the actual
drafting of the document --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I see.
MR. WILEY: -- is what they're asking for. They want a diverse
group of people from a lot of fields, especially in the planning side,
but the planning side affecting the various departments within the
local county government. They want that to be a committee that,
itself, as a group, prepares a document, not just an advisory review
Page 87
I
May 9, 2006
type board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I understand. Okay. Thank
you. I would be in favor of that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So what you're saying is you're
going to use people that are presently employed by the county to work
together as a committee; is that what you're referring to?
MR. WILEY: Well, we're also suggesting that since the City of
Naples, interestingly enough, says that their storm -- that their
Floodplain Management Plan relies upon the recommendation of the
county's plan, even though they got approved for having a plan that
said they used ours. But we didn't have a plan. I don't know how that
got resolved, but it did.
I guess no one checked to see, did the county's plan even exist at
the time. That's the kind of things that are happening, and I'm trying
to eliminate that from recurring again. But we would even suggest
that the City of Naples have a seat on it. We also suggest a couple of
seats be made available to the general public, people who have a
personal interest, outside the development community, but people
with a personal interest and the background related to floodplain type
issue or planning type issues.
So at your direction, we'll pull together the resolution to establish
this official committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got one nod here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other thing that I want to know is, is
there a possibility of tying together the floodplain management
compared to stormwater management and in establishing a Floodplain
Management Planning Committee? Can this all be somewhat
combined to be more efficient?
MR. WILEY: Given that direction, we'll work on it, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I really would like to see us be a little
more efficient in that area instead of having two different identities
Page 88
May 9, 2006
and pulling at one another. I think it would be a lot more -- we could
get a lot more accomplished if we had the two groups kind of work
together in unison and tie that together.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would that work though if we're
inviting residents, you know, who are affected by floodplains and also
the City of Naples and possibly even Marco? It seems like it would be
two different types. I mean, one is like inside, you know. It's just
county government people who all deal with water, and the other one
seems to be with residents dealing with flooding and so forth.
MR. WILEY: Well, the direction I was receiving from the
commissioners, from my understanding, is you're looking at
essentially two different groups of people. One to act as the
floodplain --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. WILEY: -- management committee, which is responsible
for writing the Floodplain Management Plan, the other is a
coordination effort between the various departments, the county, to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. WILEY: -- keep things focused in a straight line.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What were you saying?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What I was saying basically is see if we
could tie the two together so that there was interconnectivity between
the two groups to be more efficient so that both sides knew what was
gOIng on.
MR. WILEY: Okay. We will work on that. We will come back.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WILEY: That's the direction I'm asking to get from you.
Very good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala has a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Never mind.
MR. WILEY: Okay. The next issue we want to talk about is
evacuation planning. This issue came up as a very serious issue with
Page 89
May 9, 2006
the Coastal High Hazard Study Committee that was a committee put
together through the governor's office.
One of the issues that we deal with here is we are listed as having
an evacuation time from a category one slosh zone of exceeding 18
hours. And the state's goal at that committee was real clearly
expressed. They wanted everybody down to 12 hours or less.
They say, the goal being to get people to evacuate during
daylight hours. Most people wait until daylight, and you've got about
a 12-hour window at that time.
So we're asking, do you want to have any direction since the
coastal zone area is a part of the floodplain? In fact, that is our
identified floodplain now. The current flood maps only address
coastal zone flooding.
But do you want us to come back to you? Do you want to give
any direction about steps to take towards getting on toward a 12-hour
evacuation time? Understanding, that's going to take quite a bit of
work and quite a bit of time to do so. But is that a goal, or do you
want us to stay at our current evacuation time? What kind of direction
would you like to have there for me to address in a floodplain plan?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was wondering, I'd written
myself some notes. Maybe -- maybe we might need some type of
individual plans for major congested areas such as, like, Immokalee
Road with all of the construction taking place, with all of the building
going on. It might -- you know, they might need a separate plan.
Also Golden Gate Boulevard. We hear of all of the tie-ups in
traffic on Golden Gate Boulevard and how people right now can't get
to work, they're tied up. And so that would be another.
There's also another crucial one with, you have Marco, Capri,
Fiddler's Creek and East Naples with all the construction going on on
951 and the intersection of Davis and 951 being the worst intersection,
as far as FDOT is concerned, in the entire district there, five-county
Page 90
May 9, 2006
district. It becomes almost impossible to move.
An evacuation plan is good, but I think some of these areas must
be pinpointed to make sure people can get out. I don't know what the
plan would be, but I think we need to focus on some of those things.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What does Mr. Summers
recommend, Dan Summers?
MR. WILEY: Well, the information that you have in the report
for you that is italicized, that is directly from them. I just passed their
answer in, which indicates that there is a study which is starting, and it
should be ongoing right now, to evaluate exactly this issue. But this
issue is not going to cover things such as traffic management, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the--
MR. WILEY: -- the concern that we have from the floodplain
issue is needing to, again, pull things together in an organized fashion.
And we have the support from Emergency Management. It's just a
matter, is there any particular goal you want us to head towards?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we do have traffic
management during a case of an event, and it works out quite well.
You know, we have our emergency manager working on this
now. And ifhis recommendations -- I mean, whatever his
recommendations are, I think that we ought to accept. So go ask him.
MR. WILEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other thing, I don't want
anybody to have the perception in a storm event that we have here in
Collier County, Golden Gate Boulevard, I don't want anybody to have
the perception they're going to come west. Most of those people will
probably just stay at home. If there's any kind of -- if there's any kind
of evacuation it would have to be for a fire because it is a heavily
wooded area. So just so nobody has that misperception.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did have that misperception.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need different evacuation
Page 91
May 9,2006
routes out there for fire.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's why I mentioned
individual plans, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And Norm Feder, during
Hurricane Wilma and other events that the folks were out there, and
they did a wonderful job, and the Sheriffs Department did a
wonderful job after Hurricane Wilma.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: I believe -- I believe this board did a pretty good
job, and it has a lot to do with timing, when you say a particular zone
needs to be evacuated.
And before Wilma, this board was very, very proactive based on
accepting some of the recommendations from Dan Summers about
what things you want to do as a voluntary evacuation, and after about
12 hours, it became a mandatory evacuation, and we're talking about
those areas that were west of 41 and some of the low areas down in
the southern part of the county, and that evacuation happened.
You know, there were a couple of folks that didn't listen and just
stayed there, but -- and then there were some folks there were -- you
know, well, how did you decide that was the line? Okay. And we had
a couple of businesses that said, well, I was on the other side. I was
supposed to evacuate, but my -- the hotel across the street got to stay
open. You know, that's a decision that you have to make.
But I believe a lot of the evacuation -- and Dan has said it a
couple of times, and hopefully Dan just walked into the room -- he has
said a lot of times, you basically take a look at your hurricane warning
scenarios and you basically address the timing of when you're going to
call the ball, so to speak, on when people need to evacuate by zone.
I think one of the benefits of the Dewberry study that we're going
to take a look at is it going to give Dan an opportunity to take a look at
what kind of volumes that we can use on the roads under a particular
scenano.
Page 92
I
May 9, 2006
But Mr. Summers, I don't want to put any more words in your
mouth. Come on up here.
MR. SUMMERS: I'll need you to -- Commissioners, good
morning, Dan Summers. I'll need you to recap just a little bit. I was
on the phone during the early part of this discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we're leaving everything
in your hands to do whatever you need to do to keep the safety --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, if you'd push
your button, I'd greatly appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. How many times?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, every time you want to speak, sir.
Thank you.
I think Commissioner Coyle was next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just wanted to make the
observation that there is no need for us to decide upon an ironclad
evacuation time; 12 hours, as an example. It is unrealistic to do that,
as Commissioner Henning has pointed out, because the kinds of
emergencies are different.
If there's a fire emergency, you have one kind of an evacuation
plan, and I think our Emergency Management people can look at the
situation and say, okay, we've got X number of people that need to
evacuation. How long's it going to take them to get out of there.
When should we establish evacuation? And they make a
recommendation to us.
If it's a hurricane, I think -- I think the Emergency Management
people did exactly what they should have done last year, which is to
advise us which zones should be evacuated first. And we had a very
long period of time to get those zones evacuated.
And as conditions develop, we expand those zones or we could
detract them, if we wish to. So I think that kind of a process is very,
very good, and it's a process that responds to the specific threat rather
than just trying to establish a specific 12-hour evacuation period for
Page 93
May 9, 2006
the entire county. We're never going to evacuate the entire county, so
we wouldn't even consider the total population of the county in an
evacuation process.
So I think that the way we've done it in the past is a good way to
do it. We've gotten good input from the Emergency Management
staff. And I think when they bring those things to us, we can make a
decision as commissioners as to what sectors should be evacuated at
what point in time based upon the recommendations of the Emergency
Management staff.
So I think that works well, and I'd like to keep it that way. It
worked well last time.
MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Chairman, if I may, just to let me -- with
a quick read here, let me put this in perspective for you.
In my opinion, it's fair game either in regulatory standards, land
use, and those types of things, to put some base line assumptions in
our emergency planning. If we strive for a 12-hour event or we want
to strive for 24-hour lead time or we want to strive for one of -- one
that you're very familiar with is, make sure that our evacuation area is
buttoned up before the arrival of gale force winds.
So all of those types of things we understand, that are regulatory
we put as assumptions because it helps us drive our planning and
make sure that the detail is there, but we all understand that with all of
those things, those are reasonable operational objectives. But every
storm throws us a new variable, and my job is to decipher, if you will,
those variables and bring them to you for a reasonable action plan.
So I think whatever you need as a planning standard is certainly
acceptable, but the ground-truth is, we have to put variables in there
and we know that we're going to adjust based on the type of
emergency. And if we have to kind of balance that a little bit, I'm
very comfortable adjusting those two factors so that we respond
appropriately.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
Page 94
1
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did you have a question you wanted to
ask?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My light's not on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I turned it off.
Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I agree with
Commissioner Henning, you know. Let's leave this up to our
Emergency Management. We've got the best Emergency
Management Director we've ever had. He's very proactive.
We got tremendous acceptance from the public in the last
hurricane. So why try to micromanage this in any shape or form?
And I believe all my commissioners are in agreement on this. Let's
just resign ourselves to the fact that we have good management.
When the time comes, we're not going to tell him what to do. He's
going to tell us what to do, and we're going to follow his directions.
I hope we can move on from this subj ect.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I have some -- I've got some
questions. The fact is that the governor had a study group and was
very concerned about coastal counties. And as was brought up, that
Collier basically is -- the whole coastal area of Collier is a floodplain.
And the majority of our population is on the coastal area, basically in
the coastal high hazard area; is that correct?
MR. SUMMERS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The majority of our population. So my
concern is -- and I think this is where the governor's leading to -- is
that instead of what we feel is -- 18 hours is sufficient, sometimes
we're not -- we don't have that capability of having 18 hours of lead
time to get people out of here. So that's my concern.
If the governor is concerned about 18 hours not being adequate,
why shouldn't we try to strive to get better and get people out of here
in 12 hours as he recommends, or lower?
Page 95
1
May 9, 2006
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, it's a very -- it's an interesting dilemma,
and let me shed a little light on it. There's two things. We've always
had these desirable evacuation trigger points, the 12 hours, the 18
hours. We want to do that.
But we're juggling our planning assumptions, our trigger points,
with things such as new technology for ground elevation, lidar
mapping, improved storm surge mapping, and very small, however
noteworthy, incremental improvements in forecasting.
So we also blend that with just how do -- what is the human
behavior? And I think we have very well, with your support,
illustrated to the public that as we see a storm threat, although we
don't know its exact target for landfall, that we know the voluntary
precautionary evacuation measure is important where folks know that
they want to get out two or three days ahead of the crowd, then we get
to the point that is the absolute trigger point where this is the
evacuation hour based on the latest forecast.
So with all of those changes or all of those variables in our
evacuation methodology, it poses you some challenges in terms of, do
I agree with 12? Do I want to live with 18? Do I want to adjust
density? But I can always adjust time. I can adjust time with a
forecast. I can adjust time a little bit in terms of when the voluntary
precautionary evacuation will come in or when the mandatory
evacuation will come in.
So I appreciate the fact that you have desired for us to maintain
some degree of flexibility with that because every scenario has posed
different challenges, and that includes everything from day of the
week, time of day, are we in season, are we out of season, and even
impediments during road construction and those type of things.
So I'm not sure I can put the box around it the way some of the
planning regulators would like for us to do, but I do think I've got the
tools at each one of these events to give you the best recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My concern is, like for instance, just a
Page 96
I
May 9, 2006
couple years ago we experienced Hurricane Charley and how fast that
storm built from a category two to category four in just a matter of
hours, and also at the speed that it was accelerating in a forward speed.
So I think that's some of the concerns that we need to also address.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir, it is, and that's what makes our job so
very difficult in those early hours with current trends, new forecasts,
how it plays in Collier County with all of those others evacuation
variables. So it gets -- you know, we work very hard to bring you that
recommendation.
And I will tell you, and remind the public, that we try to put a
little bit of variable time in there, maybe three or four hours, just to
take advantage of whatever the storm might do in terms of increase in
forward motion. We do that, and we also do it so that we also juggle
things in such a fashion that we can use daylight for as much of our
evacuation as possible for our own safety.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My concern is just getting people on the
roadways and then finding out other communities are also evacuating,
and we get to a point where we get a gridlock and nobody's moving.
MR. SUMMERS: And Commissioner, I've been to workshops
with interstate counterflow. We look at the options of going to the
other coast. We look at the options of going well inland.
And I will tell you that we continue to be in a very precarious
situation with those evacuations and, again, want to encourage FEMA
and Corps of Engineers to revisit these transportation flow studies that
they have continuously put aside for year after year after year, and
that's why we're doing at least the best that we can with our resources,
with our Collier County study, so I can at least have good base-line
information locally.
I will tell you that the state federal highway has done a lot better
in converging their own emergency operations centers for the traffic
flow, revisiting counterflow, revisiting additional lanes, and I hope
that they'll continue to put that in their emergency planning.
Page 97
I
May 9, 2006
But my only variable is that I will come to you with these early
evacuations so that we let regular traffic queue as much as possible for
safety .
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just some final comments, if I
may. I understand what you're saying. The variables are out there.
They are so different from one situation to another, wind speed,
direction the storm's coming from, time of the year, all these things
have to be weighed, and only one person can make that judgment call,
and it's going to be you, and you've made it numerous times in the
past.
If you start to err on the side of extreme caution, you're going to
lose the public's confidence when they start to evacuate and go back.
We've had this numerous times in the past. It's very difficult to keep
the public's attention, so it has to be something that's realistic. How
can you get people out of harm's way in a meaningful manner in a safe
time and a safe enough time span without inconveniencing them time
after time? And you're an expert on that. I recognize that.
And with that in mind, I recommend that we approve this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
MR. MUDD: Robert has two more items. Let's do that after
lunch.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll break for lunch, and we'll
be back at 1 :05.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We don't have any of the impact
fees things until two, right?
MR. MUDD: Let him finish up, and then we'll go right into that.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
Page 98
I
May 9, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
Board of County Commissioners is back in session from our
lunch recess. And we're going to finish up here on item 10C and then
move onto 8A.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The fifth item on your list, reduce the
vulnerability of critical and public facilities. That you basically gave
guidance to Mr. Wiley and staff at your workshop that we had on this
particular item here back in March.
And that brings us to the last topic, and that is to protect fresh and
saltwater wetlands and coastal dune systems.
Mr. Wiley?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe we've got to cover reduced
vulnerability of critical and public facilities.
MR. MUDD: Nope. Commissioner, I just mentioned that you
covered that and gave us direction at your workshop in March.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And Robert was up there and had that three hours
with us.
MR. WILEY: Right. So we just present it here so you know
what we'll continue to work on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WILEY: But the last item to talk about today is the
protection of the fresh and saltwater wetlands and coastal dune
systems.
And as you'll note in the document attached, this basically deals
with the very coastal frontage area, the development that you want to
allow. Do you want to make any considerations for revising allowable
development, types of development, densities, things of that nature,
redevelopments related to the CCSL, which is the setback line or the
states CCCL, which is the coastal construction control line?
And then in addition to that, do you want to give any direction
for staff to -- consideration for establishing programs that address
Page 99
May 9, 2006
some of the interior flowways, historically where water has flown in a
past with wetland systems connecting them up? Because those
basically form the first part of your floodplain management criteria.
That is your floodplain, the wetland systems on the interior areas.
Your coastal systems, your dunes, there's a lot of regulations
already for that. But again, just asking for direction on how you wish
us to proceed, to come back with any programs at all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that we have a lot of
programs underway, the watershed program, Conservation Collier,
and other regulatory agencies to deal with those wetland issues.
Now, the coastal line you're talking about on the beach, I think
we already have rules. If I'm wrong on where you want to go with the
coastal management area, please, if you can elaborate on it.
MR. WILEY: No, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just asking,
do you want to give any direction for staff to consider any changes to
the way we currently regulate development in relationship to the
setback line, the CCSL, which is the old CCCL before the new one
came in in 1989?
And the differences that are there are within our regulations on
what we allow, variances, things of that nature. Do you want us to
have another look at that is what we're asking for, direction?
On the regulation of the interior wetland areas, that is regulated
through water management districts with the county but not from a
floodplain standpoint. It's regulated basically on an individual
parcel-by-parcel encroachments within a flood -- within a wetland or
floodplain area.
You know, sometimes you can mitigate out, but once you've
eliminated it, well, even the mitigation to invite other wetland credits
doesn't replace it. So these are areas where, from a floodplain
standpoint, takes a little bit different turn in how you would consider
linking them up and allowing them to continue the function.
Page 100
HT".
May 9, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any comments from any of the other
commissioners in regards to coastal construction setback line?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I guess you've got your
marching orders. We're going to continue --
MR. WILEY: We will make no changes then.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WILEY: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir.
So that brings us to advertised public hearings. And the first item
__ well, there's two items. There's item 8A and 8B. And I need to
bring to the board's attention a particular matter about what happened
last week as far as impact fees are concerned and what actually got
passed. And as we all know, those aren't easy actions to basically track
as things progress.
The leading bill on impact fees was Senate Bill 1196, and that
was basically sponsored by Senator Constantine, and that act basically
went and passed through the Senate and went to the House and
basically died on the House floor on the 5th of May in the State
Infrastructure Council.
But what had happened -- and that bill, which was 1196, was the
one that talked about the grandfather clause, that talked about effective
-- the effective date of the new legislation being 1 July, 2006.
And previously that week it had another caveat in there, and it
said, you could keep it, but you had to bring the new stuff that the --
that the bill would basically enact into being with all your impact fees
on 1 July, 2008.
The 1 July, 2008, you must have it implemented -- the new
legislation was taken out in a change. And the final thing to die
basically talked about 1 July, 2006, becoming the effective date.
Senator Constantine took everything good that was uncontentious
about his bill and put it in the back of the annexation bill, which was
Page 101
I
May 9, 2006
1194, and he put it back on page 25 and 26.
So the annexation legislation that passed, which is 1194 that
passed through the House and the Senate, had impact fee -- had the
impact fee legislation, new legislation that was not controversial.
The issue that came -- and this came into being and was brought
to light when Commissioner Henning and I were having a
conversation yesterday afternoon about what the specifics were.
And I went back and I asked staff and the lobbyist exactly where
things were and what the effective date was. Well, the thing that's
disturbing is 1194, which is the annexation legislation that has impact
fee language on the bottom, is it basically comes into law upon the
governor's signature, and it doesn't have an effective date of 1 July,
2006, to have the new legislative language be input into our current
impact fee.
That particular bill has not been sent to the governor yet as of
yesterday evening, and the governor, once it does get to him, has two
weeks to sign it.
They expect it might get sent over to him by close of business
this week, and then exactly when he signs it, we don't know. But I've
asked our lobbyist in Tallahassee to please tell us exactly when that is
because it changes some of the impact fee studies and impact fees that
we're in the process of changing as we speak.
So there will be a point in time where we'll have to go back and
look and make sure that what we're only using are the best usable
available to date that we have, and in some cases that won't be good
for the amount of impact fees because it will go up because our
localized data on construction is so much higher than what we get on
the average in the State of Florida and in the United States, in some
instances.
And second, the new legislation requires a 90-day burn-in period,
so to speak, from the time that you pass the ordinance to the time that
you enact it. Right now under the old laws we don't have that, okay.
Page 102
1
May 9, 2006
So I've had staff try fast and furiously, because of the impending
legislation. Those several bills that were in the legislature that were
sponsored by different representatives and senators basically had some
onerous things in them as far as Collier County was concerned as far
as our impact fee and what we could collect in the future.
I will tell you the onerous things are pretty much out, but we will
have to watch when the governor signs the bill when this new
legislation comes into law.
So I wanted to make sure that everyone knew that. And in a
way, it's worse for us because we don't know exactly what time it is.
N ow we've got to be able to go through that and kind of figure out
exactly when it's done from his office and so we get the word down.
So it will probably be about a day late.
But it will have an impact upon when our particular impact fees
can come into effect. I wanted to bring that to the board's -- make sure
that you knew exactly how that went down on Friday in the state
legislature and where the impact fee legislation was.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle has a question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But Jim, it's my understanding that
if an impact fee is approved by the Board of County Commissioners
prior to the effective date of that bill, that impact fee is not impacted
by that bill.
MR. MUDD: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So any impact fee decisions we
make, like this one, like the school board impact fee, can be made
without being impacted by this bill?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just wanted to make that
clear. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me -- the action that
we mayor may not do today has no bearing on Senate Bill 1194?
Page 103
May 9, 2006
MR. MUDD: The actions that you take today are based on the
current law. The legislation that was passed on Friday by the House
and the Senate in Tallahassee does not become law until the governor
signs it. And the governor can always veto the entire bill if he wants
to. So we can't say that that's going to be a done deal or not. It's still
his decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me ask --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask a different way. If
we don't take action today, what are the possible ramifications?
MR. MUDD: I would have to go -- in any study that we're
presently doing, we're going to have to go back to our consultants and
make sure that they used localized data to the best of their ability, and
then you are going to have to make sure that there's a 90-day enaction
date when the new impact fee would come on-line, and it would be 90
days. That's what I garnered as far as the ramifications to the new
legislation, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, do you have
something to add?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I would, and that is that the -- typically
ordinances adopted by a local government, such as Collier County, the
ordinances are effective upon filing with the Department of State, that
is the Secretary of State.
So if the board were to adopt an ordinance today and wish to
better assure itself that it was effective no matter what its language,
but effective as quickly as possible, the board could direct that the --
that the ordinance, in fact, be signed by the chairman today and
Federal Expressed to the Department of State so that it would be
received as soon potentially as tomorrow, or the day following, and
that would be the effective date of our ordinance.
As Mr. Mudd indicated, the legislation that's passed, the enrolled
Page 104
r---
May 9, 2006
act 1194, provides for a 90-day period prior to the implementation of
impact fee rates or rate changes.
Right now our ordinance -- I should say the proposed ordinance,
if adopted today, May 9th, has approximately 50 or 51 days of
pre- implementation time because the ordinance is drafted providing
for, I think, a June 30th implementation.
It was drafted that way because most legislation that comes
through the pipeline usually indicates a July 1 st or an October 1 st
implementation date, and that's what we were expecting.
By virtue of the fact that the impact fee legislative language is
part and parcel with the annexation bill which provides for -- effective
when it becomes law does mean as Jim indicated, that that legislation
becomes law when signed by the governor. Florida governor doesn't
have a pocket veto like some states have, so he either signs it or he
doesn't sign it, and it becomes law automatically at the end of an
approximate two-week period, or vetos it sometime in the interim, of
course, which no one knows how that might be.
So, again, this board will -- I want to inform the board that in
terms of the ordinance that's before you now in regard to the school
board impact fee ordinance, it's providing for an effective date of June
30th. Conceivably it could be amended on the floor just to make it
more aligned with the legislative intent of this new legislation,
enrolled act 1194, to go and actually have a 90-day implementation
date even if it were adopted today. It doesn't have to, but it could.
But the county would better assure the ability of any impact fee
legislation ordinance, I should say, adopted today, better assure it
actually becoming effective prior to the governor's potential approval
of the legislation by sending it up to the Department of State rather
quickly rather than a week or so.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for that
explanation. Appreciate that very much.
Page 105
May 9, 2006
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2006-121: APPLYING THE ANNUAL INDEXING
ADJUSTMENT, WHICH EQUALS A 40/0 INCREASE PER LAND
USE CATEGORY, TO THE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
IMPACT FEE RATES THEREBY AMENDING THE
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE,
WHICH IS SCHEDULE FOUR OF APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER
74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES THE SAME BEING THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED
AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF
JUNE 12. 2006 - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to our first item,
which is 8A. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt a resolution to apply the annual indexing
adjustment, which equals a 4 percent increase per land use category to
the correctional facilities impact fee rates thereby amending -- excuse
me -- the correctional facilities impact fee rate schedule, which is
schedule four of appendix A of chapter 74 of the Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances, the same being the Collier Consolidated
Impact Fee Ordinance as amended, and provide for a delayed effective
date of June 12, 2006.
Ms. Patterson?
MS. PATTERSON: Hello, Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager,
for the record. I have a brief presentation, if the board would like to
see it, but I do have a couple of items to put on the record that were --
that came in too late for the executive summary, and that is the
recommendation by the Development Services Advisory Committee
and by the Productivity Committee.
On May 3rd -- I'm going to read this for the record. On May 3,
Page 106
T
May 9, 2006
2006, at their regular meeting, the Development Services Advisory
Committee, by majority vote, recommended the following with
respect to the adoption of the correctional facilities impact fee
indexing;
The DSAC recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the proposed correctional facilities impact fee
indexing on the basis that it is consistent with the current adopted
indexing methodology.
And the Productivity Committee recommendation is as follows:
On April 19, 2006, the Collier County Productivity Committee
unanimously recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the correctional facilities impact fee indexing.
And with that, if you'd like me to go through this, I can do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the -- Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor for
approval and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Great
Page 107
May 9, 2006
presentation.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2006-21: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SCHEDULE SIX OF APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (THE
COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ORDINANCE), TO REFLECT THE AMENDED RATES SET
FORTH IN THE IMPACT FEE STUDY; PROVIDING FOR THE
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF THE IMPACT FEE
STUDY ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL IMPACT FEE
UPDATE STUDY, ESTABLISHING THE METHODOLOGY FOR
THE ANNUAL INDEXING ADJUSTMENT TO THE
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATES AND
PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF JUNE 30,
2006 - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 8B, and that's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt an ordinance amending schedule six of
appendix A of chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance,
to reflect the amended rate set forth in the impact fee study; providing
for the incorporation by reference of the impact fee study entitled
Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study; establishing the
methodology for the annual indexing adjustment for the educational
facilities impact fee rates; and providing for a delayed effective date of
June 30, 2006.
Commissioners, before -- before we start this particular item, I
want to bring to your attention -- and I made sure that I gave copies to
everyone last night, because every place I asked yesterday, nobody
Page 108
H .,
May 9, 2006
had seen the letter.
The superintendent of schools sent me a letter yesterday that
basically said at the May 4, 2006, school board public hearing for
impact fees, Collier County staff advised the board that the county
commission was scheduled -- has scheduled a public hearing for the
school impact fee on May 9, 2006.
The school board subsequently asked me to advise you that the
school board is not yet ready to make that recommendation on impact
fees.
The school board has scheduled a public hearing on May 18,
2006, to continue this process. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
The superintendent of the schools and I talked this morning
before the meeting, and he basically asked me to recommend to the
board that you postpone enactment of this particular impact fee so that
-- until you have the school board -- it doesn't say that in his letter,
okay, so he wanted to make sure that I got between the lines, okay, of
what was in his letter, and they were basically asking that the school
board impact fee be continued by this board until the school board
makes a recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think Commissioner Coyle has
a question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it pertains to that subject. If,
in fact, the board does not make a decision today on the school impact
fee and we delay even maybe three or four days and the governor
signs the impact fee legislation, is it not true that what we will have to
do is to ask our consultant to go through another analysis using
predominantly local data that will not only increase our cost to get the
impact fee updated, but could likely result in a higher impact fee for
schools? Is that a correct assessment?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the consultant's right here, and I'm
going to defer to him.
Page 109
,
May 9, 2006
Everything you said -- that you've basically said I believe is true
except I can't tell you how much Tindale-Oliver & Associates have
done as far as the school consultant, Dr. Nicholas, and how much they
have converted their previous analysis to all localized data.
And I'm going to have to get the magnitude of those changes and
how they reflect in this present presentation from Mr. Tindale. So
would you get up, please, sir, and respond to that.
MR. TINDALE: Hi. I'm Steve Tindale with Tindale-Oliver &
Associates. Ninety-nine point nine percent of what we've got in here
-- I'm trying to think of one number that's not localized other than
maybe indexing, and that's just an issue that you're dealing with over
the next 12 months, student generation rates, cost, credits, the budget.
It's pretty well local data.
MR. MUDD: Construction cost.
MR. TINDALE: Construction costs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Construction costs are local data?
MR. TINDALE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: So, Commissioner, then based on that information,
I would say to you that the impact would be if you decided to delay or
continue this particular item, let's say, to your next meeting, and the
governor signs the bill. The implementation would not be on 30 June.
It would be 90 days after this board makes a decision on what you
want to do with the fee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions before we hear the
presentation?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would say, since we have Mr.
Tindale, that you get a chance to see his presentation since this
presentation has been provided to the school board at least three
different times.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Page 110
May 9, 2006
MS. PATTERSON: Hello. Before Steve comes up to give his
presentation, I'm just going to, again, make a brief statement for the
record. I'm only going to give the Development Services Advisory
Committee recommendation because Ms. Janet Vasey is here from the
Productivity Committee to provide the recommendation of the
Productivity Committee.
On May 3, 2006, at their regular meeting, the Development
Services Advisory Committee unanimously recommended the
following with respect to the adoption of the school impact fee and
corresponding rates:
That the rates recommended by the consultant be adopted at 50
percent because that -- in combination with the present ad valorem tax
rate, this will still provide adequate funding for school-related capital
improvements.
And I do have those rates available if you'd like me to provide
them. It's 50 percent of each land use category ranging from about
$1,431 up to the highest fee of$5,008.
And with that, I'll it turn it over to Mr. Tindale.
MR. MUDD: How about Ms. Vasey?
MS. PATTERSON: Oh. Did you want to -- did you want to take
Ms. Vasey now with her representations of the Productivity
Committee?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, what I was going to do -- I believe
she's one of the speakers.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I'd like to hear Steve Tindale's
presentation, and then we'll take public speakers.
MR. TINDALE: You want to turn me on here?
Good afternoon again. Steve Tindale with Tindale-Oliver &
Associates.
Before I get into the specifics of the presentation, there's a
couple-three things I'd like to highlight in terms of an overview in this
Page 111
May 9, 2006
study that I think somewhat kind of separates this from other studies
I've done here in the county.
Number one, I had three different sets of eyes going through the
study. That's very unique. I had myself going through it, I had Dr.
Nicholas going through it, and we kept being asked about legal
defensibility .
The legal firm that reviewed it with me defended both Lee
County and Osceola County. So the firm that has reviewed this from
a legal perspective was one involved in the two cases of the two
impact fee cases, the case law, so I feel like this has probably been the
most scrutinized process we've been through, and I think you should
take some comfort in that it has been truly looked at in just about
every different direction we possibly can in terms of review.
I also would like to mention there seems to be a comment about a
bunch of numbers, variation in numbers. I'd like to say there's only
two sets of numbers, and then there's a play on one of the sets. You
can take any number and then play on it four or five times and make it
look like you've got four or five different numbers, and it's not.
You'll see -- hopefully I can present to you that -- there's a couple
of numbers that's been presented over the last couple months, and then
someone just varied some assumptions about it to come up with a
series of numbers. I'm going to try to explain that as we go through.
So those are our major points before I got started.
I'm going to try to give an overview of the impact fee itself, talk
about how we've taken the CIP that's being developed or has been
developed by the school board and go through the series of
calculations, and then questions and answers.
You all seen this before? Impact fees basically is cost, what it
costs to provide the service, and then we give a credit for any future
tax to provide the same service. We do not want to charge twice. The
court system says you can't make the developer write you a check
when he gets his permit, and then send him a bill every year for the
Page 112
May 9, 2006
same service, and we clearly -- that's one of our objectives, and that's
one of the legal reviews we go through is to be sure we're very careful
with not double charging.
School impact fees are only charged to residential development,
and I always like to say that. Some of these fees are across a lot of
different land uses, commercial, retail, industrial. School impact fees
are charged to residential development.
There was a calculation, and I always like to do this just to let
you know where you are with what you've invested to date, just to
give you an idea of cost.
We looked at the school system to date in terms of total asset, in
terms of number of schools. They have about $2 billion in assets. We
subtracted out all the debt that -- the part that hasn't been paid for. We
take the number of students, which is 43,000 students, and basically
for every student that's in the school system today that's sitting in the
chair is $43,000 worth of assets that's been spent to date. That's a
tremendous nuinber in terms of just a public asset that you have.
Transportation and parks and schools probably are the big hitters
in assets. Fire, EMS, or operational. A lot of your services are
operational. These are asset-based and very expensive.
We then look at that -- the value per student that you have to
date. And in a mid-size home today, there's .38 students on the
average. So for every mid-size home out there, you've generated
almost $1 7,000 worth of asset. That's what you have today.
Now, if you looked forward and said, we're not going to have any
taxes and all we want to do when we double population in students is
we want the same number of schools, then you would charge $16,800
per school. No taxes, just impact fees. So that's the starting point.
If I run through this process of looking to budget and they're
building a lot of new schools and whatever and I come up with a fee
higher than that, I would say, wait a minute. Something's wrong.
To this date we've only created this value of asset, and for some
Page 113
May 9, 2006
reason when I throw taxes in and new level of service and all the
expansion, the fee comes out higher, I would say we've got a problem.
The fee's high. So that's a benchmark that I set of saying the fee
cannot exceed that. That is the standard that you've achieved in terms
of your investment per home. So that's the reason the calculation is
provided.
Now, I'll explain later, we had a different set of data. We had a
six-county data, and the students per home in that were like .25,
because it was mixed in with an average. And we went from .25 to
.38 with local data so that asset per home went from like $11,000 to
16-. Nothing changed other than we found better data about the
number of students in the home. All the calculations are identical
other than the demand data that we collected.
So on an asset based for that mid-size home, we've got that
$16,800 per dwelling unit. And, again, I didn't put any of the value
portables or anything else. That's the asset in terms of permanent
stations per student.
Now, we're going to move to -- that's your current asset, but
you've got a five-year plan that is a tremendous plan. I think the
school board's doing more in the next five years than -- looking
historically, than they probably did in any 10-year period.
They're building new schools to do away with portables, or
reduce the number of portables. You'll never do away with them
because of imbalance of demand geographically. They're responding
to the school size amendment, and they're responding to new growth,
all three at the same time in the next five years. So we're going to use
that basis for an impact fee.
We looked at the level of service we're achieving in that five-year
period, we looked at the cost during that five-year period, and we
looked at the taxes that are being used, because we don't want to
double charge for that level of service.
Just to give you an example, I looked at the current number of
Page 114
T
May 9, 2006
square foot per student station, and it's 132 and -- 132-square-foot per
unit. At the end of five years, you average 146. I mean, so the
number of square foot per station is going up dramatically. That's
about a 10-percent increase on the whole network based on what
you're doing in a five-year period.
The number of square foot per students, because all of the
students that are in portables are dividing in the current square foot,
it's changing from $125 square foot to 146.
So look -- you're increasing the number of square foot per student
in a five-year period on the whole system by about 18 percent. That's
a huge investment. So you've got a major program that we're looking
at.
We looked at the 2006, what it costs, building the school today,
not during the average during the five-year period in the CIP. What
does it cost if you build -- if you get a school up tomorrow morning,
what would it cost to build one station, one student station? Fifty-four
thousand dollars. So for a student to walk in and sit in a student
station that you just built, if you get it built tomorrow morning, it
would be $54,000.
Now remember, I told you because we've got so many students in
portables and a different mix and different square foot, the current
asset is $43,000, and now you're moving to 54,000. If I was in
business and that's what -- my cost changed that dramatically, I would
be going, my goodness, what am I going to do to provide the
business? But that's the calculation in terms of the construction cost to
build a station that's being built.
You're moving from having about 5 percent more students in the
school system to having about exactly the same number of students as
you have stations built. So you're taking care of the deficiency in
terms of students that -- per station.
Again, I warn, just because you've got exactly -- almost the exact
number of stations as you have students in one geographic area, you
Page 115
-,
May 9,2006
may have a lot more students than that area has for schools, so you
may have to have some portables. This does not do away with
portables just because you've got a match, because you have
geographic variations. So portables are going to be around even
during that five-year period.
So what is the per student cost? We have almost one station per
station. We don't have more students than stations. It is $54,000 for
each student you're achieving in that five-year plan.
The difference between per student and per station is basically if
you have more students and you have some in portables, which we
don't put on asset, is almost identical within the five years because you
have about the same number of stations as you have students. I mean,
you're within 99.8 percent of stations and students matching. So those
two numbers match up.
Let me go over those numbers. And if you want to write
something down -- and I think in terms of a mental picture, there's
several things you ought to keep in mind.
The current asset in terms of investment to date, $43.6 thousand
in asset per student. What do you achieve at the end of the five-year --
if you take the current cost in the CIP plan, that moves to 54,000.
We went about midway in terms of inflation that they've got
budgeted, about halfway through it, and added students and costs,
about two and a half to three years from now that cost is going to be --
well, it's really about $63,000 just because of inflation.
So you're moving from $43,000 looking backwards in asset per
student, and now you're going to have invested, in about three-years'
time, 66,000. It's really about 63- because we've got a few more
students. But you see a big difference. Tremendous difference in
asset per student because of the investment that you're making.
Another way of putting this, you've got $2 billion in assets in the
school system. Their budget for this five-year period is $1.6 billion,
and about 700 million of that is new construction.
Page 116
-1
May 9, 2006
So you're taking an asset of $2 billion, and you're spending in a
five-year period 700 million. That's about 40 percent of the asset
expansion in expansion and construction; major program.
Now, those are the costs, what it costs to provide per station.
And now we've got to deal with the credit. There's a lot of taxes going
to be used for that expansion, not just the -- currently I think they have
a $40 million budget over five-year impact fees.
We've been told by legal advice, any expansion -- if we're
expanding buildings for a class-size amendment, if we're -- anything
to do with expansion in terms of stations, we get credit for.
The second thing we do is, a person -- a student, in theory, that
moves into a brand new home -- and they're the ones that pull permits.
The new homes on the average pay taxes about 57 percent higher than
the average home. In the past --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fifty-seven or 157?
MR. TINDALE: Well, you multiply by 157 percent to add that
57 percent value. So we basically take the average home to give, you
know -- and we multiply the average by 1.57 in terms of average
revenue -- average revenue per student, we multiply by 1.57 in saying,
any student moving into a new home generates 50 percent more
revenue from the beginning point. That was something that was not
done in the past. It wasn't done in the Lee County case, and the lawyer
says it probably wasn't required, but we put it in there anyway.
The second thing that happens -- and I think you've seen me up
here before -- if I was running a business and I had gas tax, and maybe
even sales tax, I wouldn't want to run the business because it doesn't
grow. You have a home with gas tax, and 10 years from now they
consume the same gas tax. There's no growth in the gas tax.
The ad valorem tax, that's not the case. So not only do new
homes pay more per home, they also have an increasing value. So we
took that into consideration in something that's not been done
historically in past school impact fees.
Page 11 7
May 9, 2006
And so we -- the value of that home can go up either by the CPI
or a maximum of three percent. So that's another thing we consider in
terms of this credit, and we do that.
We also understand that you could say, I'm not going to spend
any more ad valorem tax on roadways or libraries or anything. Well,
the school board can't do that. That ad valorem tax is coming in, and
that's got to be on capital, whether it's reconstruction, renovation, or
expansion. So they don't have the option just to say, we're not going
to spend ad valorem tax. So we definitely need to consider that that
tax is going to be there in terms of the future.
What we look at in the credit calculations is both the state
revenue to build capacity, we look at the average revenue per student,
and we look at the value of a current home. We inflate that upward.
The state credit, we take every penny of the state money . We
take the money they're going to spend per year, we take it out 25 years
and bring it back to present worth to come up with that credit. We're
basically saying we're instantaneously bonding that new homes'
revenues and making sure we don't -- when they receive that bill,
we're not double collecting. We give it a credit against the impact fee.
I never do a graphic that's this detail, but I thought we may need
to do this. The residential tax value is about $52 billion. The key
number here is the 43,000 students. The students basically would
generate, in two mills, about $2,400, but we add $1,300 to that.
So a student moving into a new home generates $3,800 per year
in revenue, in taxes that are associated with capital, that millage is at
two mills. Forty-three percent of that two mills is going to capital. So
that home is generating $3,800 a year. We take 43 percent of it, and
we credit it. That's how we get the $1,600. We take that out 25 years
at 5 percent. And that home, in terms of present-day values, generates
$29,000 of capital taxes to build schools. And that's -- so that's the
direct way we're calculating the credit.
We think we're using a conservative number. We're using the 157
Page 118
r ---
May 9,2006
percent. We're escalating at 2.5 percent a year, and we've seen the
CPI (sic) averaging about 2.1 percent a year. We're using 43 percent
in capital as if for 25 years the school board's going to be able to
commit and not have more and more of that money go to operating
and reconstruction. Very conservative.
And you'll see some of the things we're -- I'll show you later
about what they're doing in terms of debt servicing, et cetera. So we
think, put all those things together, we want to be absolutely sure that
we used every item we could to not underestimate that credit.
If you take the cost at $54,000 per student, add these two credits
up and subtract them from it, then the net impact, the differential -- so
a student moves into this community, he creates a negative $23,000;
$54,000 for the demand, and $30,000 worth of revenues. That's the
direct calculation.
Now, the generation rate. Now, that's the cost side. That's like
the cost to build one lane mile of roadway. That's like the trip
generation rate. What is the generation rate? Our first set of data we
used, the census, I think, was six or seven counties, because that's
what we had, and we come up with a generation rate per home.
There was a comment made that mobile homes and multifamily
homes seem to be taking a big hit for that set of numbers, so we got on
the phone and went to the census people and found out that this county
had data about the county, so it's local data in terms of demand
generation rate.
And this is the difference between the initial set of numbers we
had that is a four- or five-county average.
How many counties was it? Six counties.
So in the six surrounding counties, if you group yourself into it,
the average student per home on that mid-side home is .26. In this
county, that mid-size home has .38 students in it.
Now, I went back and said, wow, why is this county so much
different in student generation rate than the other counties? I never
Page 119
May 9, 2006
like to see numbers and not understand them.
Well, the first thing I found out is something like 60 percent of
your residential homes is not single-family. And I says, my goodness,
I don't remember ever seeing that, and I've worked all over the State of
Florida and half of Georgia. Fifteen or 20 percent of the homes were
multifamily is huge, becoming very urbanized.
Only 40 percent of the people that live in this community live in
a single-family home. That's not the case in the other counties.
Eighty-five percent of the people live in a single-family home, and 10
-- you know, 75 to 85 percent. The rest of them live in multifamily.
So you are very urban, and you've got a process going on. That was
your current units on the ground.
Then I said, how about permitting? Are you permitting, you
know, 40 percent single-family and 60 percent other, and the answer is
yes. So not only is the inventory out there that these numbers are
based on principally multifamily units, the number of permits we're
issuing is about 60 percent nonsingle- family, so they match. So I've
got a reason why your data is dramatically different in this county than
the six-county average, and it makes sense, the numbers make sense.
The multifamilies come down, the mobile homes come down,
and the people who do -- that 40 percent that move into single-family
on the average, they have more students -- they have more students in
the house.
So those numbers -- we also had -- I think Dr. Nicholas had his
staff go back and check it, and I think he reported back and said these
numbers are correct.
Well, this changed -- it's not -- there's no difference in cost,
there's no difference in credits. All we do now is we have a draft
report out, and we just changed this one set of numbers. That's all that
changes, but that changes the fee schedule dramatically.
And this is the way it works. The total cost per student is
$54,000. It's .386 -- moving students to home, .386 students for that
Page 120
May 9, 2006
mid-size home, $20,000 per home. The credit, $30,000 for student,
.38 students in that home, $11,000 credit. Very straightforward. The
net difference per home, rather than per student, because there's .38
students, is $9,200.
We had a number, I think, that other generation rate of about
$6,000. But when you go from .25 to .38 for that single-family home,
the fee changes about that much.
Now, my comment to the school board was, from a development
community or revenue base, we reduced the revenues. It's kind of
awkward. We increased the fee for one use. We reduced the fee for
the uses that are generating 60 percent of your permitting. So the
actual fees that would be collected, moving from a $6,000
single-family home to a 9,000, gross revenues are going to go down
because we're now charging properly the 60 percent of the people to
pull permits, which is not the multifamily -- I mean the single-family.
It's the multifamily.
So from a total fee basis, the impact fee goes down in revenues,
although it looks, you know, like wow, we increased the fee because
of the different land uses. That's not the case. The gross revenues
don't go up because of these demand changes. It just charges
differently for each different use.
And these are the numbers. Those are the three size homes. So
you have a low of$8,200, mid-size 9,200, the larger home is 10,000.
We cap it -- the multifamily now is $2,800, dramatically lower than it
was before. And remember, the multifamily home is 60 percent of
your permitting.
So this wasn't an intent to go out and generate revenues. This
was to put the right data in. We did ask legal advice on this last
change. He said, you've got local data. It's accurate data. We can't
ignore it. So he said, you cannot change this just because it's -- you
know, someone said these numbers -- before the multifamily was high,
et cetera, and you went and checked it and you got good data and put
Page 121
May 9, 2006
it in, so we did. That's the big change.
Now, there is some policy decisions, and I brought this up to -- at
some level to the school board. They've got $40 million in their
five-year plan. If you pass this impact fee, the $40 million of impact
fees would move to 200 million. They've got to plug that extra $160
million into their five-year plan if this gets passed. You can't just
ignore the five-year plan. And they're on a June -- or July to June.
They've already adopted it.
So you've got a little bit of a concern about, what do you do with
an adopted CIP, but now we adopt an impact fee, and this cash comes
in? The general comment is, they would pay down debt. They're
borrowing significant money, and they use this to pay the debt service
and not borrow as much money.
I went ahead and put this together. I kept thinking, my goodness,
look at what's happening in this five-year plan. And when I do impact
fees, I get a pretty good feel for the infrastructure.
So I went back and looked at the loans. These are the capital
portion, the principal portion. In '95 they had a $12.5 million loan. In
'01 it was 42 -- $30 million loan, with a total up to 42 million. And '02
is a $61 million loan. In '05, $150 million loan.
The total loans they had at that point in time is $253 million
through '05, from what I can see out of the CIP. And '06 to '07 there's
a $470 million principal loan in that plan to do this -- you know, how
did we get these additional square footage, how did we get rid of the
portables, et cetera? They bring a bunch of cash in to build that
program.
So you can see the trend here is they have to use that, and that's
not bad business. I mean, I'm not sitting here saying this is bad.
They've got some very good low rates. But in the meantime, you can
borrow money and almost make money from a government sector.
So this isn't condemning them. It's just letting, you know, that on
a cash basis you can't have construction costs almost go up 60 percent,
Page 122
May 9, 2006
you can't have -- try and get rid of portables and you can't have a
school size amendment hit you and not go out there and deal with it on
a cash basis.
Now, one thought is that the impact fees -- that's one of the things
they do, they bring that cash up front. It would help that process. You
don't have to wait for it. It's a cash payment up front that would help
that process. So we just graph that out.
We think that the -- if you adopt the 9,200, the impact fee
increase in revenues would be $160 million. I just applied that
revenue into that work plan -- and this is not for me to do -- took the
ad valorem tax and put it to reconstruction or whatever and reduced
the amount of taxes for growth and used more impact fees.
You have a tendency to do that here. And one of the questions I
was asked, I think it was on -- recently on the sheriff, is that you
passed an impact fee, and you had a lot of taxes in your budget and
you had a high credit. You got some revenues in the fifth year. You
dropped some things and put impact fees in it, and the impact fees
went up because he's spending that.
So you have this tendency, this cycle you go through. As you
move from a tax base to an impact fee base, your credits are going to
go down. And so I just plugged in the 160 million in their budget,
which I don't have a legal right to do, and just said, what if I take the
ad valorem tax, moved it to reconstruction? What would happened to
the credit?
Well, the credit goes from 43 percent to capital, only 25 percent
of taxes to capital. And your new impact fee would be $14,000. And
we're sitting on a $9,200 impact fee, and my recom -- you know, the
schedule we have.
And my comment at that point in time, $9,200? It's -- all the
numbers I did to generate it are conservative, and within a year or two,
if you plug that money in and look at how you invest it, it could be a
very low number, I mean, if -- that's a policy decision.
Page 123
May 9, 2006
So I feel very comfortable with the $9,200 from an application.
And I went over this again over and over with the legal review.
Do I want to go through those two slides?
There was some questions about numbers, a lot of numbers that
were presented. The numbers that I guess we want to be sure we
understand, we came up with a number about three or four weeks ago
and said, on an asset base, this single-family home is about $11,000.
Now we're saying the single-family home asset's about 16,000. That's
that trip generation rate. Nothing changed.
We've got .365 students, not .25 students. That's all. So the value
per home on your current asset went up.
We did some revisions about -- we don't include vacant land.
They've got a surplus of vacant -- I don't think it's a surplus. I think
it's vacant land they really need for the building of schools in the
future. We took out some vacant land, et cetera. And you can get that
thing, the asset, down to about $15,000 per home if you want to do a
lot of -- a lot of processing.
The first year of the CIP, using those costs in the new generation
rate, the impact fee would be about $16,000. The bottom line is, if
you look at the bottom number there, the CIP base, the $9,200, we had
published a document in the last two numbers of an impact fee of it's
63, 68. Dr. Nicholas has reviewed it, and we pretty well are
completely signed off on it. And those generation rates changed.
And the 63 and the 62 would jump to 92 and 9. And after that
we got a round of, what if we did some more assuming? And this is
that sequence. We were at -- we're at 92. We felt he was solidly in it
at a -- right at 9,000. And he said, well, what if I remove the debt
value of your debt from the costs, and he dropped it down to 6,600.
He said, what if I drop all the interest you pay on facilities, and
he dropped it down to 6,000. What if I assume, rather than 2 and a
halfpercent, we use 5 percent growth in the tax value of home? He
dropped it down to 6,000.
Page 124
May 9, 2006
He said, what if I assume all the commercial revenue you get was
credited to the homes? If you want to discount it, you could. You
wonder why we're having to go into debt if there's that much money
floating out there, and you drop it down to 46.
And he said, what if I took all those and assumed them all at one
time? And he dropped it down to 3,400.
There's one set of numbers as far as I'm concerned, it's 9,200 and
the 8,900. And the second go-around is just another series of, what if
you wanted to assume these extremely conservative things or you
want to discount it because you're going to give them commercial
credit for commercial revenue, et cetera.
But I think the two numbers, as far as I'm concerned, would be
9,200 and the 9,000, or very close.
If you want to discount the fee, I wrote the numbers to the left.
Rather than saying, that you did this, I would just say, the fee's $9,200.
If you want to discount to the 4,626, that's that 50 percent discount.
Just say, the fee ought to be $9,200 and we're going to collect 50
percent of it.
I don't see going in there and saying, well, why don't we assume
the commercial development is paying for some of the taxes or all
those different things that you would do that I don't normally see
done. So I would recommend you zero in on the 9,200 and then
decide if you want to discount it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we have a commissioner that has
a question. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's -- where did you get the
information of the assessed values in the calculation for the -_
MR. TINDALE: Tax assessors.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tax assessors.
MR. TINDALE: We have the new construction. The value of
new construction is what we did; new constructed homes versus the
average value of all homes.
Page 125
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Because on his website
he has just a different number.
MR. TINDALE: Well, this is '05, and you're probably looking at
'06.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. TINDALE: On the residential side. The residential side
we're using '05 numbers. And if you go to the tax assessor, you may
be looking at '06. Oh, they don't separate them out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's where the difference is.
MR. TINDALE: We didn't separate the two out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- now, you stated that the
-- that the millage, their construction millage rate, won't -- that won't
change that?
MR. TINDALE: I think they're using two mills to do capital.
You need to understand, capital is like all your air-conditioners need
to be completely changed out. That's capital. They're spending that
two mills. And from what I'm seeing in cost, I don't -- I don't think
they're going to reduce -- they're going to be able -- and you saw the
debt they're borrowing. I don't think they're going to put a whole lot
of -- not spending two mills. I think it could -- they may, over time,
realign it to reconstruction and rehabilitation, et cetera. But it's going
to be very difficult to reduce that two mills over the next few years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I ask you where they get
the monies for those, replacement of the carpet and the
air-conditioning and so on and so forth?
MR. TINDALE: Well, the reconstruction, the major capital
comes out of the two mills, from what I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it presently comes out of the
two mills?
MR. TINDALE: Yes, yes. Only 43 percent of that two mills is
actually building a new station.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I see. And you're saying,
Page 126
May 9, 2006
that's not going to change at all?
MR. TINDALE: No. I think that's probably going to go down. I
think they'll have less and less of the money available over time to
build new expanded stations, and they'll have to consistently put
money into the cost of rehab.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let me just get this
straight. They have the ability to lower it; depends on the higher the
impact fee that they adopt?
MR. TINDALE: Right. Ifwe cycle this thing through two or
three times and got that fee up to where every time you put the fee in,
you have less millage and the fee becomes very large, they probably
then, at that point in time, could lower the millage. But I think the
fee's going to be probably up to the point where it's going to be almost
unbearable.
Legally, could they do it? Yes. We could cycle it through and
say -- you see, as soon as I -- as soon as I put that money in and
increase the impact fees, guess what happened to the impact fee
revenues? It goes up.
Then I put that increased revenue as a policy into the budget,
then I reallocated the ad valorem tax away from capital. And out of
the percentage, the credit goes down. Guess what happens to the
impact fee ? It goes up.
So it's a vicious cyc -- it's a policy cycle of saying, if I wanted to
charge -- and that's where I'm saying that I would stop at $16,000. I
mean, you could cycle through this thing because of the new level of
service you're providing. If you weren't watching what you were
doing, you could end up with a $20,000 per home fee. But your
current -- your current level of service and your current asset that
everybody else has generated is only about 16,000.
So this second cycle I just did when you run it to 15, 16, I would
say, legally you better stop, because now you're charging an impact
fee at a rate that the fee is helping to pay for this increased level of
Page 127
May 9, 2006
service, not the taxes. And the law tells you, you can't tell the
development community to provide a better service delivery than
you've achieved in the past.
Well, that's the reason I used that asset is a base line, and if
somebody wanted to cyc -- if they go through the cycle next year and
if they had done that, if they'd have come up with $1,700 fee, I'd have
said no, I wouldn't charge more than the $16,000, because that's all
you've generated in the past.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have one more question.
What you're recommending, how much would that reduce the capital
improvement millage rate?
MR. TINDALE: Well, they'd generate almost $910 million. I
don't know about reducing it, but I can tell you what percentage it is.
The capital millage in the five-year period is estimated to
generate 910 million. The impact fee in total will generate 200
million. So that's -- about 21 or 22 percent of the 900 million would
be the impact fee. So that's -- 200 million is what, 20 percent of two
mills, .4 mills, would be the value of the -- the impact fee revenues
would be equal to .4 mills. I'm not saying that they can replace that
and move it around though carefully.
MR. MUDD: You did it in very gross terms. Basically I've had
Mike Smykowski take a look. It turns out to be .3742 mills.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That just spurred another
question, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that on a rollback basis, or is
that on a -- the increased evaluation of the properties?
MR. TINDALE: What's going to happen each year is that the --
that 910 million is based on the ad valorem tax increasing every year
for five years. So that's the average millage over a five-year period
divided by an average impact fee revenue over a five-year period.
As far as how that related to an each-year rollback, I'm not sure.
Page 128
T
May 9, 2006
But I took five years worth of revenue with the increased revenue for
millage, and we indexed the impact fee up each year to generate those
revenues. So it's a five-year average is what it is.
I don't know how it deals with an each -- an annual issue about
rolling back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What -- what percentage
of increase of your taxable value did you come to that conclusion?
MR. TINDALE: Ten percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ten percent.
MR. TINDALE: They increased the tax value by 10 percent a
year in their budget. We -- they increased their cost by 10 percent.
We increased the impact fee by 10 percent. We made sure -- whether
it's 5 percent or 12 percent, we wanted to use the same budget
assumption.
So we -- they increased their millage revenue by 10 percent, they
increased their construction cost by 10 percent. If the construction
cost going to go up by 10 percent every year, then the impact fee's
actually going to go up a little higher than that Because when you
increase the cost by 10 percent and the credit's only a percentage, the
gross fee's going to go higher, but we used 10 percent increase in
revenue.
So we tried to take a fiv~-year period with the budget
assumptions to calculate those numbers. And again, those are -- those
are big round numbers just to get you in order of magnitude. But
they're very reasonable.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One of the things that
confuses me, amongst others, is the number of students per household.
And the reason it confuses me, I'm just now thinking, just here, other
than Steve Carnell and myself and the lady whose house burned down,
I don't know anybody who has more than four kids. And I was
wondering how every household could have -- you know, how that
Page 129
May 9, 2006
could be an average.
MR. TINDALE: Well, its' .3.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Point three eight six, right?
MR. TINDALE: Right. But that's the percentage of a kid. It's
not three. It's .3.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. TINDALE: So it takes three homes -- it almost takes three
homes to have one child.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, thank you.
MR. TINDALE: Yes, .386.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was thinking it's four kids.
MR. TINDALE: We're back in the '60s now. Yeah, we were at
three six to three seven people per household in the '60s. We're down
to like two five.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks very much for clearing that
up for me.
MR. TINDALE: Third of a child per home. It takes three homes
to have a student show up in your school.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, phew.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. The numbers that we're
basing all this on are '05 numbers, right?
MR. TINDALE: '06 -- they're '06 numbers, current construction
costs and current numbers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So they're fairly current?
MR. TINDALE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right now we're collecting eight
million in impact fees?
MR. TINDALE: Per year, correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the new -- new rate would
come up to 31 million?
MR. TINDALE: Thirty-one million. That's the increase
Page 130
May 9, 2006
probably.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be an increase, that
would be the total --
MS. PATTERSON: Right. For the record, Amy Patterson. And
you're going to see just a slight difference, which I should have
explained before. The way that Steve is generating the revenue based
on going out with the plan is going to be slightly different than us
projecting on past permitting activity. That's how -- the number that
appears in your executive summary, we took last year's permitting
activity, applied the new rates, and came up with an estimate of
revenue. The number is probably slightly higher than what I've put in
your executive summary, but--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine. But all in all, we're
looking at a difference in revenues generated of approximately $23
million?
MS. PATTERSON: At least.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And we haven't done this
since 1992?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: '92.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: '92.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so the difference is $23
million. And I imagine if you projected all the way back to '92, which
is an impossible way to do it, or '93 rather, you've got to be talking
well over $100 million that we have taxed our taxpayers through ad
valorem tax that should have been paid by growth. Am I wrong on
this?
MR. TINDALE: I'd be very careful. Because, to be honest with
you, a couple of three years ago, I didn't understand why we had
school impact fees. They didn't -- to me, personally, they didn't make
sense.
When we were building schools for $120 a square foot and
construction cost was going up 6 or 7 percent a year and land values
Page 131
May 9, 2006
were going up 15 percent a year, you wonder what's going on.
Ifwe took -- and this is one example I give with Dr. Nicholas's
assumption. If we took construction costs just a year and a half ago
and plugged them into this equation and reduced down some of the
values, this fee would almost go to zero. I think--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. This goes back to the
$23 million? The $23 million is the difference in ad valorem? In
other words, what people are paying now in ad valorem, they're
making up the difference?
MR. TINDALE: Or we're borrowing money too because of
reconstruction and rehabilitation. Be very --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The whole purpose of impact
fees is to have growth pay for growth.
MR. TINDALE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we're talking about 23 (sic)
real dollars out there that our taxpayers would have to pay for out of
their own pocket for the growth that's taking place behind them, and
that's the whole issue we're here today about.
We can talk about all the numbers in the world. The only thing
that matters is, is the people that are already here, why should they be
subsidizing the growth? And they still are. This doesn't begin to even
cover it.
I mean, if we presented a real true figure of what growth would
cost, it would be many times more than the $31,000, I would assume.
Probably way more than that.
I don't think we've got those kinds of numbers available to be
able to look at and say, oh, my God. It would be interesting. So
where we're looking at here is really a bargain to the new consumers
that are coming here while protecting the integrity of those people that
already live here, to a certain degree.
MR. TINDALE: I won't argue with you. That's the intent of
impact fees.
Page 132
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to simplify it,
because I mean, we can talk about these numbers till we're blue in the
face and keep going back and forth on them. But truly the matter is is
the fact that it's $23 million.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If you don't have any other questions, I
believe we have some registered public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have four public speakers.
The first one is Kathy Curatolo. She'll be followed by Janet Vasey.
MS. CURATOLO: Thank you. For the record, Kathy Curatolo,
chair of Collier County School Board.
I come before you this afternoon just to talk for a moment about
our process and why you haven't received our recommendation to
date.
Three weeks ago we received a draft study. At that time we
immediately determined that we would hold a workshop and a public
hearing on the information that was presented to us.
A week ago we received the new data with the local information,
which was critically important to evaluate. We began our due
diligence three weeks ago.
We are very close to making a recommendation to this board. In
that recommendation we will also suggest a structure and a cycle for
revisiting school impact fees because we realize that it was neither the
fault of this commission or the school board that we reached the
dilemma that we are in today.
However, I would request that you have patience with us and not
make a decision today. I can tell you unequivocally that we will have
a recommendation for you in a timely manner.
Thank you so much for allowing me to speak to the commission.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Janet Vasey. She'll be
followed by Richard Calabrese.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You have a question; I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I just wanted to make a
Page 133
May 9, 2006
comment. I don't want it -- to make it sound like we're cold and
uncruel (sic). But if you here a little while ago, you would hear the
exact same -- the reason why we can't wait. We're going to miss a
small window of opportunity that's going to disappear.
If we delay to wait for the school board to come up with an
answer -- and this should have been done way before all this. If we
wait till that point in time they come up with an answer, we may have
a delay of how long, two, three years?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ninety days.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ninety days before we'd be able
to move on this.
MR. MUDD: Sir, what we said before, based on Commissioner
Coyle's question, was -- everything he said was correct, but I didn't
know how much Mr. Tindale had applied local data to the analysis
based on the comments that Dr. Nicholas had given. Dr. Nicholas was
the consultant that the school hired. Now, he basically said on the
dais, or at the podium, excuse me, he said that 99 point --
MR. TINDALE: Nine percent.
MR. MUDD: -- point nine percent was all local data, and it was
the best that he could come up with.
With that said, the only ramification, adverse ramification to this
particular issue is the new legislation requires a 90-day burn-in period
before the new fee can become effective. So it would be that 90-day
bum-in period that would be it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But now we're also going to
have a mechanism in place so that every year we can make
adjustments as we need to?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Based on your -- based on your
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, your impact fees, every three
years, get a complete restudy, and the in-between years they get a CPI
index.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we'll never have another
Page 134
May 9, 2006
occurrence of going from '92 to present?
MR. MUDD: I hope not, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Next speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Janet Vasey.
MS. VASEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Janet Vasey,
vice-chair of the Productivity Committee.
The Productivity Committee held a special meeting yesterday,
yesterday afternoon, to consider the proposed impact fees so that we
could provide a recommendation for you today. And through our
school impact fee subcommittee, we've been involved in the
development of these fees for some time now.
We've had meetings with Mr. Tindale and the school board
representatives, we've kicked the tires, asked a lot of questions, and
promoted changes. We've even followed the school board workshop
and board meeting on this subj ect.
We're satisfied that these impact fees are appropriate and that the
county's independent council agrees that they are legally defensible.
At yesterday's productivity meeting, we unanimously approved
the study and recommend it to you for adoption. We also encourage
you to implement the new fees without delay, since they are long
overdue.
School impact fees have not been increased since 1992, as was
discussed, forcing county taxpayers to unfairly fund over $47 million
in property taxes for school construction costs which should have been
paid by impact fees, and that's a conservative estimate through 2005.
I'm sure it's over 50 million by now.
We compliment Tindale-Oliver on the rigorous analysis and Amy
Patterson and Paula Fleischman for their knowledge and attention to
detail.
As always, the Productivity Committee appreciates the
opportunity to assist you in these impact fee reviews.
And I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Page 135
May 9, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any questions?
(No response.)
MS. VASEY: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Richard Calabrese. He'll be
followed by your final speaker, Linda Abbott.
MR. CALABRESE: Good afternoon. I'm Richard Calabrese,
and I'm a candidate for the school board.
Many of our Collier taxpayers are currently hurting. We have an
affordable housing crisis, we have an energy crisis, and our
infrastructure is in shambles because we struggle to keep up with
development.
But a situation with impact fees is a perfect example of the lack
of physical irresponsibility on the part of the administration and the
school board.
The lack of this administration for not taking any action since
1992 -- well, the lack of any school board -- has cost us $47 million,
which has just been stated.
At the last board meeting, board member Dick Bruce stated that
we've been working -- that the board has been working on impact fees
since 19 -- since 2002. Well, this is 2006, ladies and gentlemen.
That's four years. How long are we supposed to wait? How long is
the status quo supposed to stay?
It's been said that teachers can't afford to live here if we raise the
impact fees. So, in turn, they raise the ad valorem tax, and by doing
that, they've squarely put the problem on the taxpayers' back of this
county who have already paid their impact fees, and that's not fair. By
their action, they have walked away from growth paying for growth.
We should pay our teachers 10 percent above the national
average, not 10 percent below the national average. And if we do this,
they'll be able to afford to better live here, in the county where they
teach.
Page 136
May 9, 2006
But before we raise impact fees, we should make absolutely
certain what we need. We should prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that we are spending our money wisely.
F or years I have been asking for an external audit that is totally
accountable to the school board. This is the only way that we can
identify programs that are working and those that are not, and
eliminate them. Once we've done this, we will know how much
money we need. Once we have demonstrated that we are responsibly
spending our funds, then we will know what to do about it. This is the
only way we can ask for an increase to be put on the backs of our
taxpayers.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Excuse me. I have -- one commissioner
has a question for you.
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. It actually wasn't a
question for you. It just popped into my head as you were talking, and
I was thinking, you know, maybe by having these impact fees in
place, they would be using these impact fees obviously for building
new buildings. Maybe we could pay our teachers more because now
we would have that money freed up from the ad valorem to pay them
a wage where they could afford to live here. Just a comment.
MR. CALABRESE: Yeah. But also the impact fees are really a
part of capital funds. There's two funds. There's capital and operating
funds. And I don't think you -- you cannot mingle the two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. But if they don't have to use
funds that you have to build -- if they don't have to use as many funds
to build buildings because now you've got impact fees to do, possibly
that money could then be used to pay our teachers better.
MR. CALABRESE: Well, that's true. My point is, I don't
Page 137
May 9,2006
believe they've been doing their homework. They've been doing the
status quo; leave things as they are, it's business as usually, and let's
just rubber stamp what has ever been asked of. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Linda
Abbott.
MS. ABBOTT: Good afternoon, everybody. It's a pleasure to be
here, but I didn't plan it. And I wasn't aware that our chairman, Kathy
Curatolo, was here, and I'm grateful for her attending and speaking to
you.
But I was home watching the county commission meeting, as I
do often, and especially today, and heard what Mr. Mudd said of the
new legislation that said we really don't have much of a window. I'm
not sure about the 90 days. Is it -- does that mean that if nothing is
done before that legislation is signed by the governor that -- the way I
understood it is the 90 days was just going to be part of the new
impact fee. Does it mean that that's the end of our window of dealing
with impact fees?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, could I answer that question?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, please do.
MR. MUDD: Ms. Abbott, the -- what the new legislation said,
and as I started my presentation to the board, there was a series of
impact fees, new legislative laws that were -- that were put forward by
certain representatives and senators.
MS. ABBOTT: Right.
MR. MUDD: Some have some onerous things in them, some
had some time limits. You know, it said that, whatever impact fee you
had in place by 1 July, 2006, that's the one you could keep, otherwise
you'd have to go by the new rules before you enacted the impact fee,
so you'd have to change your methodology in some aspects.
What Mr. Tindale told us just a second ago was all the localized
data is in this impact fee, and that was -- and that's one of the changes
Page 138
May 9, 2006
in the new law, you must use localized data as much as you can in any
impact fee increase or new impact fee that a board approves.
The only change to this legislation that was passed by both
houses in Tallahassee -- hasn't been signed by the governor, don't
know if the governor's going to sign it, but -- I can't tell you that.
Annexation issues are different than impact fees. It just so
happens they're in the same bill so -- you can't segregate them either.
He has to pass the whole thing with both pieces in it or he can veto
both pieces, but he has to do it as a bill. He can't -- he has no line item
vetos unless it has to do with budget.
So what we have right now is a potential bill that will become
law upon the governor's signature. The only adverse piece to that
would be the length of time we would have to wait, that this board
would have to wait before they could enact the impact fee, and that's
that the 90 days.
MS. ABBOTT: But the new impact fee could still be enacted
and there's not a window as we were -- my understanding was the July
1 -- the June 30th was the window by which we had to -- that you had
to enact school impact fees.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
MS. ABBOTT: And that's the basis under which we were
operating. We had our first workshop of Tuesday of last week, a week
ago today. And on Thursday we were to take a board vote.
During that short period of time, we had several presentations,
and each one was a little bit different or calculated based on different
input.
So based on that information -- I'm only speaking for myself as
an individual -- but I felt that each of us felt that we had no -- not
enough information to make a very intelligent decision because there
was a lot of -- lot of varying expenses, or input.
So that's why we didn't come to you with a recommendation.
And as Chairman Curatolo indicates, we would like to.
Page 139
May 9, 2006
But with the new legislation, I just felt that you needed to know
why it took us a while and what we were trying to achieve. We know
that it's important and we wanted to make sure that we were doing our
homework.
There was one other question that I had as a school board
member, and that's not something that you need to deal with, but we
do, and it relates to those impact fees, and that is how it affects our
millage. And so that was just one more question for me as an
individual on, you know, coming to a conclusion.
So we're not trying to hold anybody up. And I'm still not sure
about that 90 days and whether something has to be done by July 1 or
if we just have that window between now and when the governor
signs it. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning's got a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I don't have a question for
you, just whenever we adopt them -- if we delay it today, whenever
we adopt it, there'll be a 90-day, after that, period. I mean, if we wait
till October, it will be 90 days after that when the new fee will take
place, that's all.
MS. ABBOTT: But a new fee can still be enacted as long as it's
within those -- as long as you have that burn time you said of the 90
days?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exactly.
MS. ABBOTT: Okay. And do we still-- does that affect the
June 30th date? Not that we're anticipating going out that far.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It could.
MR. MUDD: No, it doesn't -- the June 30th -- if the board
decided today to enact -- to enact this fee, they could enact it based on
the present verbiage and say, the new impact fee comes into being on
30 June, okay?
And the reason why we were pushing 1 July is because all those
bills talked about 1 July --
Page 140
May 9, 2006
MS. ABBOTT: Right.
MR. MUDD: -- and there were some very onerous things in the
impact fee legislation that had to do with credits, giving credits for
every bit of ad valorem that a household would pay from now to
eternity. When you do that, you know, we'd be giving them money,
okay, instead of charging an impact fee for bringing their kids to
Collier County, and then as well as building a school based on that
credit language. So it had some adverse effects upon how we did
impact fees.
With that in there, we basically said, hey, to be safe, to make sure
we've got some time to take a look at this new language and -- credit
language and things like that, we wanted to make sure we had our
most up-to-date impact fees by 1 July so we didn't fall outside of the
rule that were in these potential bills.
In the final waning hours of the legislature, they took all of that
out, and that's all good, along with all the onerous things on credit.
They even took out language on affordable housing, okay.
But this board has done affordable housing deferral programs
countywide and a more -- and an aggressive one in Immokalee, so
they've pretty much handled that already, but some other counties
haven't.
So everything in the bill right now we're doing in Collier County
to the best of our abilities. The only thing that we haven't
contemplated is that 90-day effective date.
MS. ABBOTT: Right. Well, thank you for letting me speak and
taking the time to understand our position. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- I don't want to have
anybody have the illusion that the millage rate is going to go down
because impact fees have gone up. I haven't heard that today, that it's
going to happen. They're just going to use the monies to pay down
debt or use it for replacement cost.
Page 141
..--.'T- ,.--
May 9, 2006
A good example of impact fees being imposed and result of no
millage rate reduction or no taxes reduction is a government impact
fee. We imposed that and didn't see any reduction whatsoever in
millage.
So with that, I'm more inclined to wait and get the input of other
elected officials who are going to be collecting -- or not collecting, but
spending these new fees, their new raised fees, get their input of what
it should be, whether -- instead of a board that is only going to collect
it for the school system, my opinion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is the public hearing closed?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The public hearing -- I've closed the
public hearing.
MS. FILSON: It is now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, basically this is where I am.
I can remember a year and a half ago we were struggling to get the
school impact fee updated and we were working with the school
representatives -- school board representatives. We had one consultant
who went through the process, could not or did not get the necessary
information. We had another consultant do it. We've been struggling
for this at least 18 months, maybe two years.
We just had a hearing that is -- that has been going on for almost
an hour on impact fees. Are we going to come back and have another
one just like this? Because we'll have to have public comment and
everything else.
I think we've heard from the chair of the school board that they're
going to be recommending an impact fee, and they'll be
recommending that it be updated regularly. I think that's what I heard
Ms. Curatolo say.
I'm wondering why we don't proceed to implement an impact fee.
We always have the ability to adjust that impact fee if somebody
Page 142
T
May 9, 2006
presents information which indicates that it is excessive or has not
been accurately calculated.
We traditionally do an annual update based upon an index factor,
so I don't see that we're doing anything different than the school board
would ultimately recommend anyway except, perhaps, for some
differences about the amount.
Now, I'll address one other thing. I know for a fact that last year
both before and after the governor signed the growth management bill
there were things added to that bill, okay.
Now, I have no assurance what's going to happen with this
impact fee or the -- or the annexation bill to which the impact fee
information is attached. It could have something else attached to it
that would not work in our favor.
As I view it, we -- we should make a decision based upon the
best information that we have and then work out any differences that
we might have with the school board and revise the impact fee after
the fact if it is necessary.
But in view of legislative initiatives which we know took place
this year, are likely to take place again, that will curtail our abilities to
implement impact fees in Collier County, I think it's to our advantage
to move ahead with this thing as expeditiously as possible.
And I see absolutely no point of repeating this public hearing
again in a month and going through the same testimony and the same
presentations and the same public hearing. I think it's a waste of time,
quite frankly. Either we shouldn't have had this meeting at all or we
ought to make a decision and get on with it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just totally agree with
everything you just said. We've seen too much of that already where
bills get changed at the last minute, and especially something like this
Page 143
May 9, 2006
with impact fees.
I think our people have been working closely with the school
board people, or their -- Dr. Nicholas, for instance, and we've been
talking about this for a number of years. In fact, I read in one paper
where one school board member said it was our fault that they didn't
raise their impact fees, and I think that it's about time for us to move
forward.
If there's something that the school board feels is definitely way
wrong, as you say, we can always adjust. But I think it's time for us to
move forward. So I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor for
approval and a second.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I need to -- I need to put one thing
on the record real quick, brought to my attention by the County
Attorney.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All right.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Now, I want to make sure that you
understand everything in your packet as far as the ordinance is correct,
okay. What Amy is going to put on the record has to do with the legal
advertisement of the ordinance that was in the paper several weeks
ago, okay.
Ms. Patterson?
MS. PATTERSON: Hi. Amy Patterson again for the record. I
just want to make this clarification. Although the newspaper only
reflects the title block, attached to the legal ad was the original
ordinance, which has been subsequently updated and has been in your
package and in the available package to the public, and I just need to
read these recommend -- or these changes into the record, and I have
another -- one more thing just to make a clarification on the effective
date, and that Mr. Pettit will read in.
Page 144
._-.._"-~-,.....".....,....._--
May 9, 2006
But first is that on page 3, section 2, which is 74.307G -- this is
all in -- this is already all in your package -- line 7, change 84 percent
to 79 percent. That's been done; line 8, add the words equipment and
-- before the word vehicle; and line 10, change 2 percent to 9 percent;
line 13, change 14 percent to 12 percent. And this is all just based on
an adjustment to the indexing methodology reflected in the study in
your executive summary in the ordinance that was attached to your
package and for the public.
And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Pettit, who is going
to read in just a change to section 5, and this has to do with the -- he'll
explain -- has to do with the implementation date -- or the effective
date.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, just to make sure that there's no
confusion between the effective date of the ordinance and the
implementation date of the fees, the new fees, I would like to have
section 5 read as follows: This ordinance shall become effective upon
filing with the Florida Department of State, period. The impact fee
schedule and increases adopted in this ordinance shall be implemented
and shall be applied as of June 30, 2006, period. I am assuming that is
the date that the board wishes to implement the fee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe that's correct. I would just like
to say that I appreciate everyone that was involved in the study, and
especially the Productivity Committee. I have high regards for the
people in the Productivity Committee. They go through this and they
scrutinize everything. And I believe that where we are right at this
moment, we're making the right choice.
And at that, I'll turn this over to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Amy, I just need to clarify one
thing. At the very beginning in your opening remarks, you made a
statement that said, you're recommending that the rates be applied at
50 percent?
Page 145
May 9, 2006
MS. PATTERSON: The Development Services Advisory
Committee recommended the rates be applied at 50 percent. Not -- it
wasn't me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why doesn't that surprise me?
MS. PATTERSON: It wasn't my recommendation. I had to carry
forward --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I see.
MS. PATTERSON: I had to carry forward -- I had to carry
forward the recommendation of the Development Services Advisory
Committee because their recommendation was too late for your
executive summary package.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. I'm sorry. I thought
you were suggesting that.
MS. PATTERSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Patterson, what was wrong
with the advertising of this item?
MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. The requirements for advertising
are much farther out than even your executive package or the date that
we put all of this information together, so we had -- and the only thing
that gets adv -- and this is where it gets confusing because the only
thing that gets advertised in the newspaper to let people know that
we're having this public hearing is the title block of the ordinance, but
attached to the paperwork is a signed ordinance.
And so to avoid any confusion -- because after I turned in the
legal ad, which would have been -- the title block is correct, there was
an adjustment to the study which had to do with the indexing. And it
wasn't a change in how they were doing the indexing, but it was how
the indexing was distributed amongst a couple of different uses.
We're using a couple of different indexes, which in the end is
going to be changed because of the move to localized data. But for
Page 146
May 9, 2006
now, when we adopted the ordinance, we have it distributed 79
percent and 9 percent, and it was spelled out there.
Well, there was a slight change when they adjusted that indexing
methodology, and that's what adjusted the percentages. And so in
case anybody had looked at the paperwork attached to the legal ad and
then compared it to what was actually provided to the public and in
your package, I just wanted to be sure that everybody understood that
what was provided to the board in their package is, in fact, the correct
ordinance with the change.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I just want to say,
the only reason I'm not going to support the motion is, after watching
the school board's meeting, clearly they were trying to get to a place to
make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. And just out
of respect of a, you know, local elected official, I don't see anything
wrong with waiting two weeks to do so, that's all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other discussion?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: David.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I would just note that Ms.
Patterson's statements for the record are just very fastidious for this
record, because the county, in this -- in this ordinance and in all
ordinances, but particularly in this one as an example, has met the
subject matter ordinance advertising requirements.
So I appreciate that she's bringing these changes to the record at
this point in time. But as we all know, involved in the local legislation
process, adoption of ordinances, ordinances are even changed on the
floor subsequent to the debate and discussion and input that comes
from the public, and among the commissioners as well.
So there's certainly no problem whatsoever in the presentation
and the present advertisement that's come to you today.
Additionally I would note, Mike and I were just reviewing, that
the motion is to approve the ordinance with changes reflected by Mr.
Page 147
May 9, 2006
Pettit and Ms. Patterson and that there is an appendix A which
provides those rates. And if I may, I'll read those into the record just
agaIn --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please do.
MR. WEIGEL: -- for clarity of the record. Thank you.
For housing type single-family, it first says, less than 1,500
square feet. It has a dollar figure of $8,228 per dwelling unit.
The second element is 1,500 to 2,499 square feet, and it has a
price or cost of $9,206 per dwelling unit.
The third and ultimate element is 2,500 square feet or larger, and
that has a -- an impact fee cost of $10,017 per dwelling unit.
So, again, just to be very clear on this record -- that is part of the
written record. We want to make sure it's part of the oral record as
well, once again, as we come toward a motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, would you read in the
final two, please?
MR. WEIGEL: I beg your pardon?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you read in the final two, the
multifamily and the mobile home --
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, yes --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- please.
MR. WEIGEL: -- I will. Okay. For multifamily, pardon me, it's
2,862 for dwelling unit, and for mobile home it's 5,724 per dwelling
unit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's in your motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that's in my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And my second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And your second, okay.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'm going to call the
question. All those in favor in regards to increasing the school impact
Page 148
May 9, 2006
fee for Collier County and the information written into the motion, all
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carries 4-1.
MR. MUDD: And Commissioner, I'd just like to get some
clarification real quick. As the school board takes a look at this
particular fee at their next meeting from what I can -- I believe it's still
going to be on their schedule, if anything changes in this fee based on
rationale or further information in discovery that's provided by their
consultant or whatever, if it differs from what you just approved
today, we will be back to you as fast as we can, okay, at the next
scheduled meeting in order to cover those particular -- those changes.
I just want to make sure that --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That option's open.
MR. MUDD: -- that the board, the school board, understands
that this board is open to that particular thing, just like you did in the
transportation impact fee with the information with CBIA as you did
at the last meeting, I believe.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if the school board
recommends they would like a different fee than we adopted not based
on anything, you're saying it's not going to come back?
MR. MUDD: That's right, sir. If they came back and said that
they recommend 70 percent of what you just saw today, that probably
would not come back, sir, based on -- because I haven't seen anything
new. And I believe the board approved the fee at 100 percent that's
legally defensible.
Page 149
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that what the Board of
Commissioners want?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what I want.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would think that we have
to be consistent in the way we deal with things, and we essentially told
the CBIA that if they could find any errors or they wanted to
challenge the calculations in any way, that they should present their
information to us, and we'd be happy to consider it, and I think that
same opportunity should exist for the school board.
But I'll tell you my personal feeling, if somebody comes back to
me and says, no, we don't want to implement an impact fee, I'm not
going to be willing to reconsider that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Yes, David.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I just want -- for the record, Mr. Chairman,
you stated the motion and it was voted on with, I believe, a 4-1 vote,
and it was for the approval of the impact fees as read into the record.
It did not state in your motion the adoption of the ordinance
approving the impact fees that had been agreed to by the board as
stated in the record, and I would appreciate if you would clarify for
the record that, in fact, the motion and vote taken was the adoption of
the ordinance, and then upon doing so, as I indicated at beginning of
the meeting, County Attorney Office, working with Ms. Filson, Amy
Patterson, will work to expedite delivery of the signed ordinance and
attachments to the Department of State through Federal Express or
other expeditionary transmittal.
So would you go on the record and indicate that, in fact, the
motion was for the approval of an ordinance approving -- it's not a
new vote. It's just clarifying what your motion was.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's exactly where the -- as far as I'm
concerned, the Board of County Commissioners stood in regards to
the motion and the vote.
Page 150
May 9, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time we'll take a
10-minute break for our court reporter. Thank you very much,
everyone.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, County Manager.
Item #14A
THE BCC AND THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA) TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER
OR HIS DESIGNEE TO COORDINATE WITH ALL
APPROPRIATE ENTITIES TO SECURE AND STRUCTURE A
LOAN IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,000,000 FROM A
COMMERCIAL LENDER SELECTED VIA RFP (BANK RFP) IN
ORDER TO PURCHASE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN
THE BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; DIRECT THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A
COMMITMENT LETTER WITH THE SELECTED LENDER AND
TO NEGOTIATE AND PREPARE FOR SUBSEQUENT
APPROVAL ALL REQUIRED ENABLING DOCUMENTS TO
PLEDGE CRA FUNDS AS THE LOAN REPAYMENT SOURCE;
AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE REAL ESTATE
CONTRACT, AUTHORIZE A PHASE I SURVEY, AND
AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to item -- it's a time
Page 151
May 9, 2006
certain, two p.m., and I know we're 56 minutes late, but we were on a
different item and we finished it up.
The next item is 14A. This item to be heard at two p.m. It's a
recommendation for the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners and the Community Redevelopment Agency, CRA, to
authorize the County Manager or his designee to coordinate with all
appropriate entities to secure and structure a loan in an amount not to
exceed $7 million from a commercial lender selected via RFP, in
brackets bank -- it's a bank request for proposal -- in order to purchase
certain real property within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Community Redevelopment Agency and direct the County Manager
or his designee to execute a commitment letter with the selected lender
and to negotiate and prepare for subsequent approval of all required
enabling documents to pledge CRA funds as the loan payment source,
and authorize the execution of the real estate contract, authorize a
phase one survey, and authorize all necessary budget amendments.
And this is a companion item to lOr. So when you act on 14A,
you're acting on 14 A as the CRA board. And then I would ask for a
separate motion on the same item as the BCC under lOr.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Is there a presentation?
MR. MUDD: Mr. David Jackson, your director of the
Bayshore/Gateway CRA, will present.
MR. JACKSON: Right. David Jackson, Collier County CRA,
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle sector.
We're requesting the RFP for a bank loan to acquire property
that's very important to the CRA, especially in the Bayshore section of
the CRA.
And in that area it is identified in the redevelopment plan that this
was one of the areas that could be used as a catalyst proj ect area. And
in there there was a whole list of things that it could be used for.
We would like to acquire this piece of property, of which the
Page 152
May 9, 2006
contract has been part of your package. And we've had two appraisals
done on the property. And the purchase price is below the appraised
pnces.
We'd like to get a phase one study, funding for that to get started,
and I have three quotes for that, if you'll approve those to happen, and
we will be able to then also acquire an adjacent piece of property
which we are in negotiations with the property owner at the present
time, and thus, that's the reason for the money being greater than the
value of the initial contract purchase.
It makes sense to go ahead and get either a line of credit or a
fixed-term loan rate at the maximum value. We don't have to go back
and do the RFP again, and we don't have to pay all the extra costs a
second time. And that is our estimate to be able to acquire the
property .
I've had a -- I've talked it over with the county staff, those people
that have a vested interest in this, the CRA and the community, and
also have briefed each of you on what the property entails and what
the future prospects for the property are.
The last comment on it is that we are not sure totally what we'll
do with the entire 17 acres or the adjacent parcel. That will be a future
RFP for either a developer or a planner or a community input on
charette to decide what's the best use for that for the community in
making an asset for the CRA.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you put on the record how
you're planning to pay this loan off?
MR. JACKSON: The loan will be by a commitment or
obligation of the tax incremental financing loans that come into the
CRA TIF fund. Presently, just as a quick number, we have about $1.6
million in reserves. We get about $1.3 million each year. Those
numbers are being re-studied and re-qualified as new development
goes on.
I expect within three years, by year 2009, we will very -- be
Page 153
May 9, 2006
receiving very close to $3 million per year, and that is the objective of
the CRA, sir, is to capture this TIF, this tax differential, and reinvest it
in the community and boot-strap the community into a contributing
sector of the county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Is there any discussion from
my fellow commissioners?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Not hearing any further
discussion --
MR. PETTIT: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. PETTIT: I just want to clarify. Could you put on, for the
record, Mr. Jackson, the amount of the environmental audit and the
vendor who will perform the audit?
MR. JACKSON: Very good point. My error in not naming it. It
would be -- three quotes, the one that meets the lowest quote and
meets the criteria is Environmental Risk Management, Inc., for
$1,005.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Anything else we need to
put on the record?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you're making this motion as the
CRA board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. Okay.
MS. FILSON: So the chairman --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The motion is being made as the
CRA board, and -- I'm sorry. Do we have a speaker?
MS. FILSON: The chairman of the CRA is Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 154
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Passed. Thank you.
Item #101
THE BCC AND THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA) TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER
OR HIS DESIGNEE TO COORDINATE WITH ALL
APPROPRIATE ENTITIES TO SECURE AND STRUCTURE A
LOAN IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,000,000 FROM A
COMMERCIAL LENDER SELECTED VIA RFP (BANK RFP) IN
ORDER TO PURCHASE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN
THE BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; DIRECT THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A
COMMITMENT LETTER WITH THE SELECTED LENDER AND
TO NEGOTIATE AND PREPARE FOR SUBSEQUENT
APPROVAL ALL REQUIRED ENABLING DOCUMENTS TO
PLEDGE CRA FUNDS AS THE LOAN REPAYMENT SOURCE;
AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE REAL ESTATE
CONTRACT, AUTHORIZE A PHASE I SURVEY, AND
AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, now I need a motion under 101 and
you to do it as the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me pass the gavel back. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The next one's --
Page 155
May 9, 2006
MR. MUDD: Do I have -- do I have a motion by the Board of
County Commissioners under 101 that's basically the same as the one
that was passed for 14A --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
MR. MUDD: -- but as the Board of County Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
for approval of 101, and hearing -- is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing no further discussion, I'll call
the question. All those in -- 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: Motion carries.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, with the board's indulgence, and
knowing the fact that we've got a one-man band here as far as the
Bayshore CRA is concerned, and I'd like to get him back to work, if
we could do 14B, and that would finish up the CRA items on the
regular agenda. With the board's indulgence.
Would that be okay with the chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
Item #14B
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)
APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF UP TO $65,088.50 OF
Page 156
May 9, 2006
BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE TRUST FUNDS FROM FY-
06 FUND 187 BUDGET, AND TO WAIVE THE COMPETITIVE
PROCESS TO PERMIT AND PAVE LIME ROCK RESIDENTIAL
STREETS WITHIN THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
BOUNDARY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: And I'll read -- I'll read 14B. It's a
recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency, CRA,
approve the expenditure of up to $65,088.50 of the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle trust funds from FY-'06 fund 187 budget, and to waive the
competitive process to permit and pave lime rock -- lime rock --
excuse me -- to pave lime rock residential streets within the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA boundary.
And each one of the commissioners was provided this walk-on
on Friday, and I will make sure that you have a copy for the clerk's
record.
Mr. David Jackson, your director of the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle, will present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'm the chairman right now?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: She's the chairman.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'm the chairman.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Fiala is the chairman.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Gavel, please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Here you go.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: A little levity. We need levity.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My light is on, Mrs. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. Thank you very much.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Madam Chairman, on this -- on this item
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute.
MR. JACKSON: Excuse me.
Page 157
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: She called on me.
MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is your light on?
MR. JACKSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Mine is.
I have a question for the County Attorney. It seems to me that I
recently saw a public information request from the governor's office of
another state recently concerning the material, the cold mix paving
process, and a company that supplied it or used it.
Does that have any bearing on this issue? Are you aware of this
request that I'm talking about?
MR. PETTIT: No, I'm not.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, I'm not.
MR. PETTIT: A request to our --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. PETTIT: -- CRA or to our county?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, to the County Attorney's
Office requesting all papers associated with this sort of process and
information.
But if you don't know anything about it --
MR. PETTIT: I'm not aware of that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The reason I raised the question,
I'm just wondering if there is any kind of legal case or a liability of
some kind associated with this cold mix paving process that we're not
aware of. Do you know anything about this, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
MR. PETTIT: That rings no bell with me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. I must have --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Transportation is shaking their head no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I must have dreamed this last night.
I'll get a copy of it and get it around to you, okay, just so that you
know what I'm talking about, okay? All right.
Page 158
May 9, 2006
But nobody's aware of any challenges or concerns about this
paving process, right?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I'm not concerned
about it either.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. But if you do find something--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. If I find any problems with
it 1'11--
,
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Thank you very much for bringing
that to our attention.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Please proceed, David.
MR. JACKSON: Yes. Madam Chairman, this is an apolerine
(phonetic) mix paving system that is not as good as what you get on
your freeways and highways. And in your package -- I came to you in
September, and then Chairman Coyle looked me directly in the eye
and says, before you do anything on anybody's front yard, make sure
that you go out and you get a vote from them all.
And I went out and spoke with each of the people, had public
meetings, and in there, in your booklet, is the tally for the votes.
I have all the way up to 100 percent on some streets, and the
lowest street is 66 percent, all written votes.
On three streets there are -- the people are even paying for the
cleaning and grubbing of the right-of-ways so that they will make their
streets much better. They have collected, to date, $27,000 of their
own money. So that was part of it. And they will get their own
contractor to do that and their own permits.
So what we're looking for is the opportunity to go in and do this
demonstration paving product, which is -- project, which is keen on
the interest level for the county's Transportation Department to look at
it for future use if it wears nicely.
The initial opportunity was for one-quarter of a mile done free by
the company. And we looked at expanding it so it's almost a full mile
Page 159
May 9, 2006
on five different roads, and they all have different traffic patterns on it
which will give a better depth of feel to study for the county
Transportation Department to look at how that goes.
We're requesting approval and also approve of all necessary
budget amendments to fund this paving demonstration project.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any comments from the commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have a speaker?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion from
Commissioner Halas for approval, and a second from Commissioner
Coyle. .
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Passes. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me pass this gavel back.
Item #10D
Page 160
May 9, 2006
CONSIDERATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES FOR
CONDUCTING HEARINGS ON, AND MAKING FINAL
DECISIONS FOR, VARIANCES AND SPECIFIED
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW MATTERS, AND HOLDING
HEARINGS AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ON
CONDITIONAL USES - MOTION FOR PLANNING
COMMISSION TO MAKE DECISIONS ON VARIANCE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PETITIONS, WITH ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEALS BEING HEARD BY THE BCC - MOTION FAILED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 10D, and that's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners consider the alternatives for conducting hearings on
and making final decisions for variances and specified administrative
review matters, holding hearings, and making recommendations on
conditional uses.
And Mr. Joseph Schmitt, your administrator for community
development and environmental services, will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good afternoon. For the record
again, Joe Schmitt, your Administrator for Community
Development/Environmental Services Division.
As the manager pointed out, we're here to just get guidance.
Basically the objective is for you to provide us guidance on how you
wish to enforce the Land Development Code and making final
decisions for variances, specified review matters, and if you deem
appropriate, recommendations on conditional uses.
This goes back to the March 28th Board of County
Commissioner meeting where you asked the County Manager to have
staff prepare this and bring it back to you. And then subsequently
during the April 11 th Board of County Commissioners meeting, we
got additional guidance to discuss options for the Planning
Commission.
Page 161
May 9, 2006
Basically, I don't think I need to go through, nor do you really --
would I expect that you would want the entire history on the hearing
examiner. It's in your executive summary.
But as you well know, that was an action that was initiated back
in October, 2002. Basically I point out three options. One is we
continue with the hearing examiner, and if you choose to do that, we
can discuss the options on the best way to go about doing that either
through the employ of a full-time employee or through some kind of a
contractual arrangement.
The second option is to create a board of adjustments to hear
matters, as you had asked us to look into, and that is basically hearing
issues on variances, and if you deem, again, appropriate, conditional
uses.
The third option is to empower the Planning Commission to act
in the manner of a board of adjustments.
There are two other options which, of course, I will point out that
are not part of this executive summary. One is certainly the status
quo. That means we stay as we are now and those matters come
before the Board of County Commissioners.
And the fifth option, of course, in the LDC you have clear
guidance to form a separate Board of Zoning Appeals. As you all
know, you act as the BZA. All items under section 7 of your agenda
are BZA items, and conditional uses, non-conforming uses, flood
variances, off-street parking, shared parking, appeals of official
interpretations, those are the kind of items that come to you as a Board
of Zoning Appeals.
I did not put that in this executive summary because I believe it
was beyond the guidance that you provided. But certainly if you want
to discuss that today, the staff, the County Manager -- or I'm sorry, the
County Attorney and I are prepared to discuss that.
So I think with that brief introduction, basically, certainly based
on, I think, the guidance we got, and at least the discussions, our
Page 162
May 9, 2006
recommendation is to go with a hearing examiner, I think, only from
the standpoint it was our belief that that was the direction you wanted
to move in.
But certainly we're open to your counsel and advice on how to
proceed, if we should proceed at all. And with that, I -- I'm subject to
your questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Didn't we remove the language
in the -- about the hearing officer in the Land Development Code?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Commissioner, we did. It was adopted.
And then when we recodified the code, because we did not enact the
hearing examiner, all that was removed.
I provided in your executive summary that language that was
originally adopted back in ordinance -- this was 01-34, which spelled
out all the requirements in the powers of the hearing examiner, but
none of that was rolled over into the new ordinance.
We would have to go back and amend the LDC to basically
effect this process. So it would require an LDC amendment, and that's
a good point, if I could just carry that further. Just so you understand,
a 3-2 vote today certainly provides guidance. An LDC amendment
requires a 4-1 vote.
And I think as Mr. Mudd pointed out, in the last time we talked
about this, if we're going to go down this road, I think we would want
to know whether or not we even have a 4-1 vote, because we would
now have to bring back some kind of an amendment to the LDC in
order to -- at least if you want to go with a hearing examiner, even a
board of adjustments.
But if you wanted to create something where the -- you separate
your powers into a Board of Zoning Appeals and create a separate
board for that, I think we could explore that, whether or not that even
required an LDC amendment. I would think not, but I'm just --
frankly, off the cuff right now, I think we could implement that almost
Page 163
,
May 9, 2006
immediately.
I kind of went beyond your question, but I thought that was an
important piece.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You did answer it though.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I am reluctant to turn over
some of our responsibilities to some other person without
understanding clearly what that other person is supposed to be doing
and on what type of petition they're supposed to be doing it because of
the likelihood that there will be unintended consequences, and I will --
I will use an example of what we recently did to give you an idea.
We had two requests for variances in the Vanderbilt Beach area
corne before us. One was a situation where a cap on a seawall had an
cantilevered out over the water in order to get enough setback to make
the argument that this was legal.
Then there was another circumstance that merely called for the
replacement of a screen enclosure on an existing concrete stern wall or
foundation.
One is substantially different than the other one. And if we were
to say that a hearing examiner or anybody else has the authority to
make these kinds of decisions, you can see that there's a great deal of
difference in the decisions that are likely to be made.
I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever turning that over to
someone to make a decision about, well, if you're replacing a screen
enclosure on an existing concrete pad exactly the same place it has
always been for the past 15 years, to me, that's a simple decision. The
other one was not quite so simple.
So what I have suggested to staff -- and they apparently are not
interested in this solution, which doesn't bother me. Perhaps it's not a
good solution -- but it is, if we believe and we were informed at the
time by Mr. Schmitt that there were 23 or 24 similar things corning
before us and we spent a lot of time considering these relatively
Page 164
Y"--- ...--
May 9, 2006
simple things, my suggestion was, well, if this is sort of a one-time
thing and they're all that simple, why not hire a lawyer or a hearing
examiner specifically for those simple things and let them make those
decisions and get them flushed out of the system, and we can get back
to the important issues?
The alternative is to have it done by the Collier County Planning
Commission, and I think they're well qualified to consider an entire
range of those kinds of issues. My only concern is whether or not they
have the time.
And I'm concerned about what we're faced with coming up this
year or next year with the new growth management law and our
proportionate fair share ordinance we've got to develop and all the
other things that go along with that. It's going to be a very intense
period for us, and I'm wondering how the staff -- what the staffs
reaction is to doing it either of those two ways.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if I could answer part for you, and
I'm going to have to turn to the County Attorney to help with the first
part.
Commissioner Coyle's first part of the statement had to do with
limiting to specific cases, what types of decisions that the board would
ask the HEX to do. And let's say there would only be a certain
number of variances or ones that only have to do with a certain section
of Collier County.
And we talked with the attorney's staff about that particular issue.
And I believe they have some thoughts that cause some problems if
the board would go in that particular way. And I'm going to turn this
over to David just a little bit to help me out on this. But it seemed to
be all variances, not just a couple of them or a few or a type or a
category thereof.
MR. SCHMITT: Could I jump in though before David jumps in.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: To clarify, you know, what I really,
really had in mind was you corning in to us with a list of these
Page 165
May 9, 2006
variances, and we would look at them and say, well, geez, you know,
this is very simple. You know, let the CCPC or the HEX deal with
those -- that one. And another one, the cantilevered cap on the
seawall doesn't look quite so simple. We -- maybe we should hear
that one. That's what I had in mind, but nevertheless. I don't want to
belabor this thing too far. Let's try to get to a resolution.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, would you --
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, I'm happy to. It sounded like Joe wanted
to put a word in edgewise, but I'm ready to go either way.
MR. MUDD: Go ahead, David.
MR. SCHMITT: Go ahead, David.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead, David.
MR. WEIGEL: All right, fine. The cantilevered seawall-- just
to note, we're talking generally about conditional uses, variances. The
cantilevered seawall matter was, in fact, an appeal of an administrative
variance, and that -- it ended up that I think an important part of the
discussion had to be interpretation of application of the law, the rule
that existed there, and that was part of the board's considerations at
that point in time.
Now -- excuse me -- that authority continues to exist in the Land
Development Code for the code -- and for the CDES staff, you know,
to work through those certain parameters that allow them to attempt to
make, and they do, an administrative variance.
It's very easy, having nothing to do with what is simple or
non-simple, but it would be easy for that as a category, for instance, to
be retained by this Board of County Commissioners, no matter what
other exercise you might go forward with in regard to delegating some
of your authorities right now in regard to conditional uses and
vanances.
As Joe indicated, the -- if the board were to go with a hearing
examiner concept, the hearing examiner is sitting as one person --
typically he should be an attorney, we believe -- would be -- would
Page 166
T-- ----
May 9, 2006
have the duty to apply that which you do, which are the essential
requirements of law, due process, appropriate hearing, et cetera,
procedures to go forward as well as make rulings upon competent and
substantive evidence that comes before him or her. That's the hearing
officer concept.
It may be that rather than a full-time employee -- I'll go into the
subject matter a bit -- rather than a full-time employee of the county,
that person could conceivably be contracted for, and based on an
increment of either time or just a salary on a monthly or some other
formulative basis so that it's fair pay for fair work, but he's an the
employee of the county and has specific charge of what to do.
If the Planning Commission were utilized, as Joe indicated, we
do labor in part under a 1967 special act, which does, in fact, talk in
terms of the Planning Commission potentially becoming involved in it
as a Board of Zoning Appeals.
But remember that conditional uses and variances don't corne to
you in the form of an appeal. They just corne to you for final
determination. So there is a distinction, whether at your level or at the
level of the -- currently the recommendatory level of the Planning
Commission to have final decision-making authority.
It's conceivable that the Planning Commission could be delegated
by you final determination authority relating to conditional uses and
variances, and then it stops there. And if someone's unhappy and has
standing as an aggrieved party to contest the decision of the Planning
Commission, if they were given that, then it goes straight to court and
it doesn't corne to you.
Now, another question has come up, and we've looked at it again
and again, well, who advises the hearing officer or who advises the
Planning Commission if they are pulled into some context of making
decisions. I think that the County Attorney Office, who already
advises the Planning Commission, probably would continue to advise
the Planning Commission as we do. And after all, they're really an
Page 167
.-
May 9, 2006
extension of you already.
And so the advice and counsel that we give them is similar to the
advice and counsel that we give you on the very issues that they may
be hearing that ultimately corne to you, or at least up till now do come
to you ultimately, but potentially could stop at their level.
Note the distinction I made between hearing an appeal and
making a final determinative decision at the Planning Commission
level compared to the board level where it is right now. And that's an
important distinction.
The old 1967 special act does talk in terms of a Board of Zoning
Appeals, which may have no more than two members of the Planning
Commission on that board. In the context of that old statute, the idea
would be that if you decided to make someone other than yourselves
the, quote, Board of Zoning Appeals hearing agenda item number 7 on
your agenda, that if you did put two planning commission members in
there, I mean, it's countenanced under the ordinance, but -- I mean
under the old statute.
The attorney office, our office, has a little reservation about
potentially having two planning commissioners in the dual role of
reviewing something at the Planning Commission level and then two
of those members being part of a larger BZA reviewing something for
final determination at a later level.
But something's important to note here as well, and it gives us
some comfort in the process, and that is that we know that in the
hearing process that you have on conditional uses and variances, that
whether it's gone to the EAC, the Planning Commission, before it
comes to you, and in every event it's corning to the Planning
Commission, that, in fact, in the public hearing process that you have
as a board, new material, new public signs up to speak, you get
additional information beyond that which the Planning Commission
heard.
You hear everything and get the record of the Planning
Page 168
May 9, 2006
Commission, you're supposed to, but you also hear more. So from
that standpoint even -- there's certainly an argument that even if
planning commissioners were -- two of them were put onto a BZA of
not less than five, no more than 10 members, that, in fact, we really
don't run into any real due process issues because of the fact that
they're not hearing it twice necessarily in the same context.
There is the opportunity and more often the occurrence of
additional and new information corning to the ultimate determinative
board beyond the Planning Commission. In this case it's you. That's a
pretty quick survey there.
A hearing officer, if hired, would be -- would not be counseled.
They'd be like a judge, and, therefore would not have an attorney
assisting the hearing officer. The staff would have the assistance of
County Attorney counsel assisting them in bringing matters forward to
the hearing officer.
I hope that's answered a lot of your thoughts and questions, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's what it says in the
land code. Our land code is no less than five, no more than 10, and
two can be Planning Commission members, and I don't have a
problem with that.
But we already know that Commissioner Fiala's against a hearing
officer, and after receiving a document about the special master, the
judge in this case, training the code enforcement officers on how to
present their case, I cannot take any more and will not take any more
duties away from the public that decide to serve, like the Planning
Commission members, like the code enforcement officers, because
there's a problem and it needs to be fixed.
I don't see where the Planning Commission is broken, and I don't
want to -- I do not wish to change it. So the subject of a hearing
officer, in my opinion, because of Commissioner Fiala and myself, is
a moot point.
Page 169
May 9, 2006
MR. MUDD: Just for the record here real quick, I want to --
Commissioner Henning, you just help me here a little bit.
Commissioner Fiala, you're basically going off the past meeting and
the direction to staff to understand what her comments are, just for the
record?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They were in the paper this
mornIng.
MR. MUDD: Okay. I just want to make that clear, okay,
because somebody could think that somebody's talking off the dais,
and that's not the case. Just wanted to make sure that's clear, because
you haven't said a word, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You said it at the last meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I said it at the last meeting. I
was the one that asked to bring it back, and then, of course, they
reported on it in the paper today, so that's where I thought he got it
from but--
,
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- he was listening.
MR. SCHMITT: Just to correct the record, bring it back with the
Planning Commission having those authorities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Oh, it's my turn?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: Just wanted to make sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And somebody mentioned that
maybe it would be time consuming. But right now the Planning
Commission already discusses all of these things, they go through
them thoroughly, and I'm really pleased with how thoroughly they get
into each one of these things. So they already take the time. It's not
like its new tin1e. It's already time that they are using them. And I feel
that they should be the final authority.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, and then
Page 170
May 9,2006
we'll take the -- I think we have one public speaker.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I was just going to try to
clarify that, because I didn't understand where we were, if you were
saying that we're not going to do anything or if we're going to look for
another way of doing it. I also don't want to go with a hearing
examiner, but that doesn't mean you're not interested in considering
another alternative, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, right. I prefer to go with the
Planning Commission and make them final authority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My concern is that I thought the
County Attorney just told us that we couldn't turn this over to the
Planning Commission because they hear it one time anyway.
MR. WEIGEL: No, that's not correct actually.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: What I was saying was, you could give them
final determinative authority. They're not sitting as an appellate court
or a secondary review board, but you could -- and this would require a
modification to the Land Development Code. You could go there and
just give them the authority for variances and conditional uses.
And it sounded, Mr. Coyle, that in regard to the other area which,
for instance, the cantilevered seawall, that carne under the context of
an appeal of an administrative variance where there is an
interpretation done internally here, and it can be appealed to -- now it's
appealed to the board. And that could be retained; very clearly set out
as a distinction.
But variances and conditional uses generally, I think, is the
concept that would go to the Planning Commission, with an approved
amendment to the Land Development Code to provide for that. So
that wouldn't happen right away.
As Joe pointed out, the Land Development Code does provide
currently for a -- for a BZA separate and apart from the Planning
Page 171
May 9, 2006
Commission, which could include two Planning Commission
members on it. But you don't have to go that route. It's just that that
happens to already be in the code right now and probably would be
the minimal -- require the minimal type of work of an ordinance and
some stuff to set it up, not that I'm advocating that one thing over
another there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And we would have the right to
withdraw that responsibility if we saw it going astray?
MR. WEIGEL: By virtue of an ordinance amendment, yes.
MR. SCHMITT: And you could also, if I might add, take
jurisdiction of any -- because it's your -- they're your appointed board,
if you deem it appropriate. And I believe County Attorney, if I could
-- I believe it would take a vote from the board, but you could ask to
take jurisdiction; is that not correct -- or no?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'm not a fan of that concept, quite frankly.
It could be accused of being arbitrary.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, that -- yeah, but -- good point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
MR. SCHMITT: Are we just at variances?
MR. WEIGEL: I said variances and conditional uses, which are
the typical matters that ultimately go up to the board along that line.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if the whole objective is to
take care of a backlog, by the time we get a backlog taken care of -- or
we're going to get the backlog taken care of before we can hand that
authority down to the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, according to Joe Schmitt,
there are only two. He said there is no backlog; in my office
yesterday, right?
Page 172
May 9,2006
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. I only have two pending
applications for variances. If we want to -- we talk about Vanderbilt
Beach, there are about 24 open cases still up there. Only one that is
actually intending on moving through the variance process. We still
do not have closure on the other ones.
But -- so those aren't -- I don't count those as actually being
applied for, but -- so when you talking about a backlog, roughly
speaking, we deal with 10 to 15 of these a year when we're talking
variances. That's been kind of historical, at least workload.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, that's my light.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Yeah, it's a little
confusing how we give staff directions one time and then we come
back again and we totally change our mind and we start in another
direction.
I think what we need to do is take a look at exactly what we're
doing here. What we've got in front of us is, if we're going to go to the
point where we're trying to assign our responsibility to someone else,
do we really feel like it's a good thing to do? Possibly just keep the
status quo where it is and deal with it as it comes before us as we've
been doing in the past.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, myself, I think that some of these
issues. I think, can be handled by the Planning Commission and that
-- just like they take care of boat docks.
So n1aybe we ought to hear the public speaker and then we'll take
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have one public speaker;
Lindy Adelstein.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Good morning. My name is Lindy
Adelstein. And this is the second time I've been before you with this
Issue.
The last time I was here with a partner and, sorry to say, he's not
Page 173
r -----
May 9,2006
here now, Ken Abernathy. We decided to corne back to the same thing
we're going through now.
The hearing examiner situation came up before. And, again, no
matter what happens here, if there is a hearing examiner, he can make
decisions. After the hearing decision is made, the person who has just
-- the person who has just been heard can file an appeal if they can,
and the same thing can happen there as would happen with the county
Planning Commission.
I know for a fact, and I have talked to all of us in open mocka
(phonetic) here, that the county Planning Commission wants to do
this. They would like to do it, they have the time to do it, and they're
willing to do it.
I would hope that would take some weight to them, because I
think we've tried to do as good a job as we possibly can.
I made this presentation only because I felt that a hearing officer
idea was definitely the wrong one. I couldn't conceive of how that
would happen and the economics that it would cost, because as long as
they couldn't do it completely, the cost for this person and his staff and
his equipment could come up to as much as a quarter of a million
dollars. It just doesn't make sense.
I'm not going to say, please, give us the job. I'm trying to say,
yes, I think we're competent to handle that job. And I would certainly
like you to know we'd like the opportunity to do so.
Other than that, I will cut this short because I think we've spent
enough time here today. And I do want to say to you, I do understand
and respect your feelings for not wanting to handle variances. You
have too many things to do and too little time to do it.
I really don't know how you are able to get this work done and
actually come out -- come away from it satisfied, because it's got to be
a terrific load.
Thank you for doing the job you do.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
Page 174
May 9, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't know that we need to
talk about this anymore. I would like to just refresh everybody's
memory. This came up because we spent, I think, almost two hours
discussing the replacement of a screen cage in exactly the same
footprint it had been for 15 years.
And at the conclusion of that, Mr. Schmitt said, well, you've got
24 more of these coming at you. And we said, well, wait a minute.
There's got to be a simpler way to handle that. Now you're saying to
us, we've got two more coming at us, but there might be 22 more that
are not resolved. So I guess in order to get resolved they've got to
corne at us too somehow?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So let's cut through all the garbage
here. You've got 24 cases that haven't been resolved, at least in that
one area. So they're going to come to us sooner or later. So we've got
24, not two. So let's -- I would vote to have the Planning Commission
take care of these issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion that we
authorize -- that we draw up the necessary legal documents to permit
the Planning Commission to make decisions on these minor variances
and conditional uses.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, you're next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to say that we as
a commission weigh heavi -- we let -- their decisions weigh heavily on
what we do, and I think for the most part, we usually follow the
recommendations from the Planning Commission anyway. So it says
that they're a good body who does their homework and research, so I
have a lot of confidence in them.
Page 175
May 9, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the necessary documents
to be amended or drafted would be the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they'll come back to us for
reVIew.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's going to take a while.
But the appeals process, is that going to be to the courts, or should that
be to the elected officials? And that -- I think that's -- the Board of
Commissioners need to make that decision. My personal preference is
since it is -- whether a resident or property owner, they should always
be able to appeal to their elected officials.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my opinion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Then we're right back where we started
from, I think.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I don't know if
we're right back. It's an improvement on an existing situation that--
you know, probably a lot of these, my opinion would be, they'd be
settled in the Planning Commission. But I always -- again, I always
do feel the appeals process should be something -- since we deal with
land use anyways, it should come to the Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: COlnrnissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning's right
about the appeal process. A person does have the right to be able to
talk to their elected officials.
But now we're right back to square one, because anyone that
comes before -- because the Planning Commission and the
commission have not been consistent on the variances on what they
did. They've approved some, they come before us, we disapproved
them. S0111e others they disapprove, and they come before us and we
approve then1.
So it would only behoove a person that if they didn't get what
Page 176
May 9, 2006
they want at the Planning Commission to come back to the
commission for one final slice at it. So I can assure you that instead of
our workload being decreased because of the responsibility we realize
that we have, like Commissioner Henning just mentioned -- and I've
seen Comn1issioner Coyle out of the side of my eye nod his head up
and down -- because of that very reason, we're going to take on more
of a workload.
So I \vould say the present system just the way it is, as
cumberson1e (sic) as it may seem to be, is probably the best way to
stay, with the Planning Commission's recommendations sent on to us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask you a question? Just -- I
ask all con1missioner's this. So say, for instance, Mr. Homeowner
comes in and he wants to build a -- he wants to just rebuild, in the
same footprint, a new screen enclosure, and the Planning Commission
studies it thoroughly and says, okay, fine, go ahead. He wouldn't then
need to con1e to us?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it wouldn't come to us then.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. So I think that there will be
probably, n10st of the times, that the Planning Commission will be
working with the residents and the residents will go away thinking,
okay, fine, that's it. I think it would only be in cases where they
disagree.
But right now, even though the Planning Commission will agree
and the person will think that that's the right conclusion, they still have
to come to us anyway.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you're right. It would take
a certain an10unt of load off us, because anyone that's going to win at
the Planning Commission is definitely not going to carry it before this
body.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But where is justice served?
Because the Planning Commission, when they do reject it, it's still
Page 1 77
T
May 9, 2006
going to come to us. We've seen it. I mean, if there was consistency in
what happened, I would say fine, but there hasn't been. I mean, the
last couple that came before us, it was the opposite. I mean, that
Denunzio (sic) Pizza, perfect example. One of them approved it and
the rest of them denied it. It came before us, we approved it with one
denial. I believe it was one denial.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I don't think that that's normally
the case.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. And then before that, they
approved the seawall one, then it carne before us -- this was two
before -- and we denied it. And so there isn't consistency in the whole
thing.
So if we're going to take on responsibility for something that
takes a certain amount of balance, I think we should keep it in our own
court. But then again, it's a personal opinion. If the world going to
come to an end if we go one way or the other on it? No. It's just that,
where's that lneasure of assurance on the part of the public that they're
getting what they're paying for?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, my--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can I ask one question real quick?
Sir, just -- I need to talk about the appeal and who gets to appeal.
David, is -- just the petitioner gets to appeal or if the
neighborhood doesn't like what the decision was, do they get an
opportunity to appeal? I need to -- I need to be able to figure that out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there you go.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, under the code it's defined as an aggrieved
party .
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So either one of them. All right. I
withdraw my motion. Let's leave it the way it is. Forget it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's certainly been interesting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, okay. I just feel that we've got a
huge workload, and as the -- as this county is expanding, we're going
Page 178
r
May 9, 2006
to have obviously more of a workload. So I was just looking to see if
we could put this in perspective, that maybe some of these
responsibilities we could put down to the Planning Commission or, in
this case, maybe even a Board of Zoning Appeals. But I'm not sure
we've got the support here. So where do we stand here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN HALAS : Yes. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, could I make a
suggestion?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's meet once a week. Take
care of the backlog.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I guess I'm next.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, you're next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I don't know how many
times we have disagreed with the Planning Commission. I doubt that
it's very Inany at all. Yes, Commissioner Coletta is right in those two
Issues.
But I still think I would like to see the Planning Commission
handle those things that can be handled so easily by them, and they
don't have to then, again, come before us, and I would guess that it
even costs the taxpayer more money to have to come before us and
certainly more time.
And I would like to see it end up that way where we have the
Planning Commission -- and if, in deed, the aggrieved party is not
happy, they can then, you know, petition us. But even if they only do
that half of the time or a third of the time, that saved us a lot of time.
And, boy, in the next month or two we're going to have our hands
full, as well as in September and October. So I would like to see some
of that load lifted, especially when it's something that the Planning
Commission can handle so easily, as they do now with like the boat
docks.
Page 1 79
1'-"-
May 9, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other -- Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Just a final word on it.
The reason we came back today to talk about it was because there
was, I guess, premature support for a hearing officer. We went from
one extreme to the other. Before we were for it and we killed it. We
resurrected it again, and we just got through killing it again.
But the idea with the hearing officer was that these things would
be decided on -- just based on law alone. And obviously my fellow
commissioners feel a little uncomfortable because the human
element's what we represent.
So I think that's where we are with it. So you know, is this
present system broken? No, it's just a bit cumbersome (sic). I think
what we're trying to fix it with would be even more cumbersome.
So I'm \vith Commissioner Coyle on that, just leave it where it is.
And even if we did put this together, it would take a while before it
could take effect. It wouldn't be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why would it be cumbersome --
more cumbersome if --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because of the appeal process.
In order for us to be able to give just due to everyone to corne before
their elected officials.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we already hear them now. But
then we wouldn't have to hear as many. I'm just trying to clarify.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you may and you may
not. But if -- an aggrieving party could be either one, the property
owners or the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's the same way it is now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it's not at all. It's more
cumbersome (sic).
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm going to make a motion that we turn
this over --
Page 180
,q , ---r-'--'
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've still got a motion. Oh,
that's right. It's been withdrawn. Forgive me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm going to make a motion that we have
the Planning Commission do this in regards -- and if there's any
appeals, then we hear the appeals, but I think that I'd like to have the
Planning Commission handle this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other further
discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you identify appeals?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, if they have a problem -- if the
person or the parties involved in this don't like the decision of this,
then they can address this to the Board of County Commissioners.
MR. WEIGEL: We'll have to bring it back.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, would you like to
weigh in on this?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, in fact, I would. It appears the motion is to
charge the staff to prepare the appropriate Land Development Code
amendment for the nearest cycle it can get into, providing for direction
and authority for the Planning Commission to handle variances and
conditional uses to the exclusion of administrative variances -- appeals
for administrative variances, which currently corne to you and will
continue to come to you.
And included in the package will be, for your review and
consideration, any appropriate fee requirement that may be
appropriate for an appeal process as opposed to the normal review.
As you know, the permitting -- the permitting requirements that
are in place right now for the application for variances or conditional
uses has a certain context of justification for the fee. So I expect that
the staff and County Attorney will look at the fee and make sure that
Page 181
r
May 9, 2006
the appropriate fee structure's in place for the application process as
well as the appeal process.
I'm not saying that there may be cumulatively a higher fee in the
aggregate, but we will make sure that it's fair and brought to your
attention for your review in the context of the LDC amendment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions?
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, in regard -- and Mr. Pettit reminds me that
in regard to conditional uses, you have a supermajority requirement
that would be part of the implementation, of course, for the Planning
Commission, a supermajority requirement. Variances only require a
mere majority. I expect that the Land Development Code amendment
that we would draft would have those same kind of provisions. Mere
majority, the Planning Commission, on variances. Supermajority
requirement for conditional uses. All that there for you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So let me see if I understand.
You're recon1mending that for them to approve a variance, it would
take a supem1ajority?
MR. WEIGEL: A variance, no, a mere majority of the quorum,
just as with you; a majority of the quorum. Conceivably, if you only
had three Inelnbers present, this board could approve a variance by a
2-1 vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And just a thought -- and
forgive me if this is inappropriate. But is there some way that we
might want to consider that if the Planning Commission unanimously
agrees to the variance that it wouldn't have to go through an appeals
process to us? Just as a thought.
MR. WEIGEL: Interesting thought. But if they unanimously
come to a detem1ination, it may be yes, it may be no, it may, in fact,
have conditions which a party finds inappropriate. So I'd suggest we
stay away froln that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
Page 182
May 9, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If there's no further discussion -- do you
have something to offer here?
MR. SCHMITT: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Hearing no further discussion, I'll
call the question.
All those in favor of the motion that was put on the floor, signify
by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion fails.
MR. MUDD: I believe -- I believe it was approved 3-2. I
believe Comlnissioner Halas, Fiala, and Commissioner Henning voted
in favor.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I didn't hear Commissioner Henning
down here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you vote in favor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't think so. He voted no.
MR. MUDD: Did he vote no?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. My mistake. Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You, Coyle and Coletta, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It failed. That's what I thought.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Could you restate the ultimate vote
ranking here, approval or denial?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The end vote ranking was two
that were in favor and three that were opposed.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
Page 183
, -.-.---
May 9, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it stays the same as it is right
now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So it stays the same as it is right now.
Well, we wasted about an hour on that.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2006-122: RECOMMENDATION TO CONDUCT
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER ANNUAL PUBLIC MEETING
TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE PROGRAMS PAST
ACTIVITIES, FOR SOLICITING PROPOSALS AND
APPLICATIONS, AND TO APPROVE THE 4TH CYCLE
TARGET PROTECTION AREAS (TPA) MAILING STRATEGY
ADOPTED; MOTION TO APPROVE UPDATE REPORTS,
SOLICITING PROPOSALS FOR APPLICATIONS AND THE
CYCLE 4 TPA MAILING STRATEGY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 10E. It's a recommendation to conduct the Conservation
Collier annual public meeting to provide an update to the program's
past activities for soliciting proposals and applications, and to approve
the fourth cycle target protection areas, TP A, mailing strategy.
And Ms. Alex Sulecki, your Manager of the Conservation Collier
staff effort, \vill present.
MS. SULEcKI: Thank you, Mr. Manager.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, board members. For the record,
my nan1e is Alexandra Sulecki, Coordinator for your Conservation
Collier progralTI.
I'n1 here today to fulfill a requirement of the ordinance that
directs me to conduct an annual public meeting at which I update the
Page 184
"-"'-.~
May 9, 2006
board and public on the program, solicit proposals and applications,
and then today also I'm seeking your approval for a target protection
area's n1ailing strategy.
I'd like to note that Bill Poteet, the chairman of our Conservation
Collier COlnmittee, is here today, and he's available to answer
questions or provide a perspective from the committee if needed.
I do have a very brief presentation. I'm just summing up some of
the points, the past, current, and planned activities report from your
executive SUlTIlTIary. We've completed three buying cycles already.
We've had your approval to purchase 671 acres. The estimated cost of
those are 59.2 n1illion.
We have purchased 416 acres, or we have them under contract,
for which we've spent 37.8 million. We have received several grants.
We've opened our first preserve to the public, Cocohatchee Creek
Preserve, and developed seven interim management plans, and we are
ongoing in 0 ur n1anagement efforts.
Some of our planned efforts are to amend the Conservation
Collier ordinance. We'll be bringing that to you shortly, and also to
bring forward an exceptional benefits ordinance, which we are now
finalizing vvith staff.
And also to continue to seek and evaluate appropriate lands for
purchase and to seek additional grants.
So the second thing -- well, the second thing was to ask you to
call for nominations and applications. And the third thing is to get
your approval for this target area's protection mailing list. And you
may recall that we come and ask you this every year because we're
trying to n1eet an ordinance requirement that tells us we have to mail
to all the parcels in the target protection areas, and that's like 117,000
parcels. So we tried to pick the ones where we think the best national
resources are going to be, and so we've come up with this list.
We did have some comments about our proposed target parcels
from the transportation and financial administration and housing
Page 185
. '''-
May 9,2006
departn1ents. And so we have made some changes.
From transportation we were advised in our area down here that
it would be better not to target parcels within 2,000 feet of the
Everglades Boulevard/I-75 potential interchange area, and so we have
done that. We've removed them.
We also now understand that any parcels targeted at the Pine
Ridge and Logan intersection would be subject to right-of-way needs,
and there are also right-of-way needs for extending Livingston, which
is, I think, up here, between Old U.S. 41 -- actually that one is up here
-- Old U. S. 41 and 41, and we understand this and we're ready to
partner with transportation.
We also reviewed our selections in the Polly Avenue area to
make sure that we did not conflict with any of the Santa Barbara
widening efforts, and we do not.
We specifically looked at parcels that would not be a part of that
project, and we reviewed this list with transportation, and we're all
agreed that we're okay there.
And then the housing department just asked us -- asked to be kept
in the loop on parcels that may not be suitable for conservation, but
the owners n1ay be willing to sell for affordable housing needs. So
that's where we are on that.
So our recolnmendation today is that you accept our past and
current activities report, that you call for nominations and applications
from the public for our fourth acquisition cycle. We do have an
August 15th cutoff date to accept applications, and that you approve
the recommended and, as changed, target mailing areas.
And that's all I have for you today unless you have some
questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the rural stewardship plan
that was adopted by the Board of Commissioners a few years ago
directed the growth out there away from sensitive lands, and it also
Page 186
.....".,.."'~'''---
May 9, 2006
stated in our Growth Management Plan to try to incentivize for private
preservation through tax abatement incentives.
So with that, I'll make a motion to approve those targeted areas
except for the rural stewardship area.
MS. SULEcI(I: For your information on those, I just would
point out that we have avoided the sending lands in the rural lands.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. That's the rural fringe.
MS. SULECIZI: No. Also in the rural lands area, if you'll note
on the map, the sending areas are those in the buff color, and we have
not targeted parcels within that area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the others are not sensitive
then --
MS. SULECKI: Well, what we tried to do was connect with the
flowway and the conservation areas and the Ave Maria area, so we
would expand those.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me ask you. Can you
point out the flowway? You're talking about the Camp Keais
flowway?
MS. SULEcIZI: Yes, I am. It's the underlying green in here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're going to target those
areas when the special district said that they will protect those and tax
the people vvithin that special district to protect it?
MS. SULEcIZI: Well, we do have -- we did have a question
about that because you gave us very specific direction on the sending
lands in the nlral fringe. But in the rural lands, we weren't sure
because there's a little bit of a difference. You don't have that -- the
stewardship credits and the rural lands are different because they don't
provide for conveying to public entity for public access. So--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was purposely done during
the presentation that Allan Reynolds did. It was to provide for the
public, the private ownership to maintain it so it wouldn't be a burden
on governn1ent. But the special districts are supposed to be taxing
Page 187
May 9, 2006
themselves to protect that.
MS. SULEcKI: Well, it's part of our target protection area, so
that's why we included it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand. Maybe they just
didn't have all the information.
MS. SULECIZI: Well, we would also -- we were planning on
corning to you for a little more careful direction when we do the
ordinance changes on that particular subject.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's -- my motion still stands.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was your motion again?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, to -- include all the target
areas except for the rural stewardship area. Because after all, we said
that we want development to preserve all that. And I just don't want
this progran1 to be a development buy-out or bail-out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And were there any in that area that
you're talking about?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Alex, I'd like to understand
a little more clearly on this particular map. The areas in green are
those that you're thinking about targeting.
MS. SULEcIZI: I'm sorry, yellow.
CO:NIMISSIONER COYLE: Is that what it is?
MS. SULEcIZI: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yellowish-green?
MS. SULEcKI: Yellow.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yellow.
MS. SULEcIZI: I should have explained that, sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you put your pointer on there,
your mouse on there so it's clarified? Because what we're seeing here
is kind of a --
Page 188
May 9,2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yellowish-green.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yellowish-green, okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But which one of those parcels
would be preserved or protected even if you didn't buy them?
MS. SULECI(I: Well, they're in the habitat stewardship and
flowway stewardship areas, and they have protections, but they don't
have any provision for public access. That's the big difference.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The only reason you would bother
purchasing these would be to provide public access?
MS. SULEcKI: That and the fact that all landowners in Collier
County pay this tax, so it's -- one thing we want to do is
geographically distribute these properties so everybody has some near
them. And it's one of our target protection areas. So we selected the
most appropriate within there, we thought.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would it -- would it not be better to
spend the n10ney purchasing properties that would be lost to
developnlent if you didn't purchase them?
MS. SULEcI(I: That is one of our criteria in our scoring system.
So if a property out here -- let's say one of the owners wanted to sell it
and apply to us and it was being ranked against another parcels, the
scoring systen1 would bring that out, and the decision would be made
based on ho\v \vell a parcel actually meets all those criteria.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And do any of the parcels that you
-- let me ask thi s again. Maybe you already answered it. But any of
the potential targets here, are any of them under threat of development
that you know of?
MS. SULECI(I: I'm going to ask my co-worker here, because
she was developing this list and may have the answer to that, which I
don't.
We don't know that. We chose the ones that were not farm
fields.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, if you were to go to
Page 189
May 9, 2006
some of the other potential targets, some of them are relatively small
and isolated. Maybe it's just because --
MS. SULECI(I: Which other ones?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, pick -- go back to your first
map showing the very obvious targeted areas for the entire county.
No\v, we can take one, three, two, four, five, nine, seven. Those
seem to be small and isolated areas. Do they really contribute in any
way fron1 the standpoint of meaningful conservation, or are they just
isolated parcels that really cannot exist as an isolated conservation
area?
MS. SULECI(]: Well, some of them were chosen because of the
fact that they have really nice environmental qualities. For example,
up here these parcels were chosen because they have great scrub
habitat. The parcels at Pine Ridge and Logan were chosen because we
already have a parcel there, and it would be expanding on that.
Other parcels were chosen because they're in the urban area,
which is our target protection area, and we're seeking to find what
remaining green patches are there more or less for green space. Is you
say significant environmental preserves, probably not, but they would
be very nice green space, and they are not developed and they're in
pretty good shape.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if you get a response from any
of these target areas, you will bring them back to us for final approval,
is that correct, with the rankings?
MS. SULECIZI: That's right, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I do think there is
considerable lnerit to Commissioner Henning's concerns about
purchasing property -- or about not purchasing property that is already
protected.
And I hope you will take that into consideration when the time
comes to lnake an offer to purchase, because if it's already protected,
then I don't know that we need to have a reason to spend a lot of
Page 190
~~ ~~~T--~----
May 9, 2006
money on it just to get access to it.
MS. SULECKI: Well, also consider that the stewardship credits
would be relnoved --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. SULECIZI: -- and the parcels would not be a lot of money.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So if, in fact, the
stewardship credits are --
MS. S ULECIZI: I think in most of these -- I'm not 100 percent
sure, but I know we've had some discussions about, many of the
parcels in this area have already had them removed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the price should be relatively
low.
MS. SULECIZI: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that will be reflected in your
recoInl11endations when you bring it back --
MS. SULECIZI: It would be, certainly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- if you decide to do something
with theln? Okay. All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So in these areas that are
already protected, is the main focus then for our Conservation Collier,
being that people really can't buy them and you've got them now
stripped of any of these building rights, do we then go in through this
money that \ve're collecting from our citizens and keep the properties
maintained, I n1ean, removing all exotics and so forth? Is that the
advantage of -- of buying some of these properties that are even
adjacent to these areas?
MS. SULECIZI: That would be an advantage, but I think that
some of -- they would have to do some of that anyway, managing --
COM?\1ISSIONER FIALA: Would they?
MS. SULECIZI: -- if they strip the development rights. And can
I have Mr. Lorenz confirm that for me?
Page 191
T ~-'-
May 9, 2006
MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Environmental
Services Director.
Within the sending areas, I believe the requirement is that they
have to develop -- they have to provide for an exotics management
plan, but it does not go so far as to say that they have to fund -- fund
that plan in over a certain period of time.
So it's a -- it's a little bit of a grayer area there. But I think that
the discussion that the board had, as we outlined in the executive
summary, is right on line. These areas in area eight are within the
sending land, so --
MS. SULECIZI: They're not sending. They're not sending.
MR. LORENZ: Are they flowway?
MS. SlJLECIZI: They're flowway.
MR. LORENZ: They could still go through the stewardship
credit program. So that's the question, it's similar to the TDR
program. Do you want to -- for us to have an outreach program to
actually n1ail out these applications to these particular areas. That's
what the -- that's what this target protection area mail out resolution is
all about.
Obviously if we receive any -- any projects that come in with a
freestanding application, we will put it through the process, bring it to
the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My big concern is flowways. I feel
that we have to do everything in our power now, today, to preserve
our future water supplies. And I think also by protecting these
flowways, \ve also help our floodplain as well as our stormwater
managen1en t. I do -- are these flowways in protected areas as it is or
not?
MR. LORENZ: I believe that these particular parcels are within
flowways. And as I understand the program, is that, if they're in -- if
they're -- any -- any parcel within the rural land stewardship area can
go through the ste\vardship credit program.
Page 192
. -.--
May 9,2006
The habitat -- the habitat -- the habitat areas and the flowway
stewardship areas will generate the greatest amount of stewardship
credits. So those are the areas that can take advantage of the
stewardship credit program to receive a higher degree of protection
through the credit program itself. .
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I might not have asked that
correctly. Let Ine say -- let me try and restate it. What I wanted to
know W8S, the sensitive lands within flowways that we need to
preserve for Ollr future water supply, are they already protected?
MR. LORENZ: They have -- they have a degree of protection on
them through the Growth Management Plan, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question I'd like to ask before I
turn this over to my other commissioners.
I be lieve you said in your opening statements that what we're
trying to do is, these lands, even though they're being protected now,
they don't have access to them; is that correct?
MS. SlJLECK]: That's correct.
CH/'dRMAN HALAS: Okay. And so what we're trying to do,
or what you're trying to do, is locate these lands, and after the
developnlent rights have been stripped off of them, we're going to get
this at a reasonable price that the taxpayers decided that they wanted
to tax thenlselves for, and you want to provide a way to have people
use this as recreation, in the sense, recreation of walking through,
you're going to have footpaths, I would assume, or whatever else; is
that correct?
MS. SlJLECI(I: More likely a boardwalk if we had anything.
CHAIIZMAN HALAS: Well, a boardwalk, okay, because you're
going to have to have it elevated above the swamp.
MS. SULECIZI: Yes. I would say that that would be a
long-range plan.
CHAJRMAN HALAS: So what's the short-range plan?
Page 193
'r'O"" '-~-,----
May 9, 2006
MS. SULECKI: The short-range plan is to buy it. Buy it now,
manage it later. And that is the message that was given to us from the
state level to the local level because the prices of land are so high, that
it's very ilnportant to buy it now.
So \ve're basically looking where our ordinance tells us to look.
If you choose that we should not look there, that's fine. But that's
what we've brought to you today, those lands that our ordinance tells
us to look into for potential targets.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But we're trying to plan for the future?
MS. SULECKI: Uh-huh.
CHi\JRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, first question, can you
email me this presentation?
MS. SULECKI: I'd be happy to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Y Oll kno\v, this reminds me of the Babcock Ranch where there is
a -- there's a huge buy-out of lands that never would have been built
on anyways, and then given the developer density bonuses. And, you
know, folks, it's not going to be built on. You get the private sector to
maintain it, and it's a swamp. You know, what are we doing here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is this all swamp? Is this all in
inflow?
MS. SULECKI: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, this is totally
ridiculous. And this is -- it's amazing. But anyways.
I'm not going to support buying any of those lands in the rural
stewardship area. That's going to be maintained for -- by the
developers out there. If it's sensitive to buy, then -- or if it's sensitive
to preserve, that's part of the whole program. That's what the final
order was and that's what the Growth Management Plan says, and
that's what the whole program is.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
Page 194
r --
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, this is mostly in District 5,
at least the larger part, and it's understandable why.
Let's approach -- I've got several things I want to ask you about,
so please bear with me. First off, what we're dealing with is rules
made by nlan, and we're the people that put these things together, the
rules that are in place today.
The o\vnership of the land, if it stays with the owner, who's to say
that another generation or two removed, that they may find some
reason to be able to come up with ways to be able to develop it at the
expense of the conservation that we want to try to save. In fact, there's
a good possibility that it will.
But if it's already out of the hands of the landowner, it becomes
the property of the private sector or the government, it's no longer
capable of doing that. It removes that possibility in the future.
I've got the confidence in our present government and the
confidence of the committee we have put together to make this work.
I don't have any confidence with the generation coming up or the one
after that or the one after that. We're dealing with something that's
going to go forever.
Yello\v Stone Park, if that wasn't designated a park back in the
1800s, I assure you today they would have another number of towns
in there. Buffa los would be in cages.
But I do have questions about -- let's deal with one element out
here, Lake Trafford. We see several different spots here. I believe
one of then1 to the north there, is that Pepper Ranch area?
MS. SULECKI: Is that Pepper Ranch? It's not Pepper Ranch,
but I think it's next to it, because Pepper Ranch is not for sale.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's not?
MS. SULECKI: I don't think so.
CO~1MISSIONER COLETTA: Anybody ever make an inquiry?
MS. SULECKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
Page 195
May 9, 2006
MS. SULECKI: Last year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean recently.
MS. SULECKI: Not recently, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It wouldn't hurt. What the heck.
If you're going to do some mailings out just for whatever a postage
stamp costs now, try it again, just for the heck of it. Please go back.
Okay, that's fine.
But the areas we're talking about, that's not Pepper Ranch. It's
still wetlands, but it looks like there's some farm fields in the
backgrollnd, too.
MS. SULECKI: There are some, but these were chosen
specifically because they were adjacent to the CREW lands, and they
were also part of the CREW project, which would be something we
could partner with the state on. Some of them are old -- or farm fields,
some of them are not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me get down to a real
question.
MS. SULECKI: And these are the ones in purple. So actually
those are a nonlination from the CREW trust that has come in.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm sorry. Where you're
touching on now --
MS. SULECKI: These are the purple ones.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The purple ones right
there. That's the ones I'm looking at.
MS. SULECKI: Yeah, yeah.
COJ\1MISSIONER COLETTA: And the other one down here,
that's not that 660 acres that the -- supposed to be -- we mayor may
not get fr0111 water management for the --
MS. SULECKI: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
MS. SULECIZI: No. That's up here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do know that the land over
Page 196
May 9, 2006
there on the north part of the lake -- now, I'm going to ask you a
question that hasn't come up yet. I don't think at any point in time any
of the lands that we're dealing with or any of the management plans
I've seen come through -- and probably for good reason, because of
the location.
There was absolutely nothing mentioned about the possibility of
hunting or fishing. This area that you're pointing at right now is prime
habitat for turkey, for deer. Is there going to be a management plan
that the people that live in the immediate area, through what they
called controlled hunts where only so many permits are issued, people
can go in the land and enjoy what their forefathers have done in the
past in a Ineaningful and responsible way?
Are we going to actually allow that, or is this -- because I don't
think there's anything now in what we're dealing with that offers
anything for that element of the public out there that does pay taxes.
MS. SULECKI: You're right, and we haven't found anything yet
that's appropriate. And that may be. It's certainly not out of the
question. It's one of the things our ordinance says that we should look
at.
And I'll just mention that one of the properties that was
nominated by CREW, the Starnes parcel over here, that's one of the
things that really excited me about that was because it was surrounded
by CREW lands, and they do have small game hunts. And we could
very easily join in with thenl, and we have discussed it. So yes,
definitely we would look at that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But -- and that's the reason why
I'm still supporting the program as is.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. SULECKI: You're welcome. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, and the Starnes property is for
sale, right?
Page 197
May 9, 2006
MS. SULECKI: We have an application, and I've made a site
visit, so it's in the process, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So just in keeping with what
Commissioner Coletta was just saying, so if we buy that, it could then
be open for -- as you say, it's just prime hunting ground anyway?
MS. SULECKI: Yes, Ina'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we would maintain it, right?
MS. SULECKI: Well, actually we could work out a deal with
the district to nlaintain it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's great. That sounds like
good land. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other further
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, one more question.
CHAJRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry.
MS. FILSON: Go back to that last one. Now, you just showed
me where the Starnes property was, but then Commissioner Coletta
was saying s0111ething about the stuff that's right north of Lake
Trafford there.
Is that s0111ething that we're also thinking of buying?
MS. SULECKI: That's actually the target areas where we want
to mail to. And the idea here was, there's been some talk of
developnlent around the north side of the lake, and that would be a
good place to buy to protect that lake shore and protect the Lake
Trafford restoration that's already been done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. So the Starnes, we're
already \vorking on that?
MS. SULECKI: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But this property could also be
another hunting ground that we could then consider?
Page 198
May 9, 2006
MS. SULECKI: If the owners are interested in selling, willing
seller.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a motion?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There was a motion, but I don't think we
had a second, did we? _
MS. FILSON: No, we haven't got a second yet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What -- was the motion for staff
approval?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MS. FILSON: No. It was to include all target areas except for
the rural stewardship areas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Forget my second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a new motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to make a motion
that we include this as per staff recommendations.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor for
approval of staff recommendations, and I have a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
Page 199
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not maybe?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item.
MS. SULECKI: Excuse me. Mr. Manager, could I just ask that
the board to accept the past and current activities report? Just to make
a formal acceptance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make a motion to accept the past
and current activities report as presented.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
MS. SULECKI: And then also just make an announcement to
call for nominations and applications.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And make an announcement to call
for nominations and applications from the public for the fourth
acquisition cycle August 15th, which is --
MS. SULECKI: The cutoff date.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the cutoff date.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. You need a second for
that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got it.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All those in favor?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CI-IAIRMAN HALAS: Not hearing any, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
Page 200
~---' --- - ~ y- ....-.-.---.....-.--.--
May 9, 2006
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes--
MS. SULECKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It passes unanimously.
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 2006-123: AUTHORIZING THE FEE SIMPLE
AND E~ASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY
CONDEMNATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING
STORMW ATER IMPROVEMENTS TO ALLEVIATE FLOODING
IN THE EAST NAPLES AREA KNOWN AS PHASE ONE OF
THE LEL Y AREA STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
(LASIP) - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which i~ 10F. That's a recolnmendation to adopt a resolution
authorizing the fee simple and easement acquisition of property by
condemnation for the purpose of constructing stormwater
improvenlents to alleviate flooding in the East Naples area known as
phase one of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project, LASIP.
Fiscal impact is $1,838,000. It's project 511012. And Mr. Jay
Ahmad, your director of engineering for transportation, will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. AHMAD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I am asked to
add something to the record.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MP~. AHMAD: So if I may, with the board's indulgence.
CH AIRMAN HALAS: Please put it on the record.
MR. AHMAD: Take a couple minutes.
With the board's indulgence, it is important that we take a
Page 201
r
May 9, 2006
moment to allow each commissioner to ask any last questions about
the necessary -- the necessity to approve the use of the county power
of eminent domain to acquire the easements for this item.
And it is important that the minutes of these proceedings reflect
the careful consideration that the board has given to the factors that
must be considered when weighing the decision to condemn private
property for public purpose.
The Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project, also known as
LASIP, has been in the planning and design and permitting phases for
over 16 years.
Ma ny comnlissioners among yourselves have visited these
locations and attended workshops and meetings with citizen groups in
the past decades.
The environmental impact of various alignments and design
alternati yes have been considered, the financial impact of various
alternate routes and design alternatives have been explored.
Long-range plans for Collier County have been consulted. All
decisions regarding the LASIP project have been guided by concerns
for public health, safety, and welfare.
Over the past several years, even with the very limited funding,
persistent efforts have been underway to secure the necessary land and
easement required for the construction of the Lely Area Stormwater
Improvenlent Proj ect.
With the funding recently made available by the board and with
approva 1 and adoption of this resolution, it will soon be possible to
make pll rchase offers for these lands and easements under the threat of
condenl11ation so that the project is able to move forward in a timely
manner.
The use of county power of eminent domain will always remain
the last resort, should amicable negotiations fail to secure the purchase
of the properties.
Thank you.
Page 202
r
May 9, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll call the question on this.
Commissioner I-Ienning made the motion. It is seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CI-IAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Item #10G
SELECTION OF CONSUL-TECH CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT, INC., A QUALIFIED FIRM, AND AWARD A
CONTRACT UNDER ITN 06-3583 "CEI SERVICES FOR
COLLIER COUNTY ROAD PROJECTS", FOR PROJECT NO.
62081 "SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD FROM DAVIS
BOULEVARD TO COPPER LEAF LANE" IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,405,006 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is lOG. It's a recomnlendation to approve selection of
Consul- Tech Construction Management, Inc., a qualified firm, and
award a contract under ITN 06-3583 for the CEI services of Collier
County road projects for project number 62081, Santa Barbara
Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to Copper Leaf Lane in the amount
of $2,405,006, and Mr. Jay Ahmad, your director of engineering for
Page 203
... - . -------y- .'",-....-
May 9, 2006
transportation, will, again, present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. AHMAD: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Anything you got to put on the record?
If not --
MR. AHMAD: Not for this one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those in favor, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Build those roads.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Why don't we take a 10-minute
break for our court reporter, and we'll be back here at 4:33. Thank
you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chain11an, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. We're back out
of recess.
Item #10H
AWARDING OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,975,530.87 TO ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
AND ALLOCATE $197,553.09 (10% OF THE CONSTRUCTION
COST) FOR CONTINGENCY PURPOSES TO DREDGE
Page 204
'I'~ .~
May 9, 2006
HALDEMAN CREEK, PROJECT NUMBER 510111, BID NO. 06-
3960 AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT AND APPROVE A CHANGE ORDER TO
CONTRACT NUMBER 01-3216 HALDEMAN CREEK
RESTORATION PROJECT TO WOODS HOLE GROUP, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $264,074.00 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item--
next iteln, which is 10H, which is a recommendation to award a
construction contract in the alnount of$1,975,530.87 to Energy
Resources, Inc., and allocate $197,553.09, which is 10 percent of the
construction cost, for contingency purposes to dredge Haldeman
Creek, project nlunber 510 Ill, bid number 06-3960, and approve the
necessary budget amendment and approve a change order to contract
number 01-3216, Haldeman Creek restoration project to Woods Hole
Group, Inc., in the alllount of $264,074.
And Ms. Margaret Bishop from your stormwater utility
department will present.
And oh, by the way, you know, I want to make sure that you
know that Margaret got her PE here a couple months ago, her
professional engineering license.
(Applause.)
CI-IAIRMAN HALAS: Congratulations.
MR. MUDD: When I mentioned that to the Southwest Florida
Water Managenlent District, they said, well, we don't have time to let
them train for thei r PE, so we want her back, and I said, over our dead
body . We're going to keep her.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good for you.
MS. BISHOP: Thank you.
CI-IAIRMAN I-IALAS: Congratulations.
MS. BISHOP: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I
know that you're \vell versed in the Haldeman Creek project, so I'll
Page 205
May 9, 2006
just give you the highlights.
If you have further questions -- I also have a brief presentation if
you have additional questions.
Again, there are three components to this recommendation or
executive sumn1ary. One is to award the contract to Energy
Resources. That's strictly for the construction and dredging of the
project.
The other is, approve a change order. That was incurred because
of additional pem1it requirelnents by DEP and Corps of Engineers,
which included sentiment salnpling, environmental monitoring,
manatee monitoring, turbidity monitoring, things like that, and also
approve the budget amendn1ent.
When the project was put out to bid, it was divided into five
reaches. One of those reaches is located within the limits of the City
of Naples. And, again, we've had conversations with the city so that
they \vould pay for their portion of the project, which is approximately
$200,000. We have not had a commitment from the city.
There's also a deadline to complete the project, which would be
January of 2007 because of the spoil disposal agreement with the
property owner, Antaramian.
Again, the base bid can1e in below the engineer's estimate of $3
million. Once the dredging or the project is complete, an involuntary
MSTU \vill be set at zero 111ills for any future dredging in the area.
If you have any questions or you'd like to see a more detailed
presentation?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Bishop, the executive
summary that you wrote is very clear, although I won't make a motion
to approve because I know that Commissioner Coyle has been
working on this for years. l'n1 very supportive of it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FLALA: Second.
Page 206
May 9, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one question that I would like to
ask you in regards to -- is the city going to step up to this -- to the
plate here and get involved in any of this, the $200,000?
MR. FEDER: Comnl1ssioner, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator. Margaret and I and some other staff met
with the city nlanager and his staff. We discussed this and other
projects.
Right now the city fee! s that by this being funded out of ad
valorem, in this case our stonnwater water utility being .15 mills of
our ad valorem, that they pay 20 percent into that ad valorem.
We discussed that and other things we're doing in the corridor
and other things they're doing. We didn't get any agreement. This
provision does have that if, in fact, they don't provide funding, then
that fifth reach proportion that's totally within the city would not be
moved on by the county. That wasn't discussed directly with the city
manager at that till1e. We'l! continue to try to work with them and
hopefully get funding so \ve can do that fifth reach, as it's called, of
the project.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And the last question I have before I turn
this over to COll1n1issioner Fiala, you stated in your presentation that
there was going to be an MSTU. Is this going to be a mandatory
MSTU?
J\1R. FEDER: Yes. '{our policy that -- when you established a
storm\vater utility it was for the seven or eight tidal influenced areas
where essentially there's been an awful lot in the past direction as to
whose responsibility it is.
\Ve established a 50 percent county, 50 percent Big Cypress
Basin or water Inanagement district with a provision that once we go
in and do that initial cleanup and get everything functioning, then it
Page 207
May 9, 2006
becomes a mandatory MSTU that would then do any future repair and
work needed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIA.LA: Yes. Do you happen to have a map
of that little portion where the city is located --
MS. BISHOP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- just so I have an idea.
MS. BISHOP: Let n1C -- the area indicated in the light blue is the
portion of the City of Naples.
MR. MUDD: Use your pointer on the mouse.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MS. BISHOP: Oh, here we go. This area right here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
MR. MUDD: That light blue area, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIA.LA: Okay. Thank you very much.
CfIAIRMAN HALAS: Along the shoreline or towards the -- I
guess towards 111Y right?
MS. BISI-IOP: Right here.
COMMISSIONER FI ALA: In relationship to that, where is the
dredge site?
MS. BISHOP: Everything that's highlighted from here. This is
the City of Naples, this is the main Haldeman Creek, this is everything
east of Bayshore, these are finger canals to the north, and then these
are finger canals to the south.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And where will you be
depositing that stuff?
l\1S. BISfIOP: This is the spoil disposal site right here.
COMMISSIONER FIA.LA: Great. Thank you very much.
CI-IAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any further discussion on this
matter?
(No response.)
Page 208
May 9, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe we have a motion on the floor
by Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
I'll call the question. AU 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: Motion carries. Thank you very much
for your presentation.
MS. BISHOP: Thank you.
Item #1 OJ
AN ACCESS REQUEST .~ND RELEASE FORM ALLOWING
ROY DELOTELLE OF DELOTELLE AND GUTHRIE, INC. TO
ACCESS CONSERV ATI()N COLLIER LANDS, TO APPROVE
THE DONATION OF IN-I(IND CONSULTING SERVICES FOR
CONDUCTINGRED-COCIZADED WOODPECKER STUDIES
AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
ATTACHED ACCESS REQUEST AND RELEASE FORM-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Comnl i ssioner, that brings us -- and we've already
done 101, so that brings us to 10J, which used to be 16A13, and that
reads, recomn1endation to approve an access request and release for
allowing Roy DeLotelle of DeLotelle and Guthrie, Inc., to access
Conservation Collier lands to approve the donation of in-kind
consulting services for conducting Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
studies, and to authorize the chairman to sign the attached access
Page 209
May 9, 2006
request and release form.
The item was moved to the regular agenda by Commissioner
Henning. Ms. Alex Suleck i will present.
MS. SULECKJ: Hello again. I'm here to answer your questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Board of Commissioners
was given, on May 1, '06, a summary of a study that was completed
on the school board property in section 24, and that was -- the site visit
on the property \vas March 24, 2006, which is less than a month ago.
What's the purpose of the new study?
MS. SULECIZI: There was a survey on our property? I'm not
aware of that. Oh, that report was done in like two thousand and --
MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, environmental
services director.
We had staff out on the -- Mac Hatcher was the staff member
who went out on a survey. It wasn't -- it was a -- it was not a formal
survey. It was a site visit that he made, and did observe one RCW and
heard several others. And that information I had summarized in a
report that was provided to the Planning Commission with regard to
the EAR amendnlents that you'll hear next Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER I-IENNING: Okay. Let me read this. Staff
used a consultant to update ll1apping efforts in quality -- quantified the
RCW habitat for each of the RFMUD lands designated in figure two,
which is unit 24.
All other MBMO sending areas, it compromises (sic) 62 percent
RCW habitat, and other neutral areas compromise (sic) the 27 percent
RCW habitat.
Revising the sending I ands or developing and encourage and
compronlise (sic) only to 15 percent RCW said habitat. More recently
field inspection has docunlented RCW activities in section 24.
Th e county has just acquired the school board property of 65
acres. \Vithin section 24 during the March 24, 2006, site visit
property, county staff observed one RCW habitat and heard others.
Page 210
May 9, 2006
It leads you to believe that a consultant made the findings in this.
So I'm glad you corrected it, but we just did a study in section 24.
What's the purposes of this new study?
MR. LORENZ: Okay. The -- well, just to -- for me to be clear,
the consultant study was done for all of the rural fringe mixed-use
district that was an additiollallevel of effort than what staff was able
to do in the data analysis for the final order amendments that the board
adopted in June, 2002.
And those an1endments, there was a requirement that we were to
do a more -- do additional data collecting in all of the North Belle
Meade, 8ud specifically to look at section 24 as to whether or not it
should be -- remain as neutral lands or go to sending lands.
So the consu 1 tant stud y that was done in 2003 looked at all of
North Belle Meade and did analysis within section 24, of which the
Conservation Collier lands, the school board property, exist.
Thjs particular report that you have, Commissioner, was some
supplenlental infonnation and data to support the recommendations
and findings of staff and the Planning Commission for section 24 to go
to sending lands versus neutral lands.
So coincidentally, \vhen we were doing a site visit to the
conserv8tion property, the school board property, our staff did observe
an RC\V and heard others, and that's what was recorded in the paper
that you have presently.
The particular study that we're asking the board to allow the
consultant, Roy DeLotelle, to come onto the county's property, he's a
well-kno\vn RCW expert. And as part of his consulting with the City
Gate properties, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has required City
Gate, as part of their n1itig8tion plan, to provide expertise to Collier
County. That's actually built into their mitigation -- or conservation
plan.
So \vhen we had the ability to have Roy DeLotelle come onto our
property~ provide us S0111e, quote, free consulting services, being a
Page 211
T- ~-
May 9, 2006
well-known RCW expert, \vhat we hoped to gain from that is that he
will actually review the county's site, look at opportunities for RCW
managelnent on our site, and be much, much more detailed and
specific for our site.
So this is -- this is -- the nature of the request that was on the
consent item -- consent agenda was to have Roy DeLotelle come on
our property and provide a lot lllore detail for us to develop our own
land managen1ent plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Two more questions.
Now, did the consultant in 2003 do some ground-truthing in section 24
to come up with his reconlll1endations?
MR. LORENZ: There \vas -- he did some field verification and
ground-ttuthing. I believe he did some in section 24. He was -- that
consulta nt was also -- did SOIne verifications within some of the other
sections as well in the North Belle Meade.
It \vas not a -- it was not a complete ground-truthing survey, if
you will, of all of those 15 some thousand acres, but he did validate
some inforn1ation within section 24.
He \vas also the consultant -- I believe he was the consultant to
the school board as well. So l1e had -- he is -- has very -- he has
on-the-ground experience \vithin section 24.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Just one last question. Is
this authorization just to go on our property? It's not to study any
other property?
MR. LORENZ: Just to go on our property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'll make a motion
to approve, because it says different --
COMMISSIONER CC)l-iETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER f-IENNING: -- in our consideration. But as
long as you put it on the record that's all it's for, then I don't have a
problen1 with it.
Cf-IAJRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
Page 212
May 9, 2006
and a second. Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hopefully we haven't got any speakers
for this, do we?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll call the question. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAJRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
Cl-:1AIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Item #10IZ
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE (1) TO WORK ORDER
NUMBFR SCD-FT-05-01, UNDER CONTRACT 05-3850,
ARCHITECTURAL ENCJINEERING SERVICES FOR THE
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, FOR THE
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE CHILLER
PLANT EXPANSION WITH SPILLIS CANDELA DMJM IN THE
AMOill<T OF $339,920.00, AND TO APPROVE AMENDMENT
#1 TO CONTRACT 05-3850, WHICH WILL INCREASE THE
ANNUI.L TOTAL INITIAL COMPENSATION FOR WORK
ORDERS ISSUED TO SPILLIS CANDELLA, FROM $500,000 TO
$2.000,000 - APPROVEIJ
MR. MUDD: COlnnlissioner, that brings us to 10K, formerly
16E4, ard that is a recomnlendation to approve a change order number
Page 213
May 9, 2006
one -- to number one to a \vork order number SCD- FT -05-01 under
contract 05-3850, Architectural Engineering Services for the Collier
County Government Center for the design and construction services
for the chiller plant expansion \vith SpiUis Candela DMJM in the
amount of$339,920, and to approve amendment number one to
contract 05-3850, which wi II increase the annual total initial
compensation for work orders issued to Spillis Candela from $500,000
to $2 million.
The item was pulled at Commissioner Henning's request, and Mr.
Peter H8yden, your senior project manager at facilities, will present.
MR. I-IA YDEN: Peter Hayden, senior project manager of
facilities, here to answer your questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Hayden, thank you for your
time.
MR. HAYDEN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is something -- do we need to
jump on it right a\vay and not go through a competitive bid?
MR. I-IA YDEN: For the chiller plant expansion?
COMMISSIONER I-IENNING: Correct.
MR. HAYDEN: Y eah. Well, actually we did a competitive bid
for the R FP that -- the contract that we're currently working under.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. He's the -- one of the
,
approveu --
ME.. I-IA YDEN: Actually, no. Not to interrupt.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. No, that's fine.
MR. HAYDEN: COl1tract 05-3850 is for architectural services
for the lllain complex here at the main campus, and it's one architect
for the CJn1pus.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This one is?
ML. I-fA YDEN: This -- right, this --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This--
~;fR. ITA YDEN: Spillis Candela is the -- this one here.
Page 214
May 9, 2006
COMMISSIONER I-IENNING: For the whole complex?
MR. HAYDEN: Yes. And there's various projects within the
campus going on currently.
COMMISSIONER I-IENNING: Okay. And this is -- okay. And
this is just for the chiller plant design?
MR. HAYDEN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER I-IENNING: For $2 million?
Mr~. I~IA YDEN: The chiller plant design is for three -- we had an
initial study done for 64,000.
CO~1MISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. HAYDEN: And then the fee for schematic design, design
docun1ents. Construction doclunents bid phase is the change that
we're do:ng now, which is $339,929.
And 111aybe \vhat's a little unclear is the cap that we originally
had for the 05-3850 RFP \vas capped at $500,000, and we're asking
today to go to that $2 n1illiol1 just because of all the projects we have
coming on can1pus here.
C01\1MISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But we approved this in
Septen11~'~r of2005. The Board of Commissioners, the original--
when \ve did the original one, did we -- when did we approve it?
MR. l-TA YDEN: The contract with Spillis was last July.
CO:\1MISSIONER HENNING: Last July. Last July
MR. I-IA YDEN: Correct.
COf\1MISSIONER IlENNING: Well, did we know that all these
other pn'j ects \vere going to take place, such as the annex?
MP. I-IA YDEN: Well, the annex is a separate bid, separate RFP,
let me p' It it that \vay, the annex. The chiller plant expansion, the
extra \ve 'ok for the judge's park and renovations to the jailhouse, the
jail, that's all new projects cOIning onboard. Should have the
$500,00n cap probably been different at that point in time? Yes.
MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, your facilities
manage: lent director. This is a four-year contract with Spillis
Page 215
,
May 9, 2006
Candela for all of the things that we don't anticipate for a four-year
period. So these are the kinds of things that fit into this kind of a
contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, thanks for the
clarification. I make a n10tion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. HAYDEN: Thal1k you.
CI-IAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll call the question. All those in favor of
approving this --
MS. FILSON: Do \ve have a second?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a second; Commissioner Fiala,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was me.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CI-L'\TRMAN HALAS: Yep. Item 10K, all those in favor,
signify by sayil1g aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CI-T/\TRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COJ/fMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CI-~AIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
ME. I-IA YDEN: Thank you.
Item #11
PUBLIC ('OMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Page 216
May 9, 2006
MR. MUDD: Comnlissioner, that brings us to paragraph 11,
public conlment on general topics.
Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chainnan, we have one speaker, Kenneth
Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: I'nl IZenneth Thompson. I live at 2831
Becca A venue. You kno\v, we just got rid of one guy, and now we
got another one just like hinl. He goes and cuts all the trees down.
And I'nl telling you, there's five people sitting up here, and two
state attorneys (sic), two officers sitting here, and you're going to have
to stop it.
They're from Indiana and they both are buddy buddies. And I
have never seen such a -- he'll let you -- he'll go and take all your
money that you got, your trucks, your cars, and you got a wife, he'll
take that, too.
And tl1enl Steinbergs are all alike. I mean, they -- everything
they got's trash. Now he's over there putting a roof on the house. And
I called Maggie, we go and found out that he had a permit but it's not
posted.
And the roof is so good they was a-scraping, and one of the guys
disappeared, and he looked and he fell off the roof; that's how bad the
house is, }'n1 telling you. And every time it rains, it rains inside.
And \vhen it quits raining, they'll paint the walls, and try to sell it
to you or sell it to somebody. That's the kind of people they are. If it
wasn't for the paint, the walls wouldn't stand up.
But 1'111 asking you please, Theresa (sic), if you don't help me,
I'm going to have to leave, because I was at Dr. Hussey before I come
here, and I'ln bleeding bad in the back, and it's a-paralyzing my right
arm, and I can hardly stand up. And it's affecting my eyes.
And son1ebody's going to have to stop him. And this thing that
you're dealing \vith, dealing with these screened-in porches, pool
things, Michelle Arnold pulled out on me when she come in office,
Page 217
,
May 9, 2006
and that other good bunch of kind county commissioners, you know,
all of then1 went to jail, and what didn't go to jail run.
But they were the ones that was a messing with me. We were
there 13 years before she conle into office. And finally she called me
up and told me that, Kenny, you can't have that beauty parlor out
there, and I said I wanted to know who I was talking to. She said
Michelle Arnold, I'm a director.
And for t\VO years -- for the two years, six months and 15 days
they kept 111Y nloney. I give them the money to -- I think it was
$2,000 or sonlething, you know, to put down on it, and then $25 an
acre. So I give them the nloney, and George Vega walked over here,
and it was all over with in a snap of the fingers.
So 1 asked hilTI for nlY lnoney back. They give me back my
money -- ~nd they give nle back my money. They wouldn't give me
back my interest.
So no\v she's been this way towards me, and I know darn well
she put theln -- she put these lights up against me for the devil of it.
And if she keeps nlessing \vith me, I'm going to ask you people to ask
her who this I-Tollywood Li1110usine belonged to when the Tipsy
Seagull \VJS n1l1ning.
It's got the man's na111e on it with code enforcement that operated
the cab. They \vould do nle a favor for $1,800, and I never would hire
them.
So this is the proof right here of the man that was help running
the Tipsy Seagull and two people that were directing each. You could
never get a meter reading, so I hired -- for $1,500 I hired a meter -- a
forensic nleter scientist to read your meters and the sheriffs meter, and
they \vere so 111essed up. They were just out of whack real bad.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Kenny. I
appreciate it.
J\1R. THOMPSON: I need you -- if you don't do nothing else,
just quit tbis job and go over there and work for me, will you, and
Page 218
May 9, 2006
we'll get ri d of that guy. I'll be damn if I can take it no more.
CHA IRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You left your papers over there.
MR. THOMPSON: Oh, I don't know whose they are.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Anything from the County Manager?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Com111issioner, just this one thing. We're -- as you
know, the legislative session is over, and we're going to get ready for a
post lcgislative workshop in June.
And I'll -- and I'll meet with Representative Davis and
Representative Goodlette tonlorrow to talk about the proposed agenda
for that particular meeting and who's going to describe what piece of
legisl2tion for this board during that workshop.
Ol1e of the things that was mentioned prior to one of the board
meetings \vas a strawnlan ballot question referendum for November
that had to do with roads, and staff is still working on that.
Several conl1nissioners have mentioned to me other
stra\vman-type ballot questions, may it be everywhere from fire
departnlents, unified fire departlnents in Collier County, to that road
particu 131' i ssu e.
I \vol11d ask the board, if they have any of those questions that
they \V~Hlt to talk about -- and I don't want to put anybody off guard at
all or bc unprepared, but it would be good if I -- at least next meeting,
if you have idcas for stra\v ballot questions, that you come prepared to
talk about those particular issues, because we will get pretty late down
the pike a little bit.
Page 219
w ~~--
May 9, 2006
July -- in the middle of July is our deadline to have those to the
Supervisor of Elections, and they have to come, they have to be
properly advertised, the \vording has to be approved by the Board of
County Comnlissioners, so you only have a couple of meetings in
June in order to do that.
So if any of the board menlbers are talking about a sample ballot
question, I'd ask you to, next meeting, to be prepared to talk about that
during this c0111nlunication tilne so that you can give staff direction or
the board give staff direction on where you want us to go for the next
meetings in June to bring that back and that language back to this
board for the board's approval prior to being transferred over to the
Supervisor of Elections so it will be put on the November ballot.
I just want to make sure you know about that. When you get it --
if you think about it during the June post legislative workshops, there's
an iten1 t11 ere, \ve pretty nluch get past the first meeting, then we'll be
into the second of June, so it will be an interesting time in order to get
that done. So just sonlething to think about.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I'nl going to turn this over to Mr. Pettit in a
moment. Just to let you know that there will be an agenda item on the
regular agenda next nleeting relating to the Nobel-- the Doerr and
Nobella\vsuit, as you kno\v, down in the south blocks, also relating to
the acreage that the county is looking towards, working with the Big
Cypress Basin and the water lnanagement district for ATV and other
use. So that \vill be on the agenda at the next meeting, just to let you
know.
And Mike is going to bring to your attention a request from our
office re12ting to a closed session with the board at your convenience,
the manager can set the tinle, \vhether it's the lunch hour or another
time, rela t ing to a couple cases here.
i\1R. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Ms. Hubbard
Page 220
I
May 9, 2006
has asked that she would like to meet with you in closed session
relative to the cases pending between the county and the Clerk of
Courts under the specific provisions under chapter 286 that allow that.
The case captions -- and l'd like to read these into the record --
are Brock versus the Ochopee Fire District, Linda Swisher and Paul
Wilson. That's case number 04-941-CA, and Board of County
Comnlissioners versus Brock, case number 05-953-CA. And those
have bee~l consolidated by the court under a separate case number of
05-1506-CA.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, do you have
anyth in g to bring?
CO~,1MTSSTONER COYLE: Only one thing. Just a clarification
of SOlne topic I brought up earlier about a public records request from
the governor's office in 1\1aryland.
I was mistaken. It was not for the cold process resurfacing. It
was for the rubberized natural grass feel process which was used in the
soccer field at Vineyards Conl111unity Park, so it didn't have anything
to do with the roads, okay. So you can all disregard that part.
CH/\1RMAN HALAS: Okay. Anything else?
C01\fL\1ISSIONER COYLE: No, nothing from me. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm at a loss for words.
CH.AIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
C0\11VnSSIONER COYLE: Thank goodness.
CT-TA1 RMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
CO\1\1ISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, you can give me a
couple of \vords. Do you kno\v how John Norman is going?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: John is having an amazing
recovery. SeenlS to be doing quite well. John had a massive sinus
infection they thought was a stroke. He was out of work -- David
Page 221
I .. --_._--~
May 9, 2006
Weigel, I believe it was, or sonleone from his office, drove him over
to the hospital. He becanle incoherent. They got him on antibiotics,
and it was an alnazing turn-around. But he's still very weak and he's
only working part days.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Secol1dly, I have to just tell you how excited I am to announce,
after seven long years of poking and prodding to get our permits in
place, our Eagle Lakes Comnlunity Park is finally going to host a
dancing \vatcrs interactive water play, thanks to Marla and all of the
team over there and their persistence, and probably me persisting a
little bit also, to get that thing opened. We're going to have a grand
opening on the 20th of May. And I'm just very delighted to tell you
all about that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did you say Marla was going to be
dancing in the \vaters?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's what I said.
The third thing I \vanted to ask, if you commissioners would like
the idea, and that is, I was wondering if you would -- if you would
think it \vOl1ld be a good idea if we directed our housing staff to study
-- gather in fornlation and study maybe building affordable housing,
mostly rentals, but any kind of affordable housing on second and third
floors of strip nlalls.
Yon know, I've nlentioned it a couple times, but I thought, you
knO\V, with all of the rental units closing as it is now, becoming
condos -- and there's really a shortage of rental units -- I think maybe
it's a good tIling for us to begin to study.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They already have that ability to
do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, do they?
COMMISSIONER IIENNING: Yeah. In the commercial
desj~nated districts, they already have that ability. But it's commercial
Page 222
May 9, 2006
-- from \vhat I'm told, cOll11nercial -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mixed-use.
COMMISSIONER J-IENNING: Yeah. They feel that it's not a
compatible use to have, you know, the workforce living above their --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The place they work?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anybody have any comments?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I don't think any
idea ]s a bad idea. I Inean, who's ever looked into it -- I don't think
anyone has.
When you stop and you think about it, I don't know if the
building itself are (sic) built to support a second story. It might have
to be freestanding, in other words, with the girders going up, going
acros s.
I don't kno\v if it's -- if would be applicable or possible, but I
wouldn't have any problenl with somebody -- maybe a realtor or an
architect conling in and telling us what the possibilities are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just thought if somebody took at
good lo')k at it, you kll0\V, and studied it, especially with the crunch
that \ve're feeling now, I thought it would be another avenue,
especia lly where we have very little land.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If they could dedicate that
housin~ to the people that \vork in that shopping center.
CIT,\IRi\1AN HALAS: That's something, I think, we just ought
to exr 1 nre \vhen Inixed-use C0111eS before us.
-!
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's okay with you guys then?
CI-IAJRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIAL!\.: Okay. Just mentioning it.
]\/fR. MUDD: So -- I \vant to make sure I'm not -- so you want us
to basicZ1lly take a look at changing the Land Development Code?
CO~\1MISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no, no, no, not that far yet, no,
Page 223
May 9, 2006
no, no. I just wanted to explore if this is something that's even
possible.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibilities.
MR. MUDD: Ma'anl, it's possible. You can build housing over
commercial. It's done all -- it's done all over the country. But you've
got to have sOlnebody that owns the building that wants to do it,
number onc. I-Jas to bc incentivized to do it where it's going to make a
profit for them, and you've got to have the proper zoning mechanisms
in place so th8t it can be -- it can actually be done and there isn't some
prohib:tion against it.
So I guess \vhat I'ln asking is that -- the part is, can it be done?
Yes. Can it be incentivized? And we've got to make sure that the
proper zoning 111echanisnl is in place so it's not a prohibitive activity.
So --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But is it something acceptable, you
knO\v? I nlean, you know, like -- you know, I just -- I just thought
gatheri ng infonl1ation and exploring the idea.
CI~TAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it my turn?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER I-IENNING: Well, I got three things now. It
alre1dy provides it in the Land Development Code to do that. The
incentitication is, they get to collect rent or sell the unit. I don't know
what else 1110re that \ve can do except for reduce the parking
requ;rer:1ents for that 111ixed use. That's the only thing there's -- I
haven't seen anybody junlping on it.
But anY\V8YS, the other two things, two meetings ago the Board
of C0111111issioners entered into a settlement agreement with North
Naples Fire Departlnent. One of the stipulations, that the Board of
Comnlissioners \vill work \vith the North Naples Fire Department for a
joint vC:1hlre at the intersection of Logan Boulevard and Vanderbilt
Beach 1Zoad.
Page 224
,
May 9, 2006
I just want to inform the board, that is not within the district of
the North Naples Fire District, okay? So that's going to be
contentious, and it does have to come back to the Board of
Commissioners for approval. And the district that it is in is not too
happy.
But anyways, the other thing is -- and the only reason I'm
bringing it up -- because it -- I think it affects the perception of some
of the things that I'm bringing up to the Board of Commissioners. One
thing is about reducing the nlillage or collecting less taxes or it
reducing govemlnent is because, that I am running for the legislators.
So I want to clear that, that I never was approached by anybody, I
never had any anticipations for the election to go to legislation. You
will not see 11le on the ballot in 2006.
So, Conl111issioncr Coletta, you don't have to look for a
rephcement for District 3, and you can tell the person who's spreading
that rumor that, again, he's wrong, okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. It came to me from
sever] 1 different sources, but 1'111 glad you cleared it up.
COMMISSIONER IIENNING: And if you ever have any
questions about anything like that, you're more than welcome to
appl'oach nle.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The only thing I'd like to bring up is in
regar0.s to the issue that we discussed with the Planning Commission
whereby they get to address variances or conditional uses.
I was \vondcring \vhere the board felt that if it's a supermajority
that's been approved by the Planning Commission, would it be okay
then to put this on the sunl1nary agenda instead of the regular agenda?
COM~1TSSTONER COYLE: That would be a legal question.
I'm r~0t sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Could you weigh in on this,
County Attorney?
Page 225
May 9, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: Sure. Yes, thank you. That is really a policy
decision that you have with the implementation of the summary
agenda.
You're -- currently it's a uniform application that if there is a
non-unanimous vote of the Planning Commission or if there are
objections or questions placed in record prior to coming to the board,
that it is not eligible to be on the summary agenda, but you can change
that policy if you wish to, and we can -- we can -- I would suggest we
get 11;: ck to you with the inlplenlentation so that you would be able to
handle it in a regular board n1eeting, if you wish to go that route.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have three nods?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's no downside because you
can ahvays pull it if you don't like it on the--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just pull it off.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COM~1ISSIONER COYLE: This would apply only with respect
to votes on t'le Planning Comnlission, not if there's public protest or
any f'Jblic opposition?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct. If there was any
opposition and it was a supen11ajority approval by the Planning
Comlnissiol1, then that -- that item would go on the summary agenda.
\1R. \VEIGEL: And it sounds as if you're talking about
apprnval. V/~1at if they have a supermajority recommendation for
deni81? Thc~l I preSU111e it conles to you on the regular agenda?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That could come to us on the regular
agenda.
\1R. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you. We'll get back to you with
that, if you \'-,ish -- as a board, if you wish.
CHAIr \1AN I-IALAS: We do have three nods on that? Okay.
1 don't l'ave anything else. Ifwe don't have anything else, we're
adjol~ 11led.
Page 226
May 9, 2006
***** Comnlissioner Coyle nloved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Sunlmary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
INTERLOCA.L AGREEMENT IDENTIFYING
RE8PONSIBILITIES IN A MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MARCO
ISLAND FOR THE OTTER MOUND PRESERVE - LOCATED
ON ADDISON COURT IN MARCO ISLAND~ FLORIDA
Itenl #16A2
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "VALENCIA GOLF AND
COUNTRY CLUB - PHASE 2A", APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PEP-rORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Itenl #16A3
RELEASE AND SATISFACTION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT
LIENS FOR PAYMENTS RECEIVED - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXrCUTIVE SUMMARY
Iten'"' # 16A 4
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "CABREO AT
ME1)ITERRA", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CO~TSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APP R.OV AL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
Page 227
.
May 9, 2006
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Itenl # 16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR QUAIL CREEK COUNTY CLUB GOLF COURSE
MfJNTENANCE FACILITY - W/RELEASE OF UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2006-112: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
RO \ DW A Y (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FO:~~ THE FINAL PLAT OF "DELASOL PHASE ONE". THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR VERONAWALK MODEL CENTER-
W/RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Itenl #16A8
RECORDIJ'~G THE PINAL PLAT OF "REFLECTION LAKES AT
NA PLES Pl-IASE 2E", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Page 228
,~ ~~H_
May 9, 2006
Itenl # 16A9
RESOLUTION 2006-113: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "VERONAWALK PHASE 1A". THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRTV ATEL Y MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE
SECURITY
Itenl #16Al 0
THREE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO CREATE AND
RECOGNIZE A NEW FIJND 111 COST CENTER FOR THE
CURRENT BUDGET YEAR NAMED OPERATIONS SUPPORT
AND HOUSING (OSH) GRANTS
Iten1 #16A11
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "VERONA WALK PHASE
4A", i\PPROVAL OF TJ-IE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
A~~D MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W /STIPULA TIONS
Ite'll #16A 12
A~/T~NDMENT NO.2 OF THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING
STl JDY INTERLOCAL i\GREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
NAPLES TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL
SERVICES REQUESTED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
M.A.NAGE\TENT AGENCY - TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT
ANAL YSES OF THE COASTAL STORM PARAMETERS AND
Page 229
~r-----~~~-'-
May 9, 2006
TO ADDRESS COMMENTS FROM FEMA REGARDING
COASTAL FLOODING AND SURGE
Item #16A13 - Moved to Item #10J
Item #16A14
APPLICATION BY ADVANCED MEDICAL CENTER, LLC FOR
THE ADVANCED BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT PROGR/\M AND THE FEE PAYMENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND APPROVE A
REIMBURSEMENT OF $126,742.68 OF TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEES PAID RELATED TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN (SDP) FOR THE SPECIFIED PROJECT, IN
ACCORDANCE WITI-I TI-IE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10.02.07
OF TI-IE LIIND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC), WHICH WILL
INSTEAD BE PAID WITl-I BUDGETED FEE PAYMENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FUNDS UPON THE EXECUTION OF
A BINDING FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
AGREEME~T - PROGRAM TARGETS HIGH- WAGE
COMPANIES THAT DESIRE TO RELOCATE OR EXPAND
WITI~TTN ST'ECIFIED AREAS OF COLLIER COUNTY AND ARE
DESIGNED TO OFFSET THE HIGH COST OF DEVELOPMENT
Itenl #1 GB 1
ADOPT-A-ROAD AGREEI\1ENTS (5) FOR THE FOLLOWING:
CI-TRTSTOr: TER REALTY, LAURA FAUSTINO CENTURY 21,
STOl'~EY'S CITRUS FARMS, ANCHOR HEALTH CENTERS
AND VALLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - AT NO COST TO
TI-TE COIJNTY BECAUSE OF ALREADY EXISTING SIGNS
Page 230
, ~~~~ ~ ~---~-
May 9, 2006
Itenl #16B2
DECLARATION SETTING ASIDE COUNTY-OWNED LANDS
FOR ROAD RIGHT -OF - WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
FACILITIES - FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
ADDITIONAL RIGHT TURN LANE LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE LIVINGSTON ROAD AND
GOLDEN GATE P ARK\;V A Y INTERSECTION
Ite:n #16B3
BID #06-3967 DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR 84) PHASE I (US 41
Ef ST TO AIRPORT PULLING) LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION
TO VILA AND SON LA NDSCAPING CORPORATION WITH A
BASE AMOUNT OF $136,684.10 AND 10% CONTINGENCY OF
$1 J,6G8.4l FOR A TOTi\L OF $150,352.51
Ite'n #1 6B4
Bl'DGET AMENDMENT FOR A WORK ORDER TO PH&A, INC.
TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE WEST
EUSTIS AVE. STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS IN
IMMOKALEE IN THE r\MOUNT OF $80,000 - DUE TO POOR
Dr AINAGE CONDITIONS
Iteln #1 GCl
Cl-IANGE ORDER 3 TO CONTRACT 05-3766R WITH DOUGLAS
N.HIGGINS, INC. FOR Tl-IE CONSTRUCTION OF A PIGGING
ST:\TION fOR THE IMl\10I<ALEE ROAD 30-INCH FORCE
Ml\IN IN THE AMOUNT' OF $12,142.71. (PROJECT 73943) - TO
Rr TMR11RSE THE CONTRACTOR FOR RENTAL COSTS DUE
Page 231
~~T~H~_~~~~~H~-
May 9, 2006
TO PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXCAVATION AND
INSTALLATION OF TI-fE UNDERGROUND PIGGING STATION
Item #16C2
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,000 FOR
Tl-TE CONSTRUCTION AND SYSTEMS PROGRAMMING
RELATING TO THE SOUTH COLLIER WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY SCADA RELIABILITY
IM'PROVEMENTS (PRC)JECT 72514) - FOR AN EFFICIENT,
DEPENDABLE AND AN ACCURATE PROCESS CONTROL
SYSTEM AT Tl-IE SCWRF
Ite!~l #16C3
BIn NU1\1BER 06-3921 FOR THE PURCHASE OF ANHYDROUS
A11?\10NIA FOR USE BY THE WATER DEPARTMENT IN THE
ESTnvfATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $100,000 TO TANNER
INIJUSTRIES, INCORPORATED - USED TO TREAT WATER IN
orDER TO MEET STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
Ite1l1 ft 16C4
SOf__f SOURCE PURCI-IASE OF CARTRIDGE FILTERS FROM
TE;~ GEOI\GE S. ED'Vi\RDS COMPANY IN THE ESTIMATED
A~f01JNT OF $900,000 ~- FOR USE AT THE NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TIZEATMENT PLANT AND THE SOUTH
COUNTY REGIONAL 'vV A TER TREATMENT PLANT
Ite'11 # 1 6CS
WORT( ORTJER BE-FT-3785-06-04 WITH BOYLE
Page 232
May 9, 2006
ENGINEERING CORPORATION, FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES FOR THE ]-[ENDERSON CREEK POTABLE
WATER SYSTEM REHABILITATION IN THE AMOUNT OF
$180,280 - PROJECT NUMBER 71010 - TO UPGRADE THE
CURRENT SUBSTANDARD POTABLE WATER
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TO CURRENT STANDARDS,
INCLUDING PROVIDING FIRE PROTECTION FOR THIS ARE
Iten1 #16C~
CO)JTRACT AMENDMENT WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
SURfACE \VATERMONITORING FOR THE PICAYUNE
STlu\ND ]-IYDROLOGIC RESTORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF
$40.000 - TO COLLECT AND ANALYZE SURFACE WATER
SAMPLES FROM SEVEN (7) STATIONS WITHIN THE
PIC~;\ '{lJNE STRAND
Ite'111L16C7
AMENDWENT TO THE EXTERNAL AUDITING CONTRACT,
03- ~497 AUDITING SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY
BETY,TEEN TZP?\1G, LLP AND COLLIER COUNTY, IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $87,453 FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PERfOR1vllNG AN INTERNAL CONTROL REVIEW AND RISK
ASSESSM ENT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION'S CORE
PROCESS .~S FOR BILLING, RECEIPTING, RECORDING AND
SAFfGlJA '~,DING REVE~NUE GENERATED FROM THE
UTILITY E1'\TERPRISE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED WITHIN
THE TJ]VISrON - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUM \.r j\ R "]"
Page 233
m~~~~~~~T~~~~~~~-~--
May 9, 2006
Item #16C8
POTABLE WATER BULK SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT AND THE
CITY OF MARCO ISLAND IN ORDER TO PROVIDE LONG
TERM POTABLE WATER SERVICES TO THE HAMMOCK
BAY WATER SERVICE AREA - LOCATED IN AN AREA
NORTH OF MARCO ISLAND AND EAST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951)
Item #16Dl
USE OF $71,943 FROM THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTI\lENT TO BE USED AS A PART OF A LOCAL MATCH
REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN STATE AND FEDERAL
FUNDING TO CONTINUE OPERATION OF THE HORIZONS
PRI~;fAR'{ CARE CLINIC IN THE GOLDEN GATE AREA-
LOCATED AT 5262 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
Itenl #16D~
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
COLLIER COUNTY Sl-IERIFF'S OFFICE TO DESIGNATE
COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES IN
CHAIZGE OF MANAGING THE SALE AND DISPOSITION OF
IMPOUNr~ED ANIMALS AND ANIMALS FOUND IN DISTRESS
PURSUANT TO CHAP'TER 588 AND CHAPTER 828, FLORIDA
ST.~TUTES, AND 914, j\RTICLE II, CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA STATUTES-
TO M.'\NAGE THE DISPOSITION OF LIVESTOCK AND
ANI1\~ALSMORE EFFICIENTLY
Page 234
,---
May 9, 2006
Itenl #16D3
CREATION OF A PROGRAM LEADER - SPORTS
COORDINATOR POSITION TO BE SPLIT FUNDED BY THE
TOURISM AND PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENTS-
TO PROMOTE OFF-SEASON TOURISM THROUGH HOSTING
ATTILETIC TOURNAMENTS AT THE NORTH COLLIER
REGIONAL PARK
Iten1 1~ 1 GD4
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE SCHOOL
DI~T~ICT OF COLLIER COUNTY TO PROVIDE FOR
EMPLOYEE SCREENING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
JESSTCA LUNDSFORD ACT - FOR EMPLOYEE SCREENING,
FI~TGERPRINTING AND BACKGROUND CHECKS
Iten1 fl GD5
PU'ZCFIASE OF FURNiSHINGS FOR THE SENIOR CENTER
ADDITION TO EAST 1'.!A.PLES COMMUNITY CENTER IN THE
A~~OUNT OF $48,516.33 FROM OFFICE FURNITURE AND
DESIGN CONCEPTS - USED TO FURNISH THE NEW
ADDTTION TO THE EXISTING COMMUNITY CENTER,
SCHEDULED TO OPEN IN JUNE~ 2006
ItelTI :in 6D6
LETTER OF UNDERSTA.NDING AND FEE SCHEDULE WITH
MULLER-THOMPSON AND NAPLES FUNERAL HOMES FOR
INDICENT BURIAL SERVICES - FOR A CONTRACT PERIOD
OF T\VO (2) YEARS
Page 235
T ~~ .~-~-
May 9, 2006
Item #16E1
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS - FOR TI-IE PERIOD MARCH 17, 2006 THROUGH
APRIL 14~ 2006
Item # 16E2
AME1\DMENT NO.6, FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
COlJRTHOUSE ANNEX, FOURTH FLOOR, UPDATE THE
COTJNTY COMPLEX MASTER PLAN, SPECIFY FURNITURE &
FURNISI-IINGS FOR TI-IE ANNEX AND PROVIDE A
SPRINI(LER DESIGN FOR THE COURTHOUSE ANNEX
PARl(lNG GARAGE TO CONTRACT #00-3173 WITH SPILLIS
CAND~LA. D~1JM IN TI-IE AMOUNT OF $280,560.00 - AS
DETA ~LED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Itern til6E3
AMENDMENT NO. 01 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER
C01J~TY DISTRICT SCIIOOL BOARD FOR THE DRIVER
ED1'C,\TTON GRANT PROGRAM - FOR SUMMER DRIVING
SCI-IOOL, SUPPLIES AND NEW EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR
PRnGR^1\1S WITHIN THE DISTRICT
--
Itenl1n6E4 - Moved to Itenl #10K
Itenl #1 6F1
RfD OG<~<)02, FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
Page 236
1
May 9, 2006
SERVICES FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS
TO HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS AND COASTAL
PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. IN AN ESTIMATED
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $1,000,000 - FOR COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE
Itenl :1 1 6f2
INCREASE IN CONSULT ANT FEES FOR THE MEDICAL
DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IN THE
AMOlJNT OF $25,000 DUE TO ADDED SCOPE OF
RESPONSIBILITIES AS WELL AS THE ANNUAL FIVE
PERr~NT (5%) INCREASES AS DESCRIBED IN THE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES MEDICAL CONSULTANT
CO~TTR^CT, WHICH \VERE APPROVED BY THE BOARD
TIIFOUGII THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS - FOR THE
COl'{T'~^CT WITH ROBERT BOYD TOBER~ INC.
Iten1 f11 6F3
RENf~NAL OF A ONE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH
HEALTIISTREAM, INC. TO PROVIDE DISTANCE LEARNING
SOFT~'I~i\RE FOR COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SER'\ iCES AT A COST OF $28,080 AND TO APPROVE A
BUD"ET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS IN FUND 490,
BUDGETED AS A CAPITAL EXPENSE, TO AN OPERATING
AccrUNT - ENABLING EMS EDUCATORS TO DEVELOP
CUST01\1 ONLINE ED1JCf\ TIONAL COURSES FOR DELIVERY
TO L0CAL EMS AGENCIES
Itenl -J' 1 6-r;' 4
Page 237
-~ ~~ U_-"T~-~~-~------
May 9, 2006
HIRING OF TWENTY-EIGHT (28) NEW PARAMEDICS IN THE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND TO
APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THOSE HIRES
AT A COST OF $469,756 - TO STAFF THE COUNTY'S NEW
EMS STATIONS
Iter'l #16f5
BIIJ # 06-3974 FOR THE PURCHASE OF EMERGENCY
MEDICA TIONS TO ALLIANCE MEDICAL, BOUNDTREE
MEDICAL, SUN BELT MEDICAL AND TRI-ANIM HEALTH
SEIZVICES FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
DFnART\1ENT FOR AN ESTIMATED COST FOR FY 06 OF
$60,700 - TO PROCURE EMERGENCY MEDICATIONS IN
TI~E ]\.''-OST COST EFFECTIVE MANNER OVER THE LONG
TP'--'\:l
Itel~l #16r6
BlT DGET AMENDMENTS - WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
BTTj)GET AMENDMENT #06-242
Itenl #16[<'7
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $128,300 FOR
PE"'SONAL SERVICES, OPERATING EXPENSES AND
C/ )ITAL OUTLAY TO PROVIDE STARTUP FUNDS FOR THE
NGRTI-I COLLIER GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER-
LOn/\TFD AT 2335 ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE AND IS
SC1iED1JLED TO OPEN JUNE 5, 2006
ItC"n ill Grs
Page 238
T ~ ~
May 9, 2006
RESOLUTION 2006-114: JOINT RESOLUTION WITH
Cl1/\r~OTTE, COLLIER, HENDRY AND LEE COUNTIES IN
SUllPORT OF A SISTER REGION PARTNERSHIP WITH THE
CITY OF Y ANT AI, SHANDONG PROVINCE, CHINA TO
PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, FRIENDSHIP AND
COOPERATION - TO BUILD ON THE PARTNERSHIP OF OUR
RI~IONAL UNIVERSITIES AND PROFESSIONAL
or. .~~ :' :\TTZA TIONS
Itc; 1 # 161-Il
P A ~(J\1ENT REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER HALAS
TC .ATT1~ND THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
77~' fI ~^' NNUAL CONFERENCE AND EDUCATIONAL
EX DOSITION IN MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA JUNE 27- 30,
20r ~; ~ 402.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS'
TR \ VEL BUDGET FOR I-IOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS FOR 3
NI/ 'FITS - I-IELD AT Tf-fEMARCO ISLAND MARRIOT RESORT
A:'!) :~P/\
Ite '1 # 1 r) f-I2
PP. ',TMENT REIMBURSEI\1ENT FOR COMMISSIONER
CC)' .r:TTA TO ATTEND TI-IE LT. GENERAL GARNER
Ll1,rCHFON ON MARCH 30, 2006; $25.00 TO BE PAID FROM
CC~\ifMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT
TrE COLLIER ATHLETIC CLUB
Ite"l #1 6T-13
P f .]\. ENT REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER FIALA
Page 239
~~~~T'~~-~-~-'-
May 9, 2006
TO ATTEND THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF
CO' '1\IERCE'S 3RD ANNUAL DISTINGUISHED PUBLIC
SE1 :,vrCE AWARDS CEREMONY ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL
191 H, 2006 AT THE HILTON HOTEL IN NAPLES, FLORIDA;
$20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET - TO RECOGNIZE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT'S
SE"\VTCE EFFORTS TN COLLIER COUNTY
--
He'" r' 61-I4
PA \T~.lENT FOR COMt-/lISSIONER FIALA TO ATTEND THE
20C G TOURISM WEEl( CELEBRATION SAND DOLLAR
A \" TA nDS LUNCHEON AT NAPLES GRAND RESORT & CLUB,
NA JL:~S, FLORIDA ON MAY 19TH, 2006 AT 12:00P.M.; $25.00
TO 3" D AJD FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
Bl' 1'( j .iT - TO RECOGNIZE TOURISM EFFORTS IN COLLIER
cr ., JT"lT
Ite"l # 1611
MJ"C'~LLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
Rr-E 'I~ED:
Th" fcllowing miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Bo" ,.,1 ,)f County COilllnissioners, has been directed to the various
dep,lrtlllents as indicated:
Page 240
~-~~ ~_T_~~nH~'_-
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
May 9, 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) April 1, 2006 through April 7, 2006.
(2) April 8, 2006 through April 14, 2006.
B. Districts:
(1) Wentworth Estates Community Development District: Minutes
of July 18, 2005; Agenda of July 18, 2005; Memorandum of
Voting Conflict by Esther McKenzie VanLare (not dated);
Memorandum of Voting Conflict dated 05/13/2005 by Howard
Taylor (incomplete); Memorandum of Voting Conflict by N. Paul
SanFilippo dated 05/09/2005.
C. Minutes:
(1 ) Collier County Airport Authority:
(a) Joint Workshop with Board of County Commissioners and
Economic Development Council: Minutes of March 29, 2006.
(2) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board: Minutes of
February 13, 2006.
(3) Development Services Advisory Committee:
(a) Budget and Operations Sub-committee: Agenda of April 12,
2006; Minutes of March 22, 2006
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondenee\050906 mise eorresp.doc
(4) Contractors' Licensino Board: Agenda of April 19, 2006.
(5) Bio Cypress Basin Board of the South Florida Water
Manaoement District: Minutes of December 8, 2005.
(6) Collier County Plannino Commission: Agenda of April 20, 2006;
Minutes of March 6, 2006 (Special Session); Minutes of March
8, 2006 (Special Session); Minutes of March 9, 2006 (Special
Session); Minutes of March 16,2006.
(7) Environmental Advisory Council: Agenda of May 3, 2006;
Minutes of April 5, 2006.
(8) Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U: Minutes of April 6,2006; Agenda of
May 4, 2006.
H:\DA T A \FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miseellaneous Correspondence\050906 misc eorresp.doe
May 9, 2006
Itenl #16K1
AGREED ORDER FOR EXPERT FEES AND COSTS RELATING
TO TI-IE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 106 AND 806 IN
COLLIER COUNTY V. TREE PLATEAU CO., INC., ET AL.,
CASE NO. 03-0519-CA, IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018
(FTC'C.\L IMPACT: $12,487.50) - PAID TO ENGELHARDT,
HAlVIMER & ASSOCIATES, INC. AND MESIMER &
A8 ~ fJ_r'T A TES, INC.
Itel~l # 1 61(2
AGD ~-SD ORDER FOR i\ TTORNEY'S FEES RELATING TO
TI--l -; /\CQUISITION OF PARCEL 150 IN COLLIER COUNTY V.
AP" rr, CIRCLE, LTD., ET AL., CASE NO. 04-3679-CA;
1M,,; I<ALEE ROAD PIZOJECT #66042 (FISCAL IMPACT:
$3.-'J '.no) - PAID TO SCI-IROPP, BUELL & ELLIGETT, P.A.
ItC"l J-f 1 01(3
ornrR OF JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,700.00 AS TO
P J, ~ L 144 IN TI-IE LA VlSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
TIT) riS A. TOR REL LA , ET AL., CASE NO. 04-393-CA
(VJ\NDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT NO. 63051). (FISCAL
I]\;f'~/ f:T $3,900.00)
ItC'''l1 J'l GK4
ATTi' ~O~IZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO MAKE
A j I )Ii~ESS DAMAGE COUNTER-OFFER TO SETTLE A
CT ,T;-\1 FOR BUSINESS DAMAGES BY J.S. ROATH CORP.
RE-=, C L TING FROM THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 860 AND
Page 241
r M~'~~____
May 9,2006
960 IIJ TT--IE CASE STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
CO' L\IISSIONERS V J.S. ROATH CORP., ET AL., CASE NO. 05-
10~'_---CA (SCRWTP RO WELLFIELD EXPANSION PROJECT
NO. 70892) (FISCAL IMPACT IS $16~500.00)
Item f,~ 16K5
SErr;f--lF\1ENT PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY IN
TI: ~l"A \VSUIT ENTITLED SALKIEWICZ V HOWE, ET AL.,
FJJ~ iiI) T;'y THE TWENTIETfl JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 05-1606-CA, FOR
$2~QQ0.00
ItC'l'l ~f11 7,\
R~' 0 L T 'TION 2006-115: PETITION A VESMT -2005-AR-7656 TO
D:. ,:LidM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE P1JBLIC'S INTEREST IN A 10 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT
LOCATED IN THE MEADOWS AT QUAIL CREEK VILLAGE,
s-rr;--f1',! 20, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST AND
Rr '(IRDED IN O.R. BOOl( 1457 PAGE 1492, PUBLIC
RE 'ORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND ACCEPT A
1CjOT \VIDE UTILITY EASEMENT OVER THE EXISTING
FO~' CE MAIN
It0'~1 -t1l 7 ~
OT )1' T \:' TeE 2006-20: PETITION PUDA-2005-AR-8745 CURTIS
G" 'TI 11~R OF IL REGAL(), LLC, REQUESTING A PUD
A\ "YD]\1ENT FOR CARLISLE REGENCY PUD. THE PUD
A~/~NDl'vlENT PROPOSES TO ALLOW FOR A TWO-STORY
ST',rTJ:-"'AMIL Y OR TWO-FAMILY HOME AS A
Page 242
-'''--~-r-~~-
May 9, 2006
RE;"LACEMENT FOR THE CURRENT ONE-STORY SINGLE-
FA' lILYOR TWO-FAMILY HOME. THE AMENDMENT IS
AL.;O l~EQUESTING TO IzEVISE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE
PU :). TIlE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 11.7 ACRES
A1\D IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ORANGE
BLC)SSOM DRIVE, IMMEDIATELY EAST OF YARBERRY
L/' ';--:.l'~ SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25
E/ l COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Ite' , #17C
Rf 'ntJJTION 2006-116: PETITION CU-2005-AR-8081 (CV) LA
PT 'T!\ 'iOLF CLlJB LLC, REPRESENTED BY FRED REISCHL,
Al . r~ AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE INC. AND R.
Bl" TeE ,t\NDERSON, ESQUIRE OF ROETZEL & ANDRESS, IS
RT JTJ1=~\~TING A CONDITIONAL USE ALLOWED PER LDC
SL "'IION 2.04.03 OF THE RSF-3 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
F." <TL'{) ZONJ1'\G DISTRICT FOR A GOLF COURSE
~/ ;TFNANCE F/\CILITY. THIS PROPOSED CONDITIONAL
ll: \"\.JL PERf'-/fTT A RECONFIGURATION OF THE SITE AND
C ; "KUCTION OF A NEW MAINTENANCE STRUCTURE.
T1 . ~lT 3JECT PROPERT'{, CONSISTING OF 2.5 ACRES, IS
L{' \T,~D AT 220 CYPRESS WAY EAST, IN SECTION 24,
T( 'NSf-IIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
F 10 \
Page 243
. t
May 9, 2006
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5: 15 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
,.::::-~ ~C~~
FRANK HALAS, Clialrman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
, t.
"
By; (A.Liu~~~rO.(.
Attest .... Chl t ,
, , 1 onat....... on 1 ·
These minutes apJ'roved by the Board on ~U~ l.e.ZOC(.p , as
presented J Or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 244