Backup Documents 02/10/2009 Item #16I
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 10, 2009
16r
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Affordable Housing Commission:
Minutes of December 1, 2008.
2) Airport Authoritv:
Minutes of October 6, 2008; November 11, 2008 w/Form 8B
Conflict of Interest, dated 11/10/08 by David Gardner;
December 8, 2008.
3) Collier County Citizens Corps:
Agenda of November 19, 2008.
Minutes of November 19, 2008.
4) Collier Count v Coastal Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of November 13, 2008; December 11,2008.
5) Collier County Planning Commission:
Agenda of January 15,2009.
Minutes of November 20, 2008; December 4, 2008;
December 9, 2008 Special Session.
6) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of December 17, 2008.
7) Deve]opment Services Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of December 3, 2008.
8) Forest Lakes Roadwav and Drainage Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of November 12,2008.
Minutes of October 8,2008.
9) Golden Gate Beautification Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of January ]3,2009.
Minutes of September 9,2008; December 11, 2008.
10) Hispanic Affairs Advisorv Board:
Minutes of October 23,2008.
11) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Agenda of December 4, 2008.
Minutes of December 4, 2008.
12) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of December 8, 2008.
13) Library Advisory Board:
Minutes of December 9, 2008.
14) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of December 8, 2008.
15) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Minutes of December 17, 2008.
16) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Agenda of December 3, 2008.
Minutes of December 3, 2008.
17) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of November 18, 2008.
Minutes of October 21,2008.
18) Rura] Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee:
Minutes of December 18, 2008.
19) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of December 4, 2008.
Minutes of October 23,'2!J08.
B. Other:
1) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate:
Minutes of December 5, 2008.
Fiala o~/$-
Halas ./ Jb'
Henning5
Coyle ~
JAN 1 ~ 2009 Coletta ---
K"",,j"fCountyMl'~S OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
161
1~(
r~.<;EIVED
lJ~cember I, 2008
Naples, Florida, December 1, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Naples City Hall,
Multi-media Conference Room, 2nd floor, Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Vice-Chair:
Stephen Hruby
James Warnken
John Cowan
Cormac Giblin
Brian Goguen
Christine Jones (Excused)
Kenneth Kelly (Excused)
Sally Masters (Excused)
James Pusateri
Bradley Schiffer
Chris Spencer-Alternate (Absent)
ALSO PRESENT: Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing & Human Services
Frank Ramsey, Housing Manager Mise Corres:
Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor D I I 'i'\ O?
Date__?:: _L~~.
, Hit l i)A \
16DeLber ~oofr I
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Hruby at 3:07 PM.
Chairman Hruby read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting.
2. Introduction of Committee Members and Staff
Chairman Hruby called the roll and a quorum was established.
3. Approval of Minutes
The following corrections were noted:
. Page 3, under Item "D," $3.9 Million is changed to $3.9 Billion
. Page 4, second paragraph, "A]M" is changed to "AMI" (2 locations)
· Page 5, under Item "E," May 15,2008 is changed to May 15,2009
. Page 5, under Item "F," "AIM" is changed to "AMI"
· Page 5, under "Renta]s," the second figure of $751 is changed to 24%.
Chairman Hruby referenced the third sentence on Page 5:
"Ms. Krumbine asked if a letter from the AHAC could be sent to the Board of
County Commissioners supporting the Action Plan for the program."
He stated no action had been taken by the Committee, but the Board did approve the NSP
("Neighborhood Stabilization Program") Action Plan at its last meeting.
James Pusateri moved to approve the Minutes of the November 10,2008 Meeting as
amended. Second by Brian Goguen. Carried unanimously, 7-0.
4. Approval of Agenda
Marcy Krumbine stated the Agenda was changed after it was initially distributed to the
Committee, and Subparagraph "c. Mileage reimbursement information," was added to
Item 5, under "Information Items Only."
She further stated in October, 2008, Christine Jones volunteered to serve on the RFP
("Request for Proposal") Review Committee for the NSP ("Neighborhood Stabilization
Program"). Item 7 of the Agenda refers to a different grant application review committee.
Vice Chairman Jim Warnken moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Jim
Pusateri. Carried unanimously, 7-0.
5. Information Items
a. HUD report on Impact Fees - Staff
A copy of "Impact Fees and Housing Affordability, a Guide for Practitioners," provided
by Cormac Giblin, was published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, and distributed to the members.
Cormac Giblin stated the document had been published in June, but was released to the
general public within the past month. He stated there were severa] references to Collier
County indicating it was on the right track regarding the Impact Fee Deferral Program.
References to "best practices" from around the country were included in the document.
2
161 lA--\
December 1, 2008
Frank Ramsey will send a copy to the Productivity Committee for distribution.
Chairman Hruby suggested the Subcommittee on Affordable Workforce Housing should
review the document.
b. Update on BCC Agenda Items (NSP and State of Housing presentation) - Marcy
Krumbine
The State of Housing address will be presented at the December 2, 2008 meeting of the
Board of County Commissioners.
Mary Krumbine stated the NSP ("Neighborhood Stabilization Program") was approved
by the BCC via the Consent Agenda. Housing and Human Deve]opment's NSP Action
Plan was electronically submitted to HUD on November 26, 2008 and a copy was sent
via overnight delivery. The deadline for submission is December 1, 2008.
She stated Community Development's concerns regarding "over-saturation" of certain
geographic areas will be discussed by the BCC at the meeting and the issue may become
contentious. Some ofH&HS' programs have been changed and those changes may be
overlooked.
Cormac Giblin stated the Executive Summary's figures concerning affordable housing in
East Naples appeared to be inflated and referenced the inclusion of inappropriate housing,
i.e., trailer parks and luxury trailer parks. Density Bonuses will not be approved in areas
considered to be "saturated" based on the editorialized Executive Summary.
In response to a Committee member's question, Ms. Krumbine stated revisions to H&HS'
initial slide presentation were requested by Joseph Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development and Environmental Services.
There was discussion concerning the purpose of "affordable housing," i,e., to place income
qualified individuals into housing. The assessed or appraised value is not considered when
designating a property as "affordab]e housing." In order to be considered as "affordable,"
single-family houses and rental properties must adhere to income qualification restrictions.
The term "affordable housing" is being confused with "market-rate affordability" which is
not income restricted. Without long-term restrictions, housing will not remain "affordable"
in the future.
One of the Committee members who attended the BCC presentation stated he was left
with the impression that affordable housing was not necessary in East Naples and new
construction in East Nap]es will not be allowed. It is a Fair Housing issue.
Ms. Krumbine pointed out the Executive Summary did state that Inclusionary Zoning is
the best way to ensure that affordable housing units will be spread throughout the
County.
Public Speaker:
Dr. Sam Durso, Habitat for Humanity, stated East Naples has improved in the past 16
years due to the Habitat for Humanity communities. He stated the County Sheriffs office
3
161
1 A-I
December I. 2008
supports the Habitat communities due to the low crime rates. He stated he was told 16
years ago by a County Commissioner that Habitat should only build in Immokalee. He
further stated the BCC's position borders on bigotry.
Dr. Durso agreed there are a number of "junky" houses in East Nap]es that should be
eliminated. The best way is to rehab those properties and to buy lots for future building.
There is a difference between "affordable housing" and houses that are affordable due to
current market price reductions. Habitat's goal is to provide people with a better place to
live.
Discussion continued. The BCC wants to encourage a mix of moderate income and
Essential Services Personnel families in the area. The School Board's statistics reported
low and very low income families comprise approximately 70% of the East Naples
District. Upscale restaurants and retail/commercial developments are not attracted to the
area because the population simply cannot afford to patronize "upscale" businesses.
The concentration of poverty versus the concentration of affordable housing was discussed.
One suggestion was to designate a redevelopment area in which to build good quality
affordable and mixed-income housing so families presently living in marginal houses
could move into a better grade of housing. To eliminate blighted areas, less desirable
houses should be rehabilitated and placed back into the market.
Another point made was houses built 30+ years ago are perceived to be less attractive
or sub-standard because they are not "Coastal" models and contrast sharply with the
higher-end communities in East Naples, i.e., Le]y Resort, Fiddler's Creek and Trevisio
Bay which is under construction.
Moderate and ESP families should be solicited but the schools must be improved and
incentives offered to purchase or renovate in the area in order to attract the families.
Another issue discussed was funding and how to funnel funding to work with the existing
stock of homes.
Public Speaker:
John Barlow, HOME, stated the issue should be turned into an opportunity to develop
strategies, such as Inclusionary Zoning, as well as a transitional strategy with options. The
needs of each particular area should be determined for retail and commercial development,
in addition to housing, and a plan created to develop improvements. Support from the
private sector is a necessary component in order to motivate redevelopment.
Marcy Krumbine stated the purpose of the State of Housing address is to update the BCC
on current market changes, to provide information concerning the affordability index, the
status of foreclosures, the median list price of properties, and the current median sales price,
Information on rentals will also be provided. Discussion ensued concerning the impact of the
economy on the housing market.
Dr. Durso stated applications in Immoka]ee previously averaged 10 per month, but now
Habitat receives approximately 3 applications per month. He stated residents have simply
4
161
1 A-l
December 1, 2008
moved away because they can no longer atford to live in the community.
c. Mileage reimbursement information - Marcy Krumbine
The new forms were distributed. The BCC has authorized mileage expenses if the round-
trip is more than 20 miles. Each member is to submit the form at the last meeting of the
Committee.
6. Presentation of the 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendations Report - Steve Hruby
and Frank Ramsey
Copies of the draft of the Report were distributed.
Frank Ramsey outlined the Incentives contained in the Report and the Recommendations
for each including:
. Expedited Permitting
. Impact Fee Waivers and Modifications
. Density Flexibility
. Reservation of Infrastructure
. Accessory Dwelling Units
. Parking and Setbacks
. Flexible Lot Configurations
. Street Requirements
. Oversight (Ongoing)
. Land Bank Inventory
. Proximity
Additional Recommendations (topics for further investigations) included:
. Housing Trust Fund
. Transportation Enhancement
. Infrastructure Investment
. Inclusionary Zoning
A Committee Member suggested obtaining copies of Reports from other Counties to review
and compare their recommendations,
The following suggestions to the Report were made by Committee Members:
. On Page 4, first paragraph, change 10 years to 15 years;
. On Page 4, fourth paragraph, clarify the funding. Suggested language: "the dedicated
funding source will be independent of current County funding."
. On Page 5, second paragraph, add the language "making a good faith effort" regarding
reaching consensus and to include the web site for the California Affordab]e Housing
Incentives Guidelines model.
. On Page 5, Item "d," the 1 0% figure was discussed. Suggestion: to add the phrase "of
residentia]" before the word "capacity" or "an appropriate amount to be determined after
further review."
. On Page 6, Item "f," add the phrase "but may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis,
and is addressed through the PUD process" at the end of the first sentence under
"'Recommendation.'~
5
161
1 A-I
December 1,2008
. Page 7, Item "h," eliminate the phrase "should be embraced," and substitute "are
encouraged to be made through the available PUD process" in the first sentence under
"Recommendation."
. Page 7, Item "i," add the phrase "because it is recognized as an important part of Affordable
Housing," to the "Recommendation." Mr. Ramsey will rewrite the Synopsis to include
"capture data regarding the financial impact."
There was a discussion of the importance of the Housing Trust Fund and various funding options
were suggested including a "linkage fee."
. Page 1 0, first paragraph, suggested change to second last sentence (in bold): "The
committee acknowledges that this will not likely be a popular program since it will
require the County to forfeit a portion of the surplus tax revenue generated by the
new development." It was suggested to omit the last sentence.
. Marcy Krumbine stated the EDC proposals will be referenced in the sections concerning
Transportation Enhancement and Infrastructure Investment.
Public Speakers:
Sheryl Soukup, Jmmokalee Non-Profit, referenced rental units (on Page 4) and suggested
the 10 years should be changed to 15 years to align with the Low Income Housing Tax
Credit. The specified number of225 rental units is low (second paragraph, Page 4). She
asked if the number could be increased and suggested amending the language.
Frank Ramsey suggested "Such fund (Housing Trust Fund) may be used to defer impact
fees for owner occupied dwelling units, while the current program would be consolidated to
the rental program."
Ms. Soukup stated Reservation for Infrastructure is a problem in Immokalee. Immokalee
Water and Sewer is at capacity for the location where Esperanza Place will be built.
Immokalee Non-Profit will have to pay for upgrades.
Regarding the Neighborhood Information Meeting process, she stated the Immokalee
community has different needs than Collier County and recommended contacting developers
in Immokalee to obtain their perspective on the issues of parking, setbacks and landscaping
before scheduling any public meetings.
Chairman Hruby suggested changing the language to remove the word "not" from the first
sentence under "Recommendation," Item "f" on Page 6."
John Barlow, HOME, stated the current liquidity problem is of the highest order. The
equation between deve]operlbui]der and home buyers and banks will change. The strategy
for affordable housing should shift to HUD or a federal government source. He stated there
will be more regulation in the future because the need for affordable housing will remain
high. He recommended the County should begin to position itself with the federal
government because the government has funds.
Bradley Schiffer moved to approve the Report as amended. Second by Jim Pusateri.
Carried unanimously, 7-0.
6
161
1 AI
December 1, 2008
7. Sele~V:3.'resentative for grant application review committee - All
Jim Fk~u*ri moved to nominate Sally Masters as representative to the Grant Application
Review Committee, subject to her acceptance. Second by John Cowan. Carried
unanimously, 7-0.
Staff will contact Ms. Masters concerning her decision.
8. Next Meeting - January 5, 2009 at 3:00 PM, BCC Chambers.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
order of the Chair at 5:40 PM.
Col'
ty Affordable Housing Commission
These Minutes were approved by the BoardlCommittee Chair on ~4 .f-I4t 02 CO'},
as presented , or as amended X. .
7
161
1 AI
December 1, 2008 Minutes were amended, as follows:
3. Approval of Minutes
The following corrections were noted:
. Page 7, under Item "7," the motion was made by Vice Chairman James
Warnken.
James Pusateri moved to approve the Minutes of the December 1,2008 Meeting as
amended. Second by Cormac Giblin. Carried, 7- "Yes" with 2 Abstentions. Ken
Kelly and
Sally Masters abstained from voting since they had not attended the December
meeting.
4. Approval of Agenda
Cormac Giblin moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Jim
Pusateri.
Carried unanimously, 9-0.
Fiala ~~
Halas
Henning
~Pif
161
1 .tVvV/
OUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
R MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2008 MEETING
MEMBERS Steve Price
PRESENT: Jim Murray
Michael Klein
Dave Gardner
Frank Secrest
Lloyd Byerhof
STAFF:
Theresa Cook Debi Mueller
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Bob Tweedie
Debbie Brueggeman
PUBLIC:
Robert Breeder
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Meeting called to order at 1 :00 p.m. A quorum was present throughout the meeting.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Resolution No. 09-04 awarding and authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to
execute a contract with the lowest qualified, responsive bidder meeting specifications for
bid number 08-5117 "Purchase of New Pre-Fabricated Aircraft Hangar(s)" for
Everglades Airpark was replaced with the following:
Reso]ution No. 09-04 awarding and authorizing the Authority's Executive
Director to execute a contract in the amount of$149,308 with the lowest
qualified, responsive bidder meeting specifications, Zanette Construction Co.
LLC for bid number 08-5117 "Purchase of New Pre-Fabricated Aircraft
Hangar(s)" for Everglades Airpark, contingent upon three (3) day posting of bid
selection required by Purchasing Policy.
Resolution No. 09-05 awarding and authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to
execute a contract with the lowest qualified, responsive bidder meeting specifications for
bid number 08-5118 "Purchase of Hangar Doors" for the new prefabricated aircraft
hangar building at Everglades Airpark was replaced with the following:
Reso]ution No. 09-05 awarding and authorizing the Authority's Executive
Director to execute a contract in the amount of$89,876 with the lowest qualified,
responsive bidder meeting specifications, Zanette Construction Co. LLC for bid
number 08-5118 "Purchase of Hangar Doors" for the new prefabricated aircraft
hangar building at Everglades Airpark, contingent upon three (3) day posting of
bid selection required by Purchasing Policy.
Mr. Byerhofthen made a motion to approve the agenda, as amended. Mr. Klein
seconded, and the Agenda, as amended, was approved by a 6-0 vote.
IV. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2008 MINUTES
In Section IX. NEW BUSINESS, paragraph B. of the September 8, 20m\;~~, in the
second sentence "... a pay increase for the Executive Director be deferred for fiscal year I I
2009, but..." was revised to read "... a pay increase for the Executive Dl~tnr he equal to DJ.. 10 /)9
the COLA being granted County employees, and...." item #---_..-JJeIl ~k;7-
CCAA Minutes October 6, 2008
161
1 A: 1/
c. . Page 2
Mr. Murray then made a motion to approve the September 8, 2008 minutes, as amended.
Mr. Byerhof seconded, and the September 8, 2008 minutes, as amended, were approved
by a 6-0 vote.
V. FINANCE REPORT - AUGUST 2008
Ms. Mueller addressed questions regarding fuel sales and margins. No action required.
VI. WORK ORDER/AGREEMENTS STATUS REPORT
The work order status report provides an update of the outstanding work orders and
contractslagreements, including payments made to date. No action required.
VII. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Updates and discussions occurred on the following topics:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Ms. Cook and Ms. Mueller met with the FAA
to discuss annual projects and funding. The taxiway project at the Marco Island
Executive Airport is expected to cost an estimated $7 Million. The FAA approved
dividing the project into phases and purchasing fill material that will be required during
the construction phase.
Marco Island Executive Aimort. The acquisition of2.73 acres ofland from WCI
Industries is proceeding, and should close by the end of October 2008.
Immokalee Regional Airport. The Economic Development Council (EDC) of Collier
County, in partnership with the Florida Heartland Rural Economic Development
Initiative is hosting a Site Selection Consultant event in the region in early December.
As part of a familiarization tour, the EDC plans to hold a dinner at the Immoka]ee
Regional Airport/Florida Tradeport for about sixty (60) guests. It is the opinion ofthe
Authority that it is not the Authority's responsibility to fund this event. However, the
Authority is not opposed to spending about five percent (5%), $250, of its fiscal 2009
marketing budget to help fund this event.
The design of20,000 square foot manufacturing facility for which the USDA has
obligated $495,000 of funding is being changed in order to incorporate additional
flexibility and parking. As a result, the lJRS Corporation Southern Work Order approved
by the Authority on September 8, 2008 will be rescinded, and a new Work Order will be
issued at the November 2008 meeting.
The Authority has been paying the electric bill for several sub-leases at the Federal
Inspection Station (FIS) and the residential dwelling being sub-leased by the Airport
Manager at the airport. In fiscal year 2009, the Authority will discontinue paying the
electric bill for all tenants at the FIS facility. The Authority concurred that it will
continue to pay the electric bill for the Authority-owned residential dwelling being sub-
leased by the Airport Manager.
Y:14dministration14A Board\MinulesllO-06-08 minutes.doex
CCAA Minutes October 6, 2008
161
1ge1 ?/
The Authority concurred that aircraft owned by Authority management can be stored,
without charge, in the best available tie-down space at the airport with the stipulation that
it does not inconvenience or displace paying customers.
Everglades Airpark. The Authority is waiting on a permit from the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) for the south taxiway.
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
The County Attorney's response to questions regarding the time limits in Resolution No.
08-34, adopted by the Authority on September 8, 2008, was provided to the Authority.
The USDA's interpretation of each item in Resolution No. 08-34 was also provided.
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. Election of Officers:
Mr. Meade was nominated as Chairman. There were no other nominations. Mr.
Gardner motioned to close the nominations. Mr. Murray seconded, and the Board
voted unanimously to elect Mr. Meade as Chairman.
Mr. Klein was nominated to continue as Vice-Chairman. There were no other
nominations. Mr. Byerhof motioned to close the nominations. Mr. Gardner seconded,
and the Board voted unanimously to re-elect Mr. Klein as Vice-Chairman.
Mr. Gardner was nominated to continue as Secretary. There were no other
nominations. Mr. Murray motioned to close the nominations. Mr. Price seconded,
and the Board voted unanimously to re-elect Mr. Gardner as Secretary.
B. Mr. Byerhofmade a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-01 approving and
authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute Passarella & Associates,
Inc. Work Order # PAS-FT-4168-08-03 in the amount of $4,000 for professional
environmental consulting services for the Everglades Airpark through September 30,
2009. Mr. Secrest seconded, and Resolution No. 09-01 was approved unanimously.
C. Mr. Byerhofmade a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-02 approving and
authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute Passarella & Associates,
Inc. Work Order # P AS-FT-4168-08-04 in the amount of $4,000 for professional
environmental consuIting services for the Immoka]ee Regional Airport through
September 30, 2009. Mr. Secrest seconded, and Resolution No. 09-02 was approved
unanimously.
D. Mr. Byerhof made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-03 approving and
authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute Passarella & Associates,
Inc. Work Order # PAS-FT-4168-08-05 in the amount of $4,000 for professional
environmental consuIting services for the Marco Island Executive Airport through
September 30,2009. Mr. Secrest seconded, and Resolution No. 09-03 was approved
unanimously.
Y:\AdministrationlAA BoardIMinulesl/O-06-08 minutes.doex
161
lA-V
CCAA M ioutes October 6, 2008
Page 4
E. Mr. Byerhofmade a motion to approve Reso]ution No. 09-04 awarding and
authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute a contract in the amount of
$149,308 with the lowest qualified, responsive bidder meeting specifications, Zanette
Construction Co. LLC, for bid number 08-5117 "Purchase of New Pre-Fabricated
Aircraft Hangar(s)" for Everglades Airpark, contingent upon three (3) day posting of
bid selection required by Purchasing Policy. Mr. Murray seconded, and Resolution
No. 09-04 was approved unanimously.
F. Mr. Gardner made a motion to approve Reso]ution No. 09-05 awarding and
authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute a contract in the amount of
$89,876 with the lowest qualified, responsive bidder meeting specifications, Zanette
Construction Co. LLC, for bid number 08-5118 "Purchase of Hangar Doors" for the
new pre. fabricated aircraft hangar building at Everglades Airpark, contingent upon
three (3) day posting of bid selection required by Purchasing Policy. Mr. Byerhof
seconded, and Resolution No. 09-05 was approved unanimously.
G. Mr. Byerhofmade a motion to approve Reso]ution No. 09-06 approving and
authorizing the Authority's Secretary to execute the attached USDA Form RD 1942-8
Resolution of Members or Stockholders required by the USDA to close-out the grant
for the construction of a stormwater management lake at the Immokalee Regiona]
Airport. Mr. Murray seconded, and Resolution No. 09-06 was approved
unanimously.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned "without objection."
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
COLLIER COUNT FLORIDA
/~
Byr.
Y:14.dministrationIAA BoardVvfinutes\/O-06-08 minutes.duex
M:"'/cr:1:-
Halas ~;t4,
Henning /
Coyle V
Coletta -dz--
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY Board of Count'! CommIssioners
MINUTES OF REGULAR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2008 MEETING
Fiala
161 lA;V
RECEIVED
JAN 1 5 2009
v
MEMBERS Byron Meade Michael Klein Dave Gardner Prank Secrest
PRESENT: Lloyd Byerhof Jim Murray
STAFF: Theresa Cook Debbie Brueggeman Colleen Greene
PUBLIC: Rick Marino Tom Conrecode Mark Minor Wayne Arnold
Susie Winchell Bob Genung Ray Rosenberg Peter Crews
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Meeting called to order at 1 :00 p.m, A quorum was present throughout the meeting.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following item was added to the Agenda under IX. New Business:
H. Resolution No. 09-]2 authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to negotiate
and execute a grass tie-down agreement in exchange for in-kind services with the
Civil Air Patrol at the Immokalee Regional Airport on a month-to-month basis.
Mr. Byerhofthen made a motion to approve the agenda, as amended. Mr. Klein
seconded, and the Agenda, as amended, was approved by a 6-0 vote.
IV. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 6, 2008 MINUTES
In Section VII. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, the last sentence on page 2
was amended to read: 'The Authority concurred that it will continue to pay the electric
bill for the Authority-owned residential dwelling being sub-leased by the Airport
Manager." In the first sentence on page 3, "...in the best available space..." was
amended to read". . . in the best available tie-down space. . . "
Mr. Murray then made a motion to approve the October 6, 2008 minutes, as amended.
Mr. Klein seconded, and the October 6, 2008 minutes, as amended, were approved by
a 6-0 vote.
V. USDA PRESENTATION
Mr. Marino, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Area Specialist,
discussed the purpose of the Resolution and Assurance Agreement required in the
USDA grant application. In response to questions concerning the transferring of
employment in item number I of the Resolution, Mr. Marino indicate~flC~ant of
the subject manufacturing facility begins to transfer jobs from Immok5~),e, that tenant
would no longer be eligible to use the facility. The tenant can expand O~~'al;vm tv
Item #
il'_;
CCAA Minutes November 10, 2008
161
19kY
elsewhere and remain an eligible tenant, but not relocate out of Immokalee. In
response to questions concerning competition in item number 2 of the Resolution, Mr.
Marino stated that if the manufacturing facility will be used for a purpose other than
that stated in the grant application, the USDA would request a sound businessl
marketing reason for that change. If a tenant of the manufacturing facility, causes
another entity providing the same or similar products/services to loss or go out of
business, the USDA considers that free market competition.
VI. IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
Mr. Arnold, Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A, provided an update on the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) for the Immokalee Regional Airport and discussed options
regarding the 103 acres currently owned by Collier Enterprises required for the near-
term extension of Runway 9/27. It was noted that with the consent of the property
owner, A PUD application can be submitted that includes property one does not own.
However, the Federal Aviation Administration is likely to view projects more
favorably for funding purposes when the airport owns the land.
VII. FINANCE REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2008
The Authority requested a breakdown of fuel sales at the Immokalee Regional Airport
by customer type.
VIII. WORK ORDER! AGREEMENTS STATUS REPORT
The work order status report provides an update of the outstanding work orders and
contractslagreements, including payments made to date. No action required.
IX. FISCAL YEAR 2009 AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GUIDANCE
The Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program Guidance for
Fisca] Year 2009 was provided to the Authority. No action required.
X. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Updates and discussions occurred on the following topics:
Immokalee Regional Airport. A planning meeting with the Florida National Guard is
scheduled for mid-November in St. Augustine. The Economic Development Council
(EDC) of Collier County Site Selection ConsuItant event scheduled for December has
been cancelled. The design of 20,000 square foot manufacturing facility, for which
the USDA has obligated $495,000 of funding, is being changed in order to incorporate
additional flexibility and parking. As a result, the URS Corporation Southern Work
Order approved by the Authority on September 8, 2008 is being rescinded.
Hummingbird Flight Service moved in on November], 2008.
Everglades Airpark. A meeting is scheduled with the Department of Environmental
Protection and the Authority's attorney to review mitigation issues.
Y:14dministration\AA BoardlMinutes1/ J-/O-os minutes.docx
CCAA Minutes November 10, 2008
161
1 pa~V
XI. NEW BUSINESS
A. The January 2009 Airport Authority Board meeting will be held in Immokalee.
B. Mr. Murray made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-07 approving and
authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute Q. Grady Minor and
Associates, P.A. CCAA Work Order # QGM-FT -3969-09-01 in the amount of
$5,463.75 for engineering and surveying services for the F]orida Army National
Guard sub-lease areas at the Immokalee Regional Airport. Mr. Klein seconded,
and Resolution No. 09-07 was approved unanimously.
C. Mr. Klein made a motion to approve Reso]ution No. 09-08 approving and
authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute Change Order # 1 to Q.
Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Work Order # GQM-FT-3969-08-21 in the
amount of $2,850 for engineering and surveying services required for the land
acquisition for the near-term extension of Runway 9/27 at the Immokalee Regional
Airport, increasing the total amount of the Work Order from $12,115 to $14,965.
Mr. Gardner seconded, and Resolution No. 09-08 was approved unanimously.
D. Mr. Gardner made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-09 approving and
authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute Change Order #1 to Q.
Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Work Order # QGM-FT-3969-08-02 in the
amount of$17,745 for the revision of the Planned Unit Development for the
Immokalee Regional Airport to include the additional I 03 acres required for the
near-term extension of Runway 9/27, increasing the total amount of the work order
from $20,000 to $37,745. Mr. Murray seconded, and Resolution No. 09-09 was
approved unanimously.
E. Mr. K]ein made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-10 approving and
authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute Q. Grady Minor and
Associates, P.A. CCAA Work Order # QGM-FT -3969-09-02 in the amount of
$10,000 for professional planning and consulting through September 30, 2009.
Mr. Secrest seconded, and Reso]ution No. 09.10 was approved unanimously.
F. Mr. Byerhof made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-11 rescinding
Resolution No. 08-40, adopted September 8, 2008, approving and authorizing the
Authority's Executive Director to execute URS Corporation Southern Work Order
# URS-FT-3889-08-06 in the amount of$51,866 for engineering services for a Site
Development Plan for a 20,000 square foot manufacturing facility at the
Immokalee Regional Airport, contingent upon award of the USDA Rural Business
Enterprise Grant in the amount of $495,000. Mr. Secrest seconded, and
Reso]ution No. 09-11 was approved unanimously.
G. Mr. Gardner made a motion to proceed with the design and construction of the
aircraft parking apron and vehicle parking expansion to include the 1.1 acres
currently owned by the County at the Marco Island Executive Airport rather than
to delay the project until the acquisition of the additional 2.73 acres is complete.
Mr. Secrest seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
r:\AdministrationIAA BoardlMinuteslJ 1-10-0S minutes_ducx
CCAA Minutes November 10,2008
161
1gekv
H. Resolution 09-12 was amended to include parking in the proposed agreement with
the Civil Air Patrol at the Immoka]ee Regional Airport. Mr. Murray then made a
motion to approve Resolution No. 09.12 approving and authorizing the
Authority's Executive Director to negotiate and execute a grass tie-down and
parking license agreement in exchange for in-kind services with the Civil Air
Patrol at the Immokalee Regiona] Airport on a month-to-month basis. Mr. Secrest
seconded, and Reso]ution No. 09-12, as amended, was approved unanimously.
Mr. Gardner abstained and stated aloud his reason for abstention. Conflict of
Interest, Form 8B attached.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned "without objection."
THORITY
Y:\AdministrationlAA Board\Minutes\II+/O~08 minutes.docx
161
1 A-Z-
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
c+
COUNTY
COllie',
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
CollIe\' CCv(l-\, 1~\\DO~-+ H....)--1-Y\C{\+
THE BOARD, COUNCil, CO MISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
Vv'HfCH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
o CITY )lCOUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
-',\I.cc CCu0+
MY POSITION IS:
lAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME
&.:,C \ fie', Q" ,e\.
MAILING ADDRESS
1'1- G,"C. \ .
CITY
Mc".co .l..:jICA('c\
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
NO~C'n'-" \')c'
R.
\0 /]CC-~
o ELECTIVE
APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one~acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
.
.
.
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you othelWise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 112000
PAGE 1
161
1 A-~
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I,
Dc"," \cl i<. C-rc,n::lnC'<
, hereby disclose that on N c,"c ,'n \::Jc', 10
,200<? .
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of '\ n <: c \ V, \ 1:+ \, ?cr\,c~ \
whom I am r=et...;11Ca;"r u.)- ~'0\' \C\, ]'". l''-.n-. c..... "ne '(Ylbc,~...
,~
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
CQ..) M <'(<:',Vle; Uc-k'-e. C'(~C"C'l:
, which
XI
l"'-lev.J i3d~\C\C~:o..s .
\-.<cZ;IU ~\cn 'NO. eYI- /:.2 C<U +/70'1 Z f ';] 'h,c r'k'--ll-X:,\ -\ ,/.5
l-L 'I" ('('c'" ',,- '\c') nccloi ,c<.+c. C< \X:~ (:";(('C L'-\-C 0.."
E XcC0+\\JC u, TL.J .
., ,'" C'-'j:-,,'c,....,...,en+ L.0\'\'('\ '-\-he ("\l,l A"
Ix----\<.",d s(('~\(..v ,
-) '. (' . c.~c."<< \ \0'- \('L~~ cd 'iy,C T\y,,').C)\C.c~[cC'~
\c~,,-"\(~c\ ;--0, U. rj\ A....c::......J '\ d) '---\.
'.... . '. \ ,/,\' '\')(' I-L (",..... C'-- ,,'cn'\h-+c' - \'Y'C.n'-lh )JcOIS,
~CE~\C'f\CC r-\\~,) T _
(b) I
c....,'("'\
c..t. n,eV)'lt',)r{" C-J-
'~hC.
("v', \
A ; ," ?O.trO \ ,
J /- JO-D'?
Date Filed
~
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOTTO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
Fiala I\F"/tf- 16 I 1 A (') v'"
Halas ~. J,./
~~~~ng---'-Ct' RECEIVED
Coletta ~ T wn COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY JAN 1 5 2009
MINUTES OF REGULAR MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008 MEETING
[(C\'1f(': of County Commissioners
MEMBERS Byron Meade Michael Klein Dave Gardner Frank Secrest
PRESENT: Steve Price Jim Murray
STAFF: Theresa Cook Debbie Brueggeman Colleen Greene
PUBLIC: Mark Minor Andres Correa Marvin Courtright
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Meeting called to order at 1 :00 p.m. A quorum was present throughout the meeting.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added to the Agenda under IX. New Business:
D. Resolution No. 09-15 approving authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to
execute Passarella & Associates, Inc. Work Order with CCAA Tracking # PAS-FT-
4168-09-02 in the amount of $66,680 for ecological reporting and monitoring services
for Phase I and Phase II mitigation at Rookery Bay required for the Marco Is]and
Executive Airport Taxiway.
E. Approval of addition of Section I, Paragraph B, "Airport Facility and Infrastructure
Documents" to the Immokalee Regional Airport and Marco Island Executive Airport
Security Plans as follows:
B. AIRPORT FACILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE DOCUMENTS
Airport facility and infrastructure documents, including, but not limited to, plans,
drawings and specifications for all buildings, runways, taxiways, infrastructure
and other facilities to include building, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, lighting,
NA V AIDS, HV AC, security systems, and floor plans for all airports under the
jurisdiction and control of the Collier County Airport Authority shall be
considered sensitive security information and shall be exempt from public
disclosure according to provisions of Sections 119.071(3) and 331.22, Florida
Statutes (2008).
Mr. Gardner then made a motion to approve the agenda, as amended. Mr. Murray
seconded, and the Agenda, as amended, was approved by a 6-0 vote.
IV. AWARDS AND PRESENTATION
Misc. Corres:
Beginning in January 2009 the Authority will recognize staff members at monthly
meetings for recent awards and achievements. Date:
Item#:.
CCAA Minutes December 8, 2008
1 Qgel
1~~
V. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 10, 2008 MINUTES
As required by Section 112.3143 of Florida Statute, the Conflict of Interest standard form
signed by Davie R. Gardner at the November 10, 2008 meeting was read aloud. Mr.
Murray then made a motion to approve the November 10, 2008 minutes. Mr. Klein
seconded, and the November 10, 2008 minutes were approved by a 6-0 vote.
VI. FINANCE REPORT - OCCTOBER 31, 2008
In order to sell fuel purchased for the Everg]ades Airpark when the cost of fuel was near its
highest price point, the Authority recently lowered the price offue] at the Everglades
Airpark to below cost. Fuel prices were raised at the Immoka]ee Regional Airport to help
cover fuel sale losses at Everglades. No action required.
VII. WORK ORDER/AGREEMENTS STATUS REPORT
The work order status report provides an update of the outstanding work orders and
contractslagreements, including payments made to date. The Authority discussed the
several projects for which open work orders exist. It is anticipated that construction of the
Taxiway at the Marco Island Executive Airport will begin in the beginning of Fiscal Year
2009. Construction of the aircraft apron at the Immokalee Regional Airport is expected to
begin within next several months. The floor plans for the Everg]ades T -hangar building
was finalized in the beginning of December 2008. No action required.
VIII. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Updates and discussion of the following took place:
Mileage Reimbursement for Advisory Board Members. The Resolution passed by the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on November 18, 2008
authorizing the reimbursement ofmi]eage expenses for Advisory Board members who
travel in excess of twenty (20) miles round trip to attend regularly scheduled Advisory
Board meetings was distributed to CCAA Board members along with the appropriate form
and instructions for requesting mileage reimbursement.
Airport Authority Proposed 20 I 0 Budget. The 20 I 0 budget process is starting. The
annual BCC Workshop will likely be schedule for March or April. A draft operating
budget will be presented to the Authority in January 2009, The capital budget will be
contingent on the availability of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) funding.
Marco Island Executive Airport. The design of the parking lot and aircraft apron
expansion is complete. FDOT funding is available for the project.
Y:lAdministrationlAA BoardIMinutesI12-0S-08 minutes.docx
CCAA Minutes December 8, 2008
1 ~.fe3 llr1--
Immokalee Regional Airport. The F]orida National Guard (Guard) has requested a parcel
that is approximately 30.25 acres, including about 3.5 acres of the Lake, at the Immoka]ee
Regional Airport for the construction of the Collier County Readiness Center at the airport.
Options of less acreage and existing frontage road usage in the Phase I permitted area were
discussed.
The Economic Development referred Immokalee Disposa], a recycling facility, to the
Airport Authority. They have expressed interest in sub-leasing approximately four (4)
acres north of the Florida National Guard's temporary vehicle storage leasehold area.
The third submittal of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) was recently completed. It is
anticipated that the PUD will be completed in about six months.
Everg]ades Airpark. The permit for the construction of the South Taxiway is pending
negotiations with the Department of Environmenta] Protection. The design of the hangar
building foundation is pending submittal of the building specifications from lowest
qualified bidder.
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. Mr. Gardner made a motion to approve revised acreage and boundaries to include
approximately 30.25 acres for the proposed sub-lease agreement with the Florida Army
National Guard for the Collier County Readiness Center at the Immoka]ee Regional
Airport. Mr. Secrest seconded, and the motion was approved unanimously.
Discussion of alternate parcel layout and acreage followed the motion. No action.
B. Mr. Price made a motion to approve Reso]ution No. 09-13 approving and authorizing
the Authority's Executive Director to execute Passarella & Associates, Inc. Work
Order with CCAA Tracking # PAS-FT-4168-09-01 in the amount of$4,100 for off-site
mitigation requirements at Rookery bay for the Marco Island Executive Airport
taxiway. Mr. Klein seconded, and Resolution No. 09-13 was approved unanimously.
C. Mr. Price made a motion to approve Reso]ution No. 09-14 approving and authorizing
the Authority's Executive Director to execute Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.
Work Order with CCAA Tracking # GQM-FT-3969-09-03 in the amount of
$105,322.50 for engineering design, permitting, contract administration and
construction oversight and layout of a 20,000 square foot manufacturing facility at the
Immokalee Regional Airport, contingent on the award of a $495,000 USDA grant for
the construction of the facility. Mr. Murray seconded, and Resolution No. 09-14 was
approved unanimously.
D. Mr. Murray made a motion to approve Resolution No, 09.15 approving and
authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute Passarella & Associates, Inc.
Work Order with CCAA Tracking # PAS-FT-4168-09-02 in the amount of$66,680 for
ecological reporting and monitoring services for Phase I and Phase II mitigation at
Rookery Bay required for the Marco Island Executive Airport taxiway. Mr. Klein
seconded, and Resolution No. 09.15 was approved unanimously.
Y:\AdministrationIAA Board\MinlJtes\12~()8-()8 minutes.docx
. CCAA M inules December 8, 2008
16g1
1 A 2--
E. Mr. Klein made a motion to approve the addition of Section I, Paragraph B, "Airport
Facility and Infrastructure Documents" to the Immokalee Regiona] Airport and Marco
Island Executive Airport Security Plans, to read as follows:
B. AIRPORT FACILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE DOCUMENTS
Airport facility and infrastructure documents, including, but not limited to,
plans, drawings and specifications for all buildings, runways, taxiways,
infrastructure and other facilities to include building, mechanical, plumbing,
electrical, lighting, NA V AIDS, HV AC, security systems, and floor plans for all
airports under the jurisdiction and control of the Collier County Airport
Authority shall be considered sensitive security information and shall be
exempt from public disclosure according to provisions of Sections
119.071(3) and 331.22, Florida Statutes (2008).
Mr. Murray seconded, and the motion was approved unanimously.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The January 2009 meeting will be in Immokalee. Locations specifics will be provided at a
later date. The meeting was adjourned "without objection."
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
y. IAdministrationlAA Board\Minutes\J 2-08-08 minutes.docx
Fiala D~----11.
Halas ~
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
161
\,./..
Collier County
itizen Corps Advisory Committee
November 19, 2008
1 .,4-31
RECEIVED
JAN 2 3 2009
v
V oting Members Present
Reg Buxton. Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce
Jerry Sanford, North Naples Fire
Floyd Chapin, Community Emergency Response Volunteers
Lt. George Welch, Collier County Sheriff's Oftlce
Walter Jaskiewicz. Coasl Guard Auxiliary
Russell Rainey, Community Emergency Response Team
James Elson, Collier County Veterans Council
Captain Castillo. Salvation Army
Doug Porter. Naples Civil Air Patrol
EOdrd 01 (~C1(JnlV Commissioners
Voting Members Absent:
(Excused Absence)
Expert Consultants Present
Rick Zyvo10ski, Collier County Emergency Management
Maria Bernaldo, Collier County Health Department
Ray Rosenberg. Marco Island Civil Air Patrol
Voting Members Absent:
(Non-Excused Absence)
Gerry Sugarman, RSVP
Deborah Horvath. American Red Cross
Meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m.
Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call1aken.
Approval of Minutes
Motion to accept the minutes of the October 15, 2008 meeting, with changes to the name of the person presenting and litle
of one of the presenters for the Civil Air Patrol/US Coast Guard Auxiliary made by Floyd Chapin, and seconded by Jerry
Sanford. Approved unanimously.
Nomination of Officers
Russ Rainey nominated Reg Buxton as Chair, seconded by Walt Jaskiewicz.
Reg Buxton nominated Russ Rainey as Vice-Chair, seconded by Floyd Chapin.
Reg Buxton nominated Jerry Sanford as Secretary. seconded by Lt: George Welch.
Threal Update
Per Lt: Welch. we are slil1 at the Elevated Threat (Yellow) allhe National level. For domestic and international travel. it is
al High level (Orange). Recommend everyone remain vigilant:
New Business
Address Comments oj 10/15/08 Meeting Made Under NewBusiness "Civil Air Patrol/US Coast Guard Auxiliary"
Walt had reclused himself from the last meeting, since he is now Chief of Staff for US cMC CDmItI Auxiliary. . He said thai
the CAP and USCG Auxiliary have their policies and boundaries. There is a working relationship between the two entilies.
and if someone holds two memberships, there is an overlap with different policies. A ~r'~R(~hJ,l;l Qf I J..,~l",rN"nding
(MOU) was visited on August 8. 2008 between CAP and the US Air Force where the C91'..'1 Quard can reimburse CAP for
use of their plane. This was not renewed. CAP has Air Force planes; however. you buy I'fII!I'Ue1 )l3M"elf/' T!I< ,\uxiliary
Copies to /)';}- I c I D9
\~I.[,0 A-~
161
1
1+;3
Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee
November 19.2008
uses private planes and get reimbursed from the Coast Guard. There are some liability issues. With no MOU between the
two groups. it in no way means that CAP can't take calls from USCG Auxiliary.
The situation with the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary and Civil Air Patrol has been worked out, per Ray Rosenberg
Because of some comments made at the last meeting, which may have been a Homeland Security issue, Rick Zyvoloski
reminded all that because of the Sunshine law, all information shared in this forum is public information.
Old Business
Locd A1irigmiofl Straregy Update
Per Rick Z.. the LMS working group now meets quarterly. Per NOFA (Notification of Funds Availability), approximately
53 million will be made available to Collier County. We should hear from FEMA around the first of December as to the
exact amount available. Tbese grants pay 75% - you have to come up with the other 25%. Several projects have been
completed, including a private citizen who wants to have her house elevated. Rick will get the information out to the group
- please encourage people to attend the meetings. Last year $1.5 million was returned. Rick said the Immokalee High
School will be receiving funding for improvements. including retrofitting to become a shelter. Funds are not available for
generators, unless this is part of retrofitting for a shelter. The next meeting is scheduled for the third Friday in January
(January 16'h) If the group has many projects. we may need to meet more often.
Other
Reg announced that the CAP is collecting items for the troops. These items can include toiletries, books, magazines,
Handiwipes, etc. - items that can be shipped overseas. If you need items picked up, call Tom Kuznar to arrange this
No one from the Citizen Corps will be attending the CERT Training Academy because there was not enough notice.
Walt asked if there would be a float from the Citizen Corps group for the Christmas parade. Per Reg, people have already
turned in their requests for the Naples parade, being held on December 9'''- Marco will have theirs on December 13'''- Walt
asked if the County would have a flatbed truck available for the group ~ will pass this info along to Joe Frazier. Captain
Castillo said the Salvation Army has their own float. as docs the Chamber of Commerce and North Naples Fire District.
Russ asked if small banners could be made and put on floats that are part of the Citizen Corps - perhaps to read "A UNIT
OF CITIZEN CORPS". Captain Castillo said he would be willing to have one on his float. Rick will check with Joe aboUl
this. Floyd Chapin reminded the group that there was no funding for this last year, and there was a liability factor involved
as well. Walt asked that thc County look at funding for these signs.
:\ext Meeting/Adiourn
Floyd asked if we could have the next meeting in January. rather than December. Captain Castillo said it would be more
convenient for his organization as well, due to the holidays. Next meeting will be held January 21. 2009 at 3:00 p.m in the
Board of County Commissioners chambers. We will need a quorum in order to vote for ofticers, so please do your best to
attend. Motion to adjourn the meeting at 3:25 p.m. made by Reg and seconded by Jerry Sanford. Approved unanimously.
Minutes submitted by Mary Ann Cole.
Approved by Chair:
1
':/; /
J:JJ/li
i!j;/6~
Date
Citizen Corps Advisory Committee
Agenda November 19, 2008
3:00
Pledge of Allegiance
-Opening Remarks
-Roll Call
Chairman
Sheriff's Office CERV
USCGA Red Cross
Chamher of Commerce
Fire Chiefs CERT CAP
Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army
EMS
City of Naples
PRMC
Health Uept
Everglades Cit):
NCH
Medical Examiner City of Marco Island
Neighborhood Watch
EM
3:05 Approval of Minutes Chairman
3:10 Nomination of Officers Chairman
3: 15 Threat Update Sheriff's Office
3:20 New Business Chairman
. Address comments of 10/15/08 Walt Jaskiewicz
meeting made under New Business
"Civil Air Patrol/US Coast Guard
Auxiliary"
3:35 Old Business Chairman
. LMS Update Rick Zyvoloski
3:45 Next Meeting/Adjourn Chairman
(December 17th?)
161
1 ft3
Collier County Government
A3
Communication &
Customer Relations Department
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
(239) 252-8848
www.colliere:ov.net
November 10, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19,2008
3 p.m.
The Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday, November 19th at 3 p.m.
in the Board of County Commissioners chambers, located on the third floor of the W. Harmon Turner
Bui]ding, Bui]ding F, Collier County Government Center, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples.
In regard to the public meeting:
All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any,
in writing, to the board/committee prior to the meeting if applicable. All registered public speakers will
be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board of County Commissioners or quasi-judicial
board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal is to be based.
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, an
advisory board or quasi-judicia] board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and
Records Department.
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 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL
34112, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing
impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office.
For more information, call Joe Frazier at 252-8000.
-End-
161
1 A-3
The Naples Senior Squadron will be collecting items to ship to our troops
oyerseas.
Please bring to the Hanger the items you feel the troops can use,
These items should be brought to the hanger no later than Dec. 12, 2008 for
mailing Dec. 13th, 2008. Please place these items on the Tables under the
bulletin board, or bring to the next meeting.
Our Military folks would appreciate your gifts, thoughts and Prayers.
If you have any questions call me.
You did a Great Job the last couple of years.
SEMPER FI,
Thomas Kuznar Lt. Co!. CAP
Personnel Officer
Naples Senior Squadron FL-023
Telephone: 239-404-8101
16 I 1 A-3
Florida Division of Emergency Management
Advanced CElT Academy
Oeoember 5-1 2008
The Florida Division of Emergency Management Citizen Corps and CERT
program is excited to announce the first Advanced CERT Academy. The
training will teach skills in advanced disaster preparedness,
communications, advanced first aid, CPR and first responder training.
Following the training sessions, participants will engage in an exercise where they will be tested on
skills obtained during the academy. They will also be required to demonstrate existing skills such as
disaster medical operations, light search and rescue, terrorism, disaster psychology and team
organization.
Citizen Corps and CERT coordinators are encouraged to participate in this exciting opportunity
scheduled for December 5.7, 2008 at Camp Blanding located in Clay County.
Lodging and meals will be provided by the Division of Emergency Management. Space is limited to
the first 50 eligible registered participants.
The application will be available online November 10, 2008. All interested persons can submit an
electronic application at http://www.floridadisaster.org/trainingcalendar/index.asp.
For further information, please contact the Citizen Corps office at CitizenCorps@em.myfJorida.com or
Nikki Hines at 850-413-9894.
FLORIDA~
citizen~corps
Page 1 of 1
161
1 AS
ColeMaryAnn
From:
Sent:
To:
vonrintelnj
Thursday, October 23, 200812:12 PM
108t Wilson Blvd N; Alejandro_Castilio@uss.salvationarmy.org; BowmanDan; captwrj@aol.com:
CHICKNFUTA@aol.com; Dave Baer; dportert43@comcast.net; Floyd Chapin
(schapin43@aol.com): George Walsh: gerrysugie@aol.com; Greg Speers: jelsonl @comcast.net;
john.brown@nchmd.org; naplesme@worldnet.att.net; r.d.rainey: reg buxton;
TSoliday@f1ynaples.com
Cc: ColeMaryAnn; FrazierJoseph
Subject: FW: Citizens Advisory Committee
All,
I received the communication below from the CAP requesting that the letter from the Advisory Board discussed
and voted on at the last meeting be tabled until it can be further discussed at the next meeting.
Jim von Rinteln
From: Richard Niess [mailto:rniess@embarqmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 12:08 PM
To: vonrintelnj
Cc: Lee Henderson CAP; Ray Rosenberg CAP
Subject: Citizens Advisory Committee
Confirming our phone conversation, we request the CAP/USCGAux cooperation item
discussed at the October 15 meeting be tabled.
We are attempfing to work out the issue on a mutually acceptable basis.
We infend to have a representative attend the November meefing.
Richard C. Niess LtCol CAP
Public Affairs Officer
Marco Island CAP Composite Squadron 376
Florida Wing
Home: 239-530-0786
Cell: 239-595-9588
rn[ess@embarQrngjlc_QJTI
http://wW'i'!,lmm;9i~landcap.org/
10/24/2008
Page 1 of 1
161 11\:3
ColeMaryAnn
From: FrazierJoseph
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:59 PM
To: ColeMaryAnn; BowmanDan; Capt. Alejandro Castillo; CC-Dan Zunzunegui; CC.Debbie Horvath:
CC-Gerry Sugerman (ggerrysugie@aol.com): CC-Jerry Sanford; CC-Jim Elson: CC-Joe Wilkins:
CC-John Brown: CC-Mike Murphy; CC-Nfn11555; CC-Ted Soliday; CC-Walter Jaskiewicz;
'DanAnderson@fdie.state.fl.us': David Baer; DeArmasMaribel; Doug Porter
(dporter143@comcast.net): foord_m; Kathleen_Marr@doh.state.fl.us; Lt. George Welch: Maria
Bernaldo: Phil Reid; reg buxton: Russ Rainey: Ryan Frost: schapin43@aol.com; scribneU:
TeachScott; veitj: vonrinteln--i
Cc: vonrinteln--i
Subject: 19 November Citizen Corps meeting
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We have had some inquires concerning canceling the 19 November Citizen Corps meeting because it falls on the
same day as the Sheriff's Office dedication of the new ESC building. We realize that some members may attend
that dedication, however, we will still have our Citizen Corps meeting and the number one agenda items is
nominations for new officers. Hope to see many of you on the 19th
Best regards,
Joe
Joseph W. Frazier, CEM, MPA
Homeland Security Coordinator
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples FL, 34112
239-252-8425
FAX: 239-775-5008
josephfrazier@colliergov.net
11/6/2008
RECEIVED
JAN 0 8 2009
cAclDet 20081 k t
VI-1 Approval of CAG Minutes
R!ila 01=.crt....
Halas '::f'/ito/.
'./
Henning ! V ~
Coyle
Coletta 1" ~/
./
Board of Countv Commissioner"
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, November 13, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
Herein, met on this date at 1 :00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at
Administrative Building "F", 3'd Floor, Collier County Goyernment
Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE CHAIRMAN:
John Sorey, III
Anthony Pires
Murray Hendel
Heidi Kulpa - Resigned
Larry Magel
Ted Forcht
Victor Rios
ALSO PRESENT:
Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management
Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney
Gail Hambright, Tourist Tax Coordinator
Michael Bauer, City of Naples Natural Resources Manager
M I sc Corres:
, Dd-IJ D /1>9
lkILi)M-
GAG December 11, 2008
VI-1 Approval of GAG Minutes
2of6
161
1 1\-4
I. Call to Order
Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:00PM
II. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
III. Roll Call
Roll Call was taken with a quorum established,
It was noted former Coastal Advisory Committee member Jim Burke was present in
the audience and has temporarily resigned from the Committee.
IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda
Mr. Pires moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried
unanimously 7-0.
V. Public Comments
None.
VI. Approval of CAC Minutes
Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes subject to the following corrections:
. Page 4, under item 4 paragraph 3, line 2
from "if the PW's are" to "if the PW's (Public Works Work Orders) are"
. Page 5, under Public Speaker, paragraph 2, line I
From "Mr. McAlpin stated the Beach area referenced is a private beach."
to "Mr. McAlpin stated the Beach area referenced is a private beach (to the
erosion control line.) ..
VII. Staff Reports
1. Revenue Reports - Gary McAlpin
The Council reviewed the document "Tourist Tax Report - FY 2008-- 2009"
dated November 13,2008 (updated through October of2008.)
2. Project Cost Report - Gary McAlpin
Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director submitted the document
"FY 2007/2008 TDC Category "A" Beach Maintenance Projects" dated
November 13. 2008 and recommended in the future, this Report be heard on a
quarterly basis.
The Council determined the Report should be submitted to members on a monthly
basis. but reviewed at meetings on a quarterly basis.
Mr. Rios requested Staff to provide to him via email, any related information on
the existing andlor proposed Work Orders for projects on Marco Is]and.
Mr. Hendel noted the data from the first month of the Fiscal Year indicated a
decline in revenues and recommended the budget and projections be re-examined.
Gary McAlpin noted there is currently a surplus of capital from existing projects
($2M-3M) and the Program can currently meet its anticipated financial
obligations.
GAG December 11, 2008
VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes
3016
161
1 It Lf-
Staf/will provide a Detailed Financial Update upon completion of the I" quarter
of the Fiscal Year at the January 2009 meeting.
3. TDC FundinglExpenditures for Marco Island - Gary McAlpin
The Council reviewed the document "Marco Island Revenue and Expense
Analysis Fund /95-Beaches and Inlet Maintenance" dated November] 3,2008.
It was noted the Snapshot is over a 3-year period indicating Fund 195 generated
$3,357,913 of Marco Island Revenue and the County has expended $5,542,314 on
Marco Island Beaches.
4. Tropical Storm Fay/FEMA Update - Naples, Park Shore, Vanderbilt - Gary
McAlpin
a. Collier County Beach Nourishment Project Cost Tropical Storm Fay
Storm Report
The Council reviewed the Executive Summary "Update the CAC on FEMA
funding progress/rom Tropical Storm Fayfor Naples, Vanderbilt, Park Shore
and Marco Beaches. "
It was noted a Public Work's Work Order will be submitted to FEMA in the
near future for the damage caused by Tropical Storm Fay. The escarpments
on Naples Beach will be taken care of naturally via tidal activity.
5. Staff Report Wiggins Pass Modeling - Steve Keehn, CP&E
Gary McAlpin stated the Modeling Group has narrowed its alternatives for long-
term stabilization of Wiggins Pass to a "desired approach." There is one more
meeting scheduled for the Group at which time a final alternative will be
recommended
Steve Keehn of Coastal Planning and Engineering provided a Power Point
Presentation "Summary of Wiggins Pass Modeling Study" and noted the
following:
. The Goals of the project are to improve navigation in the Pass,
reduce impacts to adjacent shorelines, minimize impacts on the
environment, lengthen the dredge cycle and provide the least
economic impact feasible in choosing an alternative.
. 4 alternatives were considered which is being reduced to a final
alternative.
Discussion ensued regarding how realistic the data assumptions are being used in
the modeling.
Steve Keehn noted the model does incorporate historic data as well as recently
measured data and the software for the modeling does calibrate and merge this
data when developing the parameters for the modeling. This assists the modeling
software in creating "multi year data."
Gary McAlpin noted the modeling software continually updates changing data as
it predicts the morphology of the Pass. Upon further analysis, it predicted the
actual events, which occurred in the Pass I year after dredging.
CAC December 11, 2008
VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes
40f6
161
1 k+
Steve Keehn reviewed the details of the 4 alternatives and subsequent
morphology modeling examined by the Discussion Group. He also provided an
analysis of the Decision Matrix being utilized by the Group.
In conclusion alternatives 2 and 3 were found to be the most effective with the
final solution being a combination of the two. The Consultants need to continue
to finalize the modeling and the results will be provided to the Group for a
decision.
Discussion ensued on the Consultants "level of confidence" the final alternative is
"the best way to go" in lengthening the dredge cycle.
Steve Keehn stated the analysis would be available when it has been completed
and a final report is issued.
It was noted no alternative would be a ] 00 percent guaranteed solution, the only
certainty is the current Dredging Program is not the best alternative.
Gary McAlpin noted the level of confidence should be evaluated in relation to
the individual goals identified by the Group, not just the length of the dredge
cycle.
6. Staff Report Small Volumes Sand Source at Cape Romano - Steve Keehn,
CPE
Update provided:
. The sand source is similar in size to the sand excavated adjacent to
Marco Pass.
. The source is located a considerable distance South of Marco Island
but significantly closer than the 1'-1 Sand Source of SanibeI.
. The goal is to identify a less expensive sand source than the T-l Sand
source which costs $30 CY.
. The County will continue to attempt to obtain approval of the source
from Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
. The National Marine Fisheries is involved with approval of sand
sources regarding satisfying a criterion for the "color of the sand" in
rcgards to it impacts on Sea Turtle nesting.
. Sea Grass beds are not an issue for this source which is 5-7 miles otl~
shore.
VIII. New Business
1. Resolution for Procedures for Coastal Advisory Committee - Gary McAlpin
a. Revised Resolution and Procedure for Coastal Advisory Committee
Mr. Pires moved to approve a revision to Resolution 2(}04-(}] to allow a
maximum of 3 minutes when an individual public speaker addresses an
issue. Second hy Mr. Magel.
GAG December 11, 2008
VI-1 Approval of GAG Minutes
5of6
161
lAf
Mr. Rios expressed concern on limiting a Speaker to 3 minutes as opposed to
5 minutes currently allowed and whether it is ample time to present their
position on an item.
It was noted the Chairman and Committee have the discretion to allow more
time if necessary.
Motion carried 5-2. Mr. Rios and Mr. Forcht voted "no."
2. Wigginsmoctors Pass Dredging -U pdate - Gary McAlpin
The following was noted:
. The necessary permits are in place with no changes or modifications
required.
. The only outstanding item is a "Notice to Proceed."'
. The Notice is outstanding. as Contractors have not been selected for
the dredging and related monitoring.
. The contracts are scheduled to be awarded at a December Board of
County Commissioner meeting with the work to begin in January and
completed before Turtle Nesting season.
. The contracts are not subject to Purchase Department Policy for
Consultant Rates and are subject to a bidding process.
IX. Old Business
1. Appointment to Date Clam Bay Advisory Committee
Gary McAlpin noted the recent appointments to the Clam Bay Advisory
Committee are: David Roellig, Kathy Worley. Tahlman Krumm, Jim Carroll and
Robert Rogers.
X. Public Comments
None
XI. Announcements
1. Heidi Kulpa's Resignation from the CAC
The Committee expressed their gratitude for Ms. Kulpa's service.
XII. Committee Member Discussion
Mr. Pires moved that the Coastal Advisory Committee recommends the Board of
County Commissioners aggre.5sively review rate.5 and fees that are established by
the Purchasing Department for Consultants and Professionals under existing
contracts in light of the current economic conditions with any eye toward
reduction.,. and potential rollbacks. Second by Mr. Rio.".
Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney expressed concern this motion is
outside the scope of the Committee and noted the fees were competitively bid in
compliance with the Purchasing Policy and the Florida Statute for Professional
Services and recommended the Staff address this issue with the County Manager's
Office.
CAC December 11, 2008
VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes
60f6
16 I 1 ~Lf
Chairman Sorey noted the motion expressed a concern of the Committee and a
recommendation for review of the Policy, not for the Coastal Advisory Committee to
exercise any authority in changing the policy.
Motion carried unanimously 7-0.
Mr. Hendel requested clarification on a recent newspaper article, which indicated a
County parking garage improvement, may be under consideration at the end of
Seagate Drive.
Gary McAlpin noted there is no plans by the County to increase parking capacities at
the location at this time.
XIII. Next Meeting Date
The next meeting is scheduled for December 11, 2008 - Government Center,
Administration Bldg. F, 3'd Floor
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the chair at 2:37 P.M.
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee
/'L.--~7../-#
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on
as presented V or as amended .
J-:l-\\.....O~
161 1 AA-
~. opA
Dec ~r]l, .
aas. -
Henning
Coyle
Coletta ~
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
v
-CEIVED
;,~,rj " 0 2009
,dillV Conlmissioners
Naples, Florida, December 1 ], 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at ]:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at
Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County Goyernment
Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, 1Il
VICE CHA]RMAN: Anthony Pires
Murray Hendel
Ted Forcht
Victor Rios
Larry Magel
ALSO PRESENT:
Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director
Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney
Gail Hambright, Accountant
Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples
Misc. Corres:
Date:
Item #
-(}:)i0$ to
161
1 Aq-
December] ], 2008
I. Call to Order
Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1 :00 PM.
II. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
III. Roll Call
Roll Call was taken with a quorum established.
IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda
Mr. Rios moved to approve the agenda subject to the following changes:
. Addition of Item VIII, New Business]. a. - Wiggins IDoctors Pass
Dredging - Bee 12116108
. Handout entitled "Project Worksheet" identifying the costs associated
with FEMA request for Marco Island
. Item VIII, New Business 3 . Marco Island FEMA Hazard Mitigation
Request
Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 6-().
V. Public Comments
None
VI. Approval of CAC Minutes
1. November 13,2008
Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2()()8 meeting.
Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 6-().
VII. Staff Reports
1. Revenue Report - Gary McAlpin
The Revenue Report updated through November 2008 was submitted for review.
A budget update will be provided at the end of the I" quarter. It was noted the
operating expenses in the budget were reduced in accordance with the County
Manager's guidelines and the collections budgeted were $ ]4.5M for this fiscal
year, identical to the previous year.
2. Project Cost Report - Gary McAlpin
The project cost was submitted for review.
VIII. New Business
1. Wiggins/Doctors Pass Dredging
a. Wiggins/Doctors Pass Dredging - BCC 12/16/08
Gary McAlpin submitted an Executive Summary "Recommend approval to
award contract fllr the dredging of Doctors Pass and Wiggins Pass to the
lowest qualified hidder" dated December I ], 2008. The following was
highlighted:
. 71 requests were sent - 4 bids were submitted for consideration.
2
16r
lAA'
December II, 2008
. 3 of the Companies requesting consideration submitted lower bids
but did not qualify.
. In previous dredging projects, the lowest bidders were awarded
contracts but they were not qualified to complete the work and
problems arose (dredges sinking, etc.)
. In an Executive Summary prepared for the Board of County
Commissioner's (BCC), Staff is recommending to award the
contract to Subaqueous Services, LLC in the amount of $1,755,095,
scheduled for review at their December 16,2008 meeting.
. The process allows the bid to be evaluated by the Purchasing
Department and a meeting will be held with Subaqueous Services
on December 11,2008 to determine the possibility of lowering the
bid.
. It is anticipated the bid award will be appealed and the item will be
re-worked and placed on a BCC agenda in January.
Speaker
Doug Fee, County resident addressed the Committee and provided a copies of
the definition of "Conservation District" in the Land Development Code and
Zoning Maps in the area of the south end of Barefoot Beach. He expressed
concern that the Wiggins Pass Modeling Evaluation Group is not addressing these
issues in consideration of the long-term solution to the stabilization of Wiggins
Pass.
In addition regarding the above item, noted the Executive Summary for the BCC
containing the bids and information was posted on the Internet yesterday
(December 10,2008), and the public has not had adequate time to review the
document and provide input.
Dr. Michael Bauer, Natural Resources Manager, City of Naples stated with a
previous dredge in Doctors Pass, a less expensive smaller company was
contracted to complete the work and the end result was the Company was not
qualified and had financial difficulties, which impeded their ability to complete
the job.
Mr. Rios expressed concern over the large discrepancies in costs between the
various sub-items in the bids provided by the Companies. Further, the cubic yard
price in the previous dredging in Wiggins Pass (approximate]y 2 years ago by
Subaqueous Services, Inc.) was $4.13 cubic yard and the cost bid in this project is
$10.98 a cubic yard.
Gary McAlpin noted the purpose of meeting with Subaqueous Services, LLC and
the Purchasing Department is to investigate if they misunderstood some of the
monitoring services required for the project. The clarification of services could
lower the overall amount of the bid.
With regard to the cubic yard prices, the market has changed over the past two
years and noted the process was conducted through competitive bidding and the
3
161
1 kY-
Decem ber 11, 2008
cost for unit price of all companies was similar, He noted reserve funds would
need to be utilized, as the bid is approximately $255,000 greater than budgeted.
Mr. Pires noted Subaqueous Services, ]nc, which performed previous work for
the County has been acquired by Orion Marine Group and is now operating as
Subaqueous Services. LLC. He expressed many concerns with the proposal
noting in researching Subaqueous Services, LLC found they had cost overruns in
the 2"d quarter of2008 on dredging projects in the Western Gulf. He questioned
if this had been investigated during the bidding process.
Other research indicated Subaqueous Services Inc. offices had been raided by the
FBI in conjunction with its investigation of (Jacksonville) "Port Authority board
member Tony Nelson and the Port's contracts, " as reported in the Florida Times-
Union, May 27, 2008.
He submitted the jiJllowing documentsjor the record:
. Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of
Subaqueous Services, Inc. dated February 29, 2008 - Change of
name Subaqueous Services 1nc. to Hawg Enterprises, Inc.
. Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Organization ofOMGl
Sub, LLC dated February 29, 2008 - Change (Jfnamefrom OMGI
Sub, LLC to Subaqueous Services, LLe.
. April 26, 2008 Florida Times-Union article "FBI seizes records of
Jacksonville port partncrs"
. May 27, 2008 Florida Times -Union article "Port Authority's hire
ofjirm is questioned"
. September 19,2008 Florida Times-Union article "Firm protests
port bid in Jacksonville. Fla. "
. 2008 for Profit Corporation Annual Report signature page for All
American Concrete, Inc.; American Marine and Construction
Incorporated; Millmac Corporation (the other Companies under
consideration)
. Orion Marine Group, Inc. Fonn 424B3 filed March 5, 2008 and
Orion Marine Group Press Release dated February 29, 2008, re:
"Orion Marine Group Acquires Subaqueous Services, Inc. "
. 2008 Collier County Vendor Evaluations for two projects
completed by Subaqueous Services, Inc.
He expressed concern whether Subaqueous Services, LLC. was fully investigated
before the recommendation was made in the Executive Summary to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Gary McAlpin noted these issues would be investigated to the satisfaction of the
County with background checks.
Mr. Pires acknowledged the process provides for the lowest responsible bidder to
be awarded the contract (not the lowest bidder), but wants to ensure all necessary
infonnation is presented to the BCC for consideration in awarding the bid.
Mr. Forcht questioned if any Change Orders were expected in the project.
4
161
1 A~
December II, 2008
Gary McAlpin noted this is a unit price contract based on before and after
quantity surveys.
Chairman Sorey requested Staff to review the bid specifications used in these
projects to ensure they are adequate.
Mr. Hendel requested clarification on the Speakers position on the issue, as the
comments were directed to issues in the Wiggins Pass Modeling Evaluation
Group.
Speaker
Doug Fee noted the relevance is in the land lease from the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP), which encompasses this area. It requires
projects in Wiggins Pass be completed in accordance with local requirements.
He noted he is in favor of dredging, but questioned whether the current dredge
template should be reviewed to ensure it meets this requirement.
Chairman Sorey noted these issues should be directed to the Wiggins Pass
Modeling Evaluation Group,
Gary McAlpin noted any modifications to the dredge template have been
deemed unsubstantial by FDEP and dredging has been in complete compliance
with the Land Development Code requirements, There are no substantial
changes proposed to the dredge template at this time.
Mr. Sorey moved to approve Staff's recommendation with the expectation the
price will be re-negotiated better than what the current quote is.
Second by Mr. Hendel. Motion carried 4 'yes" - 2 "no." Mr. Pires and Mr.
Rios voted "no. "
Mr. Rios voted "no" as he cannot go forward on the assumption the company
will lower their bid. In addition, based on this process, at least one other firm
should be requested to re-qualify their bid.
2. Marco Island FEMA Application Tropical Storm Fay
Gary McAlpin provided a draft (FEMA) Report for the damage caused by
Tropical Storm Fay and related "FEMA Project Worksheet."
He provided an update for historic beach re-nourishment expenditures for the
Marco Island beaches. It was noted a FEMA Grant would provide 75% of the
funding for repairing the damage.
3. Marco Island FEMA Hazard Mitigation Request
Gary McAlpin provided a handout consisting of an email to him from Ken
Humiston of Humiston and Moore dated December II, 2008, subject: "Hazard
Mitigation Proposal (HMP) Format" and related documents.
He updated the Committee on the concept of Staff approaching FEMA to provide
funding for a mitigation project for the beaches on the South End of Marco Island.
5
161
1 A-+
December] ], 2008
The mitigation would aid in preventing storm damage in the future. FEMA would
provide 75% of the funding for the project to be located between markers] 48 -
147. This would alleviate FEMA from continually expending funds to repair the
area following stonn damage. If it is feasible for FEMA to fund the project, the
City of Marco Island will be approached on the feasibility of constructing the
project.
IX. Old Business
1. Consultant Prices
Gary McAlpin provided an email from Kelsey Ward of the Purchasing
Department dated November 19, 2008 in response to the issue of increased
Consultant rates addressed by the Coastal Advisory Committee at their November
meeting.
Chairman Sorey noted the issue had been addressed and should not be pursued
further.
It was noted the motion passed at the November CAC meeting was for the BCC
to aggressively review the rates and Mr. Pires asked if the sentiment of the
Committee had been conveyed to the BCe.
The issue had been conveyed to the Purchasing Department only and was
recommended Mr. Pires meet with the BCC personally on further concerns he
may have.
X. Public Comments
None
XI. Announcements
1. Advisory Board Mileage Reimbursement
Staff reported the BCC has approved mileage reimbursement for members
traveling in excess of 20 miles for Advisory Board meetings.
2. CAC Schedule for 2009
Staff provided the recommended dates for next year's meetings,
Chairman Sorey acknowledged the Committee accepted the scheduled dates for
the 2009 meetings.
XII. Committee Member Discussion
Mr. Pires expressed concern in the above referenced email from Kelsey Ward to
Gary McAlpin which stated "It would be counter-productive to askfor a reduction in
hourly rates, because it would give the consultants an incentive to make upfor the
lost revenue by padding their proposal with additional personnel categories and
hours, which could cost us more in the long run."
He sent an email to Gary McAlpin dated December 9, 2008, which highlighted the
following:
. The email from Kelsey Ward does not explain the increase in rates,
6
161
1 A-'+
December 11, 2008
. County employees should be qualified to review proposals and
recognize "padding."
. Concern regarding the assertion that Consultants will be less than
honest in proposals.
. What is the basis for this statement?
. Can specific examples of"padding" be provided for consideration?
Chairman Sorey noted the Committee has taken action regarding this item and the
next avenue should be for any member/s who wishes to individually speak to their
BCC representatives to do so.
XIII. Next Meeting Date
January 8, 2009 - Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3'd Floor
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the chair at 2:33 P.M.
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee
~>l
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on I J -1 Ii - O~
as presented V or as amended
7
Fiala o~/tt..-
Halas .} lul'
Henning !;
Coyle
, ' Ollntli COfllmissioners Coletta 4----
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 15,2009, IN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMlAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: 16 I ...:11 f\: 5
RECEIVED
IAN I 2 2009
AGENDA
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENT A TlON TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.- NOVEMBER 20, 2008, REGULAR MEETING; DECEMBER 4, 2008, REGULAR
MEETING; DECEMBER 9, 2008, HORIZON STUDY MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - DECEMBER 2,2008, REGULAR MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: V A-2008-AR-1360 1, Okeechobee Inn, L TD, represented by Gina Green, P.E. of Green
Engineering, Inc., is requesting a Variance from LDC Subsection 4.02.27, Specific Design Standards.for the
Immokalee-State Road 29A Commercial Overlay Subdistrict, to permit access to State Road 29 for a parcel
having less than the minimum 440-foot street frontage width. The 9.04-acre subject property is located on
the west side of State Road 29, just north of the Lake Trafford Road intersection, in Section 32,
Township 46 South. Range 29 East, Immokalee, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP)
B. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13639, Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of .Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints, represented by Alan Brewer of Reynolds, Smith and Hills, is requesting a Conditional
Use for a church in the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3) Zoning Districi.A'~ c8/ti'Wed in Section
2.03.02.A.l.c.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The 4.6~-acre s1mject property is
located at 4935 Brd Court SW in Section 21, Township 49 South, Range fJitte:ast of Cf~ier 9<:>.unty,
Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, Alep) . {).:>~ t!J (-B9
Ilem#.~S
1
16l
1 A-f>'
C. Petition: RZ-2008-AR-12930, Collier County Coastal Zone Management represented by Laura Dejohn of
Johnson Engineering, Inc., requesting a Rezone from the RMF-6 (Residential Multi-family) and C-3
(Commercial Intermediate) zoning districts to the CF (Community Facility) zoning district to provide
overflow parking for the Bayview Park boat launch. The +2.13-acre subject property is located in
Section 23, Township 50 South and Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss,
AICP)
D. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-12026, Stephen J. Lockwood, Trustee for SJL Realty II Trust. represented by
Heidi Williams, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esq., of
Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural
(A) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be
known as the Savannah Place RPUD, to allow development of a maximum of 20 townhouse, single-family
attached or single-family detached dwelling units. The subject 6.8 H acre property is located on the south
side of Orange Blossom Drive approximately II, mile west of Airport Road (CR 31), in Section 2,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP)
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. and Florida Community Bank,
Inc., represented by Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovich and Koester, P.A.,
are requesting a rezone from the Residential Single-family (RSF-I) Zoning District to the Community
Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as Heavenly
CFPUD, which would memorialize the existing church uses and would permit redevelopment consistent with
a master site plan to a maximum of 100,000 square feet of houses of worship, children and adult day cares, a
Pre-K through 3rd grade school, and various accessory uses; and an additional 20,000 square feet of children
and adult day cares, Pre-K through 3rd grade school and accessory uses contingent upon Conditional Use
approval. The 15.93-acre subject property is located at 6926 Traillloulevard, and comprises the entire block
bounded by Ridge Drive, West Street, Myrtle Road and Trail Boulevard in Section 3, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East of Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) READVERTISED
FROM 11/06/08
B. Petition: V A-2008-AR-13756, Lee Wyatt, represented by Lauren Barber of Turrell and Associates, is
requesting a front yard setback Variance for principal structures in the Mobile Home (MH) Zoning District
from 25 feet to 16 feet, as required by Land Development Code (LDC) Section 4.02.01. Setbacks fiJr Base
Zoning Districts, to pennit a nine-foot setback; and a site alteration Variance to impact mangroves, pursuant
to LDC Subsection 9.04.02.B.1. The approximately 0.14-acrc subject property is located on Lot 77, Otter
Avenue, in Plantation Island, of Section 24, Township 53 South, Range 29 East Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP)
C. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-I1320, Sembler Family Partnership #42, represented by Robert Mulhere, AICP
of R W A, Inc and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire, of Roetzel and Andress, requesting a rezoning from Rural
Agriculture (A) zoning to Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as McMullen
MPUD. The 19.32 acres Rural Agricultural zoned site is proposed to permit a mixed-use development. The
rezoning petition allows for a maximum of 122,000 square feet of medical office and medical support
facilities, and up to 48 multi-family d\\'elling units, with allowances for modifications of commercial activates
and residential uses for additional permitted commercial uses. In no case shall the commercial square footage
exceed 185,000 square feet. The subject property is generally located one- half mile east of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) on Rattlesnake-Hammock Road Extension, the south one-half of the Southeast one-
quarter of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) CONTINUTED TO 2/5/09
10. OLD BUSINESS
11. NEW BUSINESS
A. Distribution of the Collier County Sign Code draft revision to remove the elements declared unconstitutional
by the' Eleventh Circuit Court. The presentation will include an 8-10 minute explanation of the basic
constitution law concepts that protect free speech in sign age and which guided the revisions. (Coordinator:
Catherine Fabacher, AICP) TO BE HEARD IMMEDlA TEL Y FOLLOWING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
2
161
]2. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
] 1l5/0S eepe Agenda/RB/sp
3
1 ~ 5
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
II'" L.
16 , 4: :r
November 20,~008
~
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
LOLLlER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
November 20, 2008
RECEIVED
JAN 2 1 2009
80ard ot (:ounly commissioners
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning
Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Bui]ding "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Karen Homiak
Donna Reed-Caron
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney (Absent at roll call)
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David J. Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review
Thomas Eastman, Dir. of Rea] Property, School District (Absent)
Mise. Corres:
Date:
!tern #.
Page 1
:opies to
NoJe~btr 2J2~8 5
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the November 20th meeting
of the Collier County Planning Commission.
If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison,)
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, roll call by our secretary, please.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Koltlat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here.
Commissioner Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Tom Eastman's not here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom Eastman is not here. And Mr. Midney is not here.
Rightfully so, because we don't have any school issues with the sign variance coming up and
there's only discussion, so I certainly understand why Mr. Eastman's not here today,
Before we get into the agenda, let's go through a few of the housekeeping matters.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda, The first item on today's agenda of the advertised
public hearings was Petition 9(A) for Seasonal Investments, Inc., d/bla Fairways Resort requesting seven
variances. That item's been continued to December 4th at our regular meeting. It will not be heard today.
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning commission absences. We have to discuss some -- a schedule
that we have changed. 11/24, which is next week, we had scheduled a review of the floodplain
management ordinance. That needs to be changed to January 26th, if that works for the majority of the
Page 2
16 II/< 5
November 20, 2008
members of this commission.
I don't hear otherwise. l'l1 assume it does, and we will use that date, January 26th.
If Ray or Joe, you want to confirm with Mr. Wiley that works, then that will be fine.
And our next regularly scheduled meeting is December 4th. Does anybody know if they're not
going to be here on December 4th?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, looks like we've got a quorum then,
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 2008, LDC MEETING; OCTOBER 2, 2008,
REGULAR MEETING; OCTOBER 2, 2008, LDC MEETING
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item is the approval ofthe minutes. The first one -- we have three of
them. The fust one is September 26th, 2008, an LDC meeting. Is there a motion to recommend approval?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, thank you.
Okay, any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
The next one is October 2nd, 2008 regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Approve.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In all in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye,
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
Page 3
16 I ,:t:..it
November 1, 2008
5
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 8-0.
And the final one is the LDC meeting of October 2nd, 2008. Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Approve.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron made the motion, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signity by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Item #6
BCC REPORT ~ RECAPS - SEPTEMBER 24,2008, LDC MEETING; OCTOBER 7, 2008, LDC
MEETING; OCTOBER 14-15, 2008, REGULAR MEETING
Okay, BCC reports. Ray, anything you want to throw into the mix?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On November 18th, the Board of County Commissioners heard two items
on the summary agenda. Both items were approved.
The first was a conditional use for the First Congregational Church of Naples. And the second one
was an NUA for the Hitching Post -- a Nonconforming Use Alteration petition for the Hitching Post. And
that was also approved on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing, Ray, have you had all the LDC hearings already?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe so,
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. The -- all the LDC hearings have been conducted. The board approved the
final resolution -- or correction, ordinance.
However, there were 13 or could have been 14 amendments that have been bumped to the next
cycle. Those were the amendments that you all did not pass having to do primarily with the EAR-based
Page 4
J,~JberIo, 2~8 5
amendments dealing with the environmental issues.
(Mr. Midney enters the boardroom.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question was, does the commissioners ever change the
amendments as they're going through them, kind oflike we do as they're going through us?
MR, SCHMITT: I didn't hear the question.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is, does the commissioners make changes to the
amendments as they're going through them?
MR. SCHMITT: In most cases they do, yes, they'll make changes and modifications as they go
through the two hearings, Well, I say -- often they do, but not many of the amendments, but there are
amendments that they certainly make changes to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess the question really is, is there a way we could get and
see what those changes are just so -- because we remember them as they go through here. They obviously
go into the ordinance, into the LDC, and I'm not so sure --
MS. ASHTON.CICKO: If! could interject for a moment. We do have copies. I think there were
about three changes, slight changes to a couple of the sections. And we can get that information to you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or are they posted on the internet --
MR. SCHMITT: And there was one withdrawn during the hearing, had to do with the bubble
irrigation systems in lieu of that one, as actually the board didn't approve and it was withdrawn. So there
were some other ones. We can certainly give you a recap of the changes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the intent, Joe, is just to keep up to speed. As we leave here,
it would be nice to know --
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- how they've changed. Thank you.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item is Chairman's report.
I have passed out or provided copies to each of you of the letter that this board authorized to be
sent to the Board of County Commissioners regarding our concerns over the processing of the RLSA Phase
II report. So that was distributed a week or so ago, a few days after the approval was provided. And that's
just for your records.
I also passed out, and I'd like Ray to put it on the overhead, a map I've received that I can't tell you
what the purpose of the map is. I can't tell you what it's to be used for other than what it plainly says in the
front of it. And it says, the illustrated road network which supports 45,000 acres of potential development
in the RLSA is for modeling purposes only. Actual road segments and alignments may differ than as shown
on the map.
Obviously this is a draft of something, conceptual build-out roadway network. The red dots
represent town nodes. There's 22 of those.
Now, my purpose in showing this to all of you is that this may not be a real map, this may not be
anything that could even get to a point where it's built this way. But if the system can provide for this, and
as it says here, it supports 45,000 acres of potentia] development when the current SRA's are much less
than that right now, this then possibly reflects things that could come through the change process in the
GMP's after the GMP's are discussed with the Phase II report.
That's why the Phase II report and its discussion is so vital to the citizens of this county. Ifwe're
Page 5
161~iA- 5
November 20, 20ds
going to have an area in the east with 22 towns as a potential where you have acreage of each town up to
4,000 acres, and they're a full service town, schools, shopping centers and everything, the planning of that
area cannot be rushed through the system,
And that just further emphasizes why this planning commission last time wanted to see this go
through the process carefully as it had previously been planned.
And I'm leaving this with you all for your reference. This is just something to keep in -- when we
do get to the discussion it will be interesting to understand this a little bit better at that time.
So that's aliI have.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Bravo.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Item #8A
PETITION: BD-2008-AR-13305. PETER D. DONAHUE
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll move into consent agenda items.
The first one is the boat docks -- boatIift slip number one to the existing 24-sIip dock for Peter D.
Donahue on Bonita Beach Road,
And AsWey, I believe you may have a correction or something to it?
MS. CASERTA: Yes, I do. For the record, AsWey Caserta, Department of Zoning and Land
Development Review.
The original -- at the original hearing, the request was 54 feet, six inches. And at the hearing it was
decided that it should be 57 feet and six inches. The resolution was revised to reflect that. However, Exhibit
B wasn't revised until yesterday.
So I have changed out the Exhibit B in the official resolution for you to sign. And I've got copies
here, if you guys would like to have them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only change then on that graphic would be to take the 54-six and
change it to 57-six.
MS. CASERTA: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have a problem with that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, is there a motion to approve the consent item for Petition
BD-2008-AR-13305 with the correction noted by staff?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Wolfley, seconded by Commissioner
Caron.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signity by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
Page 6
Nov~m~e~ 20,;O~8
~
COMMISIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion caries 9-0.
And by the way, let the record show that Mr. Midney arrived a little while ago and is now here.
Item #8B
PETITION: PUDA-2008-AR-13494, KITE KINGS LAKE, LLC
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item on today's agenda for consent is Petition
PUDA-2008-AR-13494, Kite King's Lake, LLC. And that's the shopping center that we went over last
time.
Are there any comments, corrections to the record on that?
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karen.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have a number of things.
First, there's a few corrections in the -- on -- in Section six that we were given, 6.2.A, number six.
It said to exclude lumber yards. But the SIC number for lumber yards is 5211, and it's not included in that
anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but I think the concern that was raised during the meeting was that
they still -- we don't want them having yards of material stored outside when the example provided to us
was they were looking at it like an Ace Hardware or something like that which is fully enclosed.
And I think the reference is only to make sure that they don't get into an outside operation. I don't
know if it hurts anything. Do you?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, it's just not under that number, but that's all right.
And number seven, it lists 7384, and then says detective and private investigators only. But that
should be 7381.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meaning--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's the code that that comes under.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see where it says 7371-7384, that means it's all the numbers in
between. And so what they're saying is for all the numbers that are in that cluster, it means detective and
private investigators only,
So that number you're referencing --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I didn't see that anywhere else, it seemed to be right behind the
number, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I'm--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stafl: if I'm reading this wrong, please correct me.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's fine.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, the way we've been doing this in the past, ifit's in a dashed group
of numbers such as this, then you can pull out certain uses within that range of SIC codes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could this be made clearer then? Is there a better way to do this?
Page 7
16 I ''1 ,A 5
November 20, 2008
MR, BELLOWS: The only way is to list that specific SIC number, then say excluding that. I don't
think it matters one way or the other.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, if! can. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich.
I think was that the intent. And we need to put the SIC code number there that only allows those
two uses out of it. Because obviously that range of SIC codes encompasses a lot more than just those two
uses. I think we were supposed -- it was supposed to clarity which SIC code itse]fhad that number. So we'll
make that clarification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's make it right now so we know what it's going to say. And that
way Karen knows right upfront how it's going to look.
COMMISSIONER CARON: She knows, 7381.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it will say 7371 to 7380, Then it will say 7381, detective and private
investigators only.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then it will be 7382 through 7384.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does that work?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And then number 15, code number 5735 includes in it videotape
stores for retail. So I think it should be the same, whatever wording -- if it's going to be on number 31, it
uses no adult-oriented store. So that should be included on that number too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So on that one, Richard, you would read 5712 to 5734, comma, 5735, and
you would use the language on number 31, excluding adult-orientated stores of any kind.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you would go 5736,
Does that work for everybody?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah.
And then number 20, 5999, it should also include that it excludes gravestones. So you have
monuments and --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that different than tombstones?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- monuments and tombstones, but they also list gravestones.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And possibly sales barns. I don't know what a sales barn is.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. We think that's an auction house.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather, ifhe doesn't have an objection, it would be better to take it out
than leave it in. Who knows what that -- could happen in the future.
So number 20 would read in the end, except auction rooms, monuments, gravestones, sales bars
and tombstone sales.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Was it sales bars or barns?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Barns,
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Bams.
Okay, we'll take that out. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Anything else, Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Oh, no, did you say, or yeah?
Page 8
16' 1 A 5
November 20, 2008
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's fine. No, this is what we're supposed to be doing.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And I have -- I didn't have the book last time, so -- and I didn't
know the codes were online, so I went through them all. And there's a lot of things here that could
potentially -- personally I think -- I mean, this is supposed to be a commercial shopping center, and that's
what it's listed as, for retail shops and personal services, the way it's been for 20 years. I think it should
remain that way and serve the neighborhood.
But a lot of these listings here could potentially leave it open to being a government center or a
college campus, research center, jail. There's so many things listed under there that it's -- so I really can't
support this with some of these numbers that are in there, like number 10, educational services, and 26 is
also educational services.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far then--
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: And I have all of these listed here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But see, we got a little problem. I've got to get legal counsel to kind
of help us here.
The discussions of those kind of items were supposed to occur at the last meeting. This is purely a
consent agenda where the only thing you're allowed to do here is claritY language that wasn't written as
clearly as we stated it at the last meeting.
And I understand your dilemma because you now got --
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Okay. But then 1 do not support it and list these reasons then, right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you could do that, certainly. Then what that will do, Karen, is send a
signal to the BCC that they need to look at some of these in a closer manner than --
MR. SCHMITT: Wait a minute, you can't revote.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're going to vote on the consent agenda. She's going to just vote
yeah or nay on the consent -- oh, I see what you're saying, she's going to be voting for the whole action,
Yeah.
Heidi, any comment?
MR. SCHMITT: We can add in the executive summary additional concerns that were raised on the
consent -- during the consent discussion. But I -- and I'll turn to counsel, but I don't believe we can reopen
this for a vote.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not trying to do that, I know we can't, and that's why I'm trying to
figure out a way to let Ms. Homiak's concerns get on record, but at the same time finish this as a consent
item,
Or if the applicant wants to come back and rehear it in front of us before he goes to the BCC, that's
their option as well.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you've covered some of the options. You can either proceed today
and staff can note in the executive summary that it was approved, whatever the approval number was at the
last meeting, and then note during the consent agenda discussion there were some questions raised, They
could do it that way.
If the applicant chooses that they want clarification of these issues, then they can request staff to
reschedule it at another CCPC agenda.
But generally advisory boards don't have the ability for reconsideration like the Board of County
Commissioners does. So I think those are really the two options that I can come up with today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and a reconsideration would have had to been done within two
weeks anyway, I believe. Isn't it --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But again, generally that's the Board of County Commissioners that has
Page 9
16 J 1 P< 5
November 20, 2008
the reconsideration. That has not been extended to the advisory boards.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have had reconsideration.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Oh, has it?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I thought we've had in the past. But I understand there's some -- Mr.
Yovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we're in a little precarious position here, because we've worked with
the neighbors and given them basically everything they had requested regarding the changes, so we don't
have any objectors that we're aware of.
We had unanimous support from the planning commission the first go around, so we were heading
towards a hopeful summary agenda.
And I would like to see ifthere's a way to possibly continue to do that, if -- is it possible, and I'm
just asking to consider it -- to hear maybe what those concerns are, if you were to -- if we were to agree to
allow it to be pulled off and take out uses that were previously allowed, would that be an allowed change to
a previous approval?
Because it's not adding anything new, it's reducing what was previously there. And if, you know,
there's a clarification like we can't have a college campus, we thought we took care of that by deleting that
as one of the conditional uses, that we would have to come back for that.
So if it's maybe we didn't adequately limit what we previously had limited, you know, I'd hate to go
off the summary agenda for something that really could have been clarified.
So maybe if we can go through the uses, maybe some of these are really clarifications to what was
voted on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before Heidi answers, maybe as another option, consider this: We have a
-- we virtually have one item on today's agenda. I expect that to be moved through reasonably quick this
morning. And we could actually put this off until after that item on this agenda, which will give us time to,
you know, spend more time on it on our regular agenda, and then we could finish it all up on today's
agenda.
Is that acceptable?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think that's acceptable. I'd suggest that you raise all the issues that you
have right now and give the applicant the opportunity to come up with some proposed language that can be
read at the conclusion of the meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Doesn't that, though, represent that we'd be giving it a rehearing?
Because while one objects to it now, the balance may not. And we're holding it hostage to an individual.
And that might be an appropriate thing, but I'm talking legally now, aren't we effectively having a
rehearing?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, I think--
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think that what could happen is if it goes to the Board of County
Commissioners with issues that they deem unresolved by the planning commission, I believe that they
would have the ability to ask that it go back to the CCPC for clarification, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: I've got to tell you, we'll have to talk about this I think privately, because Ijust
don't see how we now can discuss issues and raise issues that are going to change the zoning that have
already been heard during a public hearing, And we're essentially now changing what has already been
approved,
I can understand modifications or other wordsmithing for clarification, but if this is a material
Page 10
16~ lul.\' 5
November 20,2008
change, I mean, we're opening the door for readvertising and for rehearing.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I understand Joe's concern. However, Mr. Yovanovich has indicated that
it will be a further limitation of the uses and not an expansion, So based on that, I am okay with --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know, we briefly talked out in the hallway about some of the issues.
What was mentioned to me was never intended to be on this site anyway. And I thought we had clarified
that.
So I think it's really a clarification -- it may be a clarification of the intent of the motion altogether
when we move some -- we eliminated a lot of those conditional uses, remember. So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just for that purpose, why don't we continue with the debate
__ the discussion between Ms. Homiak, her issues, and responses from you. And then at the end ofthat, if
there's anything that increases the level of this to a scrutiny beyond what can be done on consent, then we
can decide how to do it based on how intense or less intense it is.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's proceed that way.
And Karen, if you just want to move forward with your points, we'll just work our way through
them.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, it's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, I think the issue here is that Ms. Homiak, being a new
member, did not have the SIC Code book, nor did she have access online at the time. So dynamics have
changed a bit. And out of deference to any commissioner on this panel, I certainly want to see this vetted
out as thoroughly as we possibly can.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We do, too. And again, what we heard was nothing that I see as an issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I know I'm going to seem as an objector to this, but it
effectively reduces the action to one commissioner and the petitioner, and then -- as a sub-committee, and
then it's brought back to the full committee. And I find that irregular, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me explain an example then, Mr. Murray. Because I know that we
took out conditional uses, some of which were college universities or something like that from the last one.
I forgot how that was worded.
But yes, it says number two, C.2 was stricken. Could have come back as a conditional use as
schools and colleges.
Now, if you go to number 10, educational services, groups 8231, it seems kind of contradictory to
our intention by striking it as a conditional use to have inadvertently left it in number 10; otherwise, they
would never have needed to ask for it as a conditional use,
So those kind of clarifications 1 think would benefit everyone if we would just, you know, flush
them out and get through the discussion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand that. Let me just say to you, I have no objections
in general terms to modifications. I just thought if it's going to be something that is significant -- because
quite frankly, the way I see it, we had a CA and I think C.5, or C.3 and CA.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: UCA.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And those uses were, you know, potentially significant. All of the
things that might be objected to may have been something that could have been put in there legitimately.
And we -- you know, you were asked to change it and you've changed it.
And while you have no objection, I think it also precludes many things for the future that might
very well be desired to be manifested.
So I just thought it should be the regular -- if we're going to start talking about significant changes,
Page II
No~J 2~,lo~ 5
and I don't know how many changes we're talking about, but 1 got the impression, and maybe that's where
we need to be qualified, Are we talking about a lot of changes?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know, that's what we're trying to find out. If they're really
clarifications to the intent of the motion, then fine, If they're an elimination of a use that everybody else
thought was appropriate, I don't know the answer to that.
I do know the schools and colleges issue, we never intended to put a school and college there, and
ifit still shows up in one of the SIC codes, then maybe we need to add--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It is --
MR, YOV ANOVICH: -- except school and colleges.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's look at this as a continuation of the discussion of clarifications on
the consent agenda,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will concur.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if the county attorney sees it going beyond that, she needs to step up
and say so, and we'll continue under that manner.
Is that okay, Ms. Ashton?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, that's acceptable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead, Karen.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's in number 10 and number 26. Those --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with 10.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: -- are both the same groupings, though. They're all under
educational services. And they include the schools and colleges and libraries.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if Richard --
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: I have them all right here, if you want. I can pass these out, if you
want to see them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, you can pass them out if you'd like, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: All the code listings. I don't know how many --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I guess then that goes back to the intention of this commission's
striking C, conditional uses. If we thought those elements were not supposed to be conditional uses, then
rightfully so as a matter of clarification why are they even in the principal use allocation,
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess it's funny. Like for instance, 8231 is under educational-- the
grouping of educational. But what 8231 is, it's a library.
Now, the previous PUD had libraries listed as a use, an allowed use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We didn't intend to take out libraries that I know of.
Does anybody on this commission believe that was their intention?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Not 1.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, not at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay -- go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So could you not under 10 just put in parens, libraries? I mean, that's
what it is, Do it --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's fine.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- then there's no question.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. I understand. We're--
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's easy.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's easy.
Page 12
Nove~~e! 20, !ots 5
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now let's go to 26. How would -- now 26 is -- was added as a
conditional use, but it was in the principal uses. What was your intentions there? Because we struck the
conditional uses.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, maybe it's easier in just go through what -- 8243 -- we're on number
26, right? 8243 is data processing schools, which is computer operator training, computer repair training,
computer software training and data processing schools. That's what 8243 is.
8244 is business and secretarial schools, which is business college and schools not of college
grade, court reporting schools and secretarial schools. That's what 8244 is.
And then 8249 is vocational schools not elsewhere qualified. And we limited only to real estate,
banking and tax and restaurant operations within the center.
And then 8299 is school and educational services not elsewhere qualified, which -- classified, I'm
sorry. And we only have art schools, charm schools, cooking schools, diction, drama, modeling, public
speaking, language, and reading and tutoring. So we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody see--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hope that those limitations make it clear that we are not going to have a
college or a real -- or a school.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does any member of this commission see any conflict between those uses
as in number 26, after they've been now explained, versus the striking that we requested on C.2? Because
the striking of C.2 is a consent agenda item consideration.
And if there was a conflict, then I would believe under consent agenda we have the right to clarifY
the conflict.
Does any --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, I'm also going to suggest a slight change in the language in that
after 8249 you delete the comma and put a parenthetical, And the parenthetical would end after restaurant
operation.
And then for 8299, put a parenthetical after that, which would end at the end of the sentence
reading and tutoring.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which it does already, so --
MS, ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. And then you're going to have to add another parenthetical for
the whole thing, So between schools and colleges, it will be a double parenthetical. And then at the end of
the sentence it will be a double parenthetical. I think that reads a little more clearly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, thank you.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, and I noted that our good friend, Mr. Yovanovich, in his
recitation spoke of language schools. But on Ms. Caron's document, that's not bolded.
Did you want language schools, or is that -- maybe Ms. Homiak doesn't want language schools. I'm
not sure which applies.
I'm looking at her document, the one she passed out.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I was just highlighting what was on here.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak was highlighting in bold the ones that were culled out for
apparently on --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Except that he said language schools.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He said language schools?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He did, in his recitation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's there?
Page 13
NoJe~lr 2J.2ots 5
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's in the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I see what you're saying.
MR, YOV ANOVICH: She just -- I think she just missed highlighting that one. I think she was
higWighting the ones that were okay and she just --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So is that okay, language schools? Is that what we're saying?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is this okay the way it's written? Does it clarify your issue regarding a
college and all that?
You'll see in a lot of these centers, in a lot of shopping centers you'll see like a real estate school as
a tenant. And that's what we're trying to make sure we could still have those as tenants within the shopping
center. Because if you don't list those, then you cannot have a -- you couldn't have a real estate school as a
tenant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The objective here though is to get this board's opinion on whether or not
the striking out of the conditional use is consistent with the remaining principal uses based on the
discussion we just had on item 26.
Ms. Homiak, did you have any more concerns on item 26 after this discussion?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, just a clarification. On there, the first one that was crossed
out, I mean, what they're changing never listed the codes; is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So it was just crossing out schools and colleges.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you tell me what you're looking at? What is it --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's fine, if this is going to be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you looking at the C.2 on Page 6?
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Yes, accessory uses. That must have been added before, because
there was never any codes. It was just schools and colleges.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha.
COMMISSIONER HOM]AK: That was from before, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is there any -- from your perspective, since you brought it up, do you
now have any concerns after this discussion on number 26? In regards to the intention of this board's vote,
and your vote as well, last time versus what we now have today.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I guess not on the vote last time. But I didn't realize what all
the listings were, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, and that's--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- it's difficult for me to -- you know,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think where I'm trying to go is, even though you may not have been
clear on the SIC codes because you didn't have them at the time, does this discussion raise any more flags
for you, regardless?
Because we need to end this part of it and move on to the next one, and I'm trying to get a
consensus from the panel. I think the rest of the members are satisfied that--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's fine. I mean, this still goes to the BCC for the vote anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to the next one then, Do you have any -- what's your next
question?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Number 18, membership organizations.
Page 14
16 \ 1 A 5
November 20, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What did we address in our previous --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That list, you know, I -- it lists churches and -- but there is a--
under the accessory uses there, there are private clubs -- subject to provisions of section -- I don't even
know what section -- this is an old description, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any specific change from what we voted on last time to the
language in number 19, or concerns from 19 where that may be included in the SIC code to what we
discussed last time that you feel needs to be addressed?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, Ijust don't --I mean, that was a place where there could be a
church previously?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know what 18 -- what 7622, if it's in your document -- do you
have it, Wayne?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: 8661, it lists as allowed uses churches, convents, monasteries, religious
instruction provided by religious organizations, religious organizations, shrines, religious, and temples,
8661, those are listed as what's within that category.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, were any of those brought up in any discussion by this board at the
last meeting in which they needed to be addressed under that category? Does anybody recall?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1 do not recall any such conversation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak, is there a new issue you have with that, so we can determine
if it's something that goes beyond the consent agenda then, or do you have a specific reference that we need
to look at in regards to -- or we may have decided one of those is not -- or one or more may not be the right
thing for this location?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I just thought private clubs, that's not the same as a
membership organization?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could be a civic association, that's a membership organization.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
I don't see that as a point of discussion from last time, but it will go to the BCC, and you --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's crossed off there in the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, where is it crossed--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Accessory uses, C.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back. Number C?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Co3.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Private clubs, okay. And where is the private clubs in number 18, what
number would that be?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, it's listed as membership organizations. I don't know, that's
not the same?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Well, I shouldn't say no. Is there a definition?
What's the SIC definition is -- well, l'll tell you what, why don't we just go membership
organizations, parenthetical, excluding private clubs, end parenthetical, and that applies to the whole line.
And clarifies that line.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Is that acceptable to the applicant?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just trying -- I'm trying to think.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's pretty broad.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Does that -- the question I have is if I'm the Elks Club or someone else, am
I considered -- I mean, I'm a fraternal organization. And does the private -- I don't know, is there any kind
of conflict because the two, because you have to be a member of that fraternal organization,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but Richard --
Page 15
16\ 1 A 5
November 20, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ijust want to make sure I'm not doing anything silly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to the last meeting. Last meeting we agreed private clubs
should be eliminated as a conditional use. Basically the intention there was if you thought you needed that,
you'd come back through an amendment to the PUD.
Why would we have done that if you could have -- if you included it somewhere else under another
number that we didn't know? Our intention wasn't for that to happen.
So I don't know how you'd have an objection for the same wording being added to 18.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not saying I do, I'm just trying to think it through real quickly because I
hadn't thought of there could be a potential conflict. I'm just trying to think if there is one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That should have been done two weeks ago.
Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you know, you could have some of these weight loss center
type organizations, call themselves private clubs, and they have membership. Does that put you in conflict?
We're in a rehearing, right now as far as I understand,
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I mean, I understand. I think that -- I never thought we could have -- I
never thought that in any way someone would interpret that -- that use you just described as a quote, private
club.
So I just -- I just want to see, is there something I've got to worry about, I get a tenant who is a
weight loss center that someone could interpret to be a private club. Now that's --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, would you have a problem. One of these things in there is
called a social club, parenthesis, membership. Would you have a prob]emjust excluding that one? I think
when we thought private club, we meant something like that.
But these other associations are essentially nonprofits. That one could be the problem child. Do
you see it in there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under 8641?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Socia] clubs?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It says social club, comma, membership, Let's just -- we kill that
one, I think that might help us. Essentially I would interpret that to be -- could even be a bottle club or
something.
Actually, bars and restaurants owned and operated for members of might be another one to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It sounds okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, do you have a comment.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I'm starting to agree with Mr. Murray. We are starting to
rehear this thing. It just seems like it. I know we're excluding, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to continue in the manner we started and so you can -- we're
going to continue and we're going to finish this, out offairness to everybody involved.
So as far as getting to the end of it, under membership organizations, the suggestion is excluding
social club membership. And what is the other one that, Brad, you just brought up?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Is that SIC code 8641?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Bars and restaurants owned and operated for members. Are those
two things --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait. I mean, the Elks Club has a bar and a restaurant
within it, and 1 don't want to take that out. We never -- that's not related to the private club issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's set this one aside. Ms. Homiak, let's go through the rest of yours so
we know if we have -- how much we're going to be getting into. And we may just have to defer this whole
Page 16
16 \ 1 A 5
November 20, 2008
thing to another hearing or vote this is inconsistent or consistent with the consent agenda based on these
comments.
Go ahead, Ms. Homiak.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I also had listed number 23 and number 24, But 24 specifically,
because to me -- I mean, and these weren't -- I don't see any reference to them in the accessory uses either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so 23.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: So Ijust have a -- there's a lot of govemment agencies, entities that
could be there. And there's private -- there's also other -- private jails and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take them one at a time. Let's take them one at a time.
You said govemment agencies. What item in our previous discussion would have excluded
government agencies from this area? Anything that you can recall? I mean, anything you can reference?
Previously you've referenced actual locations in items C.I, two, three, four, five or six. Do you
have a similar reference for government now?
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that wasn't one we discussed before. So honestly, that can't be on
the table for a consent agenda item.
The next one that you went to is what after that?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I had number 23 and 24. 23 was professional offices. There's a lot
ofresearch -- it wasn't on there. It mean, this wasn't part of the other discussion, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then honestly, there's nothing we can handle during a consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This needs to be brought up to the commissioners, then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is your -- do you have any others.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think what it boils down to is, Richard, there are some things that
may be discussed with the Board of County Commissioners on this matter, which means you may be pulled
off the surnmary agenda.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will be because she's going to vote no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And my question is -- is that -- unless we take some ofthese uses out, is
your vote going to be a no?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure a no vote on the consent agenda gets you off summary when
you had a unanimous vote on the primary agenda,
MS, ASHTON.CICKO: Yeah, I would recommend--
MR. SCHMITT: That's what Ray and I were just talking about. I don't know how you -- it was a
unanimous vote during a regular advertised public hearing that you are essentially rendering a new vote if it
doesn't -- if it's not concurred on consent.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I would just suggest you put it on summary agenda, reflect the vote was,
what is it, nine, or seven to zero --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might be eight to one or something.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- and then you could make a note that during the discussion on the
consent item Ms. Homiak raised some questions, and then it would stay on the summary unless somebody
files an objection, wants to speak at the hearing.
MR. SCHMITT: Or one of the commissioners pull it.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Or one of the commissioners hear it.
Page 1 7
16 1 1 A 5
November 20, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I would like for the record. Ms. Homiak, if you decide to vote
no on the consent, I'd like you to articulate specifically why so that it's known that you're voting no because
it is different than what we had approved in our regular meeting or because you've come up with new
issues.
And I think that's an important factor in the consent review. So when we get to the vote, if you
could just articulate your reasons that would be helpful if you decide to vote --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: 1 really can't vote no then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can vote any way you want. But asking you to vote -- if you vote no,
you need to tell us -- I think you need to be on record for your reasons, so that if they're not consistent with
what the consent agenda is, that's -- the consent agenda is supposed to be to review what we said last time.
And if this meets everything we said last time, then we don't have a lot of latitude to say no for reasons
other than that, other than the fact that it may not meet our intentions last time.
So if it meets our intentions, it may be real hard on the consent agenda to say no to it. So that's why
I'm suggesting if anybody does say no, we need to get it recorded as to why.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So really, you've already voted on this, so you vote --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- yes again anyway,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as the vote that was taken two weeks ago is matched by the
changes that you see here today.
You're asking for things beyond those changes, and that really isn't an item for consent, so -- now
that we've gone through the discussion on your concerns, that's what it kind of boils down to.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I'm clear, all ofthis information here then, the only things that
were related to us as interests were the ones that were cited and not all of the supplementary information on
this document, correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 1 think she was using this as supporting various arguments, and the
only ones -- whatever she used --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: She only used --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- she used, right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- certain arguments. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not voting on this listing of the SIC Code, so--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So this is not going to a be part of the record?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it was passed out, but it's not part of the discussion or the motion
under the consent item.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So do we -- well, my question would be, and it's I think a valid
question, should it become or not become part of the record, I think it as being supplementary and advisory,
you know, informational rather, and that the record is as we had it. Otherwise, I do think that this may tend
to confuse the record --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- especially if it's pulled from consent.
MS. ASHTON.CICKO: Since it's been handed out to all the planning commission members, I
would suggest that a copy be given to Cherie'.
But Mr. Chair, I'm going to suggest after you've completed all your discussion on it, before you
make the vote, just to read into the record one more time, since this is not coming back again, what the
changes are.
Page 18
16 \ 1 A 5
November 20, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any -- Ms. Homiak, do you have any other changes or
corrections or concerns?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Shakes head negatively.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, let's go through this one more time to make sure you have
everything down that needed to be clarified from our previous motion,
Number 7, there was going to be some modifications to the way the numbers were written, so that
it's clear which applies to detective and private investigators.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, does staff understand? Whoever staff member is, are those changes
clear with them?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I believe we have all the changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, number 7, we'll just make it 7381, detective and private
investigators only, when --
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- we change that last grouping--
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- number 7.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it won't.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's 7381, and then we continue with the rest of the string, 7382 to 7384.
And prior to that, it's 7331 to 7380.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be 7381 (sic) to 7379. Then you'd have a standalone 73 -- is it 80
or 81, whatever one that is -- and that's where the parenthetical would come in. Then you'd continue after
that one to the end, 7384. So it contains all the numbers, but you're claritying a use of one number.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so you did want everything in that grouping.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Except we were limiting just that one SIC Code.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I'm sorry, that was my misunderstanding.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 10, you're going to add a parenthetical that indicates the group's
8231 is libraries.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 15, you're going to add a parenthetical and break up the numbers
so that 5735 is clarified with the same language that we have in number 31.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And number 18, membership organizations. The intention there
was no private clubs,
Did we ever come back to -- now that we've gone through the remainder of the issues, did we ever
come back to a discussion on 18 as far as do we want to clarity it any further. Anybody?
COMMISSIONER CARON: We took out social club memberships, and that was it, right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I believe.
Richard? We're going to do an exception -- after the word membership organization will be
excluding social club memberships?
Page 19
16\ 1 A5
November 20, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think that is under 8641, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So in 8641 we would exclude social clubs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Are you deleting the SIC Code or are you just going to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we're leaving the 8641 in, but we're just -- the only thing in that SIC
Code that we can't have is social clubs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And number 20, we're going to do an exception -- we're going to add some
exceptions to 5999 for gravestones and sales barns.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 26, we're adding a series of parent he ticals and deleting one
comma.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe that's all. Does that meet with what everybody else believes
we discussed?
Okay, is there a motion to recommend approval with the changes noted for the consent agenda
item PUDA-2008-AR-13494?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer.
Is there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I have a discussion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm really concerned about this whole procedure we did today.
We came up with the consent agenda to resolve things, make things easier. I think what happened today
wasn't fair to the petitioner or anyone else. He doesn't have his client here, we put him on the dime, asking
him to make decisions that he had no plan of doing.
I just hope we're not starting a precedence here that this is going to happen over and over again, I
don't know how to prevent it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, and Bob, I respect what you just said, but I think that any time
we have to have a discussion to clarifY things, and we have gone through and made changes because the
clarifications were obviously needed, that's a good thing. And if it took all day, I'd still say it was a good
thing.
So I understand your frustration, but at the same time, we're here to make sure everything is
explicitly clear. And the more time it takes, that's just the way it has to be.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, in may speak?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: May I speak?
I just caution you to try to limit your discussion to the, you know, original hearing.
However, Ms. Homiak did raise some issues that appeared to be inconsistent in the ordinance, so I
think that you did achieve a benefit if you should approve this item.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you see anything in the resuIting motion that is inconsistent then with
our regular hearing?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: From my recollection and with the changes that you've made today, I
believe it is consistent.
Page 20
161 1 J>\5
November 20, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So do I, and that's why I think it was -- for that reason, I feel that it worked
out.
Ms. Homiak, then Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And I can assure you this won't -- if I had had the information that I
was supposed to have in the first place, 1 would have had this discussion to begin with.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, that's fine. I'm not picking on you in particular. I'mjust
saying what we have procedures, and I think what we did was unfair to the petitioner, and I don't want to
create a precedence that we rehear every issue at the consent agenda item.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, we didn't rehear this issue.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We clarified things for the record. And to me it's to the petitioner's benefit,
because if it doesn't get clarified here, it could get a lot .- between now and the time it gets to the BCC, it
could be much more difficult.
Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where I have my little difficulty comes from the fact that we sit
here and we hear evidence. People are sworn in, they testity, we get information. We weigh that
information, we make a determination.
If we ourselves start introducing modifications absent the petitioner, absent the public, we are now
moditying the process of the hearing, That's my problem.
I realize that someone might say we're stretching an issue, but that's an issue that I have, and that's
where I'm coming from, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, just so that we don't go forward with something that isn't
correct, is there anything in the discussion in the motion and clarifications that are on record that you feel
are inconsistent with our intentions during the other hearing?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, 1 could say that the fact that a social club is being denied
when it could very well have been there is a change that who's to say -- who on this board is to say that a
social club shouldn't exist there when we didn't have members of the public making that objection?
I can live with the fact that we can vote for it as we've concluded it, but if you ask me for that
example, that's the one I would give you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think we've talked about this one enough.
All those in favor of the motion, signity by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
Page 21
16 I 1 A- 5
November 20,2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, this is for you.
Remember last time we discussed how important it is to get the SIC codes to the members? The
report Karen did is excellent. It's the report that was probably missing. If we're having trouble with it,
imagine what the public's having.
So somehow we have to come up with a way where you can trigger a download of all the SIC
codes so that this conversation we had today we would have had at the hearing where it really probably
belonged.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows.
I've been working on some options that we could implement to require the application to include a
summary of the SIC codes and their application. So when it's first submitted to the general public, when
they get ahold of these rezoning requests, we'll have a summary of all of these SIC codes that are supplied
by the applicant.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Karen did an excellent job. I mean --
MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. I think this whole process was to fulfill the intent of the summary
agenda, which is to make sure the Board of Collier County Commission's (sic) action is correctly translated
to the Board of County Commissioners.
So if we have to spend whatever time it takes to make sure that motion was adequately translated
into the documents that get sent to the board, 1 think it's well worth the time spent.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern I have is that things can get buried in the SIC
number, and since it's proven it can confuse planning commissions, it can certainly confuse the public, and
that's not good.
MR. BELLOWS: No, And that's one reason we implemented the neighborhood information
meeting is to help explain all these uses.
And my direction to staff is to make sure that they just -- the applicants just don't say general
commercial uses. You know, go into details what kinds of commercial uses are they talking about. Are they
C-1 through C- 3 uses, or what's being specially eliminated from them. The more those type of discussion
occurs at the neighborhood information meeting, the better the public can comment on it.
Item #8C
REVIEW AND CONSIDER A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-
17, KNOWN AS COLLIER COUNTY NOISE ORDINANCE
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item on the consent agenda is Collier County Noise Ordinance. And
this is the one we've been beating around for 18 months. We're finally on consent with it.
Does anybody have any clarifications need to the consent item for approval of the Collier County
Noise Ordinance?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to recommend approval--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on consent?
Mr, Murray made the motion. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
All in favor, signifY by saying aye.
Page 22
16 \ 1;1 ~
November 20,2008
r.
...
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
And it's too bad, Jeff, you didn't have a challenge here today, sorry.
MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Goodjob. You finally got us through it.
CHARlMAN STRAIN: Okay, the first and only advertised public hearing.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR, SCHMITT: Just for clarification, the consent also includes the motion that was made last time
in regards to the outdoor seating ordinance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody see it any differently? That was one motion, so I on --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No.
Item #9B
PETITION: PUDA-2007-AR-11546, LONGSHORE LAKE FOUNDATION, INC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next petition up, we can only hope it isn't a shopping center.
Petition PUDA-2007-AR-11546, Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc., to allow an off-premise sign for
Saturnia Falls, a/k/a Terafina PUD. It's on the northwest corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and
Logan Bou]evard.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court
reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Any disclosures on the part of planning commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I spoke with Mr. Duane for a while on the phone the other day concerning
matters on this, and they'll probably be brought up here again today.
So with that in mind, let's move forward with petitioner's presentation.
MR. DUANE: Good morning. For the record, my name is Robert Duane, from Hole-Montes. I
have Kevin Rattery here with me this morning, He is the senior vice president of G.L. Homes. I'm
representing him today.
Page 23
16\ 1 A 5
November 20, 2008
I also have Bill Bates, who is the president of the Longshore Lakes Foundation that is also a
co-party to this petition and prepared to speak on behalf of it in favor of it.
Just to briefly introduce the petition. It is located, as you can see on the aerial photo, at the
intersection of what will be the extension of Oakes Boulevard and Immoka]ee Road on this corner right
here. It is for an ofi~premise sign approximately 270 square feet in area for Saturnia Falls, which is a PUD
which is located approximately one mile north oflmmokalee Road on the east side. It comprises
approximately a square mile, and it is approved for 850 dwelling units. And it is anticipated to undergo
development in the near future.
The request is also to allow the sign in the event that a lease agreement between the developer of
Terafina or Saturnia Falls chooses or the Longshore Lakes Foundation chooses not to extend the lease
agreement, it has the ability, based on the PUD provisions we're bringing before you today, that it could
also be allowed to be used as a signage for Longshore Lakes.
Before I go into any further detail or entertain anymore questions today, I received a phone call
yesterday from Nancy Gundlach who raised some issues that had resulted either at the staff]evel or based
on her conversations with certain planning commissioners as to whether certain requirements previously
had or had not been fulfilled in Longshore Lakes developmental history, some of which those requirements
are outlined in the PUD ordinance that's before you that were actually added by staff when it was
determined that there were some oversights made in the adoption of the ordinance in 1993.
In could have some input from the Chair Person or from the diocese (sic) as to what those issues
may be, I think I have a general understanding of what they are.
I mayor may not be prepared to be able to address those issues today. And if that turns out to be
the case, I may have to continue this hearing for a date certain, depending upon the extent of those issues
and what information I either do or do not have able today.
So if we could articulate those on the record, we could make a determination whether we're
prepared to address them or whether we're prepared to come back after we obtain more information.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy and 1 received an e-mail last night to clarify some of the additions
that the traffic -- transportation department wanted to add that they believed were missing from a prior
PUD. And they most likely were, no doubt on that issue.
My only concern at the time was if we add these in, is this going to trigger something that
Longshore Lakes can't do? One of them in particular was real concerning is because they're a built-out
community, how do you add an access point now if it was supposed to been done years ago and you don't
have a way to do it?
And so I wanted to make sure that by putting this back in, especially when the community was
taken over by the homeowners since the original PUD and they may not have had the benefit of this
information because it was missing on record, that now they're not going to be in a Catch-22 with a code
enforcement action saying, you've got to put this road in; I don't care how you do it, you've got to change
your PUD or put this access point in.
So I went back to staff and I said, how -- you know, that's fine, I understand your concern, it was
missed. But even though it was missed, now that the project's built out, can they still comply with these
conditions?
And I got this, and I'll read it to you. It was an e-mail I got last night from staff:
Commissioner Strain, with reference to the application being heard before the planning
commission on Thursday, staff would like to confirm that the traffic signal commitment listed in 522 of the
PUD requirements was satisfied after project review was completed.
Well, that takes care of the first underlined in number two.
Page 24
16\ 1 A
November 20,2008
r:.
~
The second one: Staffwou]d like also to confirm that the emergency access discussed in 523 of the
PUD commitments would only be required and when Logan Boulevard extension is completed.
Now, I don't know, what I'm intending to find out today is if Logan Bou]evard is completed, can
they get their road to connect to Logan? And I'm sure one of the aerials will show us that that can be done,
and if so, then that then clarifies the concern. Because the way this was written, it wasn't just Logan, it was
either Logan or the shopping center, and I'm not sure that the access was to the shopping center.
The last one was: As a final note, transportation staffhas sought that the second page of the
transportation commitments be reinserted into the document, as this page was somehow omitted during the
most recent previous amendment of the PUD.
So that's the questions, Mr. Duane, and that's the answers, and I think that does help everybody for
clarification.
Mr. Rattery?
MR. RATTER Y: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kevin Rattery with G.L. Homes.
And the Chair brought up that -- the essence of what the issue is, and that is we as G.L. Homes did
a PUD modification with the assistance of Longshore Lake relative to an off-premise sign, which was the
petition that's before you this morning.
Through that process, questions were raised relative to obligations of the original PUD and
whether or not those were originally approved.
Obviously we weren't in a position to know that information as of yesterday. I think actually some
of the questions that were raised this morning we actually do have answers to. But I think in fairness to
Longshore Lake and knowing whether or not they have obligations which mayor may not affect them in
the future, we need time to go back, research that information with them and make sure that that
information is clearly brought forward and on the record for your consideration.
So rather than saying we may want a continuance, I think we do actually want the continuance so
that we can get the record straight.
But let me go ahead, at least try to address as many of those as I can so that at least it's part of your
thinking process, or if it's the Chair's wish, we'll go back, research it, provide that information, and then
we'll just do this again at the next hearing. So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather see the second hearing more productive. And so let's go through
any concerns we have, so when you come back you can address those concerns.
And just by the way, when most of this stuff came up, I would have discussed it with Mr. Duane
ahead of time. At the time he and I talked, it was early I think Tuesday morning. And I went through this
before my staff morning. Tuesday night is when I started pulling records. So otherwise you would have had
a little more heads up than just one --
MR. RATTERY: Right. And it's no problem. And obviously this project is still waiting on the
Army Corps permit appeal to get resolved, so it's not something that we're coming out of the ground with
immediately. We have the time to do this.
I'll speak on behalf of the Logan Boulevard issue, because that was a question that was raised, and
give a little bit of a history lesson relative to Logan Boulevard,
There are two projects which have obligations associated with the construction of Logan
Boulevard north ofImmokalee. That is, the Satumia Falls, a/kIa Terafina project that is the G.L. Homes
project; and the property immediately to the north of that which is known as the Parklands Ronto project.
The G.L. project, Terafina, has a development order condition to extend Logan north ITom its
present terminis at Immokalee up to our project entry. That is for the sole purpose of providing access to
the PUD.
The second project, Parklands Ronto, has the obligation to extend Logan north ITom its present
Page 25
16 1 ifl It 5
November 20, 2008
terminis at Immokalee, all the way up to Bonita Beach Boulevard -- or Road. I can't remember which one it
is, they confuse me every now and then,
So both projects have some obligation relative to the construction of the road, and one project has
the obligation for its entirety.
The question comes in, who's going to come first, okay. And the realty of it is, when Ronto came
forward with their DR! modification and their extension, they committed to build that road all the way up
to Bonita Beach, and then G.L. Homes in turn entered into agreements with Olde Cypress, Quail Creek and
the Longshore Lake Foundation relative to landscape and wall improvements associated with that.
Obviously in this economic climate, the Ronto project has not gone forward. So we're in the
process now of trying to work out how we're going to deal with what happens if G.L. Homes has to then
step up and build that road up to our entry relative to those private agreements.
The point is that either project has to have the road buiIt up to their entry to be able to get access.
So one way or the other the road's going to be buiIt relative to one of those projects. The question is who's
going to build it, who's paying it. Those are not issues I think that are germane to the sign request, but it's
certainly germane to your knowledge and understanding of what's going on.
As part of our agreement with Longshore Lake, we included a provision that when Immokalee was
built, there would be the opportunity for them to request a connection of their community to Logan
Boulevard. Either along their east property line, they would decide where they wanted it and if they wanted
it at all, okay.
So that is something that's at least covered in the agreement that the design would handle the ability
of that community to have a direct connection to that future road.
Re]ative to the shopping center, the interconnect was an obligation for the residential community of
Longshore to interconnect to the shopping center. That shopping center subsequently was done as
residential, no longer a shopping center. So that interconnect point somewhat became moot, because the
point was to provide interconnection from residential to the commercial. That commercial's no longer
there. So that issue's that.
Relative to the signalization, Mr. Bates just informed me this morning that they had just cut a
check for 27,500 to Collier County some months ago, which was their proportionate share of their
obligation relative to the signalization.
So I think the point is we're trying to address these issues so that when we come back, we're talking
about the sign. Because that's really the nature ofthe request that was submitted. Let's get those issues done,
we'll get documentation from Longshore, the correspondence, we'll provide that to staff so it's part of your
backup material. We'll do a little more research on the interconnect, because obviously the change from
commercial to residential kind of made that interconnect to the south a moot point. But I'm just trying to get
that out there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your point's well taken that this is a sign variance request. And the
problem that opened it up a little bit more, and certainly not to the whole PUD, but when staff added
language that for some reason or another wasn't there before, I wasn't concerned about the language as far
as staff telling us it needed to be there, I'm sure it did. I was more concerned about the HOA at Longshore
Lakes, not knowing that language existed, now having it put upon them and not being able to meet the
conditions of that.
So that's why it is kind of an issue that we have to resolve to make sure we're not putting a burden
on the HOA that the developer should have been obligated to, but somehow a page dropped out of his
document and he wasn't.
MR. RATTERY: And that was the exact conversation that Mr. Bates and I had yesterday, that we
need to make sure we understand what obligations mayor may not be placed upon them that they have not
Page 26
161'IA5
November 20, 2008
__ did not have knowledge that they needed to do, and make sure that that's covered adequately before we
proceed forward with this petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Bob, did you have anymore of your presentation you wanted to get into, or how did you want to
move forward?
MR. DUANE: No, we'll come back, as Mr. Rattery indicated, and address these issues and then
discuss the merits of the petition.
Are there any other ones that we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're going to have plenty of questions, yes. So I think -- and
then there is --
MR. DUANE: Regarding Longshore Lake.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- going to be some language cleanup that's needed. And I think we even
need more clarifications on a couple other issues that are part and parcel to this whole change of stuff going
on. But let's get them all on the table right -- and we'll go through it.
So let's start with the presenter. And Mr. Koltlat, you love signs, so why don't we start with you.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Why do we have to combine these three traffic issues with a
petition for a sign variance?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't -- it's not that we have to combine them. They were inadvertently
not recorded with the original PUD. When this sign variance was reviewed against the original PUD,
transportation staff noticed that these things hadn't gotten in there, although on some record they were, and
it was proven apparently that they should have been in there. So trying to keep the record clean, these
things had to get added back in.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But that's a scrivener's error. Aren't there other ways to correct
that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess I'd turn to Heidi for that
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I mean, here we're taking a petition for a sign -- they don't call it a
variance, but it's basically varying from the LDC, so it is a variance to me,
But in addition to that, now they're trying to lump in there three issues relative to a scrivener's error
that occurred in the transportation area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi?
MS, ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, it would be a scrivener's error, but I think there is a time etliciency
by addressing these issues now through this process, since there may be an issue that the homeowners
association is not able to comply with the requirements.
So I'd suggest we vet it here so that the board can receive the recommendation from the planning
commission, unless you as a group decide to proceed otherwise.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, on that same issue?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, it is on this.
Heidi, what if we decline the sign variance, we voted this down. Would those scrivener errors be
introduced, or -- in other words, if we vote no for this sign, then they don't get into the record then; is that
right?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think that that would be an issue that we would have to follow up on if
it's .. if you vote not to proceed with the PUD amendment request.
Staff is alerted to the issues, so it's a transportation issue, and they I believe would push it forward
if they deemed that appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's going to be a lot more weight put on this -- or could be by
some of us, a lot more weight put on a sign request change to a PUD that includes needed elements that
Page 27
161 1 It 5
November 20, 2008
were missing from the original text, versus whether it was a standalone request or not. Plus it opens it up to
a lot of discussion that the applicant really may not need to get into.
Is there -- and so I guess Brad's question is real pertinent. This a change to a PUD. If we vote 4-1,
do we -- are we obligated for the other or can they be mixed and matched? And ifthey can't be, then maybe
we need to separate them out before it comes back so that we don't have a conflict like that.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Like I said, I think there is some time efficiency to address it, find out
whether it's something that they can do at this time. If you want to separate out and recommend that--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, we'll work with the issues --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The scrivener's error would have to be advertised separately, if it's pushed
forward. So you're taking an ordinance twice back to the board, so I do think there would be some time
efficiency. But I think that it appears that you're willing to discuss some of the merits of this at this time,
and that's certainly appropriate if you decide to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then Brad, does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It does, but can we start talking about the sign?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, again, I want Mr. Koltlat to proceed first and then Mr. Schiffer.
Did you have some specifics now about the sign request for the PUD amendment?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, let me ask you, are we going to vote on the sign today or are
they going to continue it as they've asked to do?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we're trying to do is get all the issues on the table. Most likely
it will be continued and they'll come back with a more succinct addressing of all those issues so that when
we get it next time it will have all of our concerns hopefully addressed, depending on whatever they are.
So it most likely will come back, Tor. We just need to -- right now we're going through an exercise
to tell them where are concerns are so they have a chance to clean it up if need be before it comes back.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, there were a couple issues that were raised, and staff will work with
the association and Mr, Rattery and Mr. Duane to determine whether those can be met or not and whether
they should be placed in the ordinance.
So you've raised the issue. You don't need to be so concerned with the transportation issue and you
can look at the merits of the sign, if you desire.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mr. Kolflat, did you want to address--
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Are we going to have a submittal by the petitioner describing the
sign, or are we going to have the staff report or have public hearing? Are these going to try to jump over all
these, or are these going to come before we discuss it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant suggested that we air our concerns with them now. And
they volunteered to come back with a granting of a continuance, and we can provide them then with a
review of the revised plan they would bring back to us based on our comments today.
If they want to make a presentation of the sign to benefit any clarification that we may need in
order to make comments, that might be something you should consider doing now. Otherwise our
comments, some of them may be held until you come back.
MR. RATTERY: Yeah, it's kind ofa weird thought process going through my head,
What we were hoping to do is make sure that the issues unrelated to the sign request, we
understand from this board and from staff what they are so that we've got a comprehensive list that we can
go back to our plus, minuses, make sure we get all that information so it's part of the record. So that when
the sign petition comes back, which was the petition that was filed, we're here to discuss the sign and we
don't get caught up in all this other conversation about an interconnect or a buffer or an extension of a road.
We're certainly prepared to make the presentation on the sign, but I think in all fairness to
Longshore, if some of these things are expenses to them that they were not aware would be part of this
Page 28
161 1 A 5
November 20, 2008
request, we would have to go back and make sure that we've structured that properly,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fair enough.
So then Mr. Kolflat, in response to your question, I think what we ought to do is focus on anything
that is non sign orientated today, get that on the table so they can fix that up and then come back, then we'll
be focused mostly on the sign.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I have a question ofthe staff report.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go right ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Nancy, there is a large monument type sign there going into Olde
Cypress, which is very close to this entranceway where the new sign is proposed, but it's not discussed in
your report.
Can you make any comments on that, on the proliferation of signs so close together of that size?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach,
Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review.
And Commissioner, yes, there is a sign. And I do have a little graphic here -- or there it is. It's
across the street from the proposed location of the Saturnia Falls sign. And it's for the Olde Cypress PUD,
which is directly east of Longshore Lakes,
So both signs would be at the intersection of Olde Cypress Boulevard and Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, for ground signs and pole signs, there's a limitation of at
least 1,000 feet distance between the two.
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. The code does -- it does contemplate a separation of 1,000 feet
between signage. And the purpose of that and intent of the sign code is to avoid a proliferation of signage.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And this does not meet that 1,000 foot limitation.
MS, GUNDLACH: No, these two signs would be closer together than 1,000 feet.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Right.
Now, also in reading your report, as I understand it the staff denies all aspects of this sign relative
to the area of it, the height of it and so forth; is that correct?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. The proposed sign for Satumia Falls that you see there is larger than
what would be prescribed by our sign code.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's all the questions 1 had at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And mine is really to Bob.
Bob, the drawings you're showing in the one that was on the screen prior to this, there's something
that you're really misrepresenting. This thing is setting on a five-foot hill off of grade. That drawing gives
the illusion it's sitting on a -- maybe an eight-inch hill.
So when you come back, would you change all of the documents that we have, show the proper
relationship to the hill? Because height is an issue. You're five feet above grade with the bottom of the sign.
MR. RATTERY: It's the drawing. He's correct.
MR. DUANE: Yeah, it's the drawing.
And I think all the elevational data was included as justification for the deviation. The adjacent that
had the height of the berm area, the height of the road, the difference between the eight feet that was
allowed by the ordinance and I believe the 13 and a half feet or so that we are requesting its final --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is is draw all of the --
MR. DUANE: But we'll revise the drawing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- elevations --
MR. RA TTERY: I understand, And you're correct, the color drawing rendering doesn't show it
sitting on a hill. The backup data clearly does show the hill that's there on the mound. We'll correct that.
Page 29
161 1 ~
November 20, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it only shows it in plan, it never shows iiin,e]ev,ation. Which
could cause a misconception as to how tall this thing really is. 'i . f ii, /1/ !
j l' 1./. I
MR. RATTERY: Understood. Thank you. . I
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I believe mine was for Nancy, and it had to do with that Olde
Cypress sign. I was wondering the size of the print, the -- I guess it says OIde Cypress. I'm just wondering if
the next time around if we could have more information about that Olde Cypress sign that -- about the
signage. I know it's a monument, but I was concerned more about the lettering.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, we can do that.
MR. WOLFLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, while you're up there, I had a couple issues that I want to follow up
with you.
The addition to the Longshore Lakes Homeowners Association's obligations, basically because
they're assuming the developer's position, with number four, a minimum IS-foot landscape buffer shall be
required between the loop road and Valewood Drive where the two are parallel and adjacent.
I went through the recorded plat. There is no recorded landscape buffer easement there.
Now, if we put this in here, they've got to have one. So somehow that has to be addressed or
refined. So I'd like an explanation when this comes back as to how that can be addressed so that
everybody's fairly protected.
Now, the landscaping may be there, it just may not be in the landscape buffer easement, and that
may just be a private instrument that's got to be recorded to make that happen.
There is a IS-foot DE and UE there, but you can't necessarily put landscape buffers on the top of
UE's. And drainage easement's got to flow, which prevents landscaping in a lot of ways from being there.
So someone needs to take a look at that and make sure we're not triggering something for
Longshore Lakes that now becomes even a bigger problem for them.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had one other, and that is the corner. The corner is a residentially zoned
area with an open space drainage easement and landscape designation on the plat.
They want to put a monument there, which I think would probably fit within that, but I notice that
the line on the monument, and you can see it on this plan here, that dark line that goes across diagonally,
that doesn't match the line on the plat where that tract is.
And I don't know what the intention of that dark line is. And especially if you look at the language
in the lease.
And they've got a chain link fence in this area with two buildings. I don't know how those all got
there when the area is a -- on the plat is designated as open space landscaping and DE. Which means I
looked in the PUD and there were no standards for the placement of these buildings. I'm not sure what
criteria was used to allow that.
And that's the line, Ray, I was wondering about, what's that mean on this plan? Because it's
inconsistent with the plat. And there certainly may be a separate instrument recorded. And ifthere is, that's
fine. I just want to get it on record and get it cleaned up.
So somehow between now and whenever this can come back, I think it would do well for
everybody involved to get these questions answered so we're not triggering something negative
unintentionally to people, so --
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, Commissioner.
Page 30
No~e~b~r 2J200~S
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions or concerns?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, I guess there was a request for a continuance by the applicant. I
think we need a motion to -- yes, sir?
MR. RATIERY: Mr. Chair, if! could request that it be 60 days so that we have enough time to get
back, get that information, get it in your backup, and then we just do a time certain to your 60-day,
whatever your January hearing would be. And if that's okay with staff, if it's okay with you, that's what--
just to give everybody adequate time to get all the correct information.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean a date certain. Because we try not to do time certains.
MR. RATTERY: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ray.
Ray, do you have any problem with 60 days, or do you want to just leave it -- can we go indefinite
and that way it's whenever they get the information?
MR. BELLOWS: That probably would make more sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with you?
MR. RATTER Y: Does that re-kick in --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could come earlier or later, whenever you get a--
MR. RATTERY: The advertising side of this is, you know, $5,000 a pop. And 1 know that because
I've been cutting the checks. And so I wanted to make sure that it was a time certain so that we didn't kick
back into a readvertisement obligation that was going to --
MR. BELLOWS: It would be more than five weeks.
MR. SCHMITT: Five weeks it's going to have to be readvertised.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so you don't have 60 days, you have.
MR. RATTER Y: Okay, well, then can we do a continuance for 30 days and if we're not ready we
do another continuance at the next --I'm sorry to ask that of you. I know it's kind of a pain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think that's a problem.
Anybody have a problem with in that?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, not at all.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No.
MR. RATTERY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
At the request of the applicant, we'll seek a motion to recommend a continuance for up to 30 days.
Is there such a --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who said --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley.
Mr. Koltlat, are you seconding that motion?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Absolutely, if I can't first it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he jumped to the mic.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's fine. If you'd like to go first, I will second.
MR. SCHMITT: For planning purposes, you're talking December 18th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schmitt, the motion has been made to extend a continuance for
up to 30 days.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So whenever that can happen within the 30 days, ifit can, that's fine.
Page 31
161 1 ~S
November 20, 2008
Any discussion?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
MR. RATTERY: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, we appreciate it.
And that gets us through a very lengthy and intense discussion today.
Item #10
OLD BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll move into old business, which none is listed. Anybody have
anything?
(No response.)
Item #1 I
NEW BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: New business?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I think --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- in case it was missed, if I'm not mistaken, the County
Commissioners approved mileage refund up to 20 miles round trip. I thought for Mr. Midney that would be
a good thing,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. That's a very good thing. That's excellent. I didn't know they
approved that. I'm glad they did.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 951 study, is that still going to happen on the day scheduled?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. There's no date change to that. And I'm sorry, I should have brought
that up. That was a date in December, wasn't it?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, I'm going to be missing that, unfortunately.
Is there any way we could -- I'd be curious about it, but --
Page 32
----,.._._--,.~.._~-"'-------~..._,--"~_..
16 i 1 PrS
November 20, 2008
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What is that date?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since it is a presentation, 1 think I can watch the reruns, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and honestly, it's--
COMMISSIONER CARON: The 9th of December.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So come our next meeting, I would have asked for attendance on that one,
but it is the 9th of December we have the 951 horizon study.
And I've reviewed the document. It's pretty straightforward, so I'm not sure how much time we're
going to need for that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I can watch the rerun of the presentation.
MR. SCHMITT: I'd recommend, yeah, if you can. Because the contractor who -- Interactive
Growth Model, which is a pretty interesting demonstration, it's certainly worth seeing that and
understanding how that -- the model works and how that's going to be used to evaluate the impacts of
growth east of951.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're talking about east of951, I'll share a little observation I made
the other day watching the BCC, part of it.
An issue came up by a member of the public who was charged about $6,000 in impact fees way out
in Golden Gate Estates off of Della Road. And the guy came forward and he says, why would I be charged
impact fees, there's no water and sewer out there,
And of course the commissioners asked that same question. And the utility department got up there
and carefully explained that because the commission approved the water and sewer plan for the future that
showed the potentia] of that area having water and sewer in it, that gave them the right for 10 years to
charge impact fees.
MR. SCHMITT: Can 1 correct? It's the approved waterlsewer district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The approved waterlsewer district.
MR. SCHMITT: The district -- the boundaries include that area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but those boundaries were approved by a submission of the utility
department in review of the -- what was it, ClE or one of those --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- plans? Right.
And so when the utility department was asked what can we do about this, they said, well, basically
nothing. F]orida statute allows us to charge these fees, even though we now know by our new plan we
probably won't ever do this for 20 years. And that was specifically pointed out at the meeting.
Now, what failed to be told to the Board of County Commissioners is that they could change the
boundaries of that waterlsewer district. And we will have that opportunity I believe in January and February
when we review the waterlsewer master plan, won't we?
MR. SCHMITT: I don't know if the boundary will be part of that master plan. It will be included in
it, but whether a recommendation to change those boundaries is part ofthat master plan -- I would assume
so. I can't answer for --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ijust think it's pretty interesting that we have a -- something slid
through the system like that with that potential charge sitting in the background and everybody having to
pay it, and now with the latest statistics shown that we're not even going to possibly do that for even 20
years or 15 years, that people are still going to be charged those fees so they can sit somewhere, by the way,
earning interest that the people don't get paid back. Because it was stated on the record, they only get their
principal back.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. After 10 years it's mandatory if the waterlsewer utilities aren't run
Page 33
161 lA-S
November 20, 2008
to that element or portion of the district, then the impact fees are returned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And they've been paying on their mortgages that additional 6,000
for a part of their 30-year or 20-year or IS-year mortgage.
So that's about as blatantly unfair as anything I've seen. And Ijust wanted to make this commission
aware of it so the next time these plans come through and we think they're all glossy and nice and we pass
them on, and I'm as guilty as anybody, maybe we ought to really take a look at what ramifications some of
these we don't expect may have. So -- Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What happens if they sell their house within that 10-year period?
MR. SCHMITT: The impact fees run with the land, they stay with the land. It's part of the value of
the property.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So in built it and sold it, the purchasers would get the check.
MR. SCHMITT: The next -- the purchaser who owns that home after 10 years -- after the 10-year
period, that money is returned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But why pay 10 years worth of interest on it and the initial money
out on a system that isn't even going to be there within the 10-year period and it's now known it's not going
to be by the recent AUlR that was adopted. It's just absurd.
MR. SCHMITT: I'm not answering that question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish CBIA in some ways was stronger so they could take a look at some
of this stuff.
Item #12
PUBLIC COMMENT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But anyway, public comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's none here, so we will assume there's no public comment.
Motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion make by Mr. Wolfley, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're done. Thank you all.
*****
Page 34
16! 1 k5
November 20,2008
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Chair at 10:00 a.m,
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNIf'!G COM~.,. SS10N
~.;I I U I. \ I
k C"-vLt I _/'\j,\,l~\..,;,
Mark Str 'n, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on I. 1')' L'~
corrected
as presented
/
or as
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 35
'..fa J)r/~
'''''dS~
Henning
Coyle TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
Coletta ~.~ COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
C Nap]es, F]orida, December 4, 2008
161 1 -16
December 4,2008
RECEIVED
JAN 2 1 2009
Board of County Commissioners
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County
of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Govemment Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Karen Homiak
Donna Reed-Caron (Excused)
Tor Koltlat
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David J. Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review
Thomas Eastman, Real Properly Director, School District
MiSC Corres:
Date:
Item#'
:oples to
Page I
161 1 kS
Oeeember 4, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the December 4th meeting of the
Collier County Planning Commission.
If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If the secretary will please take the roll ca]1.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here,
COMMISSIONER V]GLIOTTI: Mr. Ko]flat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Present.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Donna Caron's absent.
Commissioner Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Vigliotti's present.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER V]GLIOTTI: And Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Ms. Caron did notify me that she wouldn't be here today, so it's an excused absence.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
Addenda to the agenda. We have two changes.
If you are here today for the Heavenly PUD in Pine Ridge, that one is not going to be heard. There
was an advertising problem and it's being continued to January 15th. So if you're here for Heavenly PUD in
Pine Ridge, we're going to be hearing that on January 15th, assuming everything else goes well. But it will
not be heard today.
We have an item under the agenda that is under new business, 11,A. It's just a scheduling item that
is going to be moved up first on the list after chairman's report. So we'll get into that a little bit earlier, but
that won't take too long.
Now I want to go into Planning Commission absences --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
Page 2
161 1 *?
December 4, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to add a new business. And what it is, it's the code
surrounding boat dock extensions. I'd like a little conversation on that. Just the code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you have -- that's fine. I mean, I'll add it there, but you've made your
statements on that many times before. If -- they're different than what they are (sic) before? I know you
don't like the code because you think it's a givcn and yada, yada, yada, and that's fine.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's see. Maybe it's a fast conversation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be -- that will be I I.A there, II.B, whatever we want to call it.
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
Planning Commission absences. We have two meetings coming up. One is December 9th. It's a
special meeting for the review of the East of951 Study.
Does everybody know ifthey're going to be able to not make that or make it?
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: (Shakes head negatively.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney won't make it.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will not.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Tuesday mornings I have a diabetic support group that has a large
turnout --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What's the date on that?
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: -- and I'm the only one who can do it. So Tuesday mornings are
always going to be bad for me.
However, I will make written comments about that report, because some of it pertains to
Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many people are in your group?
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: About 30.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll fit in here.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Good idea. They probably have a lot of diabetics in this room, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A little govemment interaction, you never know.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Just for the record, Mark, what time is that meeting?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meeting is at 8:30, on Tuesday morning, the 9th of December in this room.
And I honestly think we'll probably be able to get through it rather quickly. It's pretty
straightforward. But at least it will start at that time.
The other item we have is our regular second December meeting, which is December 18th, I
believe. Is anybody not going to be here for that meeting?
(No response.)
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 7, 2008 LDC MEETING; OCTOBER 16,2008 REGULAR
MEETING; OCTOBER 22, 2008 AUIR MEETING
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Page 3
16 I 1 ~
December 4, 2008
Approval of the minutes. We have three sets of minutes to approve. I'll ask for them individually.
The first one is October 7th, 2008, an LDC Meeting. Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Seconded by? Somebody.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. Discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
The next one is the October 16th Regular Meeting. Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
The October 22nd AUIR meeting. Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CfWRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Homiak.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
Page 4
16' 1 ~
December 4, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you.
Ray, your BCC reports?
Item #6
BCC -- REPORT - RECAPS
MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any recaps for today's meeting. Last Tuesday's results I'll present at
the next meeting.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chairman's Report. This is going to be interesting today.
I've got handouts again. Some of these you've asked for. A while back a handout was -- or Russ
Weyer responded to the issue concerning the support documentation for the 2.0, the commercia] area.
1 didn't know if you all printed it out or if you even got it. I didn't even look at the e-mail to see who
got it, I just printed it myself and then I thought well, just to be safe, I'll bring copies. Because this issue
came up during the Strand transmittal hearing; which is commercial area out in Immokalee. And the Strand
is coming back to us on the 18th for a final.
So if there were any outstanding questions, it would be good to have this ahead of time. So here's a
copy for each of you that way. And Mr. Midney, here's a copy. I'll give one to Tom as well. Tom down
there.
And Ray, I'm going to have an extra one up here for you to give .- after the meeting I'll give it to
you, you could mail it to Donna Caron?
MR, BELLOWS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have one for the record.
MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir.
MR. COHEN: Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Department.
Just to clarity the record, the representatives for the Strand actually asked for a month's delay
yesterday, so it will be pushed back to the second meeting in January.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting. Okay.
Do we know n well, I'm sure we'll find out the reasons. Thank you.
Anyway, that will give you all some reason -- some background on the question concerning how
the 2.0 figure is used in Collier County.
Page 5
161 1 -k'S
December 4, 2008
1 mean, we certainly can ask questions about it if we have any at the time of the meeting.
And then one of my favorite topics, the RLSA upcoming issue. There's a couple things with that.
Yesterday at the Board of -- or Tuesday at the Board of County Commissioners Meeting the Board
reinstated the process for the RLSA back to what it was originally. That is, there will be a review by this
body independently of the other bodies involved in the other EAC.
We're going to set a time in our first scheduled item today to actually hear the RLSA report. And
then -- but we will hear it as the Planning Commission. And it will be a regular meeting, not a workshop,
and we'll be able to make our recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners now as this body
normally does.
So I was very pleased the Board saw their way to do that. It was very nice of them to change their
prior direction to accommodate the boards individually, and I think it will produce a better product for
everybody.
Along that line, 1 think we're probably going to set a date today, and most likely it might be the 1 st
of February or the 2nd or 3rd, I think that's the first available date.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't exactly remember where I saw it, but it was noted in one of
the documents that the comments that would be made would be footnoted in the staff's presentation to the
Board.
Does that still stand now, as opposed to our direct recommendations?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how staffs going to handle our recommendations. This is--
there's three levels of recommendations. The first one is going to be a committee's Phase II report done in a
manner that they feIt was the way it should be done. And 1 believe it's going to be in a format of
recommended changes to GMP language, not the typical narrative report we see.
This board can proceed any way it wants during that meeting to review that. And I certainly have
some ideas on how that should be done.
Our recommendations, I would hope that once we get them done, we can send them to the Board of
County Commissioners independently of what anybody does.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's why I bring the issue up. Because I remember reading that it
was to be footnoted in the document that would be proffered to the BCC, and I thought that would not
necessarily provide a clear direction from this board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt.
I have absolutely no idea as far as what you're referring to a footnote that may have been mentioned
in a news report, but we --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, it was in one of the documents we received.
MR. SCHMITT: We will send and forward your comments to the board as either an enclosure or
comment to, just like we would any other document that goes to the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Good.
MR. SCHMITT: And let me turn it over to Randy Cohen and Tom Greenwood. Tom is the staff
coordinator for the RLSA, and Randy, director of comprehensive planning. We've been working on this and
we can talk specifically about dates.
Randy?
MR. COHEN: Well, Tom's going to talk about the dates.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, the dates are coming up on our other agenda. And this is my
chairman's report, so it's the tinle and moment I get to say a few things. But I'll certainly let you guys
comment and make any clarifications needed.
Page 6
16\ 1 -A7
December 4, 2008
MR. COHEN: Yeah, I wanted to clarifY what our intent was with respect both for the EAC and the
CCPC, which would be to send under separate cover your comments and delineate them accordingly.
The only thing that I would ask is -- and this is one of the things, they asked for a clean copy of the
committee's document to move forward as well.
The one thing that we've done in the past with a lot of other documents is we've also sent a separate
copy of a document with the comments from both the EAC and the CCPC under them as well in addition to
the separate report.
The question that I have for you is would you like us to do that as well?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you're going to have an opportunity to do both. I think you're
going to find that during the meeting we are going to have a lot of genera] comments, comments that won't
be nailed down to a specific GMP language amendment.
Then as we get into each GMP language rewrite, we may have comments about those as well. So I
think you'll have maybe a narrative from us to begin with as an introduction to any of our specific concerns,
if we have any, and then any comments to the GMP language as we go through each paragraph, one at a
time.
MR. COHEN: We anticipated doing both and we will do so accordingly. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
To further the discussion on the RLSA, part of the RLSA program, not the one sponsored by
Collier County but that's involved with many of the people who attend the RLSA meetings and even some
people who I believe are on the panel, there was a private agreement established between some landowners
out there, I think most of the big ones, and some of the environmental groups out there. That private
agreement was titled as a Memorandum of Understanding. It had very specific time lines in it and it had
very specific commitments in it that the people who signed that memorandum were obligated to do certain
things as a resuIt of signing that memorandum. And it referenced the RLSA prob'Tam in many, many
instances within the document.
I think it's important that this board understand that document as maybe a preclude to what they see
coming through from the RLSA report,
So I made copies of it for everybody to pass out here today for your reading. And you have plenty
of time. And I've read it four times. It's a little complicated to understand. Some people that probably wrote
it would think it's real easy to understand. But I tried to understand it and how it impacts the RLSA, and so
that's why I read it.
It is not a governmental document. It is not something enforced by the govemment. It is purely a
private agreement. So you need to look at it that way and read it at your leisure.
I think it would be good for everybody to be at least familiar with it. It's all about panther mitigation
and how the program is proceeding out there. And there it is for your reading pleasure.
And with that, I've got one more item to discuss and that was the discussion on Tuesday ffom the
Board of County Commissioners involving the appeal of the Monte Carlo dock situation,
I don't know if any of you heard about it, but if you recall, we denied on a 6- 3 vote the Monte Carlo
multi-slip docking facility that was in Vanderbilt Beach.
The applicant appealed it to the Board of County Commissioners.
There seems to be some debate over the contcxt in which we supplied the information for those that
based their decision for denial. And there's going to be further discussions with the county attorney's office
and staff, and I'm assuming a presentation back to us as to how this needs to be re, say, structured or looked
at so that the board gets a product that they feel more comfortable with in understanding what the vote was
for and how it came down.
Mr. Schmitt?
Page 7
16\ 1 A')
December 4, 2008
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, we concluded at the end of the meeting that it -- and I'm going to turn to
Jeff as well; we haven't discussed this between him and I privately, But it was my assumption or at least
perception that it's going to come back to you almost as a rehearing. And --
MR. KLA TZKOW: No, that wasn't my understanding. And I think you and I need to look at the
transcript when it comes in. Because my understanding, Joe, is that they just wanted the board to delineate
or to specify their reasons straight on down the line. But it was kind of complicated because of the
discussion on the dais.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, it had to do with the -- how the rules are written and what -- four out of the
six primary and five out ofthe six secondary.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I think you and [ will sit down, we'll hammer it out, then we'll get an agenda
item before the Planning Commission.
MR. SCHMITT: Because it was coming back completely packaged again. And for all intent and
purposes, it was almost a rehearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as long as before we hear it your department and legal department
will.-
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, we'll sort--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- come back with a conclusion that's consistent with what the BCC wants.
And --
MR. SCHMITT: And I'm looking at a January date. This will probably be a January time frame it
will be back to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And a~ you guys come back, or come up with a way that that's to be
handled, it would be important to know if we're going to hear public testimony again and get into those kind
of issues, because that will certainly change the style and format of the meeting for both sides.
So with that, I think I've finished my comments from the chairman's report.
We have no consent agenda items today.
Item # 11 A
SCHEDULING OF THE RLSA REPORT MEETING
And then we'll go into our first issue, which was moved up for new business, and it will be Il.A,
and that is the discussion on the scheduling of the RLSA report.
And Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Cohen are here today.
I think you've all received a schedule. And basically, if we want to operate in this room, it would be
February 3rd and February 17th. I think we might be able to get through that hearing in one day, but we
need a backup day just in case we can't.
I understand that the EAC is going to hear this on January 29th.
MR. GREENWOOD: That's correct. And they have a backup date of the 30th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we can certainly entertain an oral report from statT during the
February 3rd meeting, but I would highly recommend to the Planning Commission we take the two dates in
February. They are the best availab]e dates for this room and the only ones and the earliest we could get in
here.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, we were sent out a whole bunch of dates. So they
weren't for this room? Because unfortunately the 3rd is the only day I can't make it of all the dates sent out.
And again, the same reason why [ won't be here next week, that's the date the Building Commission's
Page 8
16\ 1 -A?
December 4,2008
Meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the Bui]ding Commission, is that what, a Collier County board?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a state board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, the Collier County board is I think much more important than
the state board.
MR. SCHMITT: No, no, I think that state board is pretty important, too, for the building code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just had to give Brad a hard time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Some would argue that. But the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Tuesdays are a very bad day for me. I see that there are some days
that are in the CDES rooms that are ll1ursdays. That would be my preferred day,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My thoughts on this is because it is the RLSA and it is something
that we want to make sure the public has -- is able to see as clearly as possible and attend as clearly as
possible, this room is probably the best option for that. But I understand the concerns of both you and Brad.
Anybody else have any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we need to come to a consensus on the dates here.
Does anybody want to make a -- I mean, personally, and I'm sorry that Paul, you and Brad have a
conflict, but I still think the 3rd and 17th are the better of the two days, but--
MR. GREENWOOD: Mr. Chairman, if I could -- Tom Grcenwood for the record.. just make a
few comments.
The committee has met 19 times, the Ad Hoc Rural Land Stewardship Area Review Committee. In
fact, one of your members sat through most of the meetings.
They did decide to take the tact to go through each and every one of the policies of the 77 policies.
Three-fourths of the policies either have no changes or have minor changes such as annotations, updates, et
cetera.
There's about 12 policies in my opinion that are substantive changes. And my opinion is that
probably half of those policies will generate a lot of discussion.
The documents that you'll be receiving, by the way, which has not yet been completed by the
committee, they meet next Thursday, is on-line right now under fUralland stewardship review committee.
That document also lacks, in my opinion, all the data and analysis necessary to go through
transmittal hearings.
So what we're really talking about before this body and before the EAC is a review of a planning
document as such, but it's a very critical review, and I'm personally very glad that the BCC directed that it
come to you first before you see it in the form of Growth Management Plan Amendments.
And really, those are my comments. There's a couple of new policies and a couple of policies that
are proposed to be deleted. And I think you're going to -- I don't know if you're going to enjoy the process
of review, but I think it will give everybody a good sense of where this program has been during the last
five years. And that was included in your Phase I report, which came to this body 1 believe in May.
But you'll also see some -- a lot of discussion in the document about the time that the committee
has put into the review. Just some comments. So -- and maybe that will help you decide on dates, maybe it
won't.
But you will, if this becomes a Growth Management Plan cycle amendment, which has not been
authorized by the board, you will get two additional bites at it in transmittal and adoption hearings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, is the January 29th date that's on our list now out because the EAC's
meeting and I assume they're using that room?
Page 9
16 i 1 ID
December 4, 2008
MR. GREENWOOD: They are. However, if you'd like, I have a feeling that the EAC would be
willing to swap dates. They were looking at another aIternative. But I can look into seeing whether you'd
like to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go there, you know, Mr, Midney, being the representative
from the Irnmokalee area, his input is very important in this process. And Brad's methodology of reviewing
code is also equally important. I would hate to see meetings of this importance be held without them
present.
As much as this room is preferable, especial]y for communication with the public, I believe in the
CDES room we're completely set up for public broadcasting.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, they can now broadcast from there. It's probably not the most desirable from
a standpoint of presentation, but they have -- they do broadcast live. We have -. the last several meetings
have been live.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any -- from comprehensive planning, is there any presentation--
how much of a presentation option is going to be needed for this discussion; do you know? Is it going to be
-- I'm assuming an overhead projector is sufficient?
MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah, we'll have Power Point. Basically Power Point, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, to let you know, we submitted this board nine pages of questions --
MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and requested they be answered. The meeting will be held starting out
answering those nine questions before we get into the GMP language, just so everybody has a heads up on
that.
MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, I think that's a good point.
There were actually about eight or 10 different agencies and organizations that submitted
comments and questions and statements. And those have been addressed. Some people may feel they
haven't been addressed appropriately, but they have been addressed in the report.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they will be addressed again in a public meeting with this board that
will be televised so the public knows the answers and knows the questions. And that's exactly what -- that's
the approach that I believe we're going to be taking.
MR. GREENWOOD: Good.
CHA]RMAN STRAIN: So however that needs to come out.
Now, considering that, Mr. Murray, I know the other room was a problem for your hearing at
times. Is it something you could work with if --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll do my best to work with it, if you don't mind if! ask for
qualification when I need it because I may have missed something.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I want to make sure all of us hear it and have a proper understanding
of it before it's approved.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate your concern, because I do try to follow it. I don't want
to miss any parts of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, with that in mind, then maybe the 28th and 30th will work better.
The EAC can go ahead on the 29th. I'm not sure we need their review for us to do our review as much as we
need our review responded to. So I think we can work with that.
Does that sound like an idea to everybody?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the 28th and 30th would be here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it would January 28th and 30th in the CDES room.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The February dates we'll just have to pass and maybe fill up with
Page 10
16 \ 1 ~
December 4, 2008
something else you guys may have coming forward, so --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for everybody?
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: That's better for me.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then let's make it, Tom and Randy, the 28th and 30th of January.
And I would suggest we allocate -- block out both full days, so --
MR. GREENWOOD: We'll do that.
I also might mention that the EAC had scheduled the 29th with a January 30th rollover date.
And what I suppose I can do is contact the EAC and see if they would consider a February 3rd
rollover date here in this room in the event that there is a rollover. I don't know that the EAC will spend
more than a whole day on this, but you don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I would suggest then we look at the 16th. But honestly, that's after
the meeting on the 15th. And I'd hate to see us sidetracked by having a review for the data on the 15th, so --
MR. GREENWOOD: We'll work with the 28th and 30th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if the -- just see what the EAC can do.
Okay, we'll leave it like that.
MR. GREENWOOD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Thank you, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome.
That takes us to our first regular hearing petition.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir?
MR. SCHMITT: I do add one issue of old business. You asked at the -. or was asked at the end of
the meeting, if you want to covcr this now, it had to do with reimbursement for travel.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's do that under old business --
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if we could.
MR. SCHMITT: We'll do it then.
CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Yeah, this was just getting some -- this was agenda Item II.A.
I'll add yours under old business, which would be IO.A.
Item #9B - Continued to later in Meeting
PETITION: SV -2006-AR-] 0482 - F AIRWAYS RESORT
The next item on the agenda will be an advertised public hearing. It will be Item 9.8. And it will be
Petition SV-2006-AR-10482, Seasonal Investments, Inc., d/bla Fairways Resort, requesting variances on
the corner of Piper Boulevard and Palm River.
All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I had some conversations with staff over the lega]
description.
Page 1]
16 \ 1 ~
December 4, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a conversation with Mr. Hancock I believe yesterday on the phone.
No information that really was exchanged, other than I didn't have any questions of him at that time.
With that, we'll move forward. Mr. Hancock, it's all yours.
MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Tim Hancock with Davidson
Engineering, representing Seasonal Investments, owned by Mr. Stephen Mirowitz, M-I-R-O-W-I-T-Z, who
is here today with us, the owner of Fairways Resort.
This is a rather unusual variance request. And iflooking at your packet and through the background
on this you're a little confused, I don't blame you.
We started with a sign that pre-dates me, which as my children will tell you is a very, very long
time. It goes back some 40 years in this location.
The subject property, Fairways Resort, is located just off ofImmokalee Road, as you can see on the
screen in front of you.
The property that the resort is located on is zoned RT, residential tourist, which is allowable for a
hotel.
The piece that the sign is on is not owned by Fairways Resort, it is owned by Horse Creek Partners.
And it is the small strip between the RT property and Immokalee Road.
Because this property was constructed in the sixties, it pre-dates all of our zoning laws and zoning
rules.
So at some point after this property was built, we came in and we applied zoning. And somehow
this property, which has had parking on it since 1968 for the resort and had a sign on it since the 1960's,
somehow it was rezoned to RSF-3 instead ofRT. But yet it's a nonconforming lot in the RSF-3 category.
And if that isn't confusing enough, it just continues getting worse.
But let me cut to the key elements ofthe purpose for the variance. In 2005 a notice of violation, or
at least a complaint was registered with regard to the existing sign. I'm not sure the origin of the complaint,
whether it was a resident, but it did coincide with a visit from someone with the South F]orida Water
Management District to Fairways Resort, indicating that the sign was not on their property, it was actually
in the right-of-way for the canal.
It turns out that is the case. Most of this sign sits in the South F]orida Water Management easement.
Whether that easement came after the sign or before the sign, I havc not been able to determine. But
nonetheless, the sign in some regard has to be at least relocated. We understand that.
The problem came in, in how do you relocate a sign that's not allowed on residential property
because it is an off-site sign that has been there for 40 years?
And I will tell you that from the time I was engaged in 2006 to now there's been a lot of back and
forth on that.
And fortunately the Board of County Commissioners in October of this year at least clarified the
Land Development Code to allow for an off-site sign in a residential zoning district.
So that key issue that was a point of deliberation and delay for a period of time has been addressed.
And what that has done is it's changed the number of variances being sought from an original
number of seven down to what is now five. You had a previous staff report that indicated three, but five is
the number.
Let me give you a little bit of -- this is also the exhibit contained in your packet. You can see the
Fairways Resort is the RT property. And the sign location, as it's shown there, while it's shown within that
block, the existing sign is just outside the property line and the proposed sign will be just inside of it. As
you can see, that is an RSF-3 property. There is an easement for the parking that exists in perpetuity, it will
Page 12
16 \ 1 -II?
December 4, 2008
always be used for parking, and we now have an easement to allow for the sign that was granted by Horse
Creek Partners.
This exhibit shows the existing conditions a little more c1ear]y. You can see the sign itself is
predominantly within the Immokalee canal right-of-way. Only about a foot or two of it exists on the
existing property.
Prior to the hurricane in April of 2006, that was what the sign had looked like more or less for some
40 years.
And to grant the historical perspective, this is an aerial from March of I 968 which shows the
Fairways Resort and not much else.
To the north of the residential subdivision -- and Ileamed some history of Palm River from Elwood
Witt, who has since passed, but he was one of the early builders in there. To the north of that it was the
Palm River Golf Course, which for many, many years was a private or semi-private course, and the resort
was able to -- guests were able to come and play golf. And that has since obviously been purchased by
LaPlaya as a private club.
And so this resort is a vestige of the past. Despite all the odds, it continues to exist. It has a loyal
client base.
But one of the key elements for us is in fact the sib'll. And the reason that we know that is Mr.
Mirowitz has requested surveys from his guests as they check in as to how they came about, how they
found the property. And it helps his marketing.
He's been able to determine that approximately 18 percent of his guests first noticed the property
because of its sign.
Now, unfortunately the current sign, tlle face panel that you saw previously, was blown out in 2006.
Mr. Mirowitz was unable to replace that panel because ofthe code enforcement action and the questions
with regard to the variance. So a temporary banner, if you will, has been placed over the sign. It's been in
place for two or three years -- two years, excuse me.
Nobody wants to see that banner continue. The neighbors don't like it, we don't like it because it
doesn't represent the quality of the resort,
And so what we're proposing in this variance is to construct a new sign entirely within the RSF-3
property owned by Horse Creek Partners. The new sign, instead of the 25 feet of the existing sign, will be
no higher than 20 feet. Instead of being predominantly off the property, it will be entirely inside the
property, right at the property line, though. And I'll explain the importance of that in just a minute.
Obviously much more attractive and 100 percent in line with today's sign code as far as having the
proper base and width.
One of the key issues for this location is obviously visibility. The property is set back very far from
the road. It relies on its signage dramatically for properties from either direction. And without the sign, the
business may very well teeter from being sustainable to no longer being able to provide the services it does.
I'll give you an example of the view. The existing sign is visible from some five or 600 feet coming
down Immoka]ee Road, which is fantastic. That's great. Ifthe sign were to be moved back on the property,
you would not see it until you're approximately] 00 feet from the intersection as you're traveling to the
west.
Traveling to the east you get a little bit closer to the sign before you can see it. Currently -- when
this picture was taken, it was 275 feet. Since that time this median has been landscaped, and so the visibility
is a little more spotty and you literally are on top of the property.
The primary reason why the sign cannot be located on the RT zoned property is just that, sight
visibility.
If the sign were to be located physically on the Fairways Resort property, it would still require
Page 13
16\ 1 A?J
December 4, 2008
variances even to be 20 feet tall. But this would be your sight triangle as you approach the property.
Visibility would be reduced from some five or 600 feet down to approximately 150 feet as you travel to the
west.
Coming from the east, there's a significant amount of landscaping that you can see where it says
sign location, It's been there for a long time.
This building is very ]usWy landscaped. The primary visible element of this building is its corner.
And there's not a lot to see, And these are all typically good things. However, the building would have to be
made more visible if the sign were to be moved back.
We feel that putting it back on that property basically negates the sign.
And to mirror comments Mr. Kolflat made in Apri] of last year, a very similar application, the
Unity Church ofNap]es came before this board and received unanimous approval. And the concern there
also was folks who may not be as familiar with the church could come upon it very quickly and there were
concerns over safety. And I think sometimes we may overstate those concerns, but the truth is, this is a
resort -- a small motel, relatively few rooms. People typic -. they're coming off the interstate, traveling to
the west. They may know where they're staying, but without that sign they are literally going to be by it
before they ever see it.
If you're coming from the west heading eastbound, you may never see it without the sign, period.
So our concern is that this is a 41-year-old sign. We would like to bring the sign closer into
compliance with the current code to create a positive aesthetic experience, to maintain the visibility that it
currently has, albeit smaller and shorter in height, and we simply ask for your consideration in doing so,
The staff report we felt was very well put together. The only exception we take is staff is asking for
a three-foot setback instead of a zero setback for the sign. Again, where the sign currently sits, in order to
put it inside the property line entirely, we're already moving it seven feet to the north. That additional three
feet would put the sign squarely behind some existing sable palms. And we're concerned that additional
three feet may render a portion of the Sil,,'l1 no longer visible and cause us to have to possibly remove
landscaping. We'd like to avoid that. We'd like to achieve the minimum variance required in order to
maintain the visibility of the sign.
In a nutshell, that's the basis of the request. I'd be happy to address any questions you may have, as
would Mr. Mirowitz.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just for my n for clarity.
In the picture that you showed to us -- you can leave this one there, but in the picture that you
showed to us that showed the new proposed sign, my understanding of it is that it was, how shall we say,
facing south as opposed to facing east and west; would that be correct?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what] wanted clarity on. Ifit's -- I see your line of sight
here, which suggests that the sign is canted or, how shall I say, vertical in a north-south alignment?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And is that correct?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, the current sign is in that alignment and the proposed sign would also
be in that same alignment.
COMMISS]ONER MURRAY: Okay. Because that first picture, I got the distinct impression that it
was flat too, and that would do what you don't want it to do.
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, it is north-south.
And one of the reasons I hesitated to use that picture is all the colors and copy haven't been
finalized yet. It's really for illustrative purposcs.
Page 14
16 1 1 kS
December 4,2008
And the second reason is it actually shows the new proposed sign in the same location as the
existing sign.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
MR. HANCOCK: You actually need to move it a little bit to the right in that photo, if you would,
to get the actual appearance of what the result would be, should the variance be granted.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So just for absolute clarity, the sign will be -- you hope to be right
on the property line, or within an inch or so of the property line, and will have a vertical alignment; that is to
say, the non-face of the sign will be north-south, and the face of the sign -- and it will be double sided?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And that will be east and west.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the result is that you gave us visualization at what, 500 and
some odd feet you said?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, the sign is currently visible from in excess of 500 feet when you're
westbound. We believe the new sign would maintain the majority of that visibility. A Iitt]e bit smaller. We
think it's ample distance to still serve its purpose.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is there any -- did you take into consideration the possibility along
that line of sight -- and I don't see the other one from the west, but along that line of sight, is there any
possibility that there might be some gro'Wth, trees or such, that might eliminate or impede visualization?
MR. HANCOCK: In a westbound movement, not really. The width of the canal in '68 when this
was built, there was 70 feet of area between the sign and the canal. There's now 30 feet. The width of the
canal really provides an ample viewing corridor to the west.
To the east, the primary -- there is some blockage of the existing landscaping on the property,
which we think is going to be okay. The primary blockage now actually comes from the median
landscaping on Immokalee Road when you're eastbound. And there is nothing we can do about that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, nothing.
Okay, that really was the only thing. I was concerned whether or not you actually were high enough
to be able to assure continued visualization, assuming you were --
MR. HANCOCK: Certainly we would like the 25 feet. We would not have brought the 20 feet
forward if we didn't feel that it would serve the purpose of the resort. I think less than that, they would be in
significant trouble.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Tbank you.
CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, what's the design ofthe sign going to be, since we're going
back for the legacy of the location? Is the design going to be similar to that? Because this hotel does have a
charming FiftieslSixties kind oflook to it.
In other words, is that the design that was there or is that the new design? And actually show the
design that was.
Okay. I mean, it would be nice if we're going to grab the legacy, we grab the legacy all the way.
MR. HANCOCK: By comparison, this is the copy that was provided to the sign company. And Mr.
Mirowitz is not necessarily committing to the size of the font or whatnot, but I believe this is -- is this the
style and character the sign will be constructed in?
And he's indicated yes.
MR. MIROWlTZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And that's similar enough. I think that's good,
Second question is that throughout this whole application, including the lease, the legal application
Page 15
161 1 P
December 4, 2008
doesn't defme the site that the sign's on. Are you concerned about -- or Jeff, would you have a concern with
that, or --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If you look at the second page of your resolution, that's the -- that contains
the legal description of the property where the sign is going. It's Exhibit B.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you look at -- if you follow the -- and we have -- it's best
shown on -- we have an attachment in the original application that shows the full site. And if you follow
that legal description, it isn't the site at all.
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, I've obtained as of yesterday a copy of the accurate easement
agreement that I'm happy to hand out to the commissioners.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, do you have a copy of this?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I have a copy of the application. When I requested a copy of the
permission for where the sign is being placed, because the easement in the backup that I was provided is
only for parking, there is no easement unless there's a new document for the sign.
COMMISSIONER SCH]FFER: And even that easement's incorrect. What essentially it's doing is
it's going to the west, not to the east. I mean, if--
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I mean, the operative language for the placement of the sign is what's in
the proposed resolution. I did not plot that out. It's a metes and bounds description.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Exhibit B, which is essentially a lease from the owners, this
Horse Creek or whatever it is.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, it's a letter of permission. And essentially that is a license, and it is
revocable.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's not the proper legal. That's my point, is when you
follow that it isn't --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'll let Mr. Hancock address that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Tim, the best way to look at it is that we have a staff report
that's black and white. If you go into the back of that, there's a pretty good survey of the project. And if you
follow the lega] description that was first provided, you can see that it starts at a point and goes west where
actually it has to go east to catch us.
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Schiffer, is your question with the legal description on the surveyor the
legal description attached as an exhibit to the application?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question is -- well, first let's start with there's the lease you
have to use the property from -- and let me -- from Horse Creek Estates. That's the lease you have, which is
allowing you to put a sign on property you don't own. But that legal description is one of the ones that's
incorrect.
I know further into the code the legacy also has incorrect easements. But I think since Nancy's
given us a correct one, I think what would be appropriate would probably be do we have Horse Creek
Estates, which owns the land; assumab]y they own the land where the sign is --
MR. HANCOCK: They do.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- giving you a lease for that land.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, we do, And we actually executed an additional easement agreement
with them specifically to allow for a sign on the property.
What we can do, hopefully subsequent to this body's action, would be to ensure that the record
clearly shows the proper easement and the proper location. I'm not so sure that it doesn't, but we certainly
can do that.
We have an easement agreement for the parking. We now have an easement agreement for the sign.
And we have their permission to act as an applicant based on both the partiall.D. number and the legal
Page J 6
16 I 1 ItS
December 4, 2008
description submitted with the application. I'm not sure where in that we have fallen down, but it can be
corrected.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, Nancy's reviewed it, maybe Nancy could state is in fact
the legal description correct or is it incorrect.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, the
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. And I can give you a little bit of history about this
easement agreement.
It appears that the original easement agreement is for the property to the west of this site.
Upon further research we found another recorded easement agreement for the correct property, and
that is the one that I've just handed out to you. And if we look at Exhibit B that's included and attached to
the resolution, it appears that Horse Creek Estates used the incorrect legal description when they created
this easement agreement for the sign and parking that's dated 2007.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And since Exhibit B is what's referenced in our resolution, can we
be assured that Horse Creek is going to provide a document similar to that with the correct legal description
on it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The easement agreement that you just passed out is already included in our
package.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is that, Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chairman, may Ijust clarifY for the record for the Commission,
because I think that there's some confusion. And for the record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney.
The document that Ms. Gundlach is referring to is easement agreements that pertain to the parking
that allow the use for parking.
The issue that you have today is the sign. And the operative documentation related to the sign is
attached as Exhibit B to your resolution. That's the legal description for the placement of the sign.
Is that the legal description that you're saying is incorrect?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct, that that is an incorrect legal -- that is a legal description
for property to the west. There is a 40-foot overlap, but the sign's not on that 40-foot overlap, it's on the
other side.
If you want to take a quick break, I can prove that to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not going to -- maybe if -- Tim, is your surveyor here? Did
somebody in your department survey this property?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. We don't --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did someone proof the lease agreement in your department who -- one of
your surveyors or anybody likc that you could call and get verification? If we were to continue this until a
little later today, could you clean this up for us?
MR. HANCOCK: I certainly could attempt to clean it up. We did not perform a survey on the
property, nor do we have an intcrnal survey department.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And all the county attorney's office needs is a lease agreement with a
verified legal description that this encompasses this sign location. I think that's the point; is that right?
Heidi, is that correct?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. Because what you're approving, if you were to approve it today,
is this language right here. And if that's off-site, then that would be problematic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if between now and say later today when we -- if we were to continue
this till after the next three, Tim, you could come back through your department and have someone verifY
the legal; you could probably get it faxed over to the commission's office or one of the secretaries could
Page 17
161 1 .w?
December 4, 2008
receive it bye-mail and you could bring it back in here and we could just verifY the legal and be done with
the issue. Does that work for you?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for the rest of the board?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's bring up any other issues we have now so if there's any other
clarifications needed by this afternoon, we can get it done.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me see if Mr. Schiffer is finished first.
Mr. Schiffer, are you done?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat I think wa~ next and we'll get back to you, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, we're going to continue on and we're going to give you everything
we have now, so if there's any other clarifications needed, it can be done all at one time and we don't have
to continue another hearing.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Will this sign be lighted?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. It will have the internal lighting, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Internal. So the entire sign will be a lighted sign.
MR. HANCOCK: That is the current plan, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Relative to what Brad brought up about the license agreement, if
there is a license, in other words, a permission to use that space, you recognize that if the permission is
withdrawn, the sign would have to come dovm, correct? I'm assuming that that is a correct statement, that it
is a permission and not an easement for that particular parcel.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And the permission does not have any revocability associated with it.
It's just a permission. Much like the parking has no revocability associated with it.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's revocable at will.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's what?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a license. It's revocable at will.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know, I was about to argue with him about that. It is revocable. If
it's on your client's property, there is no issue. But if it's in any other way on somebody else's property, you
do have an issue, a serious issue to be concerned about. You probably want some kind of help on that one
as well. That's the reason I raised it.
MR. HANCOCK: This property has no other use. It can't be used for anything else. If Horse Creek
Partners wish to revoke it, we would have to remove the sign. And I guess that's a risk that --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As long as you acknowledge that.
MR. HANCOCK: -- we're willing to take.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As long as you acknowledge that. I understand where you're going.
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You say the sign is lighted. Is that just the upper portion or is that
Page I 8
16 t 1 ~
December 4, 2008
also the six-foot wide 12-foot high portion?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, just the upper portion.
And that's the way the original sign has been for decades. It's just the upper portion that would be
internally lit.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Then my next question would be: Do you have any intent
on that tan portion in the left picture to put things like rooms, efficiencies and so on, similar to the one
where AAA was on the one on the right? In other words, are you going to use that post as a signage also?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, we'd be prohibited from doing so. We're limited to the sign copy area
that you see.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's where I was going. Thank you.
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions at this time of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I have one.
The two signs you have on the picture here, why would you want to put a solid 72-inch wall that
would create a lot of wind loading and structural requirements to carry that in high winds, compared to the
simpler blow-through method that you've used on the pole sign next to it? That doesn't make any sense to
have all that blockage there. Is there any reason for that?
MR. HANCOCK: Because our Land Development Code tells me I have to. You have to have --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you care?
MR. HANCOCK: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you care?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we made a recommendation to let you go to the two-pole operation
that you had, to me that's visibly more appealing, you don't have a wall blocking out what's behind it, it's
not -- I don't understand why we would have a code that would require you to make an uglier sign than a
simpler one.
MR. HANCOCK: It was a move away from the old pole signs where the steel pole underneath
would rust and look unattractive, so pole covers in essence are required by the Land Development Code at a
minimum width ratio based on the copy size of the sign.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So under this column that's there now, do you have a requirement in the
code that says you have to maintain it, you have to repaint it, you have to take care ofthe stucco pealing and
the block cracking, anything like that?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, it has to be maintained in a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't we have that in the code for a pole? And if we did, why
would you not then want a pole? It's simpler and goes up a lot easier and looks a lot better.
Anyway, I would suggest that maybe when you come back, that might be a discussion we'll have as
well. That doesn't make any sense to me, but we'll go from there.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody -- Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows.
There are certain dimensional standards that can be applied through a variance. This isn't a
dimensional standard, so you can't vary from a code requirement that says these things have to be encased.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're telling me the BCC couldn't say that the poles are okay and the wall
isn't?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the BCC can act in any manner they chose, but the code --
Page 19
16 \ 1 ~
December 4, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we make a recom--
MR. BELLOWS: -- is the code, and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But if we make a recommendation that is more practical to do
something to the right than it is to the left, is there a reason they couldn't do that?
MR. KLATZKOW: I guess what you're saying, Mr. Strain, is that you think this LDC requirement
is not in the best interest.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, not this case. I don't see where it does any good to anybody.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, I don't know where it would do any -- if that's your opinion, I don't know
how this would differ from anybody else's property. I mean, you may want to recommend that we relook at
this particular provision.
MR. SCHMITT: You're going to see the sign code come to you. There are some changes. There
was no intent in changing any architectural requirements. This -- and I was not here when this was vetted
through the public. This had extensive vetting through public committees in the late Nineties, early 2000
when this sign code was created to create these monument type signs or appearance.
And as Mr. Klatzkow alluded to, these are required all over the county. We have made many, many
gas stations and others create these type of signs.
Now, again, that's -- I'm not criticizing, nor am I intending to criticize. All we're trying to do is
enforce what the standards are within the sign code that has been adopted by this community and approved
by the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not criticizing your department. I'm not criticizing anybody. I'm just
simply saying, if you look at these two signs, which one is more appealing, especially when you can see
through the other one and get landscaping instead of a solid block wall 18 feet or whatever high it is. It
doesn't -- I don't know why we'd want to put people through that.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, I think that's an excellent idea you have.
And Joe, because we're going to allow this thing to be taller, can't we -- one of the concerns we
would have is that the monument sign doesn't look good that tall. Essentially we're allowing this thing to be
located because of its historic nature. I definitely think we should try to recreate the image that it had
historically. I think that's --
MR. SCHMITT: And that's fine, if that's the way you want to propose this. I just have to point out
to the board that it is not something that is subject to a variance, as Ray pointed out. It is a complete, I'll call
it, disregard for the code or waiving of the code requirement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's not true, Joe, it's not a disregard for the code. The code isn't right
in all cases. There's extremes. I mean, putting a 20-foot high solid block wall up there because the code says
you got to versus two simple poles, let's look at the practical side of things and practical application. The
one on the right is a lot simpler and more appealing to the public driving by than seeing a massive wall
going up. And especially one that's got to withstand wind loads to that height. I mean, it's just absurd what
they're going to have to do structurally to make that work under the foundation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Joe, one thing is why can't we -- since we're being asked to
allow this sign to be taller, why can't we shed that requirement of the thing? Because the monument sign
does not look good that tall. Mark, I agree with your point.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I really don't have any issue with that being a recommendation.
MR. SCHMITT: I have no issue with --
MR. KLATZKOW: And then the board could either accept or reject it.
MR. SCHMITT: It's not a dimensional standard, we'll have to point it out to the board as such, and
the board can approve it as you recommend.
Page 20
16\ 1
December 4, 2008
.tfS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: As an alternative, could we recommend landscaping that would
be maintained in front ofthat six-foot wide stanchion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, then you're talking about another easement, you're talking
about irrigation, you're talking about a lot of things that may not be needed now. Why would we want to
make it harder? I mean, I don't know if that -- I don't think that helps, I think that makes it worse.
MR. SCHMITT: Nancy can answer that landscaping is required around the base of --
MR. HANCOCK: There's a 100 square foot minimum requirement, but--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not 20 feet high.
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, not -- it's fairly small. Shrubs, as opposed to bushes or whatnot.
We're happy to go either route, whichever is the pleasure of the Planning Commission.
We appreciate this discussion. We just, you know, hopefully can get this issue with the legal
description resolved and move forward on the points that have been raised.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll hear staffreport. That's you, Nancy. I saw you
looking at Tim and I thought wait a minute, you're staff.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Who am I and why am I here.
MS. GUNDLACH: I'm sorry, I was thinking about something.
Staff is recommending approval ofthis sign petition. And we do have some conditions that we are
recommending.
And the first condition is that the sign size shall be limited to 80 square feet and that the sign height
shall be limited to 20 feet. That is what's shown in the graphics that were presented to you this morning.
And also, our recommendation is that the leading edge of the sign be located no closer than three
feet to the Immokalee Road canal property line.
And with that, if you have any other questions, it's my pleasure to answer them this morning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we will just simply continue this discussion until the end
of the last item today, which would be after Item E. And I don't believe we need a motion because it's in the
same day. We'll just do it that way.
And Tim, if you could please clarify the legal description in the letter of permission, that would
certainly help us by the time this comes back to us this afternoon. I'm not sure it will be this afternoon, but
we'll see what happens. Thank you.
Item #9C
PETITION: V A-2008-AR-13568, ROBERT OSTER TRUSTEE
Next item for today is Petition V A-2008-AR- 13568, Robert Oster, Trustee, for 540 Bald Eagle
Drive. It's another variance request within the Naples Bath and Tennis Club.
All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item -- and I'll wait till Clay sets his book down--
please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures from the Planning Commission.
Page 21
161 l-AS
December 4, 2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I called Mr. Brooker up and had a discussion with him about the issues,
nothing of -- nothing I don't think's going to be not discussed here today. So we'll go forward.
Clay, it's all yours.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you, Commissioners.
My name, for the record, is Clay Brooker, with the law firm of Cherty, Passidomo, Wilson and
Johnson. I'm here on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Robert Oster, who are sitting here in the second row. They are
requesting a variance for a pool and a deck that has existed for over 25 years, long before the Osters
purchased the subject property.
I put on the -- I guess we call this ELMO -- on ELMO, the visualizer, the location map and the
zoning map for everyone's help here on the location map.
My pen represents roughly Airport Pulling Road. And this is Pine Ridge Road. The subject
property is located within the Naples Bath and Tennis Club.
The zoning map is a blow-up. This is essentially in Naples Bath and Tennis Club. Airport Pulling
Road again on a north-south orientation there.
This is an aerial photograph with the subject property highlighted in yellow.
If you could actually back out, I'm going to try -- perfect, okay.
What I'd like to try to do is give you a little bit of a perspective of the land ownership characteristics
that are involved, as Naples Bath and Tennis Club is not exactly seen every day.
The single-family residences you see are actually in a land condominium. It's a condominium form
of ownership created back in the Seventies.
There are 36 units in what's called Naples Bath and Tennis Club Unit B. And those 36 would run
around here.
The Oster's property is what they call legally family living unit number 20. But they are in all
essence -- if you drive down the road, they look and operate just as single-family homes.
The lake and the shoreline arcas and lake bank areas all throughout Naples Bath and Tennis Club,
this is just one of several, are also in another condominium called the Naples Bath and Tennis Club
Commons Area.
Each of the units has a proportional share of ownership into the common areas, so everyone gets to
enjoy the lakes. It's a little bit strange situation -- not strange, but that's I guess the way it was set up some
time ago.
This was the site plan that was located in your package. I'll spend some time to go through just to
clarifY exactly what we're asking.
This is the subject property here, family living unit number 20. If you see here, I'm going to outline
the existing deck of their patio that exists and has existed for some 25 neat years.
The dimensions -- this is the rear property line here. So the dimensions here at the northeast corner,
the deck cxtends to within about 10 and three quarters inches from the rear property line.
Here it's about three-and-a-half feet in the northwest corner.
The actual setback requirement in the PUD for Naples Bath and Tennis Club under these
circumstances is 15 feet. And that line is indicated here. And as you can see, it cuts through the existing
pool.
I have a few photographs for you to help give some perspective.
This is standing on the existing patio deck on the west side looking east.
Hcre's the opposite angle looking the other way. I'm standing on the east side of the patio looking
west.
This is essentially in the middle of the patio looking north out towards basically the backyard. That
Page 22
161 1 ~
December 4, 2008
is the lake that exists behind the property.
This is actually behind the property line, or north of the property line. I'm not standing here on the
Oster's property, but this is on the lake shore, again, on the west side of basically the northwest corner
behind the northwest corner of the Oster's property looking east.
And the opposite view. Now I'm on the northeast corner looking west.
Hopefully that gives you a little bit more -- a better perspective of what we're dealing with.
The variance request before you today simply asks the county to recognize what has existed for 25
years without complaint.
When I first received this, the obvious question came to me, well, how did this happen? How was
an existing pool built with a fairly significant encroachment into a setback?
I can tell you that as I mentioned, this existed for 25 years. The Osters are the fifth owners since the
house was constructed back in the early Eighties. A couple by the name of Pullman, the Pullman's
purchased the home from the builder, which was Coastland Building Corporation in 1982.
The deck, pool and screen enclosure were all constructed by the Pullmans in that '82 to '83 time
frame, so about a year or so, year or two after the Pullmans purchased the property.
So how were they able to get the pcrmits to build this deck where it exists with the encroachment? I
can't tell you exactly. I can't reconstruct history precisely that far back. But I can show you some
documentation that might shed some light on the subject and let you draw your own conclusions.
This is the application for the building permit submitted by the Pullmans contractor back in late
1 982. As you see, I'vc highlighted some ofthe key intormation. It is the 540 Bald Eagle Drive. You see
there the contractor's name is Climatrol, Inc. This was a permit here to build a screen enclosure. And you
can see here expressly stated right on the building permit application itself in two different locations is the
applicable I5-foot setback.
So how did the contractor overcome the problem? Well, I don't know exactly what requirements
were in existence as far as supporting your building permit application back then, but this is labeled a
sketch. So I assume there at the top -- I assume that's what was required back then. I can assure you today,
this would not fly.
And as you can see, if you needed a 15-foot setback, you simply draw it on the sketch.
I really have nothing more to say. That's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Life was simpler. I bet they only had pole signs back then, too.
MR. BROOKER: Part of the building permit application. There you have the county signing off:
the zoning department signing off on it in early 1983. Now, I'm not criticizing county staff in any way,
shape or form here. Thcy probably simply relied on the contractor's representations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think any of them are left who might have been involved in this.
Ray, that was before your time.
MR. BELLOWS: Way before my time.
MR. BROOKER: Continuing on on our historical journey here.
This is the actual building pcrmit that was issued by the county for -- again, this was the screen
enclosure. And as you can see again, the 15 foot is expressly stated.
So after the building permit was issued, the screen enclosure was installed and a certificate of
occupancy is issued for it. And this is the C.O. The date is down here on the bottom. It's hard to read, but it
says March 1 st, I believe, of 1984. Again, the contractor's name is Climatrol, Inc.
I know some commissioners in the past have inquired into the builder or the contractor or tried to
explore what recourse if any we may have against the builder or contractor for these kinds of circumstances.
I have looked up Climatrol, Inc. This is the Department of State records as ofa little bit ago, just recently.
You can see the company went out of business in 1991, about 17 years ago.
Page 23
1 Et1mber 12008 itS
After the Pullmans owned the property, the home was sold four more times, the last purchaser
being the Osters, the applicant before you today. They purchased the property in 2006, two years ago.
Apparently no one new about this encroachment all these years, and the Osters themselves didn't
know about it and didn't find out about it until they applied for a permit to reinstall the screen enclosure
about a year or two ago.
And I say reinstall, which means at some point in time the screen enclosure came down. I haven't
been able to determine exactly when that occurred. Word on the street, asking the Osters to ask their
neighbors, property manager for the condo associations and so forth, the screen enclosure was removed by
the previous owner to the Osters within the last few years. But I don't know the circumstances under which
it was removed, whether it was a hurricane, simply voluntary removal, whatever the case may be.
But that is part of the application today is ifin fact this variance is granted, it will allow the Osters
to reinstall their screen enclosure.
As I mentioned, the Osters tried to get that pemait to reinstall. The county staff caught it this time.
So we've improved in that regard, I guess. But they refused to issue the permit, appropriately so, and that's
why we're here today.
Under these circumstances, we would request that the variance be issued for the many reasons that
I've already mentioned, and I'll run through again. It's existed lor 25 years without complaint. The applicant
before you, the Osters, are entirely without blame. There's no recourse possible against the builder or
contractor, since they've been out of business for 17 years. No one objects to this request. The next door
neighbors have sent in, I believe you've seen in your package -- these are the immediate next door
neighbors. They support the request. The condo associations, both tor unit B, all the family living units, as
well as the commons area, they support -- the board of directors adopted a resolution of support.
And in addition to that, under the code I had to notifY other property owners within 150 feet of the
Oster's property. That captured another three or four property owners, and I've not heard a word from them.
I have confirmed with the propcrty manager, and this coincides with my review of the
documentation as well, that no lake maintenance easement of any sort exists across the back of the Osters
property. There was concern that if in fact a maintenance easement exists, you have this pool deck there,
how is the common area association going to maintain their lake.
No such easement exists. There's enough room, and it was designed that way, I'm told, enough
room to maintain the lake behind the property line. So this variance request would not impact that at all.
And when discussing this issue with the property manager for the condo associations, he said that
was an issue taken directly into consideration by the boards, and they still support it, because no such
easement exists.
An enormous financial and practical difficulty would result to the Osters if the variance isn't
granted, because they would possibly have to remove an existing pool and patio.
Oh, with regard to the screen enclosure, I'd also like to add -- the installation of the screen
enclosure, I should say the reinstallation of it, will cure some sanitary and health problems that the Osters
have. There have been some incidence of animals coming on to the property and doing their business in the
pool, depositing feces, however you want to say that. I do have pictures of that as well, but I'll spare you.
But obviously the installation of a screen enclosure would hopefully stem that from occurring in the
future.
Mrs. Oster also has an allergic reaction to certain insect bites. She recently was stung by a wasp,
ended up in the emergency room and now carries an epinephrine shot for emergencies, but she'd prefer not
to stab herself. So a screen enclosure would hopefully keep those insects out as well and let them enjoy the
patio area.
For these reasons we respectfully request that you recommend approval of the variance request, as
Page 24
161 1 .A:S
December 4,2008
the eounty stafI has.
And with that, I'm finished and we'll try to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Are there two variences involved here, Clay?
MR. BROOKER: Yeah, that might be a legal question. If you grant the variance for the pool, the
existing pool and deck, by definition it would allow the screen enclosure to be installed. So it's -- I would
take the position that it's one variance request. And the reason for that is the I 5-foot setback requirement
applies in the PUD. If you read the PUD document for Naples Bath and Tennis Club, the normal setback is
20 feet. But for screen enclosed pools it's 15 feet.
So in order for us to ask for a variance from the I5-foot setback, we would necessarily be talking
about a screen enclosed pool. So in my opinion, one would go with the other. But I don't think from our
standpoint, if you want to make it to two variance requests, I have two different variance resolutions or
ordinances. We don't -- we take no position with regard to that.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, I guess my question hammered around is it possible that one
ofthe requests, one ofthe variances might be approved and one might not? Or what would be your
response to that, if it's been treated as two different variances?
MR. BROOKER: I mean, I guess a possibility -- to be honest, to answer your question, a possibility
would be able to say a variance for the existing pool is granted, but that does not carry with it an approval to
install the screen installation, the screen enclosure.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But thc pool has been there for 25 years, but the screen enclosure
now is not yet up.
MR. BROOKER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Has the construction started on the screen at all?
MR. BROOKER: No, it has not.
COMMISSIONER KOLFI AT: Do you have any idea what the trend is out there in that
development as far as number of pools that are enclosed and those that are not? I mean, there are both types,
but I'm just curious as far as what the percentage of the trend had been.
MR. BROOKER: I haven't personally surveyed the properties, but from that aerial, you get an idea.
Pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No enclosures.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, you need to be recognized before you talk into the mic.
MR. BROOKER: But as far as a trend goes, I couldn't tell you. I just know that a lot of pools exist
in the community.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, have both the neighbors on the south and the north
expressed support for this?
MR. BROOKER: It would be the east and the west, but the answer is ycs.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: They both have. That to me is very important, because it's so close
in there that that would be adverse -- if that adversely impacted a neighbor, it would certainly be worth
consideration.
Do both the neighbors on the ea~t and west meet the setbacks as the moment that they have (sic), or
do you know?
MR. BROOKER: I don't know. I have not done my own review of that. Based upon the aerial
itself, and I don't want to throw anyone under the bus, but based on the aerial, the property to the east may
look like it has an encroachment issue. Property to the west may not.
But I have not -- and this again is the property appraiser's aerial photograph, which we all know
sometimes is not all that -- doesn't always accurately portray property lines vis-a-vis structures.
Page 25
16 \ 1 kS
December 4, 2008
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Your aerial in the report indicates that there are two houses noted
on the aerial that have received variances already. I think they're identified as number 18 and number 14.
Do you have any idea what the amount of encroachment was in those cases at which the variance
was granted?
MR. BROOKER: Yes. It was in the staffreport. I can give you the exact measurements. But I can
go off the top of my head.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: There's not much up there anymore.
MR. BROOKER: Sorry?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: There's not much up there anymore, the top of your head.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Is that inside or outside he's referring to?
MR. BROOKER: The 18 -- living unit 18 has a variance that was granted to them. And I believe
their pool comes within about four feet of the property line. So doing the math, that would be an II-foot
encroachment into a 15-foot required setback.
14. This property also has received a variance for the pool structure. But it's only for a corner -- my
understanding, it's only for a corner right in this area. But that variance was in addition to, from the rear
yard, also the side yard setback. But that was less of an encroachment. I don't have thc number right off the
top of my head, but is less an encroachment than the number 18 family living unit here.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But they were significant encroachments, both cases?
MR. BROOKER: Well, I would certainly say hunily living unit 18 was significant, because it's an
II-foot encroachment.
Family living unit 14, it depends on what your definition of significant is. But it was in the single
digits of feet of encroachment. It wasn't to the 10 or II area.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay, I missed that.
What are the land-related hardships involved in this case?
MR. BROOKER: Well, the land-related hardships would be the fact that the property exists. The
property is there. The best I can tell, the house was constructed prior to the Naples Bath and Tennis Club
PUD being adopted. The PUD was adopted in 1981. The house reccived a permit to be built in 1979.
I did not -- was unable to go back that far to find out exactly what dimensions were required back
in '79. But the house was built where it was, allowing a certain amount of room left over for the pool, and
the pool was built where it is. So from that perspective, I would suggest that those are the land hardships
because ofthe existing structure, where the house was built initially.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The intent of variances to alleviate a hardship inherent in a piece
of land; personal hardships are not inherent in the land and cannot be considered to meet the hardship as
contemplated by the LDC.
You're not contemplating a personal hardship here then, you're contemplating that it's a land
hardship, land related?
MR. BROOKER: Well, perhaps both. And these are alln what you read is I think the introduction
to the variance section. And those considerations are repeated later on in the Land Development Code for
the factors to take under consideration.
One factor is, is there any land hardship not created by the applicant. Another factor, is there any
practical difficulty the applicant would face if the variance is not granted.
So from that perspective I would say both; we're proceeding under both criteria.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's all I had, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Clay, could you please put that stack back on the ELMO there.
MR. BROOKER: Which one?
Page 26
16\ 1 41'S
December 4,2008
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The whole stack that you had there before you moved it.
Now, could you take the top sheet off. I want to go back in history just a little bit. I saw something
that caught my eye.
What -- is this subdivision Marco Island?
MR. BROOKER: No, it's not the Bald Eagle Drive in Marco Island. It is in Naples.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exactly. And I notice several of these documents said Marco
Island, which made me think that maybe staff at the time may have been looking at some setbacks, even
though it said 15, to suit Marco and not this particular development. I don't know but, I mean, I just looked
at that and I went something's funny here.
MR. BROOKER: Well, I can tell you that the permit number, although it's illegible here, the
original you can actually read it, it matches up with the building permit application.
And the name of the owner here is misspelled. Here it says Pullen, but the actual name of the
owners were Pullmans. So we think it applies. Whether that's a source of the confusion, I can't answer that.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Many, many years ago I helped a friend start a pool company as a
salesperson, and I know how that goes. You know, so anyway, that's what made me think that it may not be
-- something might not be accurate here.
Thank you, that's it.
CHA1RMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Clay.
We'll have staff report.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem, and I'm a principal
planner with zoning.
And you have the staff report that was submitted to you dated December 4th at the bottom, and it
goes into the information that's been presented. It talks about the requested action and the location of the
project, the description which briefly tells you what has already been testified to now. It shows you the
surrounding zoning and land uses. It tries to show you what was also provided in the aerial photographs.
Actually shows some aerial photographs going back to 2001 as well, to show you some historic
significance. And addresses the compo plan issue in that variances aren't normally addressed as part of the
Growth Management Plan.
It does provide an analysis of the findings that are required. And staff, without going into the
details, unless you have questions, is recommending that this does meet the requirements of those findings.
And we have provided responses to those. And we are recommending approval with the condition that
recognizes the site plan. That's the only condition. It just ties the site plan that's been provided to the
approval.
And I don't have anything else. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHlFFER: Kay, did you check to see if the removal of the old screen
enclosure was due to a code compliance issue?
MS. DESELEM: I've been unable to determine why it was removed or how it was removed. I don't
know. And I don't think the applicant's been able to find out either.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Commissioner Wolfley's point is good, this does show Marco
Island. Did anybody ever check to see if that permit was for 540 Bald Eagle Drive on Marco?
MS. DESELEM: There's been some confusion in other aspects of this, in fact in posting the sign,
because staff had to post the sign. Because there was some discussion as to whether it's Bald Eagle Drive,
Page 27
16 ~ 1 ~
December 4, 2008
Bald Eagle Road.
And in fact, our code enforcement people, when they were first approached to post the sign said we
can't post this, it's on Marco Island.
So I can see where there's been confusion. Because it's the name of the road that's caused the
confusion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in this case, if you look what's up there, it's also the
subdivision's Marco Island. So do you think by any chance the permits they're showing us are for Marco
Island?
MS. DESELEM: In actuality, no, I do not. I think it's just part of the same error that we've had
because of the name of the road. Most people associate Bald Eagle Drive with Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Kay.
Is there any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Clay, do you want to rebut any of the public speakers?
MR. BROOKER: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: l'll make a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I recommend a motion to approve and send on to the BCC with
our recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to staff stipulation?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, of course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made by Mr. Vigliotti and seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
Discussion?
(No rcsponse.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed -- are you opposed, Mr.--
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, I'm for, but I would like to make a statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Okay, go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm going to vote for it, but one thing I want to put on the record
was that granting variances after the fact most assuredly results in an adverse effect on the community,
simply because with each variance granted casually, respect for the letter of the law erodes in ever larger
increments.
So I am concerned on our variances, we do review these, that we do not casually advance too far in
Page 28
16 1 1 tt5
December 4, 2008
making approvals. But I'm voting for the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And just so you know, had this been a modern day PUD,
most likely the setback and the property line would have been allowed to be zero. And we allow that
routinely on this board. So they're not asking for anything more than what normally would have been given
in a modern PUD. So I certainly don't have any objection to it, and I did vote in favor.
So with that, we will end that one 8-0. Thank you. And we will take a break to 10:15. Thank you.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the break.
And I just noticed Mr. Bosi's in the audience. That means we're in trouble for something. I'm not
sure what. Oh, boy.
Item #9D
PETlTlON: RZ-2008-AR-12930, COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT-
BA YVIEW PARK BOAT LAUNCH
Okay, lets go on. Next petition is Petition RZ-2008-AR-I293 I O. It's the Collier County Coastal
Zone Management, which is really I think in this case Parks and Recreation in regards to the use of the
Bayview Park property or some property in that neighborhood for boat launch, or boat trailer parking.
All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly swom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Gary McAlpin called me, asked if! had any questions, and I
didn't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I met with Laura and Gary. We went over quite a few issues. I met with
Mr. Litow and a series of other citizens that are in that neighborhood, and we went over a lot of issues there
too. And everything that I went over with all parties will be brought up here today, to the best of my
knowledge.
So, okay, Laura, it's all yours.
MS. DeJOHN: Thank you. For the record, my name is Laura DeJohn, I'm a planner with Johnson
Engineering, in Naples.
I'm here today representing Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department, which is within
the Public Services Division of Collier County.
With me today is the Coastal Zone Management Director, Gary McAlpin. Also with me is an
engineer from Johnson Engineering, Chris Hagen, to give any answers to engineering questions that you
might have.
We are here today requesting a rezone of 1.33 acres to community facility zoning. Your agenda did
reference the rezone of2.I3 acres, and as a result of ongoing negotiations through the process, we've
down-sized the area for rezone to 1.33 acres.
You're all probably familiar with the location we're talking about. Bayview Park is actually within
the City of Naples along South Naples Bay. It's been there approximately 25 years.
Leading up to Bayview Park is Danford Street. Terminates with the entry into Bayview Park.
Neighborhood of Naples Bayview subdivision. Lines the streets of Danford and Bay Street near Bayview
Page 29
161
1
k5
December 4, 2008
Park.
In the larger area you see that the context of this neighborhood is within some larger PUD approved
developments, Windstar to the north, a residential PUD.
The Naples Botanical Gardens is to the east. And then to the south, Hamilton Harbor commercial
uses and Sable Bay residential and conservation uses as well.
Zooming in to the site location, you'll see that the Coastal Zone Management Department owns
property within the Naples Bayview subdivision. These -- like I said, there's approximately one acre of
property proposed for overflow parking at the southeast comer of the subdivision, and a strip ofland
proposed for a connector road within the subdivision as well.
The property is zoned RMF-6 primarily. There's also C-3 zoning applied to the eastern portion of
the site where it fronts now Hamilton Avenue.
To give you the context of why this application is even before you, number one, Coastal Zone
Management Department is tasked with providing safe access to the waterfront throughout Collier County
through the provision of new facilities, as well as the improvement of existing tacilities.
Back in 2003, the county issued a Boat and Beach Access Report that was approved by the county
commission in May of2003, and that document was in your backup material. That report included
inventory and analysis of the existing facilities and the needs for future improvements.
Noted in that report were deficiencies in provision of access to particularly boat launch facilities.
The facilities under county control were listed, including Caxambas, Cocohatchee, 95] boat ramp at
Bayview Park. All of those facilities showed deficiencies of parking spaces based on the methodology used
at the optimun1 number oflaunches per ramp lane; significant deficiencies in parking were shown.
The findings of that report were, number one, that six -- relative to boat launching facilities, number
one, six new boat lanes would be needed to accommodate the recreational boat owners in the county. Plus
parking was found as one of the limiting factors at providing adequate level of service to boat launch
facilities in the county.
The recommendations included capital improvements. And one of those capital improvements was
that the county should consider purchasing available residential lots along Danford Street to be used for
overflow trailer parking.
So subsequent to that 2003 report, the county went into action with capital improvements, including
improvement plans that are now underway for the 95] boat ramp facility that would greatly increase the
number of parking spaces there.
There's a new Goodland boating park facility that's going through permitting that would provide
two new boat launch lanes for the county -- for the public and the county, and adequately parked with 75
trailer spaces.
Bayview Park is also subject to an improvement plan that's going through permitting. The existing
two lanes and 16 trailer parking spaces at that facility are proposed to increasc to three lanes and an increase
up to 40 trailer parking spaces on the Bayview Park site itself.
That still leaves a deficit of 68 parking spaces, according to that methodology of optimum use of
those proposed -- the proposed three launch lanes.
The overflow parking areas have been purchased as a result of the directives of that boating report.
The BCC approved in April of2004 that real estate incentives are allowed to aid the purchase of vacant and
developed home sites to provide boat launch parking for Bayview Park.
Between the years of2004 and up to 2008, the county has purchased ]5 total properties, 12 of
which are within the Naples Bayview addition subdivision. The cost to the county thus far has been $2.6
million.
Hopefully you can see on this exhibit, the red outlines of property are county owned property.
Page 30
16 1 1 A5
December 4, 2008
Again, between the areas of Danford Street that leads to Bayview Park and Bay Street,just south of
Danford, 12 parcels are now owned by Collier County for the purpose of providing overflow parking.
To bring you up to date with what the need is -- how to justifY the need for additional parking at
Bayview Parking. You can see that it continues to be a popular facility for boat launching.
Trip counts were taken in October of this year. And a weekday average of 56 users, that's only
measuring those vehicles that are a vehicle plus a boat trailer, using the park was 56 during weekday
average and then Saturday and Sunday an average of 100 users frequent that park.
Currently, as stated, there are two ramp lanes and 16 available trailer spaces on the site. Clearly
there's a deficit.
Even with improvement plans to go to three lanes in 40 over double the amount of spaces, there's
still going to be an obvious deficit.
The consequences of this high usage and not enough parking results in some road conditions
around the neighborhood where overflow parking occurs on the neighborhood streets and as well as some
conditions where overflow parking occurs along mangrove habitat. I have pictures of that to give you a
better idea.
These images show parking along approximately 400 feet of mangrove flanked Danford Street, as
you approach Bayview Park.
The boat -- the trailer parking usually lines up there on the weekends. Approximately 20 vehicles
can be accommodated, lOon each side, and that's where historically the overflow parking occurs.
It even occurs on now Hamilton Avenue. You can see in the bottom left-hand picture, that's
Hamilton A venue where the vehicles line up as well. And pedestrians who park over half a mile away from
the park itself, then make their way dO'Wll the streets that have no pedestrian facilities to get to the park at all
times of day.
This image is provided to give you a better idea of the constrained nature where the mangrove
habitat exists at the end of Danford Street. Once the vehicles occupy the paved shoulder in that area, there's
approximately 18 and a half feet remaining for two-way traffic, for emergency vehicle access or for
pedestrians to occupy and move along Danford Street. This is substandard to a typical local street section
where the county and emergency access vehicles require 20-foot unobstructed dimcnsion to move through a
standard street.
The result of this condition is shown in these pictures. If you look at picture number one, a
westbound vehicle approaching the park stops once he reaches the constrained area where the parking
occurs along the mangroves. He must stop to allow an outbound vehicle to pass through that constrained
area.
And number two shows how the outbound vehicle can then pass him.
He then proceeds west to the park and basically along the center line of the road, because that's how
that area is functioning now, due to the lack of adequate dimension. Of course a pedestrian in that case
where I was taking the pictures has to wedge themselves between the parked vehicles.
Environmental issues are raised by the current conditions as well. The county would like to
alleviate by providing adequate off-street parking for these vehicles.
These are images you could see almost any weekend where the boat -- the vehicles and trailers
occupy the shoulder of Danford Street into the swale and the mangrove -- the wetland habitat and the
mangroves along that street.
There's more images of that.
So how the county approached this issue was to develop a parking plan using the 12 properties they
own between Danford and Bay Street. This original plan was the first submittal and that's why your agenda
item described 2. I3 acres ofrezone.
Page 3 1
16 I 1 ~S
December 4, 2008
Due to neighborhood concerns at the first neighborhood meeting, the plan was adjusted to eliminate
the parking that was in the central piece of property on this plan. That was done to address concerns that the
neighborhood was being infiltrated with parking and it was taking the neighborhood character away.
This still left the neighbors unsatisfied.
And the final plan that's before you today and that went to the neighborhoods in our third
neighborhood meeting is a plan that concentrates the parking in one location, the southeast corner of the
subdivision fronting Hamilton Avenue where C-3 zoning already exists and would by right allow parking or
up to 90 other uses commercial in nature. And then fronting Bay Street to the south.
The connector road remains on this plan to improve the circulation of the vehicles to and from
Bayview Park.
Pedestrian plan was a critical part of this proposal. And a pedestrian plan is provided to
accommodate those who walk back and forth once they drop their vehicles off and then need to retrieve
them.
A six-foot sidewalk will be provided where none exists now, connecting the parking areas to the
park. An image of those proposed sidewalks are shown here. You kind of need to look from top to bottom.
First an image of Bay Street is shown with an illustration of how sidewalks will be accommodated in the
existing cross-section. At the request of transportation staff, we can provide bollards and guardrail for safety
of those pedestrians.
The image to the right is again that Danford section where vehicles occupy the shoulders currently.
The goal would be to eliminate the parking in those locations and provide adequate pedestrian access as
shown in the illustration.
We can kind of summarize that the rezoning criteria have been fully addressed in the application
and been well addressed by staff in the staff report.
Almost all the rezoning criteria are met. The one variation we have with staff is that they find the
request to be incompatible with the residential neighborhood. Specifically the incompatibility is defined in
the staff report to say that public boat trailer parking and public boat launch access is inherently not
compatible with residential uses. And we need to -- you know, I ask you to consider how compatibility is
really judged. Of course, a same use next to a same use would be an easy way to define compatibility.
This location, an urban location, is by nature going to have different uses next to each other. So I
suggest that the defining of compatibility is more on how those different uses interface with one another.
Granted, parking is not an equal use to a residential use. However, the proposed parking has been designed
and structured to address compatibility on the levels of buffering, hours of operation, noise, odor, glare,
dust. Those issues are the way that compatibility is demonstrated through the application.
The application is also consistent on many levels of the Growth Management Plan, specifically the
future land use element and the designation of the urban coastal fringe sub-district does allow for water
dependent and water related uses due to the proximity to the water.
The coastal high hazard area actually seeks to limit residential density and balance environmentally
sensitive conservation areas that are sought to be protected in this proposal.
The conservation and coastal management element policies are met in that the project does provide
access to waterfront and protects sensitive habitat.
The recreation open space element policies are met in that it improves public recreation facilities
and provides accessibility to these facilities to the public of Collier County.
The transportation element policies are met in that the project does provide for safe motorized and
non-motorized travel, and given the condition that is unsafe now.
And the capital improvement element is met, which specially states that the county shall support
public access to waterways and expend funds in the coastal high hazard area, including for park and
Page 32
16\
1 kS
Decem ber 4, 2008
recreation facilities.
To summarize, the issues that we've tried to address through neighborhood meetings, we have held
three neighborhood meetings. Being a small neighborhood with an established community there, there's
been very vocal opposition to this proposed parking plan.
We met on June Sth, 2008 with the original plan that I showed. July 10th again returned with an
adjustment to the plan that, as I said, was not -- still not acceptable to the neighborhood.
And finally, on September 30th the final plan went to the neighborhood. Improved buffering
options went to the neighborhood. Some fencing was added. The issues primarily that we heard of safety,
hours of operation, lighting and consolidating the parking to limit its impact on the neighborhood were all
sought to be addressed.
Example of the buffer plan that we provided is enhanced in -- along the Type D buffers along the
right-of-way to provide up to six feet of opaque vegetation to limit views into the parking area. And all
native vegetation is proposed.
The Type B buffers that would go between the parking area and the residential neighbors would
also be of course six feet in height and opaque, plus a vinyl coded fence is proposed, chain link fence is
proposed for the -- to provide for the safety considerations. It was a request ofthe neighbors.
We acknowledge that staff has recommended denial, like I said, based on the compatibility issue.
Staff also listed conditions. Should the project be forwarded with a recommendation of approval, we could
address each of those conditions maybe once we've moved through the procedure and see how you want to
handle conditions, if you recommend approval.
That concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Questions of the applicant?
COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say, I've got a few hundred.
Go ahead, Mr. Murray, after you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have that many.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm being a little facetious, but I have quite a few.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Couple of things come to my mind. There is a question of safety
for the boaters as well. These will be locked; these gates will be locked. Will egress -- in other words, is it
possible for someone to come after hours in any fashion with a code or anything to be able to open up that
gate to retrieve their trailer and to go and get their boat? Because if they're out in the water, that's not a good
thing either.
So is there egress, even though you have a time that you want to close the facility down?
MS. DeJOHN: Right. Staff did recommend a locking gate to be secured. That was staff
recommendation number five.
We would suggest that a traffic actuated gate arm be installed so that an outgoing vehicle would
activate the gate arm so they could exit. However, no entry would be allowed after hours.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm asking.
And entry would be a manned gate, so to speak, or a man door. In order to take the vehicle out, you
have to be able to get in.
MS. DeJOHN: Well, a pedestrian would walk -- yeah. So pedestrian access would be provided.
However, the vehicle access would be blocked going in and would be allowed going out.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so let's make it: Ifit hadn't been considered, it probably
ought to be considered to have a man gate, I call it a man gate, a pedestrian entry so -- so to allow the
removal of the -- okay, tine.
Page 33
161
lA--s
December 4, 2008
When this is all -- assuming that it were complete, what then will stop people who will overflow
the overflow from parking on Danford?
MS. DeJOHN: Well, we've involved the Sheriffs Department in these discussions. The Sheriffs
Department would like to be able to enforce traffic, you know, parking restrictions on those vehicles once
adequate parking is provided, as demonstrated by the needs ofthis facility once adequate parking can be
provided. We have a total of 40 spaces at the site and 39 off-site, a total of79 spaces. Then it would allow
some more enforcement to occur on the road right-of-ways.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand the principle.
Is there a form of arithmetic that's used to calculate the total number of uses in a given day which
would then represent the total tratlic that could be sustained and therefore the total overflow potential?
MS. DeJOHN: Yes, there's a formula in that boating -- Boat and Beach Access study. According to
the Florida Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning Guide, there's a number of 36 launches
per day that's assumed -- per lane -- per day per lane that's assumed to be the carrying capacity for a typical
lane. So 36 is the ultimate.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have two lanes?
MS. DeJOHN: Yes. Two--
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So we're at 72.
MS. DeJOHN: Right, two currently, which would need 72 spaces. The proposal is to go to three
lanes with an improvement plan that's still in permitting that would require 108.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wouldn't that then precipitate overflow on the street access, as
opposed to where this is going to be accommodated?
MS. DeJOHN: In that mathematical sense, there would still be a deficit, yes. But there would be at
least a better provision of parking there, not such a gross deficit, that the provision of other facilities, like
Goodland Boating Park coming online could also alleviate the need to launch at this facility.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Going into another area, historically we have some data, I
assume, that show us what nunlbers are generated during a typical weekday and during a typical weekend.
Is it a fairly constant or is it sea~onal that we get a major overflow?
MS. DeJOHN: Can you speak to that?
MR. McALPIN: For the record, Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management.
We did traffic counts, and we -- the traffic counts were taken in October during a non-peak time.
And there were 56 during weekend in terms of boat use -- week days in terms of boat users using the
facility and 100 on the weekend. Now, wc expect that that traf1ic count is going to go up for a variety of
reasons. One is we havcn't taken into account peak season and we haven't taken into account holidays
either.
And then also we haven't taken into account the increased uses as a result of the Hamilton Harbor
development. They have a fueling facility there and they have other amenities there which will attract more
users to this location.
So we expect the usage of this park to continue to rise. This is one of our busiest parks, and it offers
the quickest access to the Gulf. So this facility will continue to see increased uses as we move forward.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you for that information. I guess my problem will revolve
around the notion that while there's a great effort and I respect this effort, it seems, you know, a desirable
thing to try to accomplish. While this effort is going forward, while it may satisfY some, it would seem that
it will precipitate other. And J'mjust -- I'm not against the theory of it, but I'm just wondering if we're a little
too early with this process. If, and I make the assumption that there may be other parcels that ultimately
may be secured, which would expand, if this is the final product that we expect for some time to come, then
I just wonder how we can do the arithmetic and expect that we won't still have a problem on Danford.
Page 34
1D~elber 4, loA'S
MR. McALPIN: We looked at all the surrounding neighborhoods. We looked at if additional
parking parcels could be acquired. We're boxed in in terms of conservation on a lot of the existing
neighborhoods. So this offers us -- this neighborhood offers us the only solution that we could see at this
point in time.
Our intent would be that we are trying to solicit willing sellers. And as we are -- more willing
sellers step up and as we can gain more critical mass, we would like to expand the parking in this area.
So what we look at is this is a continuum. And the continuum may be extended over a period of
time. If we get this rezone now, we have 39 off-trailer site parking. Five years from now we may have
acquired enough to have another critical ma~s and then we would move toward rezoning that at that point in
time.
Ultimately our goal is to secure enough off-site parking to satisfY the needs of the park community.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And J understood that. That seems implicit in it.
And the question then arises, is there a suspicion that as a result of the introduction of these parking
facilities that property values will rise or property values will fall?
MR. McALPIN: Well, there's been a lot of discussion about whether property values will rise and
property val -- or will fall.
We have not addressed that in any of our analysis moving forward. What we're trying to do is to
provide a safe amenity to the public. And we have a health and safety issue right now. We have a deficit for
parking right now and we have clearly a demonstrated need with the facility that we have in place right
now.
So what we're trying to do is to solve those problems with this approach, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And J appreciate that. I would -- perhaps it's not your responsibility
to do that, but [ would think a real effective analysis would have included the conditions that might be
negative. But we have the public here, and if they're unhappy I'm sure they'll say something. Thank you.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: My question is why didn't Parks and Rec. consider the parking
needs of this park, of Bayview Park, at the time that it was planned')
MS. DeJOHN: Bayview Park dates back to about 198 I. And I think over time the increasing
demand and population growth and recreational boater use has generated an increase in demand over time.
The original plans, a typical LDC parking requirement for a boat launch is 10 spaces per boat
launch lane. So there's a disconnect between how these parks have actually developed to be very popular
and being used versus the kind of county standard and parking standard that goes along with them.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you're saying that at the time the park was established, it did
comply with the parking standards?
MS. DeJOHN: Well, it's actually in the City of Naples. The City of Naples doesn't have exact--
doesn't enumerate requirements for boat launch lanes in their code.
I used the Collier County example as a point of reference that typically 10 spaces per lane is
required.
The county -- the city executed the development plan approvals for Bayview Park and it was built
according to plan.
MR. McALPIN: If! may, one thing [would like to add to that is as our population continues to
grow, we see more boat usage. We typically -- up to 2000, our boat usage, registered vessels within the
county grew at 1,000 per year. From 2000 to 2006 it grew at approximately SOO per year. During that period
of time you saw a lot ofthe public facilities close down. And certainly with environmental regulations and
Page 35
le~mL 4, 20l kS
zoning issues we have approximately 9,000 wet/dry docks.
So the balance -- and we have approximately 24,000 boat users right now, a little bit more than that,
boat users within Collier County. So the balance of those users is increasing. And then the way they have
access to the water is through our boat park facilities. So that's what we're trying to accommodate right now.
We know that this facility is at a deficit from a parking point of view currently as we stand.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: It just seems as though that there was not good planning when they
designed the park, that they didn't include enough parking spaces at the time.
MR. McALPIN: The park was designed in the Fifties, and I think that it's -- it would have been
difficult to see the current growth that we've experienccd, the economic conditions that we've experienced,
the shut down public access to the waterway and the need for boater access. We are trying to move towards
the direction of the county commission to provide more access to the waterways.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Laura, there's restrooms at the boat launch, correct?
MS. DeJOHN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the C-3? Have you researchcd why that exists there
isolated like that?
MS. DeJOHN: I don't know how the C-3 came about, no.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the shared easement, the intent there is that the
property owner to the south of that area would like to also have access to that. Wouldn't that not present a
problem when you start gating that entrance?
MS. DeJOHN: We would have to negotiate those terms.
The conceptual idea of an easement agreement has been reached, but we do not have all the formal
details arranged with the adjacent property owner.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it his intent to do commercial development on that site; do you
know?
MS. DeJOHN: Do you know?
MR. McALPIN: The property owner is Hamilton Harbor, and Hamilton Harbor is holding that lot
for the future. They're not quite sure what they want to do with it at this point in time.
So we'll continue to work with Hamilton Harbor on joint access.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do they own the lot to the north?
MR. McALPIN: No, they do not. That's owned by a private individual.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's not a commercial use at this time, right?
MR. McALPIN: It is not in commercial use at this point in time, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Laura, can you show me the landscape elevation from the
neighbors to the north? Which one is it?
MS. DeJOHN: It would be the lower elevation, Type B.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And there is a concern about a wall in that buffer. What's
your thoughts on that?
MS. DeJOHN: The county staff has interpreted the fence and wall section to apply to community
facility zoning adjacent to residential. The -- we contend that that should not be applicable to community
facility zoning, because the section of the code regarding that is under commercial and industrial zoning
districts. So we've suggested that the fence is an adequate structure between the two properties.
Do you want me to reference the exact section of the code?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no.
Actually, what I really want, what do you think in your professional judgment would make the best
Page 36
1611JtS
December 4, 2008
buffer between the residences and that --
MS. DeJOHN: Right, the fence would make the better buffer between the residences and this
facility. Because the wall-- by trying to soften the edge and minimize the impact on neighbors, a wall is,
you know, like was brought up this morning with the sign, a wall is much more of an imposition visually
along the property line.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when you say fence, what are you describing, a chain link
fence?
MS. DeJOHN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With vegetation around it so hopefully it becomes like an
armature for the vegetation?
MS. DeJOHN: Correct, it wouldn't be visible necessarily.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the site plan you located away from the neighbors property
line; isn't that right? It appears to be up against the edge ofthe --
MS. DeJOHN: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would the neighbor who was fencing their backyard be able --
what would they do there? They'd have to run a fence across their rear property line then, wouldn't they?
If, for example, let's say they wanted to fence in their yard for a dog or something, they would not
be able to count on that fence where it's located, right?
MS. DeJOHN: Right. ]be only reason for that fence location was the existence of a utility
easement that runs between those properties. So the fence was shown to have the least obstruction to the
utility easement, which was closest to the parking area as it's shown there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the last question: Do you think you'd be able to adjust
this site plan -- not number, but move things left and right -- to try to get better islands in the center of the
thing such that you could put bigger trees in the center of the parking?
MS. DeJOHN: We can make adjustments that maintain the number of spaces.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, just slide them a little bit each way to make sure that -- the
goal being to get as much area into the island as you can to put as big a tree as you can. And that might help
soften the transition to Hamilton Harbor from these backyards to have large --
MS. DeJOHN: More trees.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- trees and -- yeah.
All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: In making your projections of usage as far as the boats and the
parking, do you consider that boats that are going to possibly be built and go to slips in the county at the
same time, or look at just boat ramp traffic?
In other words, we have the county water access with building a slip, in-water slip, those boats all
use the same water that the boats could come down on the cars do, on the trailers do. And I want to make
any projections if you crank any factor for that and what that loaning (sic) will be and that will relate to you.
MS. DeJOHN: There is a -- can you speak to that? I think there is a factor for that.
MR. McALPIN: When we look at typical usagc of our boat park, it is based on the capacity of the
lanes. And then what we can do from a manatee protection program point of view -- and that's typically the
criteria that we use. We do have at this facility, we have a fixed dock and we have a floating dock. But
typically those are going to be used for aftcr an individual launches his boat to tie up against. So to then
load and unload material, children, whatever.
So we don't anticipate any rental of wet slips at this location whatsoever.
Page 37
16'
1 As
December 4, 2008
I don't know if that answers your question, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, but you're projecting in the future that what is going to be a
demand for more boat launch area, because the boat population is increasing as far as people interested in
boating. That's covering the type of boats that come down on the ramp like you have here.
MR. McALPIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But in addition to that in the county, there is people building slips
to moor their boats in the water.
Now, if the number of slips that they were going to build would double their projections there
might be for the future, would that have a negative effect on the number of ramps that you might need or
vice versa?
MR. McALPIN: The projection that we're using for additional wet/dry slips in the county is 120 a
year. And typically in the past it's averaged 180 a year.
But we've ratcheted that back down because ofthe environmental considerations, the cost ofland, a
lot of the access and the good spaces, the easy spaces have been already taken up. So we see it much more
difficult to deal with wet slips as we move forward.
When we look at our projection -- and we're updating our beach and boat master plan right now --
we continue to have a deficit in terms of parking, in terms of launch sites moving forward of at least one to
two a year, and we have a significant deficit on parking for boat trailers.
So we factored it into our overall long-term plan for the next 10 years and there's still definitely a
deficit moving forward.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But you don't account tor anything as far as slips that would be
built on private property?
MR. McALPIN: We do. We do. When we do the master plan, when we have done the master plan
and we look at the total growth of boats throughout the county, it's in the range right now of about 24,000 --
registered vessels in the county, 24,700, thereabouts, okay. We have approximately 9,000 wet and dry slips,
of which that will grow at about, we're projecting, 120 per year.
So when we take the difference betwcen those two numbers, then the balance of that goes to the
facilities we have to provide for boat launch facilities. And on average there's -- per boat, there's 20
launches per year. So that's how we figure out the capacity of our boat launch facilities throughout the
county.
We compare them to population projections and we see what the deficit is, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff -- or the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Laura, let's start with the plan you have -- well, first of all a statement you
made earlier. I need to understand the legal reasoning behind your statement. You said that in response to
Mr. Murray's concern about additional off-strcet parking, even aller you get done creating possibly 39
spaces. Then you said enforcement can occur after there are adequate spaces.
Why is the Sheriffs Department limited to enforcing the law after someone, who knows, maybe a
deputy in the field or a person walking by determines there are adequate spaces?
MS. DeJOHN: Unfortunately the Sheriffs Office isn't here to respond to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you did, so I want to understand why you responded that way.
MS. DeJOHN: I was relaying the information provided by the Sheriffs Office.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the Sheriffs Office said they can't enforce the laws until someone tells
them that therc aren't adequate alternatives to the ovcrflow.
MS. DeJOHN: There -- they've allowed the parking to occur on that section of Danford for years,
Page 38
1 ~tLber4,l08 ftS
and there's no trigger to have them start ticketing those vehicles at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not asking them to start ticketing, I'm asking them to enforce the law.
And if there is a law on the books that allows them that discretion, I think that's okay, ifthat's what it is. I
just want to know that it is.
And I'm wondering who on county staff can respond to this in the future and let us know at a future
follow-up meeting.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think the question is really best directed to the Sheriffs Department.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're not here.
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that will be an open question. I guess SheriffRambosk, when he--
yeah, J.D., do you have an answer?
MR. MOSS: For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development
Review.
I recall this question being posed at the neighborhood information meeting when the sheriff was
there. And he said that the only reason they weren't ticketing is because they never had any complaints. But
if people started to complain, they would certainly ticket, because that is the law.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not encouraging them to go out and ticket, I just want the
statement for the record clear.
If they're not enforcing the law, then they need to have a good reason for not enforcing it. And if it's
because they haven't got complaints and the neighborhood doesn't mind at this point, then that's fine, too.
MR. MOSS: He conceded that was the only reason they weren't ticketing, because no one had
complained.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then even if the 39 spaces were created and there was overflow
parking, it still doesn't necessarily mean it would be ticketed or stopped.
MS. DeJOHN: Unless the traffic safety condition, you know, encouraged the sheriff that it was an
appropriate thing to stop. Because there's not adequate dimension for two-way traffic down that street.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the parking of the overflow along Danford with the 39 spaces in
place, say it still needed it, would it be any safer then that you believe it is -- to now? If not, then you have
just done the same thing again, you've interjected a criteria that I don't know how anybody could adequately
understand it. Who makes that decision that it's safe now but not safe when it's done because 39 spaces are
there? So I don't --
MS. DeJOHN: I don't make that decision.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- follow your reasoning on that issue.
MR. McALPIN: If! may, Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
The parking on Danford as we move forward doesn't meet county standards. Okay, we have
parking on both sides of the road, it doesn't meet county standards, it's substandard parking, there's no
pedestrian access and there's -- emergency vehicles cannot use that road or it would be a hinder to that road.
The Sheriffs Department, my recollection from the conversation with the Sheriffs Department, and
we certainly can get this revolved with the Sheriffs Department, was that they would not ticket until
adequate parking was available. And that is the basis that we are moving forward with.
But in any event, we do have a substandard condition as we move down Danford Street. It is not
per our ordinance, and we cannot continue to allow parking on both sides of the road there, even from an
environmental point of view where we're in the mangroves. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm still not clear on this issue of why it's illegal after the parking's
Page 39
~e~Jer 4, 218 ~S
put in place versus why it may not be now. I don't think that the Sheriffs Department's response was legally
justified or is legally balanced, so that needs to be cleared up.
But let's talk about environmental issues. Danford -- could you put that cut on showing the parking
on Danford Street? The colored one. Well, you just passed one of them.
Okay, that's one of them. Now could you put the road section cuts you had on there earlier,
showing the section of Danford?
MS. DeJOHN: It's going to take a minute.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There were two, one on top, one on bottom.
MS. DeJOHN: Yeah, I'm going there, it just takes a minute to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, right there.
Where is it on this particular plan that those cars are parked?
MS. DeJOHN: The five-foot, four-inch paved striped shoulder--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and the right-of-way--
MS. DeJOHN: -- into the limerock shoulder.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the right-of-way is 60 feet, right?
MS. DeJOHN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you have six feet oflime rock and eight feet -- five feet,
eight-inch ditch, and then something outside the ditch before you reach the outside of that right-of-way.
And the mangroves are where, in the right-of-way?
MS. DeJOHN : Yes, they're hovering over the ditch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we wanted to go in and widen that road, we would take the
mangroves out. It's in our right-of-way.
I'm just wondering why the mangroves that are in a road right-of-way all of a sudden become an
environmental flag for someone to make an argument on. I don't see it.
And that's my point in trying to point out that these cars are parking on areas that are improved or
in areas that could be used for road right-of-way.
So I'm not sure the environmental argument is as good of an argument as you believe it is as far as
being detrimental.
Could you put on the site plan again, please. The one that's real. There you go.
I use Bayview Park. I've been in this community over 30 years, and I've used Bayview from early
days. I've seen it change. And I go there quite frequently. It's a great park to get quick access to the beach --
or to the Gulf, actually.
I've never had to park in the overflow outside the park. I've always parked in the space, I've never
found that to be a problem. Maybe because I get up early.
But when I come down the road, I go down Danford Street, I launch my boat and I park my trailer.
If! were to park in the overflow, I'd drive out to the overflow and park it there.
Now what you would have is you'd come down Danford Street, launch your boat, drive down
Danford Street to get back to Hamilton Ave. to get back to 39 spaces, drive out of the 39 spaces and either
go up the new road you're proposing or left on Hamilton and back down Danford. And after you pull your
boat out you go back down Danford.
Has Danford got sidewalks down both sides of it?
MS. DeJOHN: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means the boat traffic and trailers -- and you've shown some pretty
wide boats -- would actually increase on Danford Street.
He just told you to say no. So do you want to explain to me why he told you that?
MS. DeJOHN: No, I'm trying to follow your logic. Currently Danford is the primary access for the
Page 40
161 1
December 4, 2008
f\S
Bayview boat launch facility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. DeJOHN: When vehicles either park in the Bayview Park itself or along the mangroves or
along Hamilton A venue, there's differing trips being made there. So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the most logical is the straight line. You're going to go straight so
you can avoid with a trailer on the back making as many turns as you possibly can to expect people to go
down that connection street with one right, then a left, then go back down Hamilton, make a left, make
another left to get back in the parking lot is far more complex than just driving down Danford, making a
right, then a right and you're in.
Rights are a lot easier to make with a boat trailer than a left. I am concerned that the traffic pattern
here would increase problems, not decrease problems in that regard.
MR. McALPIN: Mr. Chair, if[ may --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. McALPIN: -- if we look at the connecting road right in through there, the connecting road will
alleviate traffic on this portion of Danford Street right in through here.
Currently all the traffic on Danford comes in through this way, comes through the park and comes
back out. If we have the overflow of parking at this point in time with the connecting road, it gives us the
ability to have parking that come that would use Bay Street and eliminate this portion of Danford right in
through there.
So our contention is that as a result of putting in this parking -- this cross-through street right
through here, it would eliminate and solve some ofthe traffic problems on this portion of Danford.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a boat on a trailer?
MR. McALPIN: I do, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you used it on Bayview Park?
MR. McALPIN: No, sir, I have not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
The landscape buffer that you showed, Laura, could you put that back up, please.
On that bottom one, the six feet, where does that start at FEMA-wise?
MS. DeJOHN: It was existing grade.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Existing grade FEMA-wise.
What's your survey show?
MS. DeJOHN: It's in the range of three feet. 'Three to five.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's say five feet. So at six feet you'd be II feet at the best with your
hedge and your chain link fence.
Do you know what the FEMA is for habitable structure in that area?
MS. DeJOHN: It's high.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So do you know what the neighbors will be looking over? The
six-foot hedge. Because they're going to be starting at probably II or above. And that means their homes
are higher than the hedge and -- the wall you're putting in.
I've been down there. I've been in some of thc homes so I know that to be a fact. And that's why I
don't see the compatibility issue being accomplished by a hedge that's below the level of the homes adjacent
to it.
MS. DeJOHN: That's why the trees were provided, to add to that blocking of the views.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I see the spacing.
The property that you're talking about using as a parking lot, aren't there two homes there C.O.'d,
occupy-able (sic) if they wanted to be or may have been at one time?
Page 41
161 1 kS
December 4, 2008
MS. DeJOHN: There are two homes, I believe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that development? I'd say they're developed, would you not?
MS. DeJOHN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When I met with you, Mr. McAlpin, I mentioned to you, why didn't you
utilize the 15 spaces at Hamilton Harbor, and you didn't know what I was talking about or what I was
referring to. And I said, well, it's in the staff report. And you had a staffreport and I pointed it out to you.
And at the time we met, you didn't have an explanation as to what that was about.
I believe you since have found out that Hamilton Harbor at one time had a requirement for 15
spaces, and at some point the county gave its authority over to the City of Naples to negotiate with
Hamilton Harbor on parameters involving their facility, and the 15 spaces have disappeared as accessible to
this community. Is that a fair statement?
MR. McALPIN: That is correct. They originally had an agreement in '99 that -- and we entered into
an interlocal agreement with the City of Naples that City of Naples would work on the county's behalf,
represent the county.
Subsequent, in April, 2000 another agreement was -- the original agreement was struck. Another
agreement was entered into with City of Naples and Hamilton Harbor and the 15 spaces for whatever
reason were eliminated, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who in your department was in those meetings and helped with that --
MR. McALPIN: I can't comment at that point in time, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will be my questions until we get through staff.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, would staff like to make their presentation?
MR. MOSS: Thank you. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land
Development Review.
At noted in the Comprehensive Planning portion of the staffreport, comprehensive planning staff
found the project to be consistent with the majority of the provisions in the comprehensive plan. However,
they left the determination of the project's consistency with future land use element Policy 5.4, and the
recreation and open space element Policy 1.31, which deal with compatibility, up to the determination of
Zoning and Land Development Rcview staff.
Staff looked at these provisions and found the project to be inconsistent with them. Staff also found
the project to be inconsistent with the Land Development Code which had analyzed the provisions in
Subsection 10.03.05. (1)(2), which begin on Page 7 of the staffreport.
Staff has also received 19 letters of objection from 16 different property owners. Two of these
letters were received after the packages had been distributed to you. So I gave them to you this morning;
you should have found them on your desk.
I also received this morning two petitions of objection to the project from two different residents of
the community.
Staff is recommending denial of this project. As noted in the Boat and Beach Access Report that
was attached to the staff report, 56 spaces were requested or determined to be needed for Bayview Park, 40
of which are going to be provided on the park side itself after the renovations are complete.
Therefore, in staffs opinion, the 16 spaces that are the shortfall should be provided in the C- 3 zoned
portion of the neighborhood, which would not require any sort ofrezoning action, and especially not the 39
spaces that the applicant is requesting today.
Staffalso feels that if this petition were approved, it would just be a snowball effect, like Mr.
Page 42
Murray pointed out and Commissioner Strain followed on.
At some point these parking spaces are going to get filled up. The location of this park makes it
extremely popular; it's one of the closest ones to the city. And staff feels that if this is approved, this parking
lot's going to get filled up too and we're going to have more parking on the street. So it's really more of an
enforcement issue.
However, if the Planning Commission is going to recommend approval, staff recommends that it
does so subject to the conditions that are stipulated in the staffreport.
And to address your question earlier, Commissioner Schiffer, about the wall, it is a requirement of
the LDC that a wall be located between residential and nonresidential development.
Mrs. DeJohn is absol utely correct, in the current LDC it shows this requirement to not be required
for community facility zoning, but that's only a mistake. When the new code wa~ created, the section before
it was inadvertently merged with it. If you look in the old code, it's very clear that any development that is
non-commercial -- or excuse me, that is nonresidential abutting a residential should have a wall located
there.
December 4, 2008
16 'IAS
And I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff at this time?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, and John-David, I'm having trouble with the logic of
what you're saying, that if we build this facility and then it fills up, people are going to be out in the street
again. Doesn't that demonstrate to you that there's a need? I mean --
MR. MOSS: There's absolutely a need. Like I said, it's in -- and Mr. McAlpin said, it's the most
popular boat launch because it's closest to the city.
But this neighborhood just isn't right for redevelopment. It's not ready for this sort of thing, in staffs
opinion. And people are going to continue to come to it.
There's no doubt that there's a need for boat launch facilities in the park -- or in the county, but
locating them at this park doesn't seem like a good idea.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the wall. So you're totally against the concept of an open
fence. Do you think the neighbors would rather have a wall than an open fence, just due to the ventilation,
stuff like that?
MR. MOSS: Actually, I think I recall one of the neighbors saying that they would prefer a fence.
But nevertheless, the LDC requires a wall. And so that's why staff has taken the position that it's taken.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you have any way to show us the old and the new code?
MR. MOSS: Oh, I don't have a copy of that -- oh, I might have a copy of that with me in my file, if
you give me a minute to look for it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, move on. If you get a chance, find that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, relative to that, the fence and -- the question was raised
about FEMA. And how much does flooding occur; do we know? And if flooding occurs certainly during a
hurricane or a storm, the kind of botanicals we're talking about putting in there certainly have to be salt
resistant, wouldn't you think?
I mean, I'm worried about it with a fence, all well and good to put something in, it looks pretty
initially or it will grow in to look well, you know, nice in a short time. But it can also die off.
Did we take it into consideration if we're going to advocate a fence whether or not that's something
that's going to be maintained effectively with the type of plants --
MR. MOSS: Well, I do know that one of the commitments they've made is to provide all native
Page 43
species, so they would have the greatest chance of survival of any plantings.
But I don't know if flooding occurs regularly in that neighborhood. This project wasn't reviewed by
our stormwater engineering department, so I don't know what the flooding situation is like there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe we'll hear from the people that live there. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Ray, are there public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have four speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, as you come up, we need you to identifY yourself for the
record, and use either podium you'd like. We ask that you try to limit your discussion to five minutes. That
isn't an adhered to rule, but just as a courtesy. Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: Okay, the first speaker is David Kramer, to be followed by Philip Litow.
MR. KRAMER: David Kramer, and I've lived at 1870 Danford Street for over 30 years. I'm not
only speaking for myself, I'm speaking for four of the neighbors that are seasonal visitors. They've asked
me to convey their things to you. We've had letters from them.
And I want to state this, too, that when this thing originally started in 2003, we were given letters
and told that the county wanted to buy up the property. Now, as far as I know, the only property that has
been bought up has been from a developer, from vacant landowners and one duplex from a non-resident
owner. None of the property owners on the street have sold.
As far as I can say, if a vote was taken by the residents of this street and even the properties on the
north side of the street that nobody wants to take, everyone is against it. We feel that if you want parking
down there, there is space adjacent to the park. We understand there's mangroves there, and that it is a
problem to have mangroves taken out. But we also were told that with a lot of hard work, it can be done,
and the parking could be done by the park where it would be needed, not a block away from the park, five
or 600 feet.
We also feel that rezoning for parking is basically spot zoning. What it does, it's a back door
eminent domain. It lowers the value of our property when the parking is there, and it gives the county a
chance to purchase more property from people that get tired of having parking there.
I've lived on that street for a long time. When I lived there, I mean, the boats that came down there
in a week weren't as many as come down on a Monday now.
And I understand the need for boat parking and facilities, but if they would have done this and said,
hey, in 2003 we want to buy this up, but it's maybe a 50-year plan when we can get it out of there.
There's a neighbor down the street that bought a lot from me that's putting a $400,000 home on it.
Now, I mean, does he want a parking lot around him? No. I mean, he's not here because he's on the East
Coast. His home should be finished by the end of this month or the first of next month.
I just thank you for your time and hope that you'll vote against this. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Sir, could I have a question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
There's a question from Commissioner Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Sir, you've lived there for 30 years. Does the area there flood?
MR. KRAMER: Occasionally. The water comes up -- I have been flooded once in the 30 years that
I've got maybe an inch of water in my bedroom.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that freshwater flood or is that saltwater?
MR. KRAMER: No, that was saltwater intrusion from Tropical Storm Gabriel.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so that is a potential then.
December 4, 2008
161 l-AS
Page 44
MR. KRAMER: Oh, yes, definitely.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One of the reasons why the homes have to be built out.
MR. KRAMER: The new ones, yes. I've been in there -- I'm probably one of the lowest ones down
there. There's one other home on the street that I know that is flooded constantly. When they get the high
tides, sometimes the nip tides when the moon and everything is lined right. But other than that, most of
them don't flood.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you, sir.
MR. KRAMER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next speaker, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Philip Litow, to be followed by Janet (sic) Phillips.
MR. LITOW: Good morning. My name is Philip Litow. I live at 1970 Danford Street.
We have a nice, elean, quiet neighborhood there, even though boats on trailers go down the street.
It's our opinion that if a nice actually resurgent neighborhood with new homes going up -- as Mr.
Kramer just said, there's a 3,400 square foot home going up that will be completed in a month. Several new
homes have gone up in the last few years.
When this process started, it was a little bit different. We can understand the need for boat ramps
and for boat parking; however, if there is such a great need, a real public need to ruin a neighborhood, we
feel this would do. Because in spite of how they would try to enforce everything, they're going to be things
falling off of trailers in a parking lot right behind my house. If they have to put up lights, we're going to
have glaring light at night instead of night. There's going to be sound. Regardless of any kind of barriers
they put up to block the view, there's still going to be sound of trailers going in and out, fumes from trucks,
so forth and so on.
There's not enough need here to invoke eminent domain. This is not such a serious thing. So
therefore, there has to be an extremely serious problem.
Is there a problem? Yes. But it's almost always only on the weekends. I would rather dispute the 56
average daily use of this park during the five week days.
I would invite you to go there this afternoon when you leave here and see how many cars are
parked along the mangroves there. At most, in an average weekday, it's five or six. And that's even with
some empty spots inside.
On the weekends there's a problem. But for five days out of the week there is no problem. To chop
up a neighborhood like this, it's a rather Draconian solution to which mostly is a non-problem. It just doesn't
exist five days a week.
And if to the extent that it does exist, the plans to increase the parking within the park from 16 to 40
will take care of almost all of that.
Now, over the course of time things may change, things may get worse. We feel that the parking
along Danford Street, first of all, there are no problems there, there are no safety issues. And even on what
used to be Fern and Hamilton, the sheriffs said there are almost no complaints, so they don't ticket. It's not a
problem.
So this is just trying to, we feel, force our -- force us to try to sell out, which is what the Parks and
Recreation Department has wanted us to do.
I can't imagine them feeling that our property values are going to increase by putting a parking lot
behind. And our elevation to build had to be at least 10 feet. So a six-foot wall is going to do nothing to
block the view behind us. And certainly, if they do put lights in there at all, and people will be coming in at
night to get their boats out, you know, it's going to -- it's going to ruin the character of our neighborhood.
There are kids in the neighborhood, you're going to have more cars and trailers going up Bay Street.
You know, again, I would dispute the 56 daily going there. I walk my dog down to but not into the
December 4, 2008
161 1 10
Page 45
December 4, 2008
16 I 1 A'!:J
park every day. There's no problem, there's no pedestrian problem there. You could park -- you could pave
over perhaps, with very little impingement on the mangroves, that's 20 to 21 spots along the side, plus the
24 that would be included -- or the total of 40 plus 21 along the side is 61 spots. And that would be a better
solution than chopping up the neighborhood and ruining it and ruining the quality oflife.
After hours, if pedestrians can get in there to get their boats out, things are going to happen. If
people can walk into an unsupervised park, things are going to be dropped, there'll be garbage. Things fall
off of trucks now, and off of boats. It will attract vermin. You know, there are kids living adjacent to this.
That's -- and 1 think that the alternative solutions should be examined rather than chopping up our
neighborhood. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Janet (sic) Phillips, followed by Douglas Shaw.
MS. PHILLIPS: Hello. My name is Janette Phillips.
I appreciate your board and your consideration and the freedom of America that we have freedom
of speech. And we would greatly appreciate you considering this.
1 live -- when you got on Exhibit B, and the road that goes between Danford and Bay, I live right
there on the comer, very close to the road that is supposed to be put there.
Now, this is a very -- 1 see a traffic hazard problem, just accidents waiting to happen going in and
out and in and out.
1 don't see how, if you've got one going here and one coming here, the comer, I don't see how
there's enough room for big boats and trailers to turn there in the first place.
And the problem is not in the neighborhood that -- the closing of the park. It's -- we don't mind the
park being opened. The park is not being used by children. And we would appreciate your consideration in
getting rid of the park.
Now, you give the Hamilton Harbor permission to cut down the mangroves, but our problem was
here before them. And the mangroves can be pulled up and planted somewhere else.
And I'm like the fellow, that you're separating the park in front of the park (sic). And the closer the
parking lot is to the park, the better off, than doing this to the neighborhood.
And the guardrails. That is going to be very ugly in front of our house, to put up guardrails.
And you're doing more on Bay Street and, you know, just tearing up our neighborhood in Bay
Street. I've been there 3 I years, and I don't plan to sell. And we really would appreciate -- I would
recommend that you do the mangroves or on Ilamilton Avenue widen the street. Don't tear down the new
houses that you've -- they're brand new houses. Take the money and widen Hamilton Avenue and let the
trailers on the weekend or the holidays park on the road. And if you just widen it, then there would not be
no problem.
And still, we don't -- there's nobody in our neighborhood's complaining about the boats and the
trailers. We understand. And we've never had a problem. And to my knowledge, there's not any wrecks or
anything.
But you do all of this, and it's just accidents. I just see accidents just ready to happen.
And trash, if you're going up and down on Bay Street, there's going to be things thrown in our
ditches, it's going to stop up our pipes, unless you cover it and -- the pipes underground.
It's just so many problems that I see better than, making the park and the mangroves and planting
them somewhere else, or widening Hamilton A venue where they can park there.
I appreciate my time that you listen to me, and God bless you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am.
Next speaker, please.
Page 46
MR. BELLOWS: Final speaker, Douglas Shaw.
MR. SHAW: Good morning. My name is Doug Shaw. I live at 1781 Danford Street, which is about
three or four houses from the mangroves, which would be on the north side of Danford. And I've lived there
for about 12 years.
The boat traftic and my family, it's never bothered us. Actually, it's kind of neat to see people want
to go out and go boating and have a great time.
The problem I'm having with these people wanting to rezone is the area that they have already, now
the people are parking in, as you brought up, Mr. Strain, was the deal with people parking off to the edge of
the road.
The only reason people stop if there's somebody parked on either edge ofthe road is because they
don't want to move over to the edge. The width of the road is the normal width that it should be for people
coming and going to the park. The only reason they stop is because they're not assured of themselves as
they need to be whenever they're driving down the road between the yellow line and the white line, because
it's the same width as it is on every other road that they drive on.
So I've never seen that be an issue to where somebody has to drive out and around to get over off
the edge or drive out in the middle of somebody else's lane, other than they just don't want to stay in their
path.
As for the parking areas that they have, the C- 3 zoning on the end of Danford and now Hamilton,
that property has been for sale for a mighty long time. I'm not sure why they haven't approached them to
buy it. Maybe it cost them too much or they think it costs too much. That is already zoned C-3.
The parking that they have, the people that I know that live behind the zoning, the area that they
want to rezone, the inconvenience of having, like the other lady was saying, a wall sitting up there, the
lights shining. They also want to put in a pourous drive or a pourous parking lot for the runoff of whatever.
I'm not sure why they don't want to do it hard stand. As far as I know, that would be a better thing to do.
And the cut -through street. I would be staring at the cut -through street that they have on there. That
makes me very uncomfortable to be able to see people driving in there; I live in a two-story home. So as
you stated earlier, I can see through there and be able to look and watch what people are doing ifthey're
driving through.
And you know as well as I do, people getting off the boat, they're going to be coming down there
and to be able to make the turn they've got to turn out wide to go over and get into the parking lot. And a lot
of people don't know how to drive the boat trailer effectively, because they only do it on the weekend or
maybe once a month, or sometimes they wait until they come down and they're only here for three or four
months. So they're not really efficient in it. So you've got to be careful as to watching the way the people are
driving.
The inconvenience for it being tearing up our neighborhood. This is such a wonderful
neighborhood; quiet, peaceful. And even though the boat trailers come up and down, it's hard for me to
want to see them tear it up, put fences and put walls and make a parking area.
Peoplc have plenty of arca to park in now, as well as whenever it's coming for the new 40 some odd
spaces that are going to be in that park, then having them park thcre on the edge of Dan lord Street where
the mangroves are at.
And it's not impeding on thc height of the mangroves, even though they do come out over to the
road. People are parking an empty boat trailer there, they're not parking 20-foot tall boats or I5-foot tall
boats or trucks on thc edges of the road to be able to pull. So it's not caused a problem from what I can see.
Well, I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Ray, is that the end of the public speakers?
161
December 4, 2008
145
Page 47
MR. BELLOWS: That's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would the applicant like to have a final comment?
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity. We would just like to summarize a
couple of key points.
The BCC authorized our Beach and Boats Access Plan in May, 2003, of which they authorized the
acquisition in this neighborhood of property for the potential use of ofi~site parking.
Then in April of2004, they funded that plan. They authorized money for us to move forward.
And then for each one of the properties that we have purchased, the 15 lots, we brought those back
to the BCC and they authorized them at that point in time.
We have demonstrated that there is an absolute need for this parking expansion. Currently we see
56 weekday uses and 100 during the weekend. Our parking is inadequate for that.
We're making our steps to expands the parking within the park. But even at that, we're looking at a
shortfall of 68 spots.
So we have a need. It's demonstrated. The need is now. It's going to be growing because of the
impact of season, because of the impact of holiday and because of the impact of Hamilton Harbor. So the
need is real.
One of the residents also said that there was a need -- there is a problem out there right now.
We've done this as efficiently as possible. We've held three public neighborhood meetings. We've
assembled a parking which is a critical mass on the southeast side. We've listened to the neighbors. We've
tried to work this as etliciently as possible. We have fencing, landscaping, dawn to dusk opcrations. We
believe we have a better flow of traflic with the access road.
And so we've listened to what the neighbors have said and tried to design this to have the least
impact on their community.
The -- there is a need. And for us to say that we could ignore the need on the properties and ignore
the problem with the boat parking at this point in time is inappropriate. We have to address the parking
needs and we have to address the problems associated with this site.
We have looked at all the other surrounding properties. There are no other options in terms of
buying property and parking in other locations. This provides us essentially one of the only solutions that
we can see for this neighborhood right now.
We believe we are consistent with the neighborhood. Our plan will reduce congestion.
If you look at this whole neighborhood and you look at it in its context, it's a patchwork of zoning.
We have Hamilton Harbor, which is commercial just directly to the south; we have the park to the west; we
have the Botanical Gardens, which is commercial and conservation to the east; we have mixed PUD's. And
they're all water related. We have a water related use. And we're piggybaeking on that at this point in time.
We're providing sidewalks to help solve some ofthc problems that we have there right now.
There is a health and safety issue. Cars are parked on the shoulder of Danford and Fern and
creating safety issues in violation of ordinances, and they're not adequately being enforced right now
because adequate parking is not available. That is a fact as we stand right now.
The western portion of Danford Road is insubstantial, is a sub-standard road, and the widths don't
meet the county's standards for two-way traffic and shoulder parking.
There's no safe pedestrian access on the western portion of Danford Road. And parking in the
wetlands is a violation ofDEP parking, protecting the wetlands. So we have issues there.
That, coupled with the inability to move emergency vehicles into the park with parking on both
sides creates problems lor us.
So we would -- with those considerations, we are trying to solve a problem. The problem -- our
solution may not be perfect at this point in time. We sce this as a continuing process, we see this as a
161
December 4, 2008
1A?J
Page 48
1 ~c~ber4Jlo08~
generational solution. We're willing to -- we need to start at some point. That's what we're proposing at this
point in time, and as we have willing sellcrs purchase more and expand the off-site parking. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, Mr. Schiffer, did you have -- before I close the public hearing, or did you want to comment
during the public --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to ask Gary a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, go ahead. That's what I was trying to find out. I didn't want to close
the hearing and then have you ask a --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Gary, one thing that -- the lights are a concern as to what to do on
this. What are the plans for lighting?
MR. McALPIN: This is a dawn to dusk park, so there will be no lighting in the parking lot at this
point in time. We will close the -- as was talked about earlier, there will be access to the parking lot for
trailers to come out. But after the park is closed, access will be prohibited to cars and trailers.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you could make a limitation that there is no lighting on this
facility.
MR. McALPIN: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other question is, and I'm having a little bit of trouble
with the intermediate roadway.
If you look at the distance that you're going to walk, I mean, I could make an argument that it's not
that much more if you came out onto -- I forget the name of the road -- Hamilton, then went up to Danford
and came down, it's not that much more, at least from the eastern end of the parking lot.
So is the intent of that roadway to give people a shortcut with the trailers or a shortcut with
pedestrian walk-back?
MR. McALPIN: Both. Both, Mr. -- Councilman (sic).
We're trying to provide more tlexibility in terms of the tlow of traffic, the flow of trailers, so that
everybody is not always using Danforth (sic), so we have an alternate route there.
And also we have from the parking lot, we have pedestrian access on that so that we could have
safe pedestrian access moving into the park.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean the people, essentially they're going to arrive, they're
going to ride all the way down Danford and then they're going to come back. I mean, so I see -- I kind of
share the feelings the lady has, that make them makc that turn, a couple turns, rattling trailers, when
essentially they could just drive past and limit the intrusion into the total neighborhood.
Would that be a big problem if there wasn't that pass-through? I mean, if you look at the -- you
know, just play with the graphics, the walking distance isn't that much more. It's a long walk anyway.
MR. McALPIN: It is a long walk. And that was not a -- we want to provide traffic tlexibility. And
we think having that tlexibility relieves the traffic on the eastern end of Danforth (sic). And that's why we
have it in there in at this point. Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, you know, I'm not quite sold on the pass-through
yet.
MR. McALPIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think if you don't have the pass-through, you limit the
intrusion into the neighborhood, the people on -- let me get the -- Bay Street, it's up at the end of Bay Street,
the people who live further down won't have to deal with it. And they have a big enough problem, they
have this huge, you know, dry storage across the way from them and then -- anyway, I think the
pass-through, I'm not quite sold on the pa~s-through.
Thank you, Mark.
Page 49
December 4, 2008
161 1 ~
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we will close the public hearing, and if you want to have
either discussion or make a motion and then have discussion, someone tell me.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I've got little to talk about. It doesn't makc any difference to me
when.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, do you guys -- Mr. Wolfley, if you want to discuss
something, go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right, I'm going to have to vote no on this one.
The buffers are inadequate. Since you had said there will not be any lighting along the pedestrian
crosswalk, I crossed that one out.
I feel that the parking, like maybe some of us, certainly the homeowners, is going to create more
use because of the simple supply and demand. And I think we're going to be creating more problems and
we're going to be right back to where we were to begin with. And the more we go into the residential area is
I think a bigger problem.
I think indeed it's going to lower the property values.
And finally, I feel that the -- dealing with DEP for a special consideration to relocate the mangroves
and move from the existing interior parking, move towards the east is a much bettcr plan. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments before--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Might as well join in.
It is very clear that we -- Collier County can use more boating opportunities. That would mean in
the case oftrailered boats, places to park their trailers after they've done it, launched the boat.
And I appreciate and sympathize and I appreciate the direction that the BCC has instructed staff to
find ways to support that.
However, a gentlemen used the term spot zoning, and quite frankly, we would -- this board would
never facilitatc spot zoning by a developer. And perhaps some on this board might, but I certainly couldn't
support that. I recognize that this is not building the community. I think if there's an alternative, that
alternative may be patience and time, and have the county over time, a long period of time, perhaps, secure
additional properties so that it can become a legitimate area for storage, but I could not support a motion in
the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a hard time supporting the project, simply because the
neighborhood was there first.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I do support the project. I'm not sure about the
pass-through, but I support the project in that how could people just parking alongside the road in the
neighborhood be more desirable than the ability to corral them down at the other end?
Because of the distance, I don't think it's going to be used -- you know, if the sheriff forces them in
there, that's the only way I think the thing is going to be used anyway. When it's not being used, when the
load is down, there's not -- it's going to be a passive, just an open area. And I would rather us -- although I
don't think that's going to be the case -- work on how to make the landscaping and buffers, the thing a
desirable use in the neighborhood rather than not be in the neighborhood.
But I support the use of the land as proposed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, you had a comment?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, I just -- I'm hoping to reduce the chance that the board may send this
Page 50
December 4, 2008
161 1M
back, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give me a minute to make mine. That might help you reduce it.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- so that when I ask when you take your vote if you would set forth your
individual reasons, if you're going to vote no, and that you actually look at the criteria set forth in the staff
report and base it on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't give me a chance to get there, but I will do so right now.
I will be voting against this proposal. I will state my reasons now because they're lengthy and
there's no sense of saying it numbers of times.
First of all, I want to set some criteria for all of you. I know we all realize, but maybe the public
doesn't. The purchase of this land, in my discussions, in my meetings with Mr. McAlpin and Ms. DeJohn
when I asked was this on the consent or summary agenda, I was told it was on the consent agenda.
Now, if you know anything about the BCC agenda, the consent agenda is one of those massive
pages of items that they just vote on in blank. They say okay. And it's not always as openly debated in the
public when it's on a consent agenda item.
Also, I'm concerned that this is a setup for future buy-outs. Right now property prices are
established based on a residential neighborhood. You start putting in this kind of use, no one's going to want
to live by it. So guess what? The county gets to buy other properties out at a better price.
We would never ever consider this if a private developer was doing it. And government is not
above the law and they shouldn't be in this case.
There were discussions here today. There's been no proven environmental problem. They're within
a 60-foot right-of-way.
The safety issue that they keep harping on is going to be exaspcrated (sic) more by the parking lot
this further distance away than it is now.
And we also heard that we are still going to have people probably parking on the side ofthe road.
So nothing is accomplished in what they believe are the accomplishments by making this purchase.
So I have a series of lengthy discussion to tcll you why I'm going to be voting against this proposal.
If you want to piggyback on the back of it, that's up to you all. But I'm going to tell you what they are and
then we'll be looking for a motion.
In the CCME we have Policy 12.2.7; it says the county shall continue to assess all undeveloped
property within the coastal high hazard.
Well, this was acknowledged in testimony, it's developed policy. So that's inconsistent with CCME
Policy 12.2.7.
Recreation open space Policy 1.1.5 states, the correct or improve existing parks and recreation
facility deficiencies which are necessary in order to meet the level of service standards.
We have not seen anything that says this is the only alternative in which to meet the level of service
standards. And I surely think that destroying a neighborhood does not make it necessary.
Policy 1.3.] of the recreational and open space says, county owned or managed parks and
recreational facilities shall abide by all bicycle and pedestrian access where location is appropriate.
This is absolutely inappropriate, as clearly stated to us by Collier County staff as being
incompatible with the neighborhood.
Recreation and open space Policy 1.4.2 states, that Collier County shall continue to coordinate with
the provision of recreational facilities and activities with other governmental jurisdictions that own or
operate such a facility. Such governmental cntities shall include but not necessarily be limited to the City of
Naples.
Policy 1.4.2.
If you go to FLUE Policy 5.4, it says, new development shall be compatible with and
complimentary to surrounding uses.
It is no way there's complementary uses here or eompatible with it.
Then we have to get into LDC Section 10.03.05(1)(2), and that is all the criteria by which we have
to weigh these decisions. Criteria number one -- rather than read the whole criteria, I'm just going to tell
you, based on criteria number one, this is not compatible with the neighborhood.
Based on criteria nurnber two, again, it is not consistent with the land use pattern. Based on criteria
number three, the possible creation of an isolated district, yes, this would be an isolated district. There
certainly aren't any others in this district.
Under number four, whether existing boundaries are logically drawn: The change does not warrant
-- the neighborhood layout does not warrant a change for this kind of commercial parking lot.
Number five, whether the changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary.
There are no conditions unique to this site that make it necessary. They could have bought other
sites in the county that could have provided plenty of access to the water.
Number six, whether proposed change will adversely influence living conditions.
Absolutely it will. It was testified to by the residcnts, and it's obvious.
Number seven, whether the proposed change will create or successfully increase traftic.
Most certainly. Traffic is going to be increased on Danford Street, either by the quantity of votes or
by a way to get in and out of that parking lot. I don't belicve if somcone pulling a trailer's going to use the
worst route there, they're going to use the easiest route there. Plus it creates a highly unsafe condition on
Danford Street, more so than they currently have today. So we actually are aggravating the situation, not
bettering it.
Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property val ues.
No doubt, the property values will be affected negatively.
Whether the proposed change would be a detriment to the improvement or development of adjacent
properties.
Obviously very few people are going to want to live next to a parking lot. And the additional safety
hazards on that street will probably make sure people with children don't move there.
Number twelve, whether the proposed change will constitute or grant a special privilege.
Well, I think it grants a special privilege to govemment, one way and above anybody in the private
sector could possibly have in a residential neighborhood.
Number 13, whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with the existing zoning.
There is no rea~on. In fact, there are two CO's, developed existing homes on that property, showing
it could be used.
Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the neighborhood.
There's nothing unique to warrant the change. It certainly is out of scale in a residential
neighborhood to have a commercial parking area.
Whether it's possible to find other adequate sitcs in the county.
We already know there is. In fact, there's been numerous sites proposed to the BCC. Some have
been turned down, some have been taken. Most recently they're considering the one at Port of the Isles.
Number 18, such other factors, standards or criteria the Board of County Commissioners shall
deem important.
Well, as staff has said, there would be an adverse affect upon living conditions in the neighborhood.
December 4, 2008
16 I 1ft'?
Page 52
December 4, 2008
161 1 PI3
The expansion should be on the county-owned park itself rather than authorized to overflow into the
residential neighborhood. In no way should a parking lot be forced into a successful and established
residential neighborhood to accommodate an expanded use.
Staff finds the proposed parking lot to be incompatible with provisions of the LDC and particularly
Policy 5.4 of the FLUE, and inconsistent with Policy 1.3.1.
Now, that's as many as I can mention here and try to be brief.
Mr. Klatzkow, is that thorough enough?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you've made your position quitc clear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Maybe when it gets to the BCC, there won't be -- it won't be sent
back to us.
Anybody else have any other comments?
MR. SCHMITT: We'll just add the minutes to the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion on this particular matter?
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'd like to make a motion on RZ-2008-AR-12930, as a -- sorry,
with a recommendation of denial.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seeonded.
MR. KLATZKOW: And is that based on Mr. Strain's discussion?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. I had pretty much -- not as though I articulated them as well
as Mr. Strain, but yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the second definitely agrees.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I will be supporting the motion for denial based on my
discussion that I just had. Don't ask me to make it again, please.
Is there any other discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just going to note that I'm going to vote against the motion. I
think there is a health and safety issue on Danford right now. And I think that this could be made
compatible with the neighborhood if we worked on the positive sides of the design of it.
And essentially this parking lot is a passive use. It wouldn't be used during the night, it wouldn't be
used during week days. There's a small amount of time when this would be used. And when it is being used
it's hopefully eliminating the concerns I had with the safety of Danford.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, ifno other comments, I'll ask for -- did you have a -- are you just
ready to vote, Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, but I wanted to make a statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I don't think I'll ever ask you a question, because that's like asking
for a drink of water and getting the hose put on you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how to take that, but--
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But I do support your position on the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Kolflat.
Okay, with that, we'll call the motion. All those in favor of the motion to deny, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
Page 53
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All tllOse opposed?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-2 for denial.
With that -- thank you. With that, we'll take a one-hour lunch break and we'll resume at 12:50.
Thank you.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back, everyone. It's 12:50, we can resume with our
meeting.
We're going through our various petitions.
December 4, 2008
161 1/tS
Item #9 E
PETITION: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-I0325, SUNGA TE CENTER CPUD
The next one up is Petition PUDZA-2006-AR-I0325, Wynn Properties, Inc. and Carbone
Properties of Naples, Ltd. for the Sungate Center CPUD. And it's on Green and 951 in Golden Gate.
All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly swom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures by the Planning Commission? Does anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've had conversations with Mr. Mulhere and Mr. Anderson, who I -- oh,
there he is, behind Mike Bosi, okay. And will probably repeat everything I had said today.
But before we can start on this agenda item, I need to explain something that has been troubling on
this issue that [ need the County Attorney's comment on as well once I explain it.
I was chairman of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Overlay committee that put the rules in effect
for the commercial areas in Golden Gate Estates.
That's an overlay. It's different than the broad comprehensive plan throughout the whole county.
Overlays are put together by the people in the area and they're more special interest, more focused on the
area.
And one of the things we were very careful in doing on that committee was to make sure we
limited the commercial activities in these centers to C-I, C-2, and C-3. Everybody buying property out
there knows the rules. And if one property to finds a way to circumvent them, I'm sure we'll end up with
negative consequences in other parts of the county.
This one's coming before us with a concern from staff that it's inconsistent with the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan because of the mini-warehouse addition to the former PUD.
The former PUD had been in place a long time. It was generally known to the community. This is a
new twist to that PUD, which in my book is problematic for this board to hear, knowing it's inconsistent
with the GMP. And I don't think there's any gray area there. It's beyond the C-3 uses that clearly are those
uses allocated in the GMP. It's a C-5 use, and a conditional use in the C-4.
Now, based on that, I've got to ask the County Attorney's Oflice, what options do we have to
Page 54
December 4, 2008{>.r6
proceed knowing that we're proceeding with something that is inconsistent with the GMPf 6 I 1
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think it's a problem. I think that you either have to make a determination
that it's consistent in your opinion with the GMP or I don't see how you could rule any other way than to
make a recommendation of denial.
The case law is clear that the Board of County Commissioners cannot approve an item which is
inconsistent with its Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I guess that comes into play from staff -- or Mike Bosi, maybe
that's now why you're here today. And if staff is going to testifY that there's no indecision on staffs part as
far as consistency with the GMP, then I guess the applicant's got to make a decision. Because if it stays in, it
makes our meeting a lot shorter, because I'm not sure how it can stay in and continue.
But if you want to voluntarily remove it and come back after something's modified, either the GMP
or the LDC, to allow such uses in the C-3 use, then that's a difierent story.
But I certainly want to make sure we proceed effectively today and productively, and not go down
a trail that we're just going to sit here and have to backtrack on.
Bob, you're at the podium, did you have any comment or do you want to let Mike Bosi comment
first?
MR. MULHERE: Well, maybe let Mike comment first. That provides me another three, four
minutes.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi with Comprehensive Planning.
As Chairman Strain had indicated when we did the consistency review in compo planning on the
petition, we found that the language that was in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan for the infill commercial
sub-district clearly restricted the uses to the C-I, 2 to C- 3. The use being proposed, the 4225 SIC Code for
mini-storage was a use that's only allowed for a conditional use within C-4, permitted use within C-5;
therefore, we thought it was clearly prohibited by the language contained within the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan.
And the distinction that the applicant was utilizing as the justification for the inclusion was a
comparison to a 2002 rezoning for Goodlette Comers.
Goodlette Comers was on Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road within the urbanized
residential sub-district, and they sought commercial zoning through the infill commercial subdistrict.
The distinction between that district and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan district both provide for
uses within the C-I through C-3 zoning district. The only problem is in the infill sub-district, the urbanized
infill sub-district, it says that you can gain a higher intensity of uses based upon the adjacent or adjoining
uses to your property.
And at that point in time there was C-4 uses to the west of the Goodlette Comers rezone; therefore,
they gained a higher intensity of uses, and that was the justification that the Board of County
Commissioncrs found to include that use within the Goodlette Comers rezone.
So the example of precedent being utilized by the applicant to justify the inclusion of a C-5 use
within the Golden Gate Arca Master Plan infill sub-district to me is not a straight apples to apples
comparison, not in my own view but Comprehensive Planning view. And that's why we've arrived at the
determination that it could not be deemed consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it pretty clear?
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Bob, I really need to ask you if you want to proceed with a mini-warehouse as part of this, because
it's going to shed a different connotation on this review than it will otherwise. I think it's inevitable then
what the outcome will be.
Page 55
What do you want to do?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I think I need to take to my client. If you want to give me a minute or two,
I'll talk to him and see how he wants to procecd.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll give you four minutes, how's that? We'll come back -- we'll just
break for four minutes, resume at 1:00.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't take your full four minutes.
MR. MULHERE: That was very expeditious of us.
Without prolonging the discussion and giving you any basis of rationale why we thought it was
appropriate -- obviously we did have a basis and a rationale for that. But having discussed it with my
clients, given the concerns that werc raised, we're willing to remove that use and explore some other
opportunities down the road to include that use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So today's meeting will proceed with the mini-warehouse item
being removed from the nurnber of uses that are listed in the PUD --
MR. MULHERE: Right. And I assume when we come back for consent we'll have removed it and
re-number the uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Okay, that works and -- Heidi is that -- will that work with the
County Attorney's office?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, it's your presentation, sir.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I think, you know, that this presentation can be fairly brief. I have an
exhibit on the visualizer that shows the location. I'll just step over to that for a moment.
Collier Boulevard, Green, 15th Avenue Southwest. This is -- property's right here. It consists of 10
acres. This is a postal annex here that's already developed, and there's some water management facilities
developed.
This particular plan here, it's probably hard for you to see, but this actually shows the proposed
improvements to Green, which will be developed as part of the Collier Boulevard Improvement project,
which includes turn lanes -- there's double lefts, there's a right, there's a through lane.
And so in accommodation for that, we've got some right-of-way that we're dedicating; I'll get into
that specifically injust a moment. And a shared slope and construction easement, sidcwalk easement. And
we're also going to handle some of the water from the Collier Boulevard project within our water
management system.
Just a little bit of history. The subject parcel is zoned PUD, but -- and although partially developed
and developed, as I said, with the postal annex and with the stormwater management system, it didn't meet
the percentages outlined in thc LDC for continuation of the PUD, so it was subject to sun-setting. I think
that's in your staff report.
And then obviously once you've been sun-setted, this project -- this PUD was sun-setted. The only
way to remedy that is to come back in and do a rezone to PUD or rezone to some other appropriate district.
With that one use being removed, I don't know that there's any other objections. All the uses we
went through a -- I'd say a pretty lengthy proccss with staff oflooking at all the uses and ensuring that they
were consistent.
We've met with transportation staff five or six times to hammer out the transportation conditions.
We've agreed to, as I said, provide the necessary right-of-way as well as easement to accommodate the
improvements on Green as well as some intersection improvements from Green to Collier Boulevard.
And we have also agreed to take up to about an acre of stormwater treatment. And that has been
determined to address the mitigation for Policy 5.1 that's necessary.
December 4, 2008
16/
11\6
Page 56
f6mr 4, 2T -k5
So I think that concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, we're happy to answer them. I
have Bruce Anderson with me here, as well as Bill Clark representing Wynn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, one thing. You're going to do a PUD, which isn't the intent of
a PUD to do something creative rather than just use conventional zoning?
MR. MULHERE: Well, again, this already was a PUD. This was already existing as a PUD.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me -- I'll take that away from the question and make it a
statement, as I seem to miss the creative part, because it looks like you're just setting requirements.
The setbacks you want to have is 20 feet, yet all the other zoning districts have 25. You're on a
major road, which you want to be 20 feet back from. What's the reason for that?
MR. MULHERE: Wcll, first of all I'm not sure that all the other zoning districts have 25-foot
setbacks. We have a 20-foot setback in the existing PUD and there are 20-foot landscape easements already
recorded throughout the entire -- those three sides where we have 20-foot landscape -- where we have
setbacks.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But isn't your development schedule -- let me read it. The -- I'm
looking at table three. Is that the right table?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking at setbacks from the northern perimeter boundary, 20
feet.
MR. MULHERE: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From the southern boundary of the 30-foot right-of-way.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So from the centerline of the right-of-way, it's 50 feet.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the setback to the building is 20 feet from the property --
MR. MULHERE: Correct--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- assumed property line --
MR. MULHERE: Could be 20 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- where 25 is required in C-I, C-2, C-3 and even C-5.
Setback from the southern, same.
MR. MULHERE: Well, we're adjacent -- if! could, I mean, maybe in response, we're adjacent to
an estates-zoned lot. We've provided a 25-foot setback. It seemed like that would be the most appropriate
place to have the larger setback.
It's a relatively small parccl. Those setbacks are consistent with the setbacks that were already in
the PUD when it was approved previously.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the 25 feet you just mentioned is from the western boundary,
correct?
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The eastern boundary again is 20 feet.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, I think that's very close. Especially the eastern
boundary is Collier Boulevard. You can have a building 20 feet off of the property line.
Anyway, I'm not sold that that's a good idea.
And why do you need 20? Why can't 25 work? I mean, conventional zoning has 25. You're not
proposing anything here, so we have no idea why conventional zoning would even be the appropriate way
to do this.
Page 57
t6elber 4, T8 ~
MR. MULHERE: I mean, my only response to you is that, you know, within 20 foot we can put the
required landscape buffer, which will be substantive.
The roadway is being widened. They've already taken a significant amount of property over the
years from this parcel for roadway widening. And again, we're getting more right"of-way for roadway
widening.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you could have a 50-foot building 20 feet from the property
line --
MR. MULHERE: Well, and subject to the architectural standards, that will be designed in
accordance with those standards and it will be very attractive. I don't think we have an end user at this point
in time so I really can't tell you whether it will be right up to the 20-foot setback or whether it will be set
back, you know, 50-loot or 25-foot with parking in between the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then why don't you just humor me and go with 25.
MR. MULHERE: On Collicr?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why not on all of them? I mean, why put the building up on the
property line? I mean, all the things we do, that's not a -- I mean, five feet. I mean, it could be trivial on my
side, it could be trivial on your side, but --
MR. MULHERE: Well, obviously, again, you know, I'd have to confer with my client before I
could commit to that, because it's a pretty substantial impact on this relatively small piece of property. And
no one's objected to the setbacks in the more than 10 years that they've been in place.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, pull that mic. a little closer to you, if you could.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, that's my comment. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: If the -- if your clients had moved ahead earlier in time and they
would have built to the setback, then the county would have come along and asked for some of that road,
what would be the net effect on the setback')
MR. MULHERE: It would be reduced by whatever they asked for.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could that be five feet?
MR. MULHERE: Five, 10. You know, I don't know how much land was taken for Collier
Boulevard over the years, but I know it's been widened. So, you know, at some point -- whatever the, you
know -- my experience, if I could talk generally, because I don't know the specifics here. But generally all
the time you have a situation where the county's widening a road and you've got an existing improved
building. And the LDC says that your setback can be reduced by the amount of the take. And -- because
you're not causing that problem.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I think I understood tllat--
MR. MULHERE: Being caused to you.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- that's why I was asking that question.
So in other words, what I'm trying to understand or trying to make a point, I guess, that while I
don't disagree with my fellow Commissioner that it would be desirable to have appropriate setbacks, my
thought was had they been moving ahead all along in the past and the county now needed the property, you
would have a net effect ofthc same or perhaps slightly different setbacks than what you now plan.
MR. MULHERE: And if! could piggyback onto that, I mean, I guess my point is that Collier
Boulevard's not going to be widened any wider than it is now. It's constrained to six lanes by policy.
And Green, the improvements -- the setback is from the improved Green. So you're getting 20 feet
from basically a six-lane Green, because there's two turn lanes, there's a right turn lane and there's the
Page 58
through lanes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do those lines that are drawn in there, do they represent potential
structures that you're planning?
MR. MULHERE: No, they don't. We were just looking at potential out-parcels and sizes. Those are
not structures, no.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, my thought is if you get approved I would hope they'd
move ahead, because if you wait much longer they could take some more property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant?
(No rcsponse.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your list of uses, I mean, I know we're now going to now strike Item
39. Would you mind adding a sentence to the uses either in the beginning or end that says you agree that
you will not use the property for any sexually orientated businesses as defined in our code of laws?
MR. MULHERE: I don't think we object to that. I did have some discussion prior to this meeting
and found that because of the proximity ofresidential and the church across thc street, and I recognize those
situations could change, so we don't have a -- I'm sure there's no objection to that.
But I was just going to say, it wouldn't qualify under the county sexually oriented business
restrictions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize that.
MR. MULHERE: Ycah, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm always trying to cross the T's and dot the I's --
MR. MULHERE: No, that's no problem --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so we don't have an issue that --
MR. MULHERE: Do you want that as a sort of a genera] condition like a footnote or something
along those Jines?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, at the end -- I mean, anywhere you want to fit it, say at the end of 46,
just a general statement that this property will -- no sexually orientated businesses will be allowed on this
property.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Undcr the stormwater acceptance, Page 4-3.H. I mentioned this, I think to
you and --
MR. MULHERE: Yes, you did. I've got--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that can be worded better.
MR. MULHERE: I actually found an answer which I think is a good answer. And I think maybe
you may also agree with that.
The reason -- and we use the word -- Mr. Strain is referring to paragraph H at the top of 4-3 where
we talk about in the second line towards the end of contiguous Collier County right-of-way, the word
contiguous.
Because the concern that Mr. Strain brought up was that really, how do you know where the water's
coming from. If it's a continuous pipe it may not be coming from -- but the problem is -- and this was
aetually worked out with transportation staff. They will be the oncs going to obtain the South Florida Water
Management District permit when they do the improvements to Collier Boulevard.
And for those, the Water Management District will need to be -- excuse me, the water management
Iacilities will need to be contiguous to the area that's being treated.
So it's really more for the South Florida Water Management District. We could use the word
161
December 4,2008
l~
Page 59
adjacent I think, but contiguous is a little bit more descriptive.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I'm concerned, as I explained to you, is typical you have
humps and bumps in a road to control your water runoff from the asphalt. It goes into catch basins that take
it into drainage pipes that take it to a drainage area. Those many times are interconnected. And I just would
want to make sure transportation wouldn't get caught into a situation where they've got to isolate a section
of the road so that the drainage runoff from that section is all that goes into this property.
I understand they're limiting it to 1.02 acres, and that's fine. And my suggestion was just drop the
reference to the contiguous. ]f you're limited to 1.02 acres, what do you care where that comes from, as long
as that's all you've got to entertain.
Would that be an acceptable idea? Why wouldn't that work? Ijust -- out of curiosity.
MR. MULHERE: There was some concern as it related to the permitting process. So I don't know
if Mike -- Michael, do you have any--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if there's a concern from the permitting process, and South Florida
says you can't do it because it's not within what they consider contiguous, you're going to correct it anyway,
and either way it's not going to have any impact on you greater than 1.02 acres. So I'm not sure why it
concerns you.
I think it's going to concern the county in how they permit the property through South Florida.
MR. MULHERE: Maybe if we use the term -- maybe if we reword it, if this works, to say the
developer and any successor owners of the dcvelopmcnt agree to accept, store and treat in perpetuity all of
the stormwater drainage from any section or sections of Collier County right-of-way--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Just drop the word--
MR. MULHERE: -- adjacent to the subject property as may be selected by the County. I mean is
adjacent, is adjacent --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But why are you hung up on that? Why does it have to --
MR. MULHERE: What I really--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's a mile away --
MR. MULHERE: It's not really that I'm hung up on it, I just don't want to have an unintended
consequence because I really was not the one that word-smithed this specifically. Let me ask my client if
there's a problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason, Bob, is where I'm coming from is if you're taking water
to your property, then you've accepted it to come from a right-of-way. That right-of-way is anywhere, as
long as you don't take any more than you've agreed to take --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 1.02, what do you care?
MR. MULHERE: -- sounds very, very logical to me standing here, but if you just give me a
second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He wants to stay safe. Nick's gone.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll drop the word contiguous, right?
On the next page, and I'm probably not going to need you to -- unless you understand this -- you
guys agreed to pay tratlic impact fees. You're not getting credits for that based on 0, right?
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all your contributions are great. They're pro bono, more or less, and you
don't have to pay -- you're not getting any credits against your impact fecs, and I think it's great for the
December 4, 2008
16 I 1 k6
Page 60
developer to do that, and I'm not objecting to that. But P seems to reverse that.
MR. MULHERE: I'm going to defer to Bruce on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And P is the one that confuses me. I've not seen it in a PUD before. I'm
trying to understand what it means.
Because it says devcloper shall not be held responsible and shall not be charged for any past or
future improvements to Collier or Green Boulevards -- well, impact fees pay for future improvements --
including but not limited to, and it goes into a series of things. Nor shall the developer be required to make
any payments in lieu of any of the foregoing. Developer's contributions satisfY all transportation fair share
mitigation requirements.
I just want to make sure that this doesn't contradict the impact fee credit statement in O.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think he wants to pay it once and get it over with.
MR. MULHERE: No, I think that that is that there be no further extractions and not through -- and
it was not necessarily directed toward the impact fee process but any other type of extraction. But let me
defer to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll ask the County Attorney's Office then if that's clear enough for
them to derive that out of the paragraph, and ifit is, that's line. But I want to make sure it is.
MR. WILLIAMS: Steve Williams from the County Attorney's Office.
And when I read it and read Mr. Anderson's language I interpreted it just as Commissioner Murray
stated, is he wants to make his one-time impact in the previous paragraph, and we're not going to come after
him for anything else in the subsequent paragraph.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you don't have any problem with P having a negative impact on
our right to make impact fees --
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, as long as we get them when we get them. I mean, we're not going for
anything over and above what the previous paragraph called for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have no problem with it. If the County Attorney's Office can
defend it, that's the key.
And that's -- at this time, that's all the questions I have. So thank you.
Anybody else have any follow-up before we go to staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, can we have the staff report, please.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning.
You have received the staff report and all of its attachments that provide rezone findings and PUD
findings.
Based on the testimony that's already been provided, a lot of what was discussed in the statTreport
regarding the 4225 SIC Code classification use, staff can now unequivocally change their recommendation
to say that we recommend approval now that that has been struck.
I won't go into the details of the staff report, since you do have it and a lot of it's changed now
based on the testimony.
And if you need it to be done, Mike Bosi can go on the record to formally recognize that the use
removal does make the project now consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like that, if Michael wouldn't mind.
MR. BOSI: Again, Mike Bosi with Comprehensive Planning.
And with the removal of the 4225, the use associated with the C-5 permitted use, with the removal
of that from the PUD, compo planning would find this rezone request to be consistent with the Growth
Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike.
161
December 4, 2008
1~~
Page 61
December 4, 2008 JI.J2--..
161 1 TfU
Bruce, did you have a question before we go into any questions of staff? Did you --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I wanted to just ask you to consider this. I know from our conversations
you were concerned about the process. And there's a possibility that the Land Development Code may be
amended to allow that kind of self-storage use in C-3 or C-2 districts.
Would you have an objection if we had that in there followed by the language that only ifit is a
permitted use in the C-3 zoning district? That way if the Land Development Code does get amended, we
wouldn't have to come back here and amend the PUD.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But Mark --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wouldn't the GGMP, the Golden Gate Master Plan, have to be
amended? Isn't that the controlling -- isn't that the controlling?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, but it makes reference to allowing uses C-I, C-2 and C-3.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought the mini-warehouse was one that was exclusive, that was
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, in that document we strictly said uses C-I through C-3. And a
mini-warehouse is acknowledged as a C-5. So that's what prevents it. We didn't go back and relist
individually all the individual uses in C-4 and C-5.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's why I got confused, because you said you wanted to
go to C-3. I thought you said that, right? Did you refcrence that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Bruce is suggesting that what they could add to their uses is put that
SIC Code back in, but only under the provision that should thc LDC change in the future that would allow
such uses in C-3, they could be then used on his property.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's where I picked up on the C-3 part of it, yeah, allowed in
C-3. But that would be a C-5 function in C-3.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, the Land Development Code would have to be amended.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that would -- okay, I --
MR. ANDERSON: To allow it in a C-3 district.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I don't know if it goes with the spirit of the thing, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What they're trying to avoid is -- sounds like an amendment process to the
PUD.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, right.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, your issue is consistency with the Growth Management Plan. Would
the compo planning staff have any input on that?
MR. BOSI: Again, Mike Bosi with Comprehensive Planning.
No, the Growth Management Plan does not specifY the uses within individual zoning districts. The
Comprehensive Plan and specifically the Golden Gate Area Master Plan only specifies the uses that are in
the C- I through the C- 3 uses.
If the Land Development Code was changed through the appropriate process to designate a
self-storage facility that is now currently a pcrmitted use in C-5 to be a permitted use in C-3, then it would
be consistent with the Growth Management Plan because it was now included within a C-3 use.
So Comprehensive Planning Irom that perspective would not have an objection to such a proposal.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So the answer would be you could still make a finding with the
consistency of the Growth Management Plan with the amendment proposed by Mr. Anderson.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Bruce, I mean, for me personally I think that would -- I mean,
your use is less intense, it's just a matter of process, that's the problem. I don't have an objection to fixing the
process, if we can. And that might be a solution to it that I don't see a problem with.
Page 62
December 4, 2008
16 IlkS
MR. ANDERSON: Ifwe could consider that when you all go into your discussion, we would
appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would have to come back on consent and --
MR. ANDERSON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we can refine thc language at that point if it's deemed to go forward.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that -- Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that open us up to any item for change?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think anybody could suggest anything in that manner, meaning they
could say a concrete asphalt batch plant could go on this property, if allowed in the C-3 zoning use pursuant
to the Land Development Code. But then how do you get the Land Development Code to change to that use
as a C-3, I'm not sure.
Bruce?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we're talking degree, a matter of degree to acceptance.
MR. ANDERSON: But it's not -- a concrete plant would not be allowed by the PUD in the first
place.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But no, what I'm suggesting is you could add -- just like this
wouldn't be allowed by the PUD in the first place. If you wanted some time in the future to use this for a
concrete batch plant but you knew it was an industrial use, you could add another line to that saying and a
concrete beach plant could be used here if it's deemed to be acceptable by the LDC in a C- 3 zoning code.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, you'd have to put that in the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just like you're proposing to put the mini-warehouse in.
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. ANDERSON: But I'm not asking for concrete.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you're not. Mr. Murray asked for an example, I'm trying to get his
question answered.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I think what I was trying to do is find out if there was any
potential unintended consequences to this. We're being very specific then in talking about a
mini-warehouse.
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, yes, sir, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's I guess what I needed to understand, very specific.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay we left off with you. Are there any questions of county staff?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, one thing is I'm really not sure what the advantage of this
being a PUD to the county is. I mean, why wouldn't we just go with conventional zoning?
Isn't a PUD supposed to demonstrate some sort of creative use of the land, and isn't this just
creating regulations for a piece ofland?
MS. DESELEM: A PUD can be sought by anyone. Staff reacts to and makes a recommendation
based on what's submitted. As long as the requested zoning district is consistent with the Growth
Management Plan and meets the intent of the LDC, we're not going to necessarily recommend denial of it
based on that.
And as far as uniqueness and flcxibility, design flexibility, things like different setbacks are
Page 63
1 bcyber 4f08 A5
something you can do in a PUD or at least propose to do that you couldn't do in a conventional zoning
district.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
I'd just like to make another point on that issue is that the LDC says it encourages, PUD process
encourages, but it cannot mandate certain things that are site constraints.
Here we have certain site constraints based on the size of the project that limit how much creativity
you can get into it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there's no creativity here other than the fact that they're
requesting smaller setbacks, and the height of the C-3 zoning. So I mean, is that creative, you know, let me
get a PUD where I can have less setbacks?
I mean, I could understand it if they were showing a reason why that made sense because of
something creative. But here, this is vacant land, this is a vacant PUD.
MS. DESELEM: If! might add to that, in the Golden Gate Estates commercial infill subdistrict of
the GMP, it does state, quote, rezone shall be encouraged in the form of a planned unit development, et
cetera.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then why is staff supporting the five-foot reduction in
setbacks?
MS. DESELEM: I'm just saying another reason why they're requesting a PUD as opposed to a
conventional rezone.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I acccpt that. Why is staff okay with the five-foot reduction in
setbacks? This is putting a -- could put -- they could say they never would, but the fact is the regulation
states that they could put a 50-foot tall building 64 feet to the actual height 20 feet from a property line on
Collier Boulevard. Even though it's bad on any strcet, on Collier Boulevard I think it would even be worse.
You're supportive of that?
MS. DESELEM: The staff is looking at it from the point of view it was already a zoned PUD. It
had sun-setted due to the fact that it had not developed to the intensity necessary to prohibit the sun-setting;
therefore, what they were proposing in this PUD is very similar ifnot the samc as what they had originally
had proposed and had approved for.
And as testified by the applicant's agent, up to this point in time there hadn't been an issue with it.
So staff was unaware that there was an issue now.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, maybe I'm the first person to notice that as a change. But
anyway, you've answered it the best you can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we leave your issue, though, Brad, I think it's important to the
applicant to know where you're going to stand on this during the vote, because it could be five feet could
mean the difference between a unanimous vote by this commission, possibly, which means summary
agenda, or a split vote, which means they go through a full contested hearing in front of the BCC.
So I don't know if you're willing to cxpress your coneerns as strong --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, it would be a no vote if they keep it at 20 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason I'm bringing it up is to try to save you guys some
effort.
Mr. Schiffer's going to vote no if it doesn't get changed. So as in the past, you know how that
situation changes things in the dynamics as it goes forward. It's up to you.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I mean, again, I think this client has done everything the county asked for
him, has several times given up right-of-way. We're talking -- the question was asked, what's five-loot.
Well, I can answer that same question back, you know, what's five foot. I don't think we're willing to give
up that five foot. Thank you.
Page 64
December 4, 2008
16/ 1 ~
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other -- Mike, you've got something?
MR. BOSI: Just one further thing, clarification for Commissioner Schiffer.
One of the reasons, the advantages of utilizing a PUD is this does sit in the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan and that has special design restrictions and impositions within the site development plan
process that you would -- you wouldn't be able to impart to the reader of a straight zoning -- a straight
rezone request. So it does have some advantages.
And just one suggestion, and this is probably outside the boundaries of my purview as a growth
management planner, but as a potential compromise for the 25 to 20-foot issue, you may want to leave that
20-foot setback but have a restriction, any building over 40 feet would have to be set back half of the
distance of the building from the property line. Therefore, if it's over 40 -- if it's over 40, ifit goes to 50,
they'd have to go back to that 25, and therefore it will alleviate your concern.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the reason I don't like that is I don't think the PUD process is a
process in which you go in, do a vacant -- when I mean vacant, there's no design, there's no intention shown
here -- a vacant PUD and then lessen the requirements of conventional zoning.
Obviously if you have a problem with a conventional zoning thing in the PUD process, you can
request it and show us why you need it.
You know, Bob saying that they gave a right-of-way, the right-of-ways are 30 feet on each side.
These are 60-foot right-of-ways. These are small right-of-ways.
MR. MULHERE: No, we aetually gave up more than 30 feet on the south, we gave them an
additional, some additional right-of-way for the widening of Green. Significant. Like 19 feet.
So -- but that's not -- let me just add one thing, Mr. Schiffer, and I think it's kind of important. You
know, the PUD process is a two-way street. We have a whole bunch of stipulations in this PUD that if we
came in for straight zoning we would not be obliged to provide to you.
So it really is a two-way street. And it was already a PUD, and we didn't ask for really anything
different except the one use which we've now eliminated.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree it's a two-way street. I just don't want you to get too close
to the street.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of county staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I have just one clarification. Tbe third page of your staffreport, the
Exhibit A used there, differs from the Exhibit A in the PUD. I just want to make sure for the record that that
third page is not the one we'd be using. We were using the one in the PUD.
MS. DESELEM: That is correct. And I apologize for the error.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not much of a problem, I just want to make sure we got clear on it.
Okay, is there any public testimony, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, is there any -- well, there's no -- unless you guys want to rebut
something that -- I don't know what you would. But with that, we'll close the public hearing and we can
entertain a motion.
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a recommendation for approval for
PUDA-Z-2006-AR-10325 (sic) Sungate Center, be forwarded to the BCC.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded.
Page 65
December 4, 2008
Discussion? I have a --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --list of stipulations. Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just going to ask--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was going to go by whatever -- okay, as the motion maker I
should have made that statement in the first instance. According to staff recommendations. And we would
consider recommendations made by the -- by any member of the commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, we'll go through the recommendations and you can re-aftirm
that they're a part of your motion after you decide that you accept it that way.
The recommendations of staff were one or two. So I'm assuming because of the removal of the
mini-warehouse, wc are accepting number one but striking nurnber two.
And also, when they agreed that they would insert language that there would be no sexually
orientated businesses consistent with the Collier County code oflaws.
They would omit use number 39, which is thc mini-warehouse use as it's written today.
They would drop the word contiguous from Page 4-3, Item H.
And they would re-insert SIC Code 4225 for the mini-warehouse only if it is modified as a use
allowed in C-3 through a change of the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. Those are the --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second agrees.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- ones I remember as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker accepts those and the second accepts those?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries with a 7-1.
So with that, we thank you for your cooperation today, and we appreciate the cleaning up of the
document and removing the mini-warehouse. That made it a lot simpler. Otherwise, I had a half an hour
lengthy discussion to have on just what you violated.
161
1 kS
Item #9B - Continued from earlier in the Meeting
PETITION: SV-2006-AR-10482 - FAIRWAYS RESORT
So let's go back to the Fairways Motel issue, which was Petition SV -2006-AR-I 0482. That was one
we started with this morning. It's on Piper Boulevard and Palm River. Mr. Hancock was going to seek a
clarification of what the legal address was supposed to be, or legal description, I should say.
Page 66
December 4, 2008
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, as much as it pains me to admit that Mr. Schiffer was correct, he was. So he has passed
his PLS, congratulations. And you can now survey for profit.
But the legal description that was provided was for an adjacent easement. What we have done, and
I have copies -- actually, I guess I should provide a copy to the court reporter and Mr. Schiffer, as much as
everyone else.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the County Attorney, especially.
MR. HANCOCK: Ms. Ashton has been provided a copy of what is being distributed right now.
And in short, the document -- I'll put it on the visualizer. In short, to ensure that there's no potential
for confusion, what we've done is we've obtained a signed and notarized agreement from Horse Creek
Partners to erect a sign on the property.
And Mr. Murray, your comments earlier are still valid. We understand that that is a contractual
agreement between Horse Creek Partners and Fairways Resort.
And what we've done is wc'vc referenced the same area as the parking agreement and attached the
OR book and page with that legal description on it. So the exact same area that the parking easement covers
is now the exact same area that the sign easement covers so that the two will marry in perpetuity.
And we thought that was the cleanest and easiest way to accomplish that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this satisfactory to the County Attorney's Office?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any questions now that this has been clarified?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Y cah, just a slight point is that the site that you show in the
application seems to go westward of the right property line of Palm View Drive. So I think you should
correct that before you go to the commission. This description does not include the 40 feet to the west of
that line.
It doesn't matter because the sign's way off on the other side, so it doesn't affect anything, but just
the document you show always show that little 40-foot area which is not included in that legal.
MR. HANCOCK: The reason it's not included, and I'm not sure why this happened, but the
easement to the west of that point and the easement to the east of that point use a southerly extension of the
eastern part of that road going down to a meeting point. It's a little unusual.
But the parking has always occurred, and the easement for the parking has always oceurred to the
east of thaI. We just tried to mirror it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is don't -- you know, you do have exhibits in here that
show land to the west of that line, and just clean it up. I don't think it's going to matter, I guess.
MR. HANCOCK: Understood. The two together, the exhibit can't appear like is shows something
that the agreement doesn't cover. I understand your point, Mr. Schiffer, and we will have the opportunity --
I bclieve this will have to come back on consent to this body, so we have the opportunity to clean that up.
The only other item I would like to mention in a way of putting everything on the record that may
assist this body in making a determination is that in addition to the corrected Exhibit B we do request that
the staff recommendation of a minimum three-foot setbaek for the sign be reduced to zero. We've discussed
that with staff. They don't have a particular concern over that after their site visit. And I'll let you address
that with Ms. Gundlach as appropriate.
The third item is that as recommended by the CCPC, the sign poles be constructed to closely mimic
the existing condition due to the historic aspect of this sign.
The fourth item, and this is something that is not in your staff report but that was brought by code
enforcement. We are under a current code enforcement action, and we want to make sure that what we do
ensures the timely replacement of this sign as soon as possible. And that is the primary concern we have
161
1f{J
Page 67
December 4, 2008
heard from the neighbors, other than their support for the hotel.
And that is that to ensure the timely replacement ofthe sign, the applicant shall apply for a sign
permit within 30 days ofBCC approval and that the sign must be replaced within 60 days of issuance of the
sign permit.
We're aware that that 60 days is tight, but quite honestly, the sign companies are a little on the eager
side these days, so we feel fairly comfortable that that can be accomplished.
And the only concern -- the only objection this petition has had from the neighbors is they're tired
of looking at the temporary sign, they want to see the new one. And we want them to have the assurance
that we're as committed to that as we say we are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Tim, you wanted to go from the three-foot from the canal
right-of-way, whatever that is. The sign would then hang over, the upper part of the sign would hang over
into that property.
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, the actual leading edge of the sign is --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Of the II-foot portion.
MR. HANCOCK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, okay.
MR. HANCOCK: Not the pole itself but the leading edge would be the measuring point.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You said the pole?
MR. HANCOCK: Let's just stick with the leading edge. Try and keep myself out of more trouble.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yau said that the neighbors had seen this sign before in another
meeting and had seen what the sign looks likc?
The sign you proposed had a solid face where the -- not pole part but the support part.
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, I'm sorry, I may have mis-spoke. We have not presented a sign at a
neighborhood meeting or anything to that ell'ect, unless Mr. Mirowitz has.
What my point is, is that the sign that's there that was historically there we didn't have any
complaints about. It's the temporary banner covering that sign that people are concerned about. We thought
bringing something back that looked very much like what is there would be to the benefit.
But I don't have any input from the neighborhoods as to whether or not they'd rather have that pole
cover or two poles.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So we're not redesigning a sign that they haven't seen?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, not at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Tim.
I think the only thing we need from Nancy is a verification that there's no objection to the dropping
number three of your recommendations.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach for the record from
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
And Mr. Hancock and I did have a convcrsation yesterday about that zero-foot setback from the
canal easement line. And I did visit the site last night. And staff is in agreement that the zero feet is
appropriate in this situation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you.
Are there any questions of anyone at this timc?
(No response.)
161
lkS
Page 68
December 4, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we can close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
If you'd likc, I can go through discussion first to tell you what was just talked about.
Obviously we have staff recommendations number one and number two. Number three would be
dropped. A new recommendation would be to allow the use of poles in lieu of the wall structure to support
the sign. And another one would be the sign permit would be obtained within 30 days after approval by the
Board of County Commissioners. And the sign will be installed within 60 days after the sign permit is
issued.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know how important it is to you, but I thought Tim made a
good point when he said due to the historieal nature of it, the sign representing the poles, based on
historical. I don't know if that will have any additional impact or any impact, but I thought that was a good
idea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought the other one -- did you -- that's what I thought I was
getting at with that.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You just didn't use the word historic, and I just thought maybe that
might be meaningful, it might help to convey more effectively what we're attempting to do. Although my
view is more of having to do with safety.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, as far as historic goes, the only thing I'd hate to see is if staff
interpreted historic as being similar in color and nature of the poles that were there versus a newer designed
pole, maybe even a singular pole, that would be better supportive than multiple poles, so --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay, I was just emulating what he was relating to, that's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, do you have a concern either way?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, neither do I.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wcll, those are the -- I think the stipulations.
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm ready to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I would move that we recommend Petition SV-2006-AR-10482,
Fairways Resort, for approval, including the stipulations and conditions you cited previously.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Murray.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
161
1~
Page 69
December 4, 2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you for your time today, appreciate it.
161
1~0
Item #10
OLD BUSINESS
We have two items left to discuss today. Next items would be old business.
The first one is the travel issue introduced by Mr. Schmitt. I'm hoping Ray's got the information on
that.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I believe you were mailed or e-mailed a copy of a letter from the County
Manager, Mr. Mudd, indicating there's a new form for travel, mileage reimbursement. I'll put it on the
visualizer. In case you did not get it, I'll have it re-sent today and -- with the backup information. This is the
new form they want you to use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will staffbe verifYing this? In the sense -- and I hope they would. It's easy
to do a Google map from each person's house to the commission. And that's all the taxpayers are being
expected to deal with here. And it's got to be when it's over 20 miles, so --
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question in that regard. I listened to that meeting, and I
thought I heard -- pretty dam sure I heard that they said to a maximum of 20 miles.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would mean Mr. Midney doesn't get anything. I think the opposite--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He gcts the maximum 20 miles, period. That was what I
understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would be glad to be wrong. I would be happy to be wrong --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't believe that wa~ correct, but --
MR. BELLOWS: Here's the wording, [believe.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: What does it say?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excess of20 miles.
MR. BELLOWS: Ycah, it says on November 18th, 2008 the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners passed the resolution 2008-341 authorizing the reimbursement of mileage expenses for
advisory board members who travel in excess of20 miles --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wonderful. Glad I'm wrong.
MR. BELLOWS: -- round trip.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Ray, is that all you needed to discuss on this issue?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir.
Item #11
NEW BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we need to move into our new business, which is Item one,
introduced by Mr. SchiIfer concerning boat dock extensions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, what it is, watching that meeting -- and I guess maybe
staff is going to do something, but there's a concern I have is that it looks like it's split down to two ways in
which people are reading this criteria.
Page 70
December 4, 2008
16 lIAS
One of the concerns I have is that, you know, I think the way that at least I read it, I think by the
vote some other people read it, the staff is kind of throwing the Planning Commissioner under the bus and
giving the impression to commissioners that we're doing a deficient job.
So what are you going to do about that situation with the interpreting of how to do the boat docks
extensions?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
I don't believe it was intended to imply that the Planning Commission was not doing their job.
Certainly the appeal process isn't appealing the decision of staff or the zoning director, but the appeal
process is appealing the decision of the Collier County Planning Commission.
Whether the executive summary was clear enough on that, I'm not sure. But I will gladly discuss
that with the zoning director and see how we can better improve the process. I know we don't do that many
boat dock appeals, and it may mean that we need to massage that process a little bit more.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think the problem is -- first of all, the commissioners don't
see the ones we pass. There are some of us who believe that Collier has a regulation for a dock distance out
and that if you can't make that you, number one, at the beginning ofthe process prove that you can't make
it.
If that's proven, then there's conditions that make sure that you don't violate these other conditions
and you can have extensions. We've given extensions, man, I think some of them are in the 70 feet in some
shallow areas around Port of the Isles or something.
But the problem I havc is that the commissioners I think are definitely under the impression that
you have to vote the criteria. So some of us who belicve in a case where you don't need an extension, where
you could easily -- or could build a 20-foot dock, we don't need to go through the criteria. And the staff not
supporting that, I can remember -- and it's a lengthy meeting for the commissioners, it's a lengthy meeting.
We're all wasting a lot of time on this.
And the staff isn't proposing that other method. They're definitely saying, you know, like, well, why
did the Planning Commissioners do that, why do some of them have only one criteria. And they're just, you
know, shrugging their shoulders like they have no idea.
But there is a good idea. I mean, some of us don't think that's the appropriate way to do it. So we
have to have some form where we actually establish what that code means, and we all behave accordingly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, exactly what you just said was the coneern that I came away from
that meeting, because we've had different interpretations in how to look at that.
And as probably Jeff and Joe will tell you, I spoke to them both after that meeting and said before
we bring this back to the Planning Commission there needs to be a consensus from your two departments as
to how we're to proceed and how we are supposed to look at it.
So I think the answer to your question will be done beforc we even get that back, because it has to
be. We cannot hear it again with confusion on what interpretation to use, and the two departments will have
to get together on it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And again, thcre's another point I want to make. The concern is I
don't like hearing commissioners, in my case, using my name a~ an example of doing a deficient review
when that's not the case.
The other thing is, Ray, thc 20-foot, nobody knows whcre that came from. So could we be doing a
disservice to the boating community? This is Collier County. Boating is one of the major recreational
attractions to Collier.
Can you somehow try to figure out why we have a 20-foot requirement? There may be conditions,
you know -- in other words, the only reason I'm such a hardball on 20 feet is because that's one of the laws
of the land. I mean, it's not up to us to decide whether we like the laws of the land. We shouldn't be doing
Page 71
that as a Planning Commission, certainly.
So the point is I would like to see somehow maybe we should start looking out to why is it 20 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that research could be readily done if you were assigned a staff
member to go back and historically look at how the boat dock criteria in the LDC evolved. And you may
have to go back into the days prior to transcribed minutes, which then poses a problem to give you a distinct
answer --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, if! may interject. We did attempt to do that
through the County Attorney's Office through Mr. Klatzkow, and we were able to see that it went back at
least to 1965 when it was first applied to residential single-family homes.
And there was very little. We were not able to come to a conclusion as to the reason for the 20 feet,
based on the record.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But maybe that's something we could revisit. That's a long time
ago. What's happened to boats, what's happened to the boating community -- I mean, you know, the lifts
and all that didn't even exist back when that was made. And I think the biggest problem we have is a lot of
people want to swing it perpendicular and put it on a lift.
So anyway, Ray, maybe one recommendation is you put together a tcam of people that know boats,
that know the industry, and to discuss maybe the 20 feet as a problem, too. Maybe we could have a different
kind of default.
But I do think giving the impression to the commissioners that you only use the criteria to do a boat
thing was a disservice to some of us on the Planning Commission, and some of us went down in vain
bccausc of that. And that didn't please me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what staITneeds to do is if you could provide a historical
perspective of the boat dock transformations to the best you can, and probably use the research the County
Attorney's Office has done, that will give us a good idea on how we got to where we are today.
And I think the interpretation of the criteria has been a bonc of contention for a while now --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They actually said that if they used the bone of conten -- or used
the criteria that would work. I could use the criteria and put a boat 50 feet across the waterway all the way
across the waterway because I meet the other criteria but not that one. And by right you're giving the
impression that would be allowed. So you do have problems just using the criteria alone.
MR. BELLOWS: So if! understand correctly, you're requesting background inIormation on the
boat dock --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Language.
MR. BELLOWS: -- language for a possible LDC amendment where we could address changes to
the current LDC requirements that specifY 20 feet as a maximum without requiring an extension --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think we're trying to clarifY how they're supposed to be interpreted. I
don't think anybody's making a decision here today that 20 feet is right or wrong. There is a concern on how
did we get there. But obviously, we've just been told that may not be possiblc to determine that.
But lacking that, we ecrtainly want to know that the criteria either has to be adhered to based on
other historic discussions of it. When those primary and secondary criteria were formatted there was
probably a lot of public discussion, at least several of thc board levels.
Does any of that public testimony say how that criteria was supposed to then be adhered to? Was it
supposed to be adhered to strictly or was it supposed to be there as consideration and then we're allowed to
go outside that?
I think that's probably part of the issue we want to know.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, definitely that came out oflast Tucsday's board meeting on the appeal.
And that's what the County Attorney's Office and the zoning director will be working on clarifying, as well
December 4, 2008
16/ 1-kS
Page 72
as Mr. Schmitt.
Now, in regards to the second part ofthe question, I will be able to do the research, and I'll
coordinate with what Heidi's staff has done and we will get you the background of how we got to where we
are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think if you get it in pieces and give it to us so we can read it
as it's developed, that would be helpful. And then we can finally get to a point where this thing will be
rescheduled and we have the background we need then to hear it in a manner that the Board of County
Commissioners would like us to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then most of all, you know, respect the opinion of -- you
know, we did do these boat dock extensions, we did give it a lot of time. There are some of us that think the
code is clearly written that a 25-foot's requirement (sic). And there are situations where you can't do the
20- foot and it comes before this board.
But don't give the commissioners the impression, which you did, that those of us who don't believe
we have to list criteria are doing a deficient job. We're not. Those of us who do that realize that there's no
problem building a 20-foot dock, thus we don't need to go into the criteria. You should stick with the
20-foot dock, which is the law of the land. Enough said.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the point's made and we'll go from there.
Mr. Murray, did you have a --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The question was raised about some of the criteria being
applicable, multi docks versus single residence docks and so forth.
Is it time for those criteria to be reevaluated lor their applicability for whether or not they do
convey the proper potential for evaluation?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here, here.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Looking at them, some of it is really subjective. They're supposed
to be objective criteria, and they do appear very, very subjective some time. When actually --
MR. BELLOWS: Well, view blocking is definitely a subjective component of it. And some of the
discussion during the county commission mecting was make it an administrative process and stick with
some objective criteria.
But there are always going to be some of those cases where there is the subjectivity involved, and
that is where the Planning Commission has historically provided a valuable input on determining this --
some of these subjective criteria. And I think that's why there hasn't been an administrative process, because
there are these subjective things.
Now, we could always dcsign an administrative process that allows for unlimited dock -- or boat
size. You've got to limit it somewhere. And historically that was determined to be 20 feet, and it's been used
for at least 30 or 40 years.
I think the only thing I can tell you now is I'll get you the background information on the boat
docks. Certainly -- I watched the appeal on Tuesday, and I certainly didn't come away with the impression
that staff was intentionally leading anyone to believe that the Planning Commission did not adequately
review this project. And I'll certainly relay your concerns to the --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm going to just -- you cut me off. I'm going to tell you that I
think that the criteria should be objective. That's in fact what criteria are supposed to be. And they should be
as tight as thcy can toward objectivity. And I think some word-smithing may very well be applicable.
Commissioner Coyle called into question at least those two that seemed irrelevant, one or the other,
depending on the case. So it would makc it a lot easier lor us to evaluate.
But I also ask that the person presenting to us has morc commitment to knowledge and more
commitment to the actual case at point. Because what I hear often is we got the survey from Joe, we think
December 4, 2008
161 1 kS
Page 73
December 4, 2008
161 1A-S
Joe submitted it, therefore Joe's okay, we go along with that. I'm not satisfied when I hear that, quite
frankly. I aecept it because it seems to be the norm. But I don't think it's the ideal.
Now, I don't expect people to go out there necessarily. But I do think that we have to have a
stronger eommitment from staff so that we can make a more effective decision. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments before we move on?
(No response.)
Item #12
PUBLIC COMMENT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item is public comment. And I see there's a public out there.
Doug, I know you've got to be sitting there for a reason.
MR. FEE: I filled out my slip.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't use slips anymore so you can't speak.
MR. FEE: Oh, you don't?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm just kidding. After all that time you've waited, go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, this is the first time I can remember public comment. What
about you?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I remember one othertimc. I think Nancy Payton had a comment
years ago.
No, but you do know we can't have any motions on stuff that isn't on the agenda. So we're just here
for discussion.
MR. FEE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Doug Fec. I'll try to be brief on this.
Speaking of boating, and I know you guys are involved in boat dock extensions and Land
Development Code amendments and GMP amendments. What I want to speak about today has to do with
Wiggins Pass. Just one of our many estuaries and inlets.
What I passed out was -- the first page shows you the FLUE, which indicates in the
Delnor- Wiggins State Recreation Area as well as Barefoot Beach State Preserve, you will notice that it is
green highlighted, which designates conservation designation.
The sccond page, and let me just put this on the visualizer. I don't know that the public would be
able to see that, but along the coast there you have a different color than the yellow, which is the urban area.
The next thing I want to put on the visualizer is -- it's II by 17, it's the zoning map of this area, of
the pass itself.
And what you have here, if you can read the map, you have conservation to the south and then you
have an area, it does say Wiggins Pass, and then you have conservation to the north. And this is the actual
zonmg map.
What I then want to do is, the next page that I've given you is some text out of the Land
Development Code. And you'll notice there's a letter B that says conservation district CON, which matches
the FLUE. I'm just going to briefly read this.
It says, the purpose and intent of the conservation district CON is to conserve, protect and maintain
vital natural resource lands within unincorporated Collier County that are owned primarily by the public.
All native habitats possess ecological and physical characteristics that justifY attempts to maintain these
important natural resources.
Barrier islands, coastal bays, wetlands and habitat for listed species deserve particular attention
because of their ecological value and their sensitivity to perturbation.
Page 74
December 4, 2008
All proposals for development in CON district must be subject to rigorous rev!w~o Lsure tlt the AS
impacts of the development do not destroy or unacceptably degrade the inherent functional values.
The CON district includes such public lands as -- and I won't read the full, but I want to point out
that it does mention Delnor-Wiggins State Park.
It then further says, it is the intent of the CON district to require review of all development
proposed within the CON district to ensure that the inherent value of the county's natural resources is not
destroyed or unacceptably altered. The CON district corresponds to and implements the conservation land
use designation on the future land use map of Collier County.
Then it goes on to say the allowable uses, conditional uses.
Now, my point here is right now there's a committee -- there's a subcommittee that has been formed
underneath the Coastal Advisory Council. And it's specifically looking into Wiggins Pass and the long-term
permitting issues as it relates to dredging and what we're going to do for the future.
I had spoken to Gary McAlpin, obviously he's the coastal zone manager, and I had asked him if he
had specifically looked at the zoning to the north of the pass and to the south of the pass. This was probably
about three weeks ago.
He had answered to me, no, I hadn't. And I said, are you going to do that? And he said, well, we
probably will do that. And I asked him when he would do it and he said it probably will not be until
January. And I said, well, you're expending dollars here at the county level to do some research into this
S-curve, or this flood shoal, and shouldn't we really be looking at the zoning ahead of spending these
dollars? And he said, well, you've got a point.
So I'm coming to you as a public comment. You are the zoning, the Planning Commission here in
Collier County. There's obviously an environmental advisory council as well. And I want to attend their
meeting under public comment. I'd like to raise the issue.
In the Land Development Code it specifically said subject to rigorous review. And you review a lot
of things as it relates to water codes.
My question would be, is there a possibility that you as the Planning Commission could also review
the reports and be a party to that -- you know, so the public ha~ an ability to come here as well as the
Environmental Advisory Council?
Like I said, there's a discussion of removing S-curve of the pass. And I can point that out. I don't
know how many of you know what I'm talking about. I'll point out here Wiggins Pass has a meandering
S-curve that comes around herc. This is Barefoot Beach and this is Delnor-Wiggins. You can see this
portion right here. They call that a flood shoal. It's distinct on this map.
The question becomes, is that under the water or is that an extension of land from Delnor- Wiggins?
They want to actually remove this and do a straight channel through the S-curve and take the spoil from this
and plug up the curve.
A point I'd like to make is when we have done dredging, we've had some erosion on Barefoot
Beach. Now the question becomes, is it unacceptable erosion or is it acceptable. And my question would be
should we be looking at what the unintended consequences might be of this dredging?
So that's basically my point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, this is a Planning Commission, we review the LDC and the
GMP and apply the rulcs for planning and zoning in Collier County. We interpret those the best we can and
make recommendation to the BCC.
We get a lot of new information and new reviews by the BCC. Currently we're reviewing the flood
plain management ordinance. Wc're reviewing the East of951 horizon study. All those are links to
planning, just as this could be linked to planning by simply indicating that this channel will have a load
carrying capacity change to it that will affect uplands zoned areas and possibly boat docks and other things
Page 75
December 4, 2008
that we touch.
It's not up to us though to assign that to ourselves. If you were to make such a request to the BCC
either through your commissioner or to them directly, I don't know if this commission has any objection to
entertaining anything new that would come along. We would certainly give it our best shot to review it as
thoroughly as we possibly can.
But we're not able to pick what we review, they assign things to us.
MR. FEE: So you're suggesting to go to the commission itself?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's the only people that--
MR. FEE: And spell out -- and maybe they ""ill -- okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have to remand the process to us, just like they have with the other
committees that have been developed, and the outcomes ofthose committees are now coming through us.
And they're the best sources to get that to happen. They've been very positive in sending items to us, so
most likely it might be something they would entertain as very positive.
MR. FEE: Okay. One other quick question, and that is there are NRPA designations on the future
land use map, as well as in the Land Development Code.
There is a NRP A that is established in the Pelican Bay area. There is not a NRP A up in the Wiggins
Pass area. I have gone to the county and have gotten a map ofthe environmentally sensitive land of Pelican
Bay, alongside of a map for Wiggins Pass.
I will tell you that that map indicates about a two-to-one. In other words, we may have 50 percent
more than the Pelican Bay area.
I plan on coming back in January to your committee, as well as the EAC to show you this map. My
question to you is, I know you're going through an RLSA program right now --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct, rural lands--
MR. FEE: -- a review. Does that involve any review ofNRP As out in that area?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The NRP As in that area, we have an ASC overlay, which is an area of
special concern, which is sensitive. We have NRPAs in the Belle Meade to the south, but I think that's in
the rural fringe. I don't recall any speciIically in the RLSA offhand, but I can't say for sure there aren't.
MR. FEE: Okay. My question would be, if! brought this to your committee and the EAC, is there
any way, if you got support at the BCC level, to include that in with any submittal in the future if they
deemed that this might be an area that should be considered? How does one go about getting that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Introduce it to the BCC. If thcy told us they want to study the trajectory of
Cape Canaveral's shots to the moon, we'd be studying it. But it's -- really, we have to follow their direction.
We're here to serve the BCC in whatever manner and capacity they want us to serve in.
MR. FEE: So in most cases it's not the Planning Commission that goes to the commissioners and
says we want to look into this issue, it's they have to say look into it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. They remand most of the things that are requested back to us.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, you may also want to check with William Lorenz, the Director of
the Environmental Engineering Services --
MR. FEE: Which I have --
MR. BELLOWS: -- see what staff research has been done on this issue and whether they would be
willing to look at it further or if they need direction from the board on this.
MR. FEE: Okay, that will do it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Doug, appreciate your time as always.
I think we're finished with our agenda today. Is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by--
161
1 -kS
Page 76
1 (;crber 4f08 As
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Me again.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. All in favor.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER MLDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
We're adjourned.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Chair at 2:04 p.m.
COLLIER COUt'l)T ~LANNING COMMISSION
. ! / -
! 'C / \ . \.C....~
Mark, train, Chairman
These minutes a~ed by the Board on
corrected .
\.\'Sr()/
, as presented
or as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY
CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM
Page 77
~~/,)
Fiala /
\-Ialas
\-Ienning
Co~le
coletta
TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
HORIZON STUDY
COLLlER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
December 9, 2008
161 1
d
December 9,2008
RECEIVED
JAN 2 1 2009
Board Of COut I ,',
, I 'll.,ornmisSioners
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier COWlty Planning Commission, in and for the COWlty of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Govemment Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Karen Homiak
Donna Reed-Caron
Tor Kolflat (Absent)
Paul Midney (Absent)
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer (Absent)
Robert Vigliotti
David J. Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
JeflTey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Michael Basi, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Thomas Eastman. Real Property Director, School District (absent)
Page I
Misc. Corres:
Date:
Item#:
Copies to
16' 1 ~
December 9, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good moming, everyone. Welcome to the absolutely packed room of the December 9th Collier
County Planning Commission meeting for the review ofthe horizon study. I'm not sure it's a review, but we'll find out what Mike
has in store for us as we get into the meeting.
If you'll all rise for the pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Michael, before you start in with your overview, I want to understand. When this was sent
to us by the Board of County Commissioners, what was their expectations of what it is that we would be doing for them today?
And then having reviewed your staff report, and noticing you asked for three specific points from us, and I've gone
through the book and trying to understand how those points can be articulated today, ] would like you to explain to us, and it
would be under the recommendation sections, your three paragraphs, each beginning with the word for. Explain to us exactly
what you expect as a response out of those paragraphs so we know the direction we should be heading in today.
MR. BOSI: Thank you. Good moming, Commission. Mike Bosi with Comprehensive Planning.
When the BCC reviewed the Horizon Study on the 29th of September of this year, basically at the end they had asked
for comments or recommendations from the planning commission upon this document before the Bee felt that they were able or
equipped to make recommendations on the three components of the Horizon Study, within the Horizon Study, as Chairman Strain
had indicated.
There's three components. One is the public participation phase, which was a two-year effort led by a committee of 15
individuals to go out and conununicate with the public about their preferences in terms oflevel of service for various
infrastructure and service providers, as well as what they envisioned the opportunities in some of the areas of concern, as growth
moves towards the eastern portion ofthe county.
The second component is a bridge study. The bridge study was an effort that resulted from the transportation planning
services department's interaction with the Horizon Study committee where they identified the need for increased mobility within
the Estates.
And from those meetings they developed the bridge study. whicb you'll hear the specifics about.
And then finally was the development of the interactive growth model.
For each one of these components, we're asking for a specific recommendation.
For the growth model we're asking the planning commission to evaluate the value of the growth model to the county and
offer a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners as to whether you see the value of the county to utilize the growth
model as an additional planning tool for infrastructure and service provision modeling, not only as part of the AUIR process,
which is, you know, the five-year capital improvement programs that are presented on an annual basis to the advisory boards, to
the planning commission and to the productivity committee and ultimately decided by the Board of County Commissioners, but
also for the long-range planning aspect of the individual infrastructure and service providers department.
Within the growth model presentation, you're going to hear ofthe incorporation or an aspect of bringing the land use
modeling efforts of the growth model and bringing it to the long-range transportation planning aspects so we can have a little
more consistency within our transportation planning and our land use planning on the long-range scale.
For the bridge study, the transportation services department is asking for the acceptance -- recommendation of the
acceptance of the bridge study. And as the details are contained within that bridge study, wben the funds are available to initiate
the construction of the bridges within the priority rankings that you'll see -- and Nick will expand upon the methodology that they
utilize to prioritize the bridges and the benefits that each one of those bridges in terms of will provide and how they establish the
rankings.
And the first portion ofthe report is the public participation process. And within their -- within the public participation
process, the committee had identified a nWllber of individual position points that were derived from those series of public
meetings over the course of the 24 months, what the committee heard the general public saying that they would like -- or where
their concerns were as county government moves forward, the areas that they would like to see county government maybe
improve upon or maybe pay more attention to.
So within those position points, they're not offered to specifically create a specific policy within the Growth
Management Plan or a -- or initiate amendments to the Land Development Code, but they're really -- they're really proffered from
the committee to let the Board of County Commissioners, let advisory boards know that this is what the general public was
expressing concern about.
And as you're deliberating over whether it be an individual land use decision or whether it be an infrastructure project,
or whether it be whatever improvement potentially within that eastern land. But remember and take into consideration what the
individual public was saying in terms of their areas of concern and their areas that they've identified as opportunities.
So those position points really were offered as informational pieces for consideration as you're making decisions on
your routine and regular basis.
Page 2
161
December 9,
lk0
2008
From the planning commission, whether it's an individual endorsement or comment upon each of the position points,
that would be dictated by the course that the planning commission would like go. Theire broken down within sections. And how
you'd like to handle the fIrst portion of the puhlic participation phase will be the deference ofthe commission.
But with that, I guess that's the overview marks.
And one thing I will say, and I was speaking to Mr. Vigliotti before, if you look at the report, there's not an aspect or a
central component that, well, this is what is we really need to do. I mean, this is -- if we follow this step, we'll ensure that we have
a balanced and sustainable future in a community that provides for the needs and the goods that are required for the individuals
who live within the area.
But there is an underlying tonc. And the underlying tone is communication.
One of the things, if you remember, this study. the Horizon Study, it started in 2004. In 2004 the amount of
communication and the amount of attention that was paid to the capital improvement programming within this county wasn't at
the level that it's at today. So there's been aspects ofirnprovement within the communication, not only between the
inter-departments within the county but within departments inside the county and outside the county.
And those lines of communication I believe are the central benefit that this Horizon Study will provide, has provided
and will provide into the future for the county.
One of the -- another example that you're going to hear of, and it hits that communication theme, is the -- one of the
greatest unknowns within the eastern portion of the study area was the overlay district. Well, where are those towns and villages
going to transpire? If we're going to do a good job of infrastructure modeling and making sure that we are gaining the greatest
return on our public investment for where we place these infrastructure projects, we need to know a little bit more certainty
towards where these towns and villages are going to come.
The Horizon Study and the communication, the lines of communications that have been established or augmented by
the Horizon Study has led to the property owners within the eastem lands to provide a little bit more specifIcity towards where
they envision those towns and villages to go. Those are the type of benefits I believe that the Horizon Study has provided to the
county and will continue to provide to the county.
And to me, even though it's not a tangible hard physical aspect, it is something that the county benefIts from. And as
you'll hear through all the presentations, especially within Mr. McDaniel's presentation, those lines of communication, the public
is very adamant that those lines of communication arc continued. And I know that that's a statement or that's a policy that the
planning commission most certainly does endorse.
With that, I guess I would offer any questions or -- from the committee regarding some of the remarks that I had just
made, or would you like to just go straight to the agenda?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I know I have a couple of questions of you from a generic viewpoint.
I think your explanation was helpful. Because when I read this, I was trying to fInd the recommendations more or less
that we normally see, and there weren't recommendations from -- mostly. They were mostly very generic statements about how
people think. And most of them were on lines with what I would agree is probably anticipated for out in that area.
But there are some that were -- I want to understand the magnitude of this area. You were talking -- this talks about
everything east of951. It doesn't necessarily mean just Golden Gate Estates; is that correct?
MR. BaSI: Absolutely. And we tried to stress that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because some of the recommendations and position points are not applicable to Golden
Gate Estates in any manner whatsoever. And others may be and written that way. Some don't use the word Estates in them. So
then I'm assuming those that I think are inappropriate for the Estates must be because it was other parts of the study area that it
was referring to in general.
And the also (sic) thing. you mentioned the RLSA. Well, that map that I distributed here at this committee, or this panel
what, a month ago, showing the 22 new towns -~ by the way, they aren't towns anymore. I will stand corrected, I got a new memo
that says they're traffic centroids, they're not towns, so we don't call them towns.
But these 22 new traffic centroids, did the committee take those into consideration or did they have any part of that
map? And if not, then what map did they study for the RLSA? Because that's an issue that we've repeatedly been trying to bring
up as to a need to understand what the RLSA can and can't do.
MR. BaSI: The committee did not have the opportunity to review that map. That map was proffered to the county only
about two months ago. The committee had wrapped up their monthly meetings, their last meeting being in September ofthis year.
What the committee utilized was the projections and the allocations for where development was going to go, produced
by the growth model.
What we have done since is taking the projections of the growth model-- and Dr. Van Buskirk will explain much more
articulately and technically than myself -- but has taken those centroid traffic nodes. which aren't towns or villages but are I guess
the centroid for where they expect the activity to be, which is another name for a town.
Page 3
161 1 f!;7
December 9, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you said that, thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, Mike.
MR. BOSI: Have taken those, compared that against the projections ofthe growth model and utilized it as a calibration
tool.
But no, the -- and what you'll hear in one of the early portions of the struggles of the committee, as Mr. McDaniel will
explain, at the beginning part, it was tough to get the public to understand it wasn't just a Golden Gate vetting process.
One of the toughest obsticles we had as a staff and as a committee was going out asking what do you want to see in 25
and 30 years for people who aren't here yet; to people who will be here but aren't here? So trying to find out what preferences are
for a group of individuals who don't -- who are going to live in an area that right now is for the most part an agricultural
community.
So trying to stress to the public that it wasn't just the Golden Gate Estates that we're talking about. it was the entire
eastern portion of the county.
So some of the recommendations you are to focus center upon the Golden Gate Estates. But we've always -- because
those were most of the residents who showed up at the meetings were member of the Estates. But we really tried to make sure and
pull back whenever those statements came, that this was an encompassing study.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ifthis model that you're promoting was supposed to predict or show growth pattems in
this area to help the committee understand what's going on, why then didn't the model reflect what you got -- what you just saw
from the RLSA committee? I mean, what did they use that's different than the model? How better is theirs or how less accurate is
theirs versus what this model may produce?
MR. BOSI: Well, I will defer to Dr. Van Buskirk for that. But that's like you can't --I couldn't tell you which one's right
or which one's 'Nfong. That event's 20 years from now from happening. So the exact manifestation of how that materializes, I
couldn't tell you.
What I can tell you, that there was very close agreement between what the modeling work had done before the eastern
property landowners had provided those 22 centroids and then towards where those locations had been allocated by the eastern
property owners. So there was a pretty high degree of agreement between the two projections.
So what the committee was utilizing and had worked towards was in agreement with what the RLSA committee had
arrived upon.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying that the Van Buskirk model that the comprehensive planning department's
apparently endorsing, his are the same basically as the Wilson-Miller model that showed the 22 new town traffic centroids out in
the eastern lands.
That's an interesting correlation. If you all did it independently before they came out and they now have come out with
that, that may certainly help this board understand the magnitude of the RLSA changes, ifboth professionals now agree that 22
towns are a likely scenario for occurring out there.
MR. BOSI: Well, I have no idea what methodolugy was utilized by the eastern property owners and what Wilson-Miller
had utilized to arrive upon those 22 locations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they both got there through some method.
MR. BOSI: Exactly. What I know is we provided in the summer -- in the swnmer the growth model was basically
completed through interaction and review with the Horizon Study Review Committee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. that's interesting, because it takes the RLSA comments on that as a worst case scenario
more as the most likely scenario for development of the eastern lands.
So since two now professionals, one done independently by a non-special interest working with the property owners,
saying outside the property owners, came to that same conclusion on their own. Interesting information. So thank you for that.
Nick, you jumped to the plate. Are you going to tell us what a traffic centroid is?
MR. CASALANGUlDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
I don't think that they've come up to the same conclusion. What they've used is the same parameters. In other words, this
is your control total. You get "X" amount of units, "Xl! amount of industrial.
Dr. Van Buskirk looks at the land availability, and correct me ifl'm wrong, but says you can put these in these locations,
because they'll tit. the land would support that.
ECPO, the Eastern Collier Property Owners Association, said we have a better feel for what we want to do with our
land than just arbitrarily trying to load up the models and using your best guess. Let us provide you this information. I've been
asking for that information about six months. As part of the RLSA we want to with compo planning a vision buildup plan and get
as much accurate information as we can.
That was provided to us to give to Dr. Van Buskirk and say to the Doctor, take a look at it, see if you feel comfortable
with what they've said their best guess is.
Page 4
16\ 1 Pf;J
December 9,2008
So the control totals were the same. So they would use the ultimate same number that Dr. Van Buskirk would use. It's
just that locations may vary based on their information versus his.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just a little scarier knowing that two now professionals see the growth out there getting to
that climatic point. Because I don't know if we ever were prepared for that until these maps have recently come out. And now a
validation of the original map done by a more or less consultant for the special interests out there.
So that's an interesting scenario to learn prior to our January 28th meeting. Thank you.
MR. BOSI: And with that, would the commission like to move on to the first presentation?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless anybody else has any questions of Mike. I know you'd probably like to get off the hot
seat as fast as possible, so --
MR. BOSI: I would like to add one thing. In 2005 -- and the basis for the Horizon Study, the first part within the
Horizon Study was projections of cost by each infrastructure and service provider. And those were based upon a 2005 build-out
study that was proffered by comprehensive planning. spearheaded by Mr. David Weeks.
And he really looked at a maximum extent. What is the maximum extent of development that could go forward, based
upon the limitations of the regulations.
And what I will say. the amount of development that was projected within that 2005 study was actually a little bit higher
than what was projected by the growth model and also the projection from the eastern property -- coalition of property owners.
And it's not at criticism of the 2005 study, but what Mr. Weeks did not have, he didn't have an SRA already established
-- a number ofSSA's already established to base those projections on the number of credits that could be generated and a number
of credits then therefore would be able to be spent.
But the first part of that model was based upon a population projection that was done in 2005 that said here's the cost
that we have to -- that we're going to have to incur to provide the level of service that we currently have within our GMP. And we
identified that we really don't have probably the necessary revenue to completely meet those projected costs.
And the study was an effort to start the dialogue to say what are our priorities and how do we make those priorities
towards where we're providing the greatest service for within the limited revenue that the county's going to face coming into the
future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The one 1.000,066 is out now officially and the 950.000 odd is in?
MR. BOSI: Neither are officially endorsed. The 2005 build-out study was a projection that still might remain valid. But
there's been adjustments based upon historical trends and facts that have allowed us to calibrate those projections downwards a
little bit, revise them a little bit.
Whether it's the 2005 build-out study or whether it's the growth model projections that ultimately is going to be the
more accurate, I can't tell you that officially. We think that we'll refine those projections with the growth model to be more within
line with the realities based upon the past trends that we have seen.
But whenever you're 25 years out into the future, it becomes pretty cloudy in that respect.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, some of the conclusions reached here and some of the data are not supportable
anymore relative to the decline. So we're looking at, you know, something that was a point in time that's no longer valid, and Ijust
-- my one question, how much did it cost for the crystal balls that we had to buy for all ofthis? Because you're talking about the
east -- I forget the -- EVOC (sic) or whatever it was called. the Eastern--
MR. BOSI: Eastern Property Owners Coalition.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I never even heard of those people before.
Are those people, have they even proffered anything that represents what they project? I know I heard Nick saying
they've been waiting for six months, but do we have any -- the reason I ask this question is because you spoke of communication.
And when you were asked about RLSA, there's clear evidence there's no communication. Not for lack on your part, I'm not --
MR. BOSI: There is -- when you receive the Phase II report for the RLSA, you'll see a spreadsheet that will have
comparisons between what was provided by the growth model, what was provided by the Eastern Properties Owners Coalition.
There's comparison, so you can look and see that they've taken all that information into account and they're going to put it forward
to you when you're going through that review so you can better evaluate some of the proposed policy changes that are going to
come forward during that process. So that information will be presented to you.
Actually, I was within a meeting just yesterday with stafTrcviewing the information that's going to be proffered to you,
and that type of information is contained within that report.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All ofthis information ultimately is intended to effect policies, which ultimately effect
GMP, which ultimately effect LDC; am I right?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we have a broad -- we have a menu to pick from is what you're effectively telling
Page 5
16 j 1
December 9,2008
~
me.
MR. BOSI: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. Then we'll figure out how much the crystal balls cost and buy some here too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike?
MR. BOSI: And with that, 1 will introduce the chairman of the Horizon Study Committee, Mr. Bill McDaniel.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who walked in late. We understand.
MR. McDANIEL: Did you just say I was late?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I sure did, Bill. Why not? Someone's got to start this out right.
MR. McDANIEL: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bill McDaniel, and I am the Chair of the
East of951 Horizon Study Committee.
I'm getting some technical instruction on how to run the Power Point presentation. When's it going to pop up on the
screen?
And if I might address a couple of the comments that Mike made early on in regard to some of your questions, and as is
typical, please feel free to interrupt, to ask questions, suggestions as we go through this presentation. This isn't a static
presentation, nor is it a static analysis.
The dynamics of what are going to occur within our county are such that Mr. Murray, too, in order to ascertain with
specificity exactly how many people are going to be able to reside within our community, as you said. the crystal ball is such. And
extremely foggy.
The realities, Mr. Chainnan, are maturity is coming. And I would like to suggest that we talk more about maturity than a
specific build-out time frame. and have a plan for reaching that maturity. That's the impetus behind the East of 951 Horizon Study
Committee, the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay Committee, the interactive growth model, which you're going to hear about.
These are all planning tools for us to lay the road map to get to maturity.
Maturity is inevitably coming. How we get there and what we do interimly (sic) will be impacted by the dynamics that
you folks have talked about, the realities of the marketplace, the entire economic circumstances of the global economy that we're
all having to deal with. These are all going to have long-term implications as to how and what we do in order to ultimately reach
maturity, okay?
With that, as a thought process -- and one statement that you made earlier, Mr. Chairman, also is there's opinions about
everything with respect to growth and development. Our goal throughout the process in assimilating this information was
maximum allowable or maximum attainable populations, not necessarily worst case scenarios. It could necessarily be derived as a
worst case scenario, but we were looking to reach to ascertain what our maximum capacities were with the allowable land uses
within the existing comprehensive Growth Management Plan and the existing Land Development Code.
With that in mind, there are opportunities to effectuate changes in the comprehensive Growth Management Plan, and
ultimately into the Land Development Code that will allow capacities in other areas other than just cast of95 I to support the
ultimate growth and development that's inevitably going to occur in our community.
And I'm not going to -- if it meets your pleasure, I'm not going to read these -- J believe they have a copy in your book.
You have a copy ofthe Power Point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be fine. We can read as--
MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Bottom line with respect to our study, there was -- as Mr. Basi shared with you early on, there was a -- David Weeks
within our staff did a build-out study that had a time line with specificity and a comparison of the infrastructure necessities that are
going to be required in order to ultimately support that build-out or maturity population that would ultimately be here.
Utilizing the best data that he had available, he came up with certain parameters, and then ultimately went back to the
individual departments within Collier County to ascertain the projected costs associated with those infrastructure necessities.
Candidly, those projected costs far exceed the available monies, imagine that, that we have available.
So with this information, with this planning, with these planning tools, the funding capacities that arc available to
support the construction of the -- did my timing buzzer just go off> I'm good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have one of those here.
MR. McDANIEL: Okey-dokey.
With that in mind, we're going to have to explore alternative funding methodologies in order to support the future
growth and development. It's a nice thing to say to let growth pay for growth, but in reality everyone at some stage ofthe game is
going to have to share in the expenses of the upcoming growth and development that's coming to our community.
And Mr. Strain, this refers to the map that you were talking about.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR. McDANIEL: Yes.
Page 6
16 I 1 ~S
December 9, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, not the map that I was talking about.
MR. McDANIEL: I understand that. This refers to the area with regard to our study.
And you brought up an interesting subject, and we the committee were tasked, as you're going to hear in a little bit, with
polling the populous that exists east of951, lives -- I shouldn't say just exist, they live east of 951.
And truths of the matter are the largest populated fTom a density standpoint area is Golden Gate Estates. So it's
inevitable that several of our subject matters and opinions with respect to growth and development in eastern Collier County came
fTom those folks that live in Golden Gate Estates.
But the entire area land mass east of951 was included in our survey and in our -- as our study area.
The truths of the matter are. of that entire land mass some 1.2 odd million acres, approximately 350,000 acres is
available for development in support of the growth and development that's ultimately going to occur east of951.
And it is encompassed by multi -- I want to -- say maybe jurisdictional is probably a good way to do it. But you've got
Golden Gate Estates master plan, you've got the Immokalee overlay, you've got the rural fringe overlay within the comprehensive
growtb management plan and you also have the rural land stewardship overlay. Those mecbanisms are out there for -- and
attempting to govem what occurs fTom a growth and development standpoint in eastern Collier County.
And as Mike said. the exact amount of people is going to be detennined based upon sustainability is the bottom line.
And socio- and political decisions that we implement today or going forward based upon the best available infonnation.
Round numbers, whether it's 950,000 or 1,200,000 really is not necessarily the specific case for today. The bottom line
is, is the growth and development is inevitably coming to our area and we have to plan. Ifwe don't plan, then as the adage goes,
we can then plan to fail. And we'll have a heck of a time on our hands supporting the ultimate growth and development that's
coming to our community.
Ifthese projections are in fact correct, and I believe them to be, at least at best sustainable with the infonnation that we
have, the populous, this million some odd people that are ultimately going to be here in Collier County, approximately 70 percent
of them are going to reside east of951. Which you're going to see a shift from the -- what we now currently designate as the urban
area into the marc rural area. And that is part and parcel to what came about from our study.
Here's the population breakdowns, a'i best as we can. And this again outlines the four major governing groups, if you
will: The Immokalee overlay, the rural land stewardship overlay, the rural fTinge and then ultimately Golden Gate Estates, and the
estimates of the populations within those areas.
And this goes back to what we talked about at the beginning. The bottom line is there is an expense associated with
growth and development, and we need to today start to explore altemative funding methods for sources of payment for the capital
improvements that arc going to be required to support and sustain the growth and development that's inevitably coming to our
community.
The commission was made aware ofthis -- the Board of County Commissioners was made aware of this, and that was
what motivated them to establish the East of 951 Horizon Study Committee, who were then sent out to hold public meetings and
poll the folks that live out there to ascertain what level of service they were looking to have provided to them.
And there's your committee right there, made up of a very interesting group. I had an opportunity to spend what, two
plus years with these folks. A lot of different ideas, a lot of different thought processes and community leaders fTom all over our
county. Not just large landowners, but folks that like me are just regular people that like to bave a thought and a say-so.
And as I shared with you earlier on, we were tasked with these particular duties to go out and poll the public tbat reside
east of 951. And I believe as per the charge from the county commission, that our committee fulfilled those tasks that we were
sent off to do.
Our report today will summarize the findings of the polling, the community meetings that we had, the public vetting
sessions that we had, and ultimately have hopefully assisting (sic) you in implementing the interactive growth model, ultimately
impacting the Comprebensive Growth Management Plan and then flowing tbrough to the Land Development Code.
We offer up position points for consideration for the Board ofCoW1ty Commissioners, and they basically come as
follows. The interactive growth model is one of the most phenomenal planning tools that I've had the opportunity to experience
and have a review of. It is an W1believably dynamic piece of work. It takes into account so many things that are going to allow us
to provide a plan that has fiscal responsibility, that has accountability to appropriate the dollars for the infTastructure.
And as you said, Mr. Chair, early on, I mean, there's a lot of information that's flowing out now through these individual
committees. But with this model we're going to be able to ascertain from a timing standpoint a proactive status for the ultimate
growth and development that's coming to our commW1ity.
These are some of the things that we did in the two-year process. The last three things I'd like to call your attention to
there. We had what we felt was a high success rate. We polled some 2,100 household in the area of our study area and received
just shy 000 percent response, which --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wboa.
Page 7
161 1 ~
December 9,2008
MR. McDANIEL: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how many of that was from Estates people? And the reason is, if this study was
supposed to be more than just Golden Gate Estates -- and I'm reading it and it seems really focused on Golden Gate Estates,
which I have no problem with since I live there. But I would really be more concerned that the other parts of the county who are
part of this had an equivalent balance of say-so in your public participation.
MR. MOHLKE: They did. And I will comment on that
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Mohlke, you know better than -- you've got to be at the speaker, you've got to identifY
yourself in the front of the room, so please refrain from any comments from the audience at this time.
Do you have any idea what that is"
MR. McDANIEL: On a percentage basis, not off the top of my head, Mr. Chairman.
I can share with you, though. that there was an effort to be equitable with the responses and how we acquired the
information from the folks that live in eastern Collier County. I mean. and Mr. Mohlke, when he does come up, will I'm sure be
able to give you the exact percentages on the responses.
And as I shared with you. it's inevitable. I mean, we -- I can assure you personally that we made an effort to not have
this process be another Golden Gate Estates master planning committee. I mean, we were vel)' considerate with respect to -- but
also being aware that your highest populous, your greatest density of people residing east of951 are within the already subdivided
and set up Golden Gate Estates, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's just temporary. Because based on the chart that you just had here, the RLSA section
of the county will far surpass Golden Gate Estates in population.
MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely. Absolutely. Without a doubt.
But on the same token, our charge -- and we had a rather interesting adventure, but our charge was to poll the folks that
live east of951 and ascertain the level of services that are going to ultimately be required by that group.
And as Mr. Bosi shared with you, the majority of them aren't here yet. So we did the best we could with what we had to
work with, and endeavor to not have this be another Golden Gate Estates master planning committee. So again, these are -- I'm
going to get into the position points here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I wish to -- I don't mean to keep interrupting you, but --
MR. McDANIEL: No, please --
CHAtRMAN STRAIN: -- I want to make sure we're being--
MR. McDANIEL: -- I asked you to early on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as productive as possible as we move forward.
It seems in Mr. Bosi's discussion with us in the beginning, one of his recommendations was for the public participation
process. The committee requests that the CCPC make a recommendation on the individual position points advanced by the
Horizon Study committee when appropriate.
And there's three pages of those. And based on what you're heading into, it looks like you're going to bring up those
issues now. And I was wondering if we want to take them as we go through them now, ask questions about them. I'm not sure we
want to take a position on them till the end of the meeting, but at least we will have our questions up front and done while you're
trying to discuss them with us. Does that work for you, Bill?
MR. McDANIEL: I'm all over it. That's fine with me, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It will take a little longer for you to be up there. but if you don't mind, it might expedite
the process.
MR. McDANIEL: Mike was kind enough to bring me a cup of water, so I shouldn't run out of too much wind.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what I'll do is if you don't mind, at the -- each time you get through with a couple bullets, I'll
ask for comments from the panel.
MR. McDANIEL: And that's fine. And please. I welcome those -- this interactivity. I mean, you folks are going to be an
integral part of the ultimate growth and development that comes to our community as anything.
And with that water, there was in fact an overwhelming opinion there that the extension of utilities into Golden Gate
Estates is not a warranted or required or even a necessity at this particular stage. There were experts that were brought in, and to
the best -- with the best available information that we had there was no need for the extension of water and sewer into the Golden
Gate Estates area. There was a concern --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, you said there were experts brought in?
MR. McDANIEL: From Collier County. And then we had on --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Water and Wastewater?
MR. McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
Page 8
Dece!~r~, 20J8~
COMMISSIONER CARON: They were brought in and they are telling us that based on build-out for the Estates there
still is no need -- it's not a health, safety, welfare issue, we don't need to put water and sewer in the Estates.
MR. McDANIEL: At this particular time with the information that we have available to you, that is a correct statement,
yes, ma'am. There are opinions that are -- that folks have that ultimately could have an influence on that, but the information that
we have available to us at this particular stage, there is no health. safety and welfare issues in regard to that.
COMMtSStONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bill, while we're on this subject, about a month ago in front of the Board of County
Commissioners under a citizen1s request, a gentleman spoke through an interpreter to the commissioners asking why when he lives
in Golden Gate Estates he was charged, I think he said. $6.000 for water and sewer impact fees when there's no water and sewer
available out there. And I wholeheartedly agree with the gentleman's position. He says why can't I have my money given back to
me.
And of course the board was given an elaborate excuse that because the water and sewer district boundaries were shown
east of 95 I that by law the water and sewer district could ask for impact fees, even though they are clearly never going to use
them within the I O-year time frame.
And the commission clearly did not favor having those impact fees apply, but they were convinced by the water
department that those fees were needed, by state statute.
My suggestion, I was wondering if your board would have taken this up, is that if this is a true statement in regards to
the fact nobody out there really wants water and sewer -- I shouldn't say nobody, but the majority -- and from what I saw on the
board that the day, not one of the board members expected that to happen within a 10 or a 20-year time frame. They didn't see it
either.
Would your board consider recommending a reduction of the water and sewer boundary lines back to the 95 I corridor
demarcation point instead of going out into the Estates to provide an excuse to collect fees that will never be used?
That's a leading question.
MR. McDANIEL: Boy. That's an understatement.
And I'm going to say this, Mr. Chairman, with respect to that: You're talking about specificities in regard -- and granted,
ultimately we're going to have -- this information that is being provided to you is ultimately going to have impacts on the
Comprehensive Growth Management Plan and ultimately the LDC.
That was -- the question that you specially asked was clearly outside the guise of our charge in regard to utilization of
impact fees. But it does bode the question of ultimate funding sources.
I can say, ultimately to answer your question, we still are in existence, the committee, for about five more days. So we're
about done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bill, I -- let me tell you something too. When I read this, being on this panel for the length
of time I have been, I always look for very specific issues and recommendations. I was a little frustrated after reading this,
because it really isn't specific.
And now that it was explained to us this moming by Mr. Bosi and as well as yourself, this is more of a generic
expression of the mindset ofthose living east of95 I.
MR. McDANIEL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I really need to step back and figure out a different context in which to understand this at.
So 1 guess in reaction to some of these, maybe the planning commission could recommend to the Bee considerations
that these are purely more esoteric comments ofthe people's feelings out there than it is of specific changes to anything in
particular.
MR. McDANIEL: And agreed.
And if you go back to the actual charge that was given to this committee by the Board of County Commissioners, that's
what we were charged to do. The -- right. And with that, and Mike just reminded me, and again, it's a two-year process that we
went through here in order to be here today to offer you this presentation.
We were very, very careful to stay away from specific recommendations with regard to the Comprehensive Growth
Management Plan or with regard to the LDC. Our goal, our charge was to poll the populous to ascertain the viewpoint of the level
of services that were to be provided in eastern Collier County, not to actually decide whether or 110t one particular fee structure
was fair or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Carono
COMMISStONER CARON: Yeah, I need to go back--
MR. McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMtSSlONER CARON: -- to my original question. Because everybody here knows that there's a difference
between the water/sewer boundary and the east of951 boundaries, did Water and Sewer tell you that at build-out for the Estates
Page 9
16 I 1+\5
December 9, 2008
there would still be no need for water and sewer?
MR. BOSI: Pbil Gramatges from public utilities offered no comment upon that issue. Strictly what utilities was charged
to do was to look out, study what was the cost of extending the water and wastewater to the Estates that are in the district
boundary but are currently not provided wastewater water. They identified a price tag of $111 ,000 per parcel for the extension of
that water -- of that service. They--
COMMISSIONER CARON: They made no comment on whether that was going to be--
MR. BOSI: At the public meetings, the majority of the public said we do not want that price tag raised. But what they
did express in the last two meetings, there is concern. Whether -- there's not a study as to full build-out.
There is some concern from the residents out there about potentially having an influence from ultimate build-out to the
availability of wastewater and water. So there is -- there is some concern.
And as you'll see within the second bullet point and the third bullet point in water, there is a component ofthe public
that is somewhat concerned about the long-tenn viability of the system.
And between utilities, between the health department, you know, the DEP, there was a suggestion that potentially we
need to get these groups together and look at this subject in a little bit more intensive manner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but Mike, having followup to you and then Mr. Murray. I've lived out there 30 years, and
you're right, we have some concerns about water, but it's not the use of the water we're doing, it's the use of the water that's being
sucked out of the ground that's lowering our water table, causing higher droughts and more fires out there and our wells going dry
because all the cities and municipalities are taking our water. So that's our concern.
MR. BOSI: And that was a concern.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray"
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Boy, the scope of this is really juicy.
First of all, I'm not sure that we can effectively make a reconunendation on several points without really breaking it into
increments oftime. Because this is all relatable to time.
For instance, in terms of water and wastewater, those who are not here yet will want services and will need services,
clean water and sewer. Otherwise, we poison the ground. And they're not here to talk about it. So we have on the one hand you're
seeking the infonnation from persons who are living here, those are the ones you have to work with, about what the future will be,
and they haven't got a clue. And then we have a group of I guess some people in government who are indicating whatever they're
indicating. And I find it too open-ended, quite frankly.
MR. McDANIEL: And if I may interrupt you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure.
MR. McDANIEL: And it's very specific. It was the folks that we spoke with in the Golden Gate Estates area that
currently live there today. There was an overwhelming resounding no to the extension of utilities into Golden Gate Estates.
The other areas that are encompassed within our study area, the lmmokalee overlay, the rural fringe overlay, the rural
lands stewardship overlay, those bodies, from the best that I've been able to ascertain, are required to have clean sewer, central
water, clean water, clean sewer systems that are provided within their development codes before they can ever go to the dance--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. and I think I understand that. But that would leave this very large tract of land,
although parceled for single-family residents and a few commercial enterprises effectively absent any kind of sanitary sewer and
freshwater other than pwnped from the ground, correct"
MR. McDANIEL: At this particular stage, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, that's the point I'm trying to get to, this particular stage. I just got the
impress that ad infinitum these people generally and anticipatorily people who will come and occupy will also have the same
mindset, which I doubt.
MR. McDANIEL: At the expense that's associated with the extension out there. unless there's a proven methodology or
a proven issue with respect to the sanitary capacities of providing clean water for the folks, I can assure you that there will be a
resounding no to the extension of the Estates--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I recognize that individuals will express their preferences to avoid cost and
certainly satisfaction with what exists. But it would not be unusual for a government to subordinate that and say you cannot have
an unhealthy system.
MR. McDANIEL: Of course. Now, if there's information --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So t think that has to be part of this.
MR. McDANIEL: Well, at this particular stage it can be part of this. It wasn't part of what the East of951 Horizon
Study committee was charged with. We were charged with ascertaining as to whether or not the folks that currently live there
today would be in favor of and support the installation of utilities in that area.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that, sir, but we're going out to 2055 on this study.
Page ] 0
16 I 1 A?
December 9, 2008
MR. McDANIEL: We're going out to a time that is yet to be determined.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
MR. McDANIEL: The maturity of what's involved in the growth and development of eastem Collier County.
And as I shared with you at the beginning of this, there's a lot of information yet to be ascertained. There may be a new
technology that none of us are ultimately aware of that will assist us in determining the impacts of the sewer and septic systems
that exist in Golden Gate Estates that we don't even know about yet.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well. I'm not going to try to make a determination on what may be in the future when I
know something exists today. All I'm saying is how much weight -- and you're strong about this, you're saying the weight of those
who have answered today with regard to the future with regard to water and sewer are the dominating lorce and that the
judgments, that's the inference I'm getting, the judgments that we're supposed to align with is that that's okay. And I find it
extremely difficult to accept that premise. So that's going to be a real sticking point for me. It was when I read this.
You know, we build latrines in the service because we know better, right?
MR. McDANIEL: And Mr. MWTay, you bring up a very good point.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
MR. McDANIEL: But if! may, again, the global aspect of what's been encompassed by the East of951 Horizon Study
committee was utilization of the information that we have available to us today and the polling of the folks that live in the study
area.
And as I shared with you at the beginning, by populous, by density, the large majority of those lolks live in the Golden
Gate Estates. It's the platted plotted subdivision that cWTently exists out there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti"
MR. McDANIEL: As we go forward, better and more information will come about. And I'm sure that if it's ultimately
determined that there is a health, safety and welfare impacts (sic) that are derived from the septic systems, we the community will
make the necessary adjustments accordingly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti"
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mike, I have a question; I don't know if you can answer this. But you had mentioned
that Phil had mentioned I ) 0.000 per parcel"
MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir. that's correct.
COMMISSIONER VtGLIOTTI: Parcel being what, quarter acre versus a hundred acre?
MR. McDANIEL: It was on a per unit basis, irrespective of the size ofthe property. Because Golden Gate Estates has
very specific densities that are allowed within the parcels. So it was a per parcel, not a per land mass.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did anybody in your discussions with your group, did anybody bring any testimony forward or
any discussion forward that the septic systems or water systems out there in the Estates were unhealthy in any manner
whatsoever?
MR. McDANIEL: Not that I have any recall on, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. )'ve lived there 30 years and I can tell. from a fact I can tell you that's not the case.
MR. McDANIEL: I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. McDANIEL: And as Mr. MWTay spoke of, as time goes on and more people ultimately reside in the area, and
there are larger demands on our entire ecosystem and resources that are available to support the growth and development and
ultimate new technologies, we way be able to determine and have new information that will better assist us in making those
decisions.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And t would just add, quite frankly, you can't use the past to prove the future.
MR. McDANIEL: Well, I'm going to go to the next slide.
And I skipped the last paragraph there. But one of the suggestions that the committee would like to have as a
recommendation is there were some concerns with the rehydration of the -- I backed up on you there -- the rehydration and
restoration of the eastern Golden Gate Estates and Everglades.
There's been some flooding concerns that have arisen with closure of canals and manipulation of water in eastern
Collier County, and we would -- it was suggested that an independent study be utilized to ascertain the impacts of what's going on
out there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Did your committee set up any criteria that you wanted looked at specifically?
MR. McDANIEL: No, ma'am. It was -- the issue was raised. And it was ultimately part of our report. And other than the
fact that we thought that an independent hydrogeologist should be involved with respect to those impacts, there was no real
parameters established.
Page 11
161 1 ~
December 9, 2008
There is an issue -- and I believe, Mike, when you and I met -- there is an issue with ultimate availability of sustainable
potable water for the community at large. And I think -- has that information been ultimately determined as to what capacities we
have?
That's a really good recommendation that could go to the Board of County Commissioners. And it's abnost a bottom up
analysis, but a determination of our availability -- the availability to provide potable water to eastem Collier County and
ultimately sustain whatever population that ultimately is going to be residing here is a huge question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISStONER CARON: Why we have wasted time, money and effort on any of these other studies without doing
that one first still boggles my mind.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill, I think we had fun with water.
The next one ought to be a lot more fun. transportation. Nick's --
MR. McDANIEL: There you go, transportation.
One of the things that was brought up and vetted through our committee was the installation of a bridge network in the
eastern Collier County to assist with the emergency medical services to provide better care and assistance to the folks that reside
in eastem Collier County.
The bottom line determination, and I think you folks have all seen that ultimate bridge study that transportation, Nick
and Lisa, put together for eastern Collier County.
Big picture, multiple bridge locations without negative impacts to a few to support the many is the bottom-line decision
that was arrived at.
As far as the physical road structures go, functionality is the key to success. The folks in eastern Collier County aren't
really looking for an urban cross-section. A rural cross-section will more than do. Multi-use paths, sidewalks and bicycle paths on
the same path. Reduced expense. Provide functionality. Maintain lighting to major intersections to assist -- because as one ofthe
resounding statements that came from the folks that live out there is they want to maintain the rural characteristics of eastern
Collier County, and the ambient lighting is certainly an issue and observance of the dark skies policies are what we're looking for.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure.
MR. McDANIEL: Any questions there?
(No response.)
MR. McDANIEL: Again, this is just a reiteration of what I shared with you. The bottom line is rural cross-sections,
functionality, cost effectiveness, multi-use paths for both pedestrians and bicycles.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, before you go on that one, the bottom one, the future roads in the RSLA, the rural
cross-section design shall be the tirst option considered.
MR. McDANIEL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to understand what you mean by that. Because there are a lot of roads going in the
rural area. For example, Oil Well Road's going in right now. Is that a rural cross-section?
MR. McDANIEL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What did you mean by that? Because the rural lands that are being brought in to us for
discussion and all these tovvn traffic centroids that are going to go in out there are being done by developers. And generally when
the development community does something now, they're required to have all the amenities, water, sewer and roads, and roads
have to be up to our standard.
So I'm wondering if this recommendation as it materializes into a GMP or LDC would counter the standards we utilize
or would be used to counter the requirements we utilize for a full road system as we currently do for subdivisions that are brought
in through development processes.
MR. McDANIEL: And I'm going to suggest that -- remembering the ultimate charge of the East of95I Horizon Study.
We had a very viable interactive public session with transportation. Nick and his group did a phenomenal job. It was a
touchy-feely hands-on you build your road systems and then back into the expense and the capital requirements requisites in order
to get the road systems in place.
And the resounding statement across the board was the rural cross-section was the best suited for our particular area.
Now, whether that's ultimately going to be in contradiction -- probably is going to be in contradiction with some of the
standards that have been established to date. But it's ultimately adjustments are going to be requisite there in order to facilitate
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick was indicating he'd like to say something, if you don't mind.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The comments that Mr. McDaniel -- I can echo them to a certain extent. What they said was
the roads that were on the map that were more outlined on the urban area for future urban Immokalee, make them a rural type
section, we'll say pathways and open drainage.
Page 12
16 lIAS
December 9, 2008
And there were comments that as you come into the downtown to increase the amenities a little bit in downtown, you
know, Immokalee or surrounding that would, you know, support where there were more densities.
But his comments are correct, to go to a more rural cross-section with more limited amenities. They all agree to a base
line amenity like a multi-use path in that rural section was supported. And as you get towards that downtown area, to consider
putting sidewalks on both sides as needed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Nick, is this to assume then that when we get reviews of, say. Big Cypress, because I
know that's the one coming up, the cross-section of the roads that can be utilized in the Big Cypress town would be a rural
cross-section?
MR. CASALANGUlDA: And for that it wouldn't make sense, because they're a downtown area. That road network that
they're going to build is going to be a downtown shopping commercial area, so you'd want an urban section in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if this evolves into some kind of process that implements new language in our codes,
I'm assuming then that those definitions of when it applies and when it does not will be clearly defined.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because general statements like that could be used by some to provide less intense needs for
expenditures in the rural area if they wanted to, when that may not be the intent that your department may have had.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: One road to SR 29 bypass, if that comes to fruition. That was a strong resounding make it a
rural section. Don't need to put a lot of amenities on that road. It's primarily a carrier facility from around, so don't put the bells
and whistles on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just for my clarity, because I know he's quite familiar with all these details and I am
not. But do I understand you to say that we have a rural road, that means that there would be no bike path on it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You'd a paved shoulder on a rural road and you might have a one multi-use path on one side.
COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: Okay. But we do have facility for people who are on bicycles or walking--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- to be able to safely traverse that road.
MR. CASALANGlJIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all I--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your urban section might have bike paths on both--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand the balance of the rest of it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
MR. McDANIEL: Thank you, Nick. That was a fine clarification there.
Any questions on the road systems that we talked about?
(No response.)
MR. McDANIEL: One of the things that came out during the transportation process was ultimate land use changes in
the rural area of Collier County to effectuate providing services for the folks that live out there to reduce trip times, impacts on the
level of service of the infrastructure, the road systems that we currently have in place.
We were very carefuL And during the one-year review process, I came and gave an update to the Board of County
Commissioners, and one of the commissioners asked me with specificity with about the loop road that Nick just recently
mentioned. We were very careful to stay away from specificities in our study as to whether or not the loop road's a good thing or
not; whether or not an expansion of a one particular commercial node is better than another.
Only to the extent that a review ofthe services that are provided for the folks that live in eastern Collier County is a
must And utilization of this interactive growth model is going to assist us in promoting land use changes in eastern Collier
County that are going to better service that community and ultimately reduce the impacts on our road systems.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, that last sentence you have here, and I'mjust curious, this is one of the sentences that kind
of got me trying to figure out what it was your committee was doing. I now know better, but that last sentence triggered it
The public has expressed a need for more consideration of emergency evacuation routes and future roadway planning.
Any member of the public and any piece of anywhere of any living piece of Collier County is going to have that same
sentiment. What made it so different that it had to be included in your report? That's a given, I would think, for all of us living in a
hurricane zone.
And I just saw that and I couldn't figure out what the purpose of it was, other than saying the obvious.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He was saying the obvious.
MR. McDANIEL: That we were saying the obvious.
Page 13
DeJm~eJ 9, 2JoS k':J
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what it seemed like.
MR. McDANIEL: And with that, again, it's not a new thing, Mr. Chairman. I mean, it's something that is a necessity.
There is a deficit in transportation systems in eastern Collier County. And as the populous grows, as the shift from the
current designated urban area is moved into the rural area, there will be impacts associated with the ability to move our people
and do evacuations. And so, you know, it was a statement of the obvious.
But on the same token, it is part of the process of the shift of your population moving to the more rural areas.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. McDANIEL: And I must say this: You know --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with the statement, I just kind of thought it was odd to see it there.
MR. McDANIEL: It's not anything to disagree with.
If you were concerned about what we were actually doing, I wish you would have called me a couple of years ago, I
probably could have helped line you up a little bit more on what we were actually all about.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can only do so many committees, Bill.
MR. McDANtEL: No doubt.
CHAtRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Bill, do you feel that the bridges are an important part of the evacuation or more for
the EMS and fire department and so on?
MR. McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which?
MR. McDANIEL: Yes. Both. There was--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had a follow-up, too.
MR. McDANIEL: Do what?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had a follow-up too. but go ahead.
MR. McDANIEL: Okay. But getting me to pick is going to be a difficult thing.
And you have to understand, I have a lot of opinions. I have lived in eastern Collier County the majority of my life and
I'm endeavoring to speak for and on behalf of the committee as the chair person of the committee and not necessarily interject my
personal thought processes.
So there are health and safety issues that travel around residing in rural Collier County. And one of the fellows from the
emergency medical services talked about what level of service is that is satisfactory. If you're the fellow that's laying there and
can't catch your breath, having a heart attack, three to four-minute response time is too long. But on the same token, if you fell off
your bike and broke your ann, what's an acceptable level of service?
The realities are the Golden Gate Estates area is predominately where we're talking about the installation of the bridges.
There are some easily ascertainable, just on a viewpoint. holes in the transportation network out there, and we feel that those
bridges can help fill those holes.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And in all of your community meetings, the people that live on the roads where the
bridges are proposed, what were their feelings of those?
MR. McDANIEL: Basic sentiment was we didn't want to travel down the happy path that we did when we
interconnected. I think it was 23rd--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: 13th"
MR. McDANIEL: 13th.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Was it 13th?
MR. McDANIEL: 13th or 15th, whatever street that was out there in Golden Gate Estates. We didn't want to travel
down that happy path.
Actually. one of the commission -- or one of the committee people, Christian Spilker (phonetic), lives on one of those
designated streets and received the notices, attended the public meetings. There was quite a bit of public vetting that went on.
And ultimately the bottom line is if the greater good is going to be served, and it's not just going to be a hodgepodge or
stick one in here, that sort of thing, the necessity for having multiple bridges will release the pressures from one particular area,
one particular street and those impacts on those folks.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you.
MR. McDANIEL: You're welcome.
Fire suppression. One of the overwhelming viewpoints was some extension of fire suppression into the eastern Collier
County will be a huge benefit to the ma"ses, to a lot of folks that live out there.
The suggestion of a well-fed draw type hydrants in lieu of the very expensive loop system was a suggestion. And
ultimately placing of hydrants along the existing raw mains that are currently out there would help facilitate fire suppression in
Page 14
161 1 117
December 9,1008
eastern Collier County, more specifically in Golden Gate Estates.
Yes, ma'am?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: And you had the tire district out there to speak to your group and were there -- were they
fairly simpatico or notO
MR. McDANIEL: Were they fairly what? I didn't hear you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Were they fairly simpatico on--
MR. McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that kind of--
MR. McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
Again, there is an issue with fire suppression in the Estates area. A lot of the communities that are going to come along
in the rural fringe and the rural land stewardship area will have those services available to them within those individual
comrnW1ities, and that will ultimately assist in the fire suppression in the Estates proper. But currently right now other than
swimming pools, there's not a lot in Golden Gate Estates. And we've had those issues with insurance in eastern Collier County,
more specifically the Estates.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Just from clarity, raw water in this case is water drawn from the well going -- and
we're talking about --
MR. McDANIEL: The actual water mains that come from Collier County into --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, in that--
MR. McDANIEL: -- and along our canal, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- area intended to be brought in for processing.
MR. McDANIEL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So those are large pipes.
MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay, that would handle that. Thank you.
MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely. Yeah, it was determined that there wouldn't be a negative impact on that for the ability
for the utilization of those for fire suppression.
Moving forward, as Mike said to you early on in the introduction portion, we found that it is getting better, but there are
several disconnects in the development process with multi-departmental reviewers. For instance, fire districts and fire -- specific
fire districts weren't or aren't ultimately consulted until later on in the process when someone comes in with a site development
plan request to have their opinions. And one of our suggestions was just to enhance the communications of the interdepartmental
communications in Collier County as we're moving through the department processes.
We found that there wa<; a huge lack of communication amongst the departments. It's gotten a lot better. Transportation,
fIre and EMS and so on and so forth have really stepped up and been working a lot with one another in order to effectuate a far
more smoother process for implementation for these pennits.
This comes back around to EMS and the co -- from an economical standpoint, collocating the EMS and fire district,
sheriff's departments and those sort of things seemed to be one of the most viable alternatives to extending these services into
eastern Collier County, and far more cost effective at the same time.
Maintenance of the rural characteristics of eastern Collier County are one of the things that we would like to see
promoted. As far as parks and recreations goes, larger regional, larger community parks as opposed to a lot of smaller community
parks ofhodgepodged around the area seemed to be what the folks in eastem Collier County currently are looking for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, you mentioned regional parks. When I read it, it talked about larger community
parks.
MR. McDANIEL: ] misspoke.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, and I understand that. And I'm not trying to pick on that. I'm trying to understand,
what are larger community parks? Because there are specific criteria set for parks for size and distance.
MR. McDANIEL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm trying to understand, when that recitation was made, are we going to create a
new--
MR. McDANIEL: We have that designation from a larger community park standpoint. That was one of the choices that
we were offered trom Parks and Recreation. I misspoke when I said larger regional park.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not picking--
Page 15
161 1 A'?
December 9, 2008
MR. McDANlEL: I know you're not.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- what ['m trying to ascertain, my central question is reafly about a larger community
park. Because it's a new category, as far as I can tell. And ifthey've given you that kind of information, I think that needs to be
something we can --
MR. McDANtEL: As an example, sir, Max Hasse is a perfect example of a larger community park.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A larger community park.
MR. McDANIEL: Of a large community park.
And again, Max Hasse is a good example of what was designated as a large community park, as opposed to a
neighborhood park which is a smafler two and a half to five-acre park with swing sets and that sort of thing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then l think we're getting close to where l need to understand.
I think we need to do away with the term, lUlless it's meaningful, larger. Because a community park does have specific
sizes and amenities and so forth that are base. And then there are additional amenities that may be added associated with
particular needs ofthe community. I worry about the initiation of a larger community park. That creates a whole new set of
boundaries.
MR. McDANlEL: Forgive us. l mean, again, we developed this Power Point presentation to get across the gist of what
was discussed. And the bottom line is large community parks are the requisite for the folks that reside out there. not the
neighborhood parks.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And l appreciate that. I think neighborhood -- okay.
CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Bifl, the first sentence refers to the Estates. Does the balance of the paragraph refer to only the
Estates?
MR. McDANIEL: No. I mean, the -- with respect to the --
CHAlRMAN STRAIN: l mean, the new communities going in out there would have the broad base of parks like we
have throughout the urban area. So l would assume then this whole paragraph is reafly talking about the Estates; otherwise you're
going to be saying that the new towns and everything should only have larger community or regional parks.
MR. McDANIEL: And again, Mr. Chair, a large portion of the populous that was pofled with respect to the parks reside
in Golden Gate Estates.
CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. McDANIEL: And so then to -- so you're not incorrect in your statement with respect to some of the newer
communities like Big Cypress and that sort of thing should be allowed to make the determinations as to how they wish to handle
their parks and services departments along those lines.
CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's where l was going.
MR. McDANIEL: We weren't actuafly pofling those folks. They're not there yet, so--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But since your last statement says that results expressed only limited support for new park
facilities. That would coincide with my understanding of what the people in the Estates mindset generally is. Because we have
such big lots out there parks are not essential.
MR. McDANIEL: That's correct, we have one in our backyard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what is a level three option? Isn't that your most expensive option?
MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that mean we're going to be able to have $54 million water slides and splash
lagoons in our parks out in Golden Gate Estates like the rest of the county has that doesn't really need it becanse they're close to
the beach and we're not?
MR. McDANIEL: Is that another leading question, sir?
CHAlRMAN STRAlN: No, not at all. No. just -- no, l was just curious if you thought about that or not. But anyway. we
can go on from parks.
MR. McDANlEL: And with that in mind, l have had a thought or two about that particular statement. But the bottom
line is the parks and recreational facilities of Collier County are determined by population densities and growth rates and then
ultimately are spun off ITom the Parks and Recreations Department for the capital improvements necessary to provide the parks.
The main point here is large community parks in lieu of neighborhood parks are the requisite at this particular stage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: [,ll be looking for the water slides.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that reminds me, on the AUIR, I mean, they present to us and when we've gone
in depth, and I think we did that in a year as well, we determined that they've acquired park land out in the boondocks for many
years to follow.
Were those parcels taken into consideration in any way as being applicable to the location. Because we're talking about
Page 16
16 lIlt?
December 9, 2008
a study that pinpoints appropriate locations. You know, they took what was available to them and they bought it on speculation
that in the future with that mindset at that paradigm that was what was going to happen. How does that correlate now, if you've
explored it?
MR. McDANIEL: We did to a certain extent. Parks and Recreation did take into consideration the existing facilities,
the federally held lands, state held lands, those sort of things are all part and parcel to their ultimate determination of where in fact
parks are to be -- park and recreational facilities are to be located.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did it jive?
MR. McDANIEL: Pretty close.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really.
MR. McDANIEL: Yes. sir.
And again, one of the things I would like to claritY, and it's just a point that you made, is out in the boondocks. Ain't no
more.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Compared to where I live, they're in the boondocks.
MR. McDANIEL: I understand that, sir. And it's something that we need to take into consideration as we're moving
forward. It's not out in the boondocks anymore.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, in your last sentence about the limited support for new park facilities, if that is true, how
did you get to the second to the last sentence which says the provision for level three was desired? If that's the highest and most
expensive level, yet there was limited support, how did you correlate that? How did that come out ofthat?
MR. McDANIEL: I'm going to let Mr. Bosi -- I have a thought there with respect to that, but I'll refer to the expert that
was in amongst us.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi with Comprehensive Planning.
During the two sessions that we had, in each one of these areas that we go through, there was two public presentations,
one official public pre -- to the public from each individual department.
When Parks and Rec. came out and spoke during the two visits with the public, during the two public meetings, the
people who attended those meetings had expressed a desire for the same level of service that was provided within the urbanized
area for community parks.
But the survey results portrayed a little bit of a different mindset towards -- in relation to support for new parks.
So the people who actually attended the meetings weren't 100 percent in agreement with the responses that we received
from the survey. That's why you have two not contradictory but somewhat--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or could it be that if you're going to spend the money on the parks, do it right. Otherwise, just
hold off until you can.
MR. BOSI: Well, that was one thing that overwhelmingly came out, not only just parks. The voice ofthe public carne
out, and t think that's probably at any public -- but the one benefit that did corne was the public was provided an explanation
towards how the amenities are located within each park, how the park system goes out, speaks with individual -- the populous
within the geographical area that it's trying to serve and specifically trying to ascertain from them what they wanted to see,
whether it be a water park or whether it be ball fields or whether it be soccer fields.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What parks? Not in this county. What county are we talking about?
MR. BOSI: This county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our parks department goes out and gets an opinion on what the local people want. And we all
want soccer fields, apparently. Okay.
MR. McDANIEL: We're not going to go there. We're not going to go--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bill. Little editorializing. I can't resist. I'm sorry.
Oh, by the way, at 10:00. we will be taking a IS-minute break, so you can have all the water you need.
MR. McDANIEL: All the water I need? Good.
I think we'll move on to the next slide. t think--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: General.
MR. McDANIEL: Parks are -- if you want to go ahead and take a break now and--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Ten after 10:00 we'll resume.
MR. McDANIEL: -- at a change of pace, we'll do that. Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. let's take a break. Thank you.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill, it's -- we're back from our break.
Page 17
161 lAS
December 9,2008
And before you go into your continued discussion, one thing I did forget in the early part of this meeting, and I don't
know how the court reporter can move things to the front of the minutes when she does, if she can, but Mr. Vigliotti, can you do
roll call, please, as our secretary.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
Commissioner Kolf1at is absent.
Commissioner Schiffer is absent.
Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Commissioner Midney--
COMMtSStONER VIGLIOTTI: Oh, Commissioner Midney is also absent. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's real absent. You didn't even know it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Commissioner Caron is present.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chainnan Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present.
Commissioner Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the school board representative, Mr. Eastman, is not here as well.
Thank you.
Now, Bill, it's yours again.
MR. McDANIEL: Very good.
With that, I'm going to revisit onc of the subject matters that we talked about early on and that's the communication. A
necessity of communication, a dialogue amongst the state, federal and local government agencies.
The area that we're talking about here is extremely voluminous, and it's going to require communication, a
multi-jurisdictional communication, multi-community correspondence.
What Collier County is doing with respect to their impact fees has a direct impact on Hendry, has a direct impact on
Lee, on neighboring communities. And those are -- what Collier County's planning on doing with its transportation, with its
utilities are going to have impacts on the neighboring communities.
And one of the things that we -- it was discussed at length was the necessity for fortifYing and promoting
communication amongst multi-agency governments within the particular area.
We did speak with some of the larger landowners. Some of those had representatives that actually sat on our committee.
Mr. Chair, you spoke about that ECPO group, or whatever their name is, that continually corresponds with the Rural
Land Stewardship Overlay Committee.
The sub-elements that exist within the East of951 Horizon Study area, those sub-elements, the jurisdictional
sub-elements, the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan, the Rural Fringe Overlay, the Immokalee Master Plan and then the Rural
Land Stewardship Overlay, there needs to be connectivity amongst those, there needs to be communication, there needs to be
impacts derived from one to the other. And I believe -- we believe that one of the integral paths to get there is through this new
interactive growth model. That's going to allow us, you ultimately. to see where, for lack of a better tenn, bridging of gaps exists
to support the ultimate growth and development that's going to occur in our community.
There was a consensus amongst the groups that came to the meetings and in the polling process that the consolidation of
fire districts and emergency medical services was something to be explored, and potentially could have benefits both fiscally and
service availability to our community.
And ultimately. and it goes -- there again, this is kind of one of those Mr. Obvious statements, Mr. Chainnan, but
support of the growth and development of the Immokalee Airport is going to assist in a lot of regards to our community at large.
These are some of the final points. Maintaining -- obviously maintaining the semi-rural character ofthe Estates was an
important, overwhelming, continuing effort that came to our organization, to our group.
The utilization of the interactive growth model, you're going to get a presentation from Dr. Van Buskirk on that in a few
moments, so I'm not going to take that all that much of his fire. But as I shared with you early on. the planning tool that's being
afforded to us through the utilization of this interactive growth model is going to assist us for many, many years to come. Its
maintenance, its upkeep and its utilization are paramount.
And this is one of the specitic -- Mr. Chair. one of the things that you had asked about, one of the things that we would
Page 18
16 ~ 1 WJ
December 9,2008
really like to see as a committee of citizens, doesn't necessarily have to come off the East of 951 Horizon Study Committee
proper, but necessarily an oversight group that are going to work with staff to assist in and report ultimately to the Board of
County Commissioners that the interactive growth model which we have ordered, which has been done and ultimately can be
implemented and assure that it's being utilized and not just shelved.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, I recognize the implications of my question, but I want to further --t want you to
think about it a second.
We have government staff. That's the continuity. But even they change over time. You're talking about three to five
people over a prolonged period of time. Is there enough there with those three to five people to keep the dynamic going? Is there
enough there to be able to supervise all of -- and understand and work with all of that communication and Hendry and all the rest
of it that you cited earlier? Is that plausible" Should three to five -- or should it be more in order to take the guts of it going
forward? Did you think out the process of three to five"
MR. McDANIEL: Actually. we did.
And really, you intertwined several thought processes there, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hope so.
MR. McDANIEL: No, thatTs okay. There's an overwhelming need for commlll1ication on a multi -- and we have those
things through the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the regional planning organizations and so on and so forth.
But it's imperative that communication be fortified and fostered going forward in order to support the growth and
development. Because it's not just Collier County that's impacted. We're talking about Hendry, we're talking about Charlotte,
we're talking about Lee at large.
One: The suggestion from our committee is to -- and not to slight anybody or make suggestions in any regard one way
or the other. We value the importance of the interactive growth model and its utilization and its ultimate implementation.
And staff-elected and appointed officials come and go, both in the future planning department as well. And maintenance
of this inter -- when you see the intricate detail that comes out ofthis interactive growth model, you're goiog to see and understand
why we think that this group would be of a benefit to the community at large, ultimately to the commissioners and yourselves, to
ensure that it's being utilized, it's being maintained and updated and so that it can ultimately be utilized as a tool.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you think out the process to the extent of qualitying who all are to be the
representatives so as not to cause it to err on one side, so to speak?
MR. McDANIEL: Sure. And with that point in mind, if I may. I mean, we left it fairly generic.
Did you provide a slide for the specificities for what we -- the task of this group?
Okay, we have come up with a, if you will-- this group is an oversight group at large. It's not going to be influencing the
information. It's not going to be making determinations with the utilization of the interactive growth model. This group is an
oversight group to work with statIto ensure that the census data that comes in gets implemented into the interactive growth
model, that the AUIR information gets implemented into the interactive growth model, that the zoning changes that are
effectuated on an annual basis are implemented into the interactive growth model and then ultimately reported over to the County
Commissioners that those things are in fact being done.
This isn't an advisory group, this isn't a polling group, this is an oversight committee. And three people, candidly, would
be enough. And they don't really necessarily require any real expertise other than a working knowledge of what the interactive
growth model encompasses and how it's to be utilized.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I now understand what you're really saying is you don't want all ofthis hard
work to go on to the shelf. Is that what you're really sayingO
MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
MR. McDANIEL: It would be our preference to not see it go on the shelf. We believe that you have one ofthe most
powerful and a phenomenal planning tool that can be availed to us as a community to assist us in the future growth and
development of what occurs in our county.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then I concur with you.
MR. McDANIEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill. if your report goes on to the Board of County Commissioners and they accept it, it
becomes direction to staff. Staff then has to implement it. Statfbeing probably Mike Bosi, Randy Cohen and whoever else in the
department oversees those things.
What is it in this paragraph do you think they wouldn't do? And I'm just puzzled, because unless you're going to replace
them with these three to five people, why do we need more people overseeing something that's already directed and done by a
Page 19
Dec!m~eJ 9, 218 ~
professional staff who we are supposed to have hired for their professionalism and expertise?
And I certainly doubt that you're going to find three volunteer members of the public who won't have self-serving
special interests in mind by taking a position that's being offered here versus the ones that staff take.
MR. McDANIEL: And with that, Mr. Chair. I'd like to suggest again that this is an oversight committee at large. It's not
an influential group from that standpoint. Their job is specifically to ensure the updating and utilization of the interactive growth
model.
It's all public information. And Mr. -- Commissioner Henning and I had a little discussion in my first presentation to the
Board of County Commissioners with regard to this. There was a perception that there would be infonnation available to a
specific few that wasn't available to the general public. And I want to assure you that that's not the intent here.
And with regard to your statement, we do have very qualified staff today. We do have very qualified appointed officials
today. The premise behind this group was to ensure that as those very qualified appointed officials and staff change, that this
particular infonnation that we have available to us as a planning tool doesn't get shelved and doesn't get lost in the wake of some
other political process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I guess we can agree to disagree, but I understand your statement. Thank you,
Bill.
MR. McDANIEL: And I yours, sir.
Last but not least: We were charged with polling the populous that reside east of951. We were charged with coming up
with suggestions to you to take to the Board of County Commissioners. And we would ultimately -- we thank you for the support
that has been provided to our committee throughout this proccss.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bill.
I did notice you failed to put on the last paragraph of your positions.
MR. McDANIEL: Yeah, that was I think in your printed report.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. McDANIEL: And that had to do with I think where Commissioner Henning and I -- where there could have been
-- we had suggested two committees in our original report: One was an oversight committee, which is what I've been talking with
you about. It's been decided by our group that the second of those two committees might be a little more controversial than what
we're actually looking to do at this particular stage of the game.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are you withdrawing that from the final --
MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, then I don't need to comment on it. because it will be controversial ifit was left in.
MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely. And therein lies your thought process with --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't feel the need for either committee. But especially the last one that you're
withdrawing is more irrelevant than the one you previously presented.
MR. McDANIEL: Very good.
CHAtRMAN STRAIN: But thank you.
MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate your time.
Any questions from anybody before we go on to the next presenter?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Bill.
Mr. Mohlke, I believe, is going to talk to us about Horizon Study public opinion and data collection.
MR. MOHLKE: Mr. Chainnan, members of the committee, my name is Chuck Mohlke, representing the finn of Fraser
and Mohlke, that under the committee's guidance and direction prepared some survey instruments. I use the word plurally,
because several, not all, but several of the public participation meetings there were distributed surveys for those in attendance to
respond to. And it was in effect an opportunity to determine whether or not certain research methods would be better equipped to
discem public attitudes than others.
J could comment at whatever length the Planning Commission desires, but at this stage I think perhaps it would be best
rather than listening to prepared remarks for you, Mr. Chair, and your colleagues to simply say that I have these areas of interest
and would you comment, Mr. Mohlke, please, and I would be happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for myself, anybody else, I have one question and that is I think there were around 21 or
2,500 surveys sent out, somewhere a number --
MR. MOHLKE: 2,]50.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And of that, 28 percent return rate?
MR. MOHLKE: Yes.
Page 20
Dec*m~e~9,2~8 Af.?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's approximately a little less than 600.
MR. MOHLKE: 598. sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Of the 598, how many of those were from Estates residents?
MR. MOHLKE: 64 percent. And there were 57 percent that were in the sample.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the vast majority of the response to the slll'Vey was from Estates residents.
MR. MOHLKE: Because the vast majority of the population to be surveyed, drawn carefully, if! may expand on that, if
you wish, were in the very area where the greatest extent of responses came.
But as an example, Mr. Chair, in the area south of!-75 and east of951, in the studies tables you'll notice that as zip code
34 114. It constituted 17.91 percent of the sample and 19 percent ofthe responses.
So with a single exception, the responses were proportionately the same as the sample indicated.
And I'd be pleased to talk about the sample, Mr. Chair, if you want me to. I'd be happy to share with you the basis of the
sample's construction and so on, if that's the committee's desire.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I read the information provided. I'm not -- anybody else have any other questions"
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: tjust want to reacquaint myself with something I thought I knew a long time ago.
Mr. Mohlke, in the world of survey, a two or three percent response is considered a good response, is it not?
MR. MOHLKE: Well, if you're talking about a mail survey, any mail instrument, whatever it is, a marketing tool or a
survey, it's astonishing that you can produce a viable result for the sender of the marketing piece if you get a one and a half
percent response.
If you're talking about a mail slll'Vey, we have done a number of those -- and Chairman Strain is aware of some of the
other work that we did in regard to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan restudy -- you feel fortunate if you get a 15 percent
response.
Apparently there was a sufficient incentive for the people who responded to bring us up to the level that we did. And as
members will recall from reading the results, that we asked for responses by the 31st of May. Of all the responses that we got--
we had to have a cut-off time, so we cut it off at July 1st. And only 40 people responded after that time. indicating--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Indicating?
MR. MOHLKE: Only 40 individual persons after the cut-off time.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Cut-off of July 3rd.
MR. MOHLKE: After July 1 st responded.
And the -- that was a level of comfort that someone like me feels that we did two things: We organized the response
vehicle in a manner that made it relatively straightforward and simple for people to respond, using a I O-point scale and so on:
permitted us to get good discrimination in terms of responses and a few other things.
And I think that induced people to respond to what was a fairly straightforward four-page survey, 11 by 17 folded. And
the responses were uniformly not only complete but did from time to time, and it was not reported in here, induce some people to
write in responses and say this is why I circled number nine and not number two. Now, that is not a direct quote, but it basically
indicates that had we had an opportunity for people to write in responses, we may have gotten some interesting commentary.
If there are not a lot of questions from the conunittee, let me make--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Mohlke. I just wanted to--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A few more questions. Mr. Murray, then Mrs. Caron.
COMMISStONER MURRAY: I wanted to continue, because I want to ascertain something.
MR. MOHLKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You received 40 that were to be excluded. Were they in fact excluded from--
MR. MOHLKE: They were.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you nevertheless look at them or did you just discard them"
MR. MOHLKE: No, we kept them, but we did not open the envelopes or count them.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you don't have any view as to what they might have been--
MR. MOHLKE: I do not.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- anyway. Okay.
MR. MOHLKE: If the committee would be interested in what happens customarily with a mail survey, particularly if
you're asking very direct questions, what do you think of this, would you spend money on this, our experience is that when you
ask very direct and specific questions like that, seeking guidance ITom the people that you have responded, within the first seven
to eight business days in which mail is delivered back to the person doing the research, if you hit 40 percent during that period of
time, predictably -- of all those that you're going to get, predictably 80 percent of those are negative on the issues that you've
responded to. And the remainder then is in the hands of those who are the late responders in terms of generating a result that
Page 21
Dece!~r 9, 20~ ft?
either will atftrm the hoped for response or not. That tends to be the pattern.
That was not the pattern here. As people responded -- now I know you only have me saying this. But as people
responded, basically the responses were fairly uniform day after day after day in terms of where they came back from by zip code
and the demographic characteristics of the folks who were there to be sampled and who were kind enough to return the studies.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, after--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had one question. Let her -- if we could ask--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. could she ask her question first?
MR. MOHLKE: Oh, please. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go forward, could you just run down the rest of the sample? You had said
within your sample you were trying for a 58 percent from the Estates and you got 64. From south and -- south 00-75 and east of
the study area you got 19 percent.
MR. MOHLKE: And there were 17.9 percent of households in the total sample from that area.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And you got back 19 percent?
MR. MOHLKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead. Can you run through the rest ofthe areas and --like for example, Immokalee.
MR. MOHLKE: Well, Immokalee, our hope was that we would get somewhere in the area of 5.6 percent. And as you
can see as you look at the study and you're looking at responses from the Immokalee zip codes, 34 I 42, 34143, we did not achieve
that level.
COMMISSIONER CARON: What was it?
MR. MOHLKE: What was it"
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, what was it?
MR. MOHLKE: Well, a scrutiny of any of the tables will give you a reasonably good response. I could total it up,
Commissioner, and give you that response back.
But if you just simply looked at the tables and look for 34142 and 34143. there's 57. And we sent out a total of 123. So
we got a fairly good response from that particular household group.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I don't have my calculator here, Mr. Mohlke. Do you have the percentages" That's
all I'm asking. [fyou don't know them off the top of your head, just say--
MR. MOHLKE: I don't know them off the top my head, Commissioner. I will be happy to do that for you and repeat
those to you before the conclusion of my meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chuck. do you want to continue what you were--
MR. MOHLKE: I have a response that I would like to make, Mr. Chair. at the time that Dr. Van Buskirk has completed
his remarks, if [ could be recognized following that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, not a problem, sir.
Okay, next. Nick" Since you're on a six-lane road, you want to build bridges, huh?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I love this job.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's good seeing you, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners.
First I want to thank Mike Bosi and Chairman McDaniel and the committee. They did a good job working with us.
And sad to report, Lisa Koehler, who did a lot of work on this project. her last day is tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Lisa's leaving?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, she's going on to the BCB to work with Clarence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, congratulations to her new position, and good luck in finding someone to fulfill her
place.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well. that's a difTerent story.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it will be.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We won't get into that.
The spin-off of the bridge study and how it happened, we took what the comments were from the Horizon Study
literally and quickly, their comment about commlUlicating and working with different departments.
We had in our budget money already allocated for bridges to about two million a year in the first year and growing up
to five million a year. And it gave us the opportunity to accelerate the bridge study and bring it into the East of951 study as well,
too.
So it was a good timing issue and it gave us, you know, a good chance to really reach out to the public and
communicate with the different groups, especially fire, EMS and the first responders.
Page 22
161 1 t8
December 9, 2008
Through the process, staff just took the natural grid system in the Estates and evaluated that and said what's missing.
When you look at Golden Gate Estates and all of east of951, you can see that they laid out a roadway grid network, and much of
that network is missing because of just that simple bridge connection. It wa<; easy to see where they were when we looked at the
map. So with staff, it was a good first review.
We did an interave (sic) process with the agencies. We went to fire, EMS and the first responders, we went to the folks
that were identified in the study and said take a look at what we1ve identified on the map and see if you have conunents that we
should be looking at something else, and give us your first review of priorities.
We broke it down into four groups: Emergency response, mobility and evacuation, service efficiency and public
sentiment.
After doing that process, we went to the public. It should be noted that we had a very extensive public involvement
program with this project as well too. That's Lisa's background. So there was mailings to the people that would be affected
directly, public meeting, posting in the newspaper, as well as an interview with Lisa that kind of brought a lot of light to this. As
Mr. McDaniel pointed out, quite a lot of response to this.
So we went through this interive (sic) process and we looked at the different bridges that were involved.
We also want to note that we did a quick cost analysis, and the cost analysis is like anything, on a cursory review ofa
bridge, until you do that detailed analysis of that location, you're going to get at rough number. rrom a million to a million and a
half to put up a bridge, depending on span width and what you find for materials.
I'll take you to the map, because that's probably the easiest thing we can talk about and make this fairly brief.
The bridge locations that are identified and numbered, we have one which is at the end of23rd at the westem side of
your map towards the middle. And that ties in 23rd to the White deadend. It's already in your Growth Management Plan as
referenced.
And what we're planning right now is part of tl1e White bridge replacement, we have to replace the bridge that's existing
on White Boulevard. The maintenance of traffic cost alone if we don't put in a bridge on 23rd would almost equal the cost of the
bridge, because you have to maintain that traffic while you're redoing the bridge location. So it made perfect sense -- thank you,
Mike -- perfect sense to have that be one of the first bridges installed, and since it was already referenced in our Growth
Management Plan and the compo plan here.
Then we looked at 8th and 16th, bridges two and three. North/south roads, you have Wilson, Everglades and DeSoto.
And even 16th, even on the right-of-way for the plat of Golden Gate Estates there were 100 feet of right-of-way. There was set up
to be that grid network of roads. So those made sense right there as well, too.
Going east/west you have bridges six and seven, and that ties in that natural bridge location or east/west road in between
Randall, YBR Extension and Golden Gate Boulevard. So you're getting that east/west progression.
Bridge four, as you can see. it ties into that spot where Everglades extends, and I don't have that road name, it's kind of
tight to read. I can't read it on even my copy right here. Bridge four.
I'll get back to the key road name. But you can see where bridge four is.
Bridge five is the Wilson extension to the north and it ties in those groups of folks over there.
Bridge twelve at the northeast comer was recommended by the fire districts as a way to get back into that area. It may
not be a connectivity bridge, it may be a single lane emergency access bridge.
Bridges eight, nine and lOon the periphery of new roads and existing roads were kind of located where -- bridge eight,
for example, where a school would be located and a park would be located at the end of 13th.
Bridge 10 is the Wilson Boulevard extension. And bridge nine ties into several new schools in that location. And those
are what we call opportunity bridges. You wouldn't even put those bridges in until those projects come on-line.
Bridge 11, it was interesting when we had the public meeting, a lot of good comments came out of bridge ] 1. And we're
going to revert bridge II back to a study area. It was noted that there was already an existing structure there that might service
emergency access on one of the east/west roads. And that as we get further information on those school locations where they
might warrant a signal on Everglades Boulevard, might make sense to put a bridge extension on there.
So we renotified those people with postcards and said to them, you know, this is going back to a study area, tbat we'll
look at this in the future again.
It was a fairly easy study to do in terms of where we thought the bridges made sense. We got a lot of good comments
from the responders about time. They told us how having certain bridge connections would make more sense and those first
responders could get to people quicker.
As you could expect, anybody that lived on some of these dead-end roads had concerns. They liked their dead-end
roads. But a lot of the comments were that they supported the connectivity, it made sense to them, and we really didn't have that
overwhelming objection to the study that we thought we would have when it originally came out.
With that, I can answer any questions you have.
Page 23
Dec!m~e: 9,218 P{:J
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the planning commission?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Just one.
You use the term overwhelming. How significant is it? I got the impression from reading that there were a number of
people, especially through the media -- of course that's an echo.
But that's an interesting point you made that you didn't get the overwhelming response that you expected.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it was interesting, because we thought, you know, whenever you come up with any sort
of new road project and you Jose your dead-end. The concern was, as Commissioner Strain pointed out, or someone, putting one
bridge in one spot and then flooding that road. So we talked about even with the board when we discussed it with them doing
them in groups of two and three. In other words, putting bridge two and three together, tying 8th and 16th. You'd have several
roads in parallel that would be kind of sharing that burden. And that was one of the concerns.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Makes sense.
Would you have the funding potential to do this or--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do health -- I want to say health, safety and preservation of the existing bridges is our
number one priority. Right now we'll go through and saying let's take care of the bridges we have first, and as that funding starts to
free up in our outer years, we'll start prioritizing these or bringing these into the plan.
So as we do our annual bridge evaluation, we spend the money first on maintaining the ones we have and then we start
to come up with the money together for future bridges.
So I would say as we get into the third or fourth year of our cwrent five-year plan, we'll have probably money available
to start construction on some of these bridges.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You gain that money from impact fees?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a capacity improvement, so impact fees I think might be one we could use. We may need
some clarification on that. But general fund money or in our budget as well.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Any grants?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're going to apply for grants. As the study gets adopted and goes through the MPO
process, we'll apply for federal money and stale money.
COMMISSIONER MU RRA Y: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUlDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick. do you have -- you originally said these were a grid pattern that you saw on some early
plan. Are the right-of-ways already platted and in place so you're not taking any land, or you have to go through the land
acquisition process as well?
MR. CASALANGUlDA: Our early analysis requires no land acquisition. You're going trom existing right-of-way to the
canal easement and then crossing within that existing right-of-way and putting the bridge in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The language in the canal easement is flexible enough to allow access as well for a road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're still going to have to permit through Big Cypress if it's a primary canal, but yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as funding goes, now, if it's not impact fees, which as you have experienced and
are now experiencing are severely cut off compared to what they used to be. and they'll probably be that way for a long time to
come, that means your improvements would have to come out of ad valorem general fund. And I would hope that since these have
existed out there in all these years, that before we would raise taxes to create ad valorem taxes to pay bridges, we wouldn't do that.
We would just simply wait until the tax base materialized or impact fees could generate and be used.
1 don't see this as a necessity to rush on. I just want to make sure you're not prioritizing it to a point where we're going to
see this use as a need to raise ad valorem taxes, because 1 don't see it that way.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's not our plan, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good.
Other than that, I don't have any other questions.
Anybody else have any of the bridge part of this?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I do--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Follow-up to that, because I appreciate the Chair's view on that, and it is a very viable
statement there, it is correct. However, what weight then do we apply to the desires of the respondents to have emergency medical
services to have fire apparatus get more quickly to their burning house? And evacuation routes, which we've discussed, what
weight do you put to that relative to what the Chair has just indicated, which is -- I complimented. So what do we do there in the
balancing act? What's your view on that?
Page 24
161 1 ~
December 9,2008
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ifwe stay stable with our funding right now, we'll have some of these bridges in place within
our five-year plan. Right now, as you pointed out. funding is tight. Our biggest issue is cost of ownership, when we had a
workshop with the Board yesterday. We're struggling with, as every other department is as well too.
The capital projects that we have in place right now as they come on line, they have to be maintained. And they weren't
on our maintenance rolls before. So we're going to see what we have for funding. We're going to evaluate that. Priority is always
to maintenance, similar to what the state does. But our goal is to have some oftbese in place within five years with existing plan
momes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you don't anticipate raising ad valorem taxes, and we know impact fees are down
and all other means of -- interesting conundrum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. thank you, Nick. I think we -- we're fme. Thanks.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Are you going to take action independently?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the end 1 think we'll probably go into -- we'll discuss our actions all at once and go through
them at one time.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Does the committee need me here for the rest of the meeting, or--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the what?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Would the commission like me to stay for the rest of the meeting or--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- your stuffs pretty straight and simple. I don't see any reason for you to spend taxpayer
dollars sitting here today when you -- without Lisa gone (sic), you're going to have to work.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You all have a good day. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Nick.
Okay, Dr. Van Buskirk, please.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi with Comprehensive Planning.
First, the second principal within Van Buskirk. Ryffel and Associates, Carlton Ryffel, will provide the introduction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. RYFFEL: Good moming, Chairman and Commissioners. I'm Carlton Ryffel. I'm vice president of Van Buskirk,
Ryffel and Associates. My partner is Paul Van Buskirk to my left.
We've been looking forward to doing this presentation for you on the growth model. And we think you'll fmd it
interesting and informative. And we also look forward to your questions at the conclusion of the presentation.
From the perspective of community planning, Collier County is very complex, especially the area east of95l, which
was our study area. And that area is slightly larger than the State of Delaware.
In addition to its size, there have been many studies, area studies, planning applications, master plans done of this area
over the years, and we analyzed all of those.
And as you will see, many are incorporated into the interactive growth model. And we estimate that the growth model
has approximately one million bits of data in it in information.
And with the growth model, in a nutshell, you'll have the population and distribution -- and its distribution to build out
in five-year increments of the study area; the supply, demand and distribution of land uses needed to accommodate your future
growth in five-year increments; and finally, when and where any deficiencies are likely to occur.
But belore we begin the presentation, I think it's fitting that we acknowledge some of the people that helped us so you
have some sense of the participation ofthe various county departments and constitutional officers that worked with us very
closely on developing the model.
First of COlITSe is Mike Bosi, who was the appointed planning manager and worked endlessly with us throughout the
process of developing the model.
Beth Yang in Mike's department helped us with mapping and data challenges. And like Mike, she was always there to
assist us.
Community Development Director Joe Schmitt and Director of Comprehensive Planning, Randy Cohen, were our first
contacts with Collier County and who we first met with to discuss the growth model. And they saw the value of a planning too]
such as this. And ultimately we entered into a contract with the county to create it.
And your County Manager, Mr. Mudd, supported the model and helped us get the staff support we needed across
department lines and when and where we needed those.
And a final thank goes to Chairman Bill McDaniel and the members of the Horizon group to provide us with valuable
insight of the study area.
There were many questions of us and us of them, resulting in the growth model that will serve you well over the years to
come.
With that as an introduction, I'd like to turn the presentation over to Dr. Paul Van Buskirk.
Page 25
161 If\-S
December 9,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Thank you. Carlton, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I'm just going to take a
second here to get organized.
Now, the first question is why a Collier interactive growth model? And there are several reasons. And one ofthose
reasons is the population growth and large-scale development that's occurring east of951.
The comprehensive plan updates, the growth model provides a tremendous amount of data to assist in updating a
comprehensive plan.
Often with growth scenarios and impacts, see, the growth model is not a static model, it's a dynamic model. So as
changes occur, those changes can be incorporated into the model. The model will process that data and then produce new output
data.
And then the portion of land uses that are necessary to support the needs of the population. And that can be parks or
commercial centers or fire stations and schools and the other facilities as well.
And then we want to maximize public investment; we want to get the maximum return on public investments,
particularly for the capital improvements and infrastructure.
What we initially did, we always develop a team of the consultant staff and the consulting the staff from the county,
because one, it saves money. Staff has a lot of insight to where data is and has access to this data or readily access to this data, as
well as insight to all the activities in terms of the county in terms of development and growth.
Then staff receives a knowledge of the model and the model's working in this applications (sic) and what its capabilities
are.
And we had a lot of input from not only the staff but also from the Horizon committee. We met with them several times
in reviewing the development of the model itself.
And then hopefully as a result, the studies won't sit on the shelf but will be useful.
Now, for the -- there are actually two models. One is the population forecasting model and the other is the interactive
growth model. The population forecasting model forecasts population in the aggregate for the study area over time to build-out.
And it's general done in five-year increments.
And then (what) the interactive growth model does is distributes that population growth over time in five-year
increments throughout the study area.
(What) I wanted to do is kind of talk about the fundamentals ofthe model and do kind of a brief overview so it gives
you a feeling for what the model's capabilities are.
In the development of the model, our first step is that we disaggregate the community or the study area into zones. And
I'm going to talk a little bit about that in the following slides.
Then we got to inventory the current development and the demographics for all those zones, those disaggregated zones.
And then we have to determine and estimate what the build-out inventory would be of development for the forecast and
the demographics of those zones as well.
And then we need to do -- with that information then, scientifically we can do an accurate population forecast, once we
have all that information.
This illustrates the study area and the zones. There's about 173 zones in the study area, and they're the same as the
traffic zones. And that was decided by staff. because what we wanted to do is to be able to translate this data to the traffic models
and then traffic models can produce their output.
And we'll have a really kind of comprehensive standard databank that can be used for all the different disciplines so we
have some consistency.
The other thing we can do or the model can do, [ should say, is that we have these zones. We can aggregate these zones
by clusters so that we can get the data from the different -- not only from the whole study area and not only from the zone but
from the different clusters.
And if you'll look at your future land use plan, they're essentially the subdistricts. We have the Jmmokalee urbanized
area. So now we can get all the data through the Jmmokalee area. for the urbanized data, separate from the study area. Likewise
for the stewardship area and also for the Golden Gate Estates. And then from the fringe mixed use district. as well as the
residential fringe district and the coastal fringe district and the rural sediment area, and industrial area and the conservation areas.
So now we can break all this data down by all those clusters, so to speak, within the model and we can do all the
analyses for those different clusters as well as the study area and the activity centers.
So this is the future land use plan. And we did a survey early on in the project to determine what were the best planning
tools to determine future development. And we looked at the utility plans and the traffic studies and the master plan for
Immokalee and the master plan for the Estates and all the planning tools.
And the general consensus is, is that the future land use plan would be the best tool to interpret what future development
Page 26
16 I 1 k~
December 9, 2008
would be east of CR 951.
The other thing here is, you know, sometimes you get the question, well, is the growth model pro growth or is it anti
growth? Well, it's neither pro, it's not anti. The model really doesn't think and it doesn't have prejudice. But what the growth is
based upon in the build-out scenario is on the future land use element of the Growth Management Plan.
And (what) we have to do then is look at each one of those different districts and their rules and regulations for
development to detennine development yield at build-out.
And some of those districts are relatively straightforward in determining development yield. Some are a lot more
complicated, like the stewardship area. And I'm going to go into detail on the stewardship area and demonstrate how we arrived at
what would be the development yield in that particular area.
Also, each one of these districts have different demographics. There's different demographics in lmmokalee than there's
going to be in Ave Maria and there is in the Estates and et cetera.
First thing we did, we had to establish the baseline inventory. We had over 70,000 parcels out of there that we had to
query each one of those parcels to detennine the number of single-family units, multi-family units, square foot of building area for
office and services, square foot of building area for retail space, for industrial space, and the square foot of school plants by type
of school plants: Elementary, middle and high school. And the square foot of fire stations. And acres of park by types of park:
Community parks. regional parks. And then the sheriffs substations.
So once we inventoried all that data, and that baseline was 2007, then that's our baseline data for the model.
And the next -- oh. I wanted to just show you here some of the data output. There are several data outputs that the staff
can enter into the model and get all the data in tenns oflhe baseline in 2007 and the build-out. And it can be done by clusters.
And this illustrates it by clusters.
And this -- I'll just kind of page down here a little bit and show you how the clusters work.
(What) we're showing is the urban fringe and the coastal and their subtotals.
Now we come to the stewardship area. And we'll demonstrate the clusters here to have the inventory for the stewardship
area. Likewise for the mnge area, mixed use ITinge area. And then the industrial area, Immokalee, Golden Gate Estates, and then
the conservation areas, and then we have the totals.
If1 pan back up I'll come across -- just show you briefly what they're inventorying of course is the zone acres, the study
area here. This was 2007. Number of single-family, number of multi-family. The school plants. the elementary school and its
acreage, middle schools and their acreage, high school and their acreage.
Right across to the parks, community parks and regional parks. And then the acres and retail trade and the square foot of
building area and retail trade. Likewise, offices services and industrial.
Hotel/motel is there because the traffic models need the hotel/motel data. So we incorporated that in there.
Fire stations, the number of acres and their square foot. So that will provide us all the infonnation that we need --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, one of the commissioners has a question.
Ms. Caron?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sony, you may have gone by it too quickly. But are there ago acres here?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: No. they're not. We didn't inventory the agricultural acres. That takes place really when we get
into the RSLA (sic). We'll talk about the credits that are generated ITom agricultural to development and translated to the
development itself.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are acres ofag. outside of the RLSA.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you haven't--
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: We didn't inventory them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: We could, if that's what you wanted to do. Because when we query the datas, they do have the
acres in there. They could be queried.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, one of our charges is to protect ag., not only in this county but in the Estates. So if
we don't even inventory it, J don't know that we're doing our job --
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Well, we inventoried --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in tenns of future growth.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: -- the conservation and of course preservation. We detennined the preservation of the ago lands
in the RSLA (sic) and in the mixed use -- the ITinge mixed use areas. In those two areas we do.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But the--
DR. VAN BUSK1RK: But outside those areas--
Page 27
16 I 1 {+7
December 9, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- conservation areas are not ago areas--
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: No. but they can be.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- they're two different things.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Ub-huh. They could be.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Two different definitions and everything.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just like NRPA's.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Our base zoning is agriculture. So when you're looking at subdistricts, you're looking at
what is designated. But in fact much of that land may very well be ago in zoning.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So are you saying you haven't included it or that you --
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Well, we include it in terms of the yield in ago as it's provided wlder the future land use plan of
the baseline.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not hearing you because I never finished my question--
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Oh, I'm sony.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I'm sony.
Let me formulate my question, please.
What I'm trying to ascertain is whether or not you took the subdistricts, irrespective of whether they contained any
nwnber of variables of type of zoning. and used that as your plan. If you did that, that may very well have included the ag., which
under the subdistrict is projected to become something else.
But if you've eliminated ag., then I don't know that we have a complete model to work with.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: I didn't eliminate it in that respect. We determined the development yield from the agricultural
lands based upon the futufe land use plan, which was what, one unit for five acres? So we did determine what the ago would
develop -- what you could develop on the ago land in terms of what the future land use plan rules and regulations allow.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's at the earliest and then with the understanding --t guess you don't need that for
the model. The fact is, as it's developed, it will be modified accordingly and rezoned, and you don't concern yourself with that part
ofit--
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: No, no. we go strictly--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- that's transactional.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: -- strictly by what the guidelines and the rules and regulations say in the future land use element
of the Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just trying to get a -- I think Commissioner Caron brought up a very good point,
though, I do really think you need to -- you know, you're working with this apparently large bundle, but you have an apparent
large bundle that -- and looking at some of the maps as we project out showing in the years further out how the density of
population is based on the coloration here. it looks like we have nothing left in ago
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: That's not a density of population, that's really a percent of development that's allowed to
develop in those particular areas.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it virtually covers almost all of the area. And that's what's -- I think in the absence
of the ago in there. we don't -- and it looks like to the average person I would think it looks like oh, my God, that's all going to be
populated.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: No. no.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Especially if we're thinking smart growth principles, as I think it said at the outset. We'd
be talking about moving zoning density numbers up, so --
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: No. no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think some of the ago land that you may not have considered is considered by the mere fact
you have facilities in here for future schools, middle -- and parks. That's currently ago
So if you're really calculating ag., you couldn't -- you're basically showing that where the ago is where your schools and
parks and places like that will go. That's the conclusion -- that's what evolves out of ago Everything in Collier County at one time
was ago So your base map is all ago
So all these additions then would be items that are used in place of the ago zoning that's there now, wouldn't it?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Let me try to clarity. We incorporate all the land in the study area. The agricultural land that is
put into preservation through the RSLA (sic) and through the mixed use district. the model incorporates that and determines that
Page 28
161 1 ~
December 9,2008
yield, and then determines the development in those areas that may be currently ago but will be a town or a village or a hamlet or
what have you.
Those areas that aren't developed according to the mixed use district and the stewardship area end up what we call on
the baseline, which is one unit per five acres. And that can be ag., and that's allowable under the future land use element of the
Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I understand a little bit more what you're saying. I was just -- the screen you have on here
right now you show schools, middle acres, you show 92. That school probably isn't built yet. But when it does --
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: No, these are all built.
CHAtRMAN STRAIN: Oh. those are all built.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: This is an inventory of2007.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you utilized the future schools on the school master plan?
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yes, and I'll go into that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: It's just this was just the first step, so--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, I'll just wait till you get through.
Mike, just out of curiosity, when we did the RLSA study five years ago, we were given active working docwnents of the
FlAM so that each of us could sit there, modify inputs to see how it reacted, how the document worked.
We didn't receive any similar document in this regard to understand how this works so we could have come back with
more prepared questions for the Doctor today.
Do you know why that is not Decuning in this particular scenario?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I have a follow-up question to that, Mark, get it out of the way. I asked for that months
ago.
MR. BOSI: The FlAM is a portable computer model--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. BOSI: -- the interactive growth model is -- it's housed at Van Buskirk's web base server. We interact with their web
base server through individual queries upon that.
I guess what maybe would have provided you a better benefit would have been me providing you a password and
access to the Van Buskirk's website to run individual queries on their website. But I'm not sure if -- I'm not sure if that was
something -- I guess early on without an explanation of how this works or why this works or any of the underpinnings of it if that
would have been ofvalue to the planning conunission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then that brings up another scenario of questions. And I know one of your points
today is that you want us to provide some kind of recommendation involved with the ongoing use of this tool.
What was the contractual cost to initiate this involvement with this tool by the Board of County -- I mean, I remember
hearing it.
MR. BOSI: It was $200,000 for the development of the interactive growth model.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: $200.000 bought the taxpayers a web link to use the model on their computer?
MR. BOSI: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't give us -- for $200,000 do we have any physical piece of infrastructure to show for it?
MR. BOSI: The ability to Jog on to their server and utilize the growth model whenever we see fit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what if we don't renew the service?
MR. BaSI: Ifwe -- we can still utilize the model in this current version, but it will never be updated with current
information. Therefore, each pa"ing year that would go by, the information that would be produced by the growth model would
be compromised because it's still stuck with the baseline of2007.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the things you didn't -- I didn't see in the report was the cost. The yearly ongoing cost
now to get back into the game.
MR. BOSI: Well, that ha,n't -- we haven't identified that specific cost with a--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how could we make a recommendation in these times when we don't even know what the
cost is on a model that isn't on one of our computers and that we have to rely on somebody else's server for. That's real -- I didn't
realize that. And FlAM was so handy because it was distributed as a model to function and use individually. This is a different
twist. I didn't expect this today.
MR. BOSI: Well, I would think, and it was my purview that you would review the growth model, see the output of the
growth model, make a determination as to whether you believe there's a value within it, regardless of whatever the monetary
association would be with the update.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, Mike. In these times nothing gets valued without knowing the monetary association.
Page 29
DelrRJ 9, 2JuS AS
can tell you for sure, there'll be no recommendation personally from me as a voter on this panel without knowing the implications
to the taxpayers for the cost. So I don't know where you think you're going to go with this today, but that won't be one place for
my consideration.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which begs the other question, that what -- these are two gentlemen who operate this
business and they're the principals and they're the oncs who are the entrepreneurs and perhaps the only ones who know the secret
rules and code.
What do we have for the future? We're talking about a projection going out in the future. What do we have as a
structure that can -- I don't say guarantee but certainly reasonably assure that in the future we continue to receive the opportlUlities
to do our hocus-pocus?
MR. BOSI: Well, I would probably have to take exception to the term hocus-pocus.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sony. I didn't mean it in ridicule.
MR. BOSI: There was a scientific --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, let me qualifY that, I --
MR. BOSI: -- approach that we took with regards of this model in that regard.
And I understand. I understand, it was just a terms of phrase.
I would have to defer to Dr. VanBuskirk in terms ofthe viability of his linn and his firm to service the model on an
annual basis as sees fit. I couldn't comment upon that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, and I understand. And I'll say out completely that I was not using that in a
derogatory way.
But I will say to you that it is an imperative that the left -- right hand is how much today and the left hand is how can we
be sure that we're going to continue to, if we go forward, continue to benefit from it well into the future. And that's a question I
think needs to be answered, as well as the first question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, thank you for your patience. You were next.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, Mr. Strain, you covered about 95 percent of what I was going to ask regarding
that.
A couple of months ago when I first saw this model, or different parts of it, I expressed a similar concern. I didn't get
into as much depth about money and so on.
I noticed here that it has a trademark on the interactive growth model, which made me think that we paid for something
that we'll never own and never be able to use. Whereas here on -- well, the RLSA or the planning commission it would be very
convenient to be able to pull up here while we're talking about something going on, say Big Cypress or something like that, it
would be interesting to be able to put five years of non-growth into it and see how that affects it in 50 years and whether or not
we're planning the correct way.
I initially thought when we saw this at a committee some months ago that we would actually be able to use this
interactive growth model. thus the term interactive, and we could -- the people who paid for it could actually use it. And that was
my concern.
MR. BOSI: The people who paid for it, the Board of County Commissioners in controlling of the direction to the
county manner and the staff associated with comprehensive planning, we've already processed a number of requests for output for
within the growth model. So we definitely have the utilization of the growth model firmly within our control.
Whether the viability of Van Buskirk going forward is the question that you would like to address, I would have to defer
to Dr. VanBuskirk upon tbat.
But we have the ability to manipulate and ask what if scenarios, I mean, right now. And we've already done that a
number of times through the web base server.
What I hear is there is a reservation because there's not a tangible physical model that's in your hand. And the
requirement that you have to go through a web base server to run inquiries within the growth model has caused a sense of
discomfort for the planning commission?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, let me clarifY what my concem is. I think it should be housed in the county
website. It is a county -- it's for us. It's for us to use. It's like going on the appraiser's website and looking for the cost of a -- or the
last sold on a home as an appraised value. It's that. It's about our future. It's what we do.
I mean, we need this kind of stuff every time we open up a packet a week before a meeting. And 1 just don't know why
it's not available to us.
MR. BOSI: And it's specifically and it's clearly articulated for individual land use decisions on a small scale. It's not
intended to be a model to address that. It --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think it's broad.
Page 30
16 lIAS
December 9,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I think there's two concerns. You did articulate one, that we don't -- it's not tangible, we
haven't got our hands on it.
And the second is you're asking for some support on something that we haven't have a cost for either. That will become
an issue before the discussion's over today. So there are basically -- there might be now two issues, so--
MR. BOSI: And I would ask that Dr. Van Buskirk, who I'm sure who's ready to approach both ofthose subjects--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll go on--
COMMtSSIONER MURRAY: Before you go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with the presentation after Mr. Murray has his question.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's relevant. You may not think initially relevant, but I think it is.
It's my understanding, by the way. that the state statute requires we use the BEBR to do our planning for projection of
population, is it the intent ultimately to find a way to get away from that and utilize this projection of population? Because the
term or the word accurate is used here frequently. And that's good if we can do that. We don't think BEBR is necessarily accurate
because of its lag. This being dynamic, this might very well be more accurate or accurate.
So -- and also, it's in increments of five years, but they're in one-year series, are they not? They're updated each year?
MR. BOSI: Each year you update your baseline conditions with the changes that--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
MR. BOSI: -- have happened in the past year.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in other words you'd have a parallel. You'd have the BEBR and you'd have this
information together. Which one would we have to use?
MR. BOSI: Until we would change the Growth Management Plan, we would utilize the BEBR numbers. The intent of
comprehensive planning was to introduce this planning tool, provide it to the planning conunission and the Productivity
Committee and the Board of County Commissioners within its first year of development to utilize it as a planning tool. And then
as the comfort level with this model became more engrained within the system, then we would begin a deliberative process as to
whether we saw value and whether it was something within DCA's purview towards where we could substitute the utilization of
BEBR within our capital improvement program processes, to utilize the interactive growth model.
But I didn't want to suggest. oh. here's a planning tool. let's change our Growth Management Plan to utilize this right
now before a level of familiarity was provided to the planning commission.
So within the first year after its development, comprehensive planning's purview was just to allow you to become
familiar with the processes, how it works, what the outputs are associated with the growth model, and then see where the
conversation -- where the Commission and the Board of County Commissioners would like to take -- would like to see that
conversation go.
If they see the value towards it, maybe expand the reach and the utilization of the growth model. But that would be
determined based upon the receptiveness that each of the bodies would have towards the interactive growth model.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Michael.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Let me explain the web base use of software.
The web base use. the county has complete access to the software. It's no different than Bill Gates' Word or Excel. It's
copyrighted. You have a license to use it. But you can't produce it and give it to somebody else or you can't reproduce it and sell it
to somebody else. Obviously it's the intellectual property. Bill Gates' intellectual property or our intellectual property.
On the website, he has a password for security. He can go in, he can make all the changes he wants on a baseline, do all
the what-if scenarios, make all the changes that he wants on the build-out scenario. The model will reprocess the data. it will
produce all the data sheets. He's got access to every one of those data sheets. He can reproduce them and bring them out into
Excel for him, and he can go in and manipulate them all he wants to as well.
The advantage of the web base is that when there's updates. the updates can be done easily without having to travel
down here and have to pay that cost.
If there's any problems that they run into, they can be resolved immediately through the web base by contacting us and
having our software designer make a system in correcting those problems.
And most of your software today, particularly your customized software, is web based software because ofthat purpose.
The key to it is security, to maintain security on it that they have a password that the county can get into. Because if
anybody can get into it and starts playing with all these numbers, they're going to screw up your databank.
So you want to be sure that whoever has access to the databank to make those changes, you know who they are and it's
secured.
Now, the results are available to everybody. Anybody can have the results; there's no problem there.
And. you know, that's basically the way the industry is operating today with customized software. You've got complete
access to it.
Page 31
16/ 1 A0
December 9,2008
What role do we play in the future? That's up to you. You can run that thing yourself. He can update it himself. He can
make those changes and those what-if scenarios.
Where we come into play is when you want to do some other things with the model, you want to expand the model's
use.
One of them is, and I'll talk about it -- I was going to talk about it, is we're doing all the traffic data now for the traffic
for the -- traffic zones for the MPO. When it comes into -- and I'll talk about that, when it comes into analyzing a DRI, which is a
large-scale project, you know, and the model can provide all that data to analyze that DR! and its impacts and effects, and it has
all the supporting documentation for testimony. So there's a lot of things it can do.
So anyway, that's essentially how it works. And it works well with all our clients. We have Auburn and we have other
clients as well, and they like the web base, using the web base system. And they have complete access to that system. And you
have a license for the software. So I just don't know what else we could do.
Would you like me to continue, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Please do, thank you.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Thank you.
After we had inventoried all the development and for the baseline data all the development activities via dwelling units,
commercial, office, schools. parks, et cetera, then what we need to do is we need to determine the yield at build-out. And here's
where we used the future land use plan.
And we look at each of -- all those subdistricts, and then using their guidelines, rules and regulations determine what the
development yield would be for all those subdistricts by those zones.
This is kind of an example. And some of those zones yields are relatively straight forward, like the Golden Gate Estates.
But the RSLA (sic) is a little more complex.
And I'm going to talk about that a little bit more what the -- what we did. Actually, the staff did an analysis based upon
historic data they now had for the credit yields from the habitat and from the flow ways and the water resource areas.
And then translate that through a series of algorithms into what would be the most likely numbers of towns, villages and
hamlets and the baseline and the ago land as well.
Now, what the model can do, if decided that hamlets are going to be dropped from the regulations and then the model
can drop that and incorporate it into the villages and towns and what have you.
So any changes that take place are very easy to enter that data into the mode! and then the model reprocess all that data
in producing a new output.
So I want to illustrate again here one of the printouts that the county staff can easily do. And this is for build-out.
And here again, at build-out these are by the different clusters, so they'll show the single-family, multi-family, the
schools -- here now is where the schools come in that are required to meet the demands of the population, the new schools. And
by school -- plan type, the amount of retail square footage required to serve that population. Offices and services square foot
space is required to serve that population. The industrial acres and industrial square foot. Hotel/motels, fIre stations, et cetera.
So now that we have the build-out scenario and it's -- all that data is by zones and by clusters. I just want to -- now that
we have all this data, we can do a population forecasting for the study area. And we found in south Florida that the most accurate
method is the logistic curve. And we've done a lot of that research on that, and I'm going to talk about some of that research that
demonstrates the accuracy of the curve.
But what I wanted to point out here, you know, traditionally in Florida the population growth has been underestimated
using BEBR's numbers. And BEBR has consistently underestimated population growth. And that's been pretty well documented.
But if you do a straight line extrapolation, that's the lower line here, the lower purple line, it's kind oflinear from the
beginning, you're going to underestimate growth. And if you underestimate growth, you're going to over-utilize your infrastructure
and you're going to wear your infrastructure out before its useful life. And that's a very -- and you don't get a return on your capital
investment.
When we get past the inflection point. which is kind of -- is the midpoint of the curve. if you extrapolate then, you're
going to overestimate growth and you're going to underlies (sic) your infrastructure if it's based upon growth. And then again, you
don't get a return on your capital investment.
So once we had determined the build-out in detail and we have historic data, we can then -- scientifically and through
the computer models, we can then forecast the population growth over time in five-year increments.
And if you're familiar with statistical analyses, if you have an R-square of .1, that means that every one of those historic
points fell perfectly on that line. And here we have an R-square of about .81. which means we had an R about .9. And that's pretty
accurate in terms offorecasting. And we're using a 95 percent confidence in the rule.
We can use a similar analysis to forecast for the study area, but we also could disaggregate it from the county's curve as
well to validate it.
Page 32
16 / 1 A~
December 9,2008
Now, build-out of study area is about 442,000. And the current population is about 80,000.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When you say current population. are you referring to the study period or are you
talking about today?
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: 2007.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: So what we did in order to validate the Collier curve is that we looked at communities that are in
south Florida that are most similar to it. We're looking at in terms of simulation models and series of simulation models and
forecasting models. And I'm going to show you that shortly.
This is Collier County and that's where you currently are on your forecasting curve.
Now, we looked at Broward County, Palm Beach County and Sarasota County and Collier County. And we wanted to
look at their mathematical expressions to determine the growth coefficients and see if they make sense.
And I'm going to show you here. We can see that Collier County's growth is faster than Sarasota County's. And it's
slightly slower in Broward and somewhat slower than Palm Beach County. And that makes kind nf sense if you look at the history
of growth of those counties. So we felt pretty comfortable with the Collier County growth.
And then this is the forecast for the county. and -- well, around 2006 there was around -- I think it's 333,000, (33)4,000
today, something in that order. And build-out it's 950,000, which is lower than what your 2005 study called for.
And this is for the study area. In 2007 you had about 80,000. In the build-out it's 442,000. And the model's forecast
again is lower than what the 2005 forecast was involvement. And I'll explain why the difference.
The other four steps we need to do is the criteria and the fonnula<; for spatial distribution of development over time.
And I'm going show you a print-out that shows all that development for each one of those zones over time in terms of number of
dwelling units.
And we developed a series of sub-models. The future land use plan is really a supply model that tells us what the supply
of land uses are. And the sub-models -- or the demand models, they'll determine what are the demand for elementary schools,
middle schools and high schools, what's the demand for commercial space, what's the demand for fire stations, what's the demand
for community parks and et cetera.
So (what) we're going to do is we're going to take those supply models and those demand models and see what
deficiencies we can identifY.
And the data output is in five-year increments, and it's on those big spreadsheets that you see.
And having a lot of data, you can't expect the policy makers to be able tn take all that data and to analyze and interpret
it. So we take that data and we translate it to graphic interpretations for the policy makers in order to get an understanding of a --
and an interpretation of the results.
This is the development schedule. And (what) the development schedule shows is the distribution -- no, is the -- I've got
to go back. There we go.
And here again, it's the -- these are the zones here under the zone name. And then here again are the clusters. And then
over here would be the number of dwelling units, the total number of dwelling units each year for those five-year increments that
would be in each one of those zones over time. And you can see for the RSLA (sic), you know, it starts out with Ave Maria in
about 2007. and then 2015 some ofthem are coming on line, and 2020 and 25 and 30 and et cetera, and all the way to build-out in
five-year increments.
Just to talk a little bit about how the population model interacts with this model. This development mndel is a whole
series of algorithms, both to the growth rates, the distribution of population based upon a bunch of coefficients. Its proximity to
transportation corridors, utilities, proximity to current development in terms of gravity models.
And then also there's a series ofalgorithrns that as these zones come on line for development, if you look down at the
bottom here it says the grand tntal is 32,781. Well, the total under the population forecasting model was 33,712.
And what it does, it arranges these until they best match that population model. And it's as close a match as you can get.
This is the sub-model. This is the series of demand models. And again, they're by clusters. And they're fnr each year for
five years in the forecast. And what they'll do is they'll determine, based upon the population and its demographics -- and I'm
going to talk about demographic models too shortly, because the demographics change over time as well.
But what it will, it will forecast the number of elementary students that are generated, middle students that are
generated, high school students that are generated, the demand for park acres according to your level of services from your AUJR,
and likewise -- and by type of parks, be it a community park or regional park. The demand for retail space, offices and services.
And industrial model is not a demand model. That's a design model that's ba<;ed upon the policy makers in terms of how
much industrial development they want in their community.
Page 33
16 1 1 il5
December 9,2008
So there we will be each one of these for five years out to 2080.
There are a lot of other models besides those demand models. The demographic models -- the demographics change
over time. But the demographics in Immokalee are much different than the demographics in Ave Maria. Immokalee has almost
four persons per household. And they're much different from the Estates which is around about 3.3. 3.4 persons per household. It
would be much difference from the rural fringe mixed use district.
So what we did is if you look at how do you determine the demographics, you have to look at similar type of
developments and different stages of development. For example, in Ave Maria, we just completed the growth model for Auburn,
Alabama, which is the university community, and did an analysis ofthe university community's demographics. We looked at
Georgia, at Athens, we looked at Gainesville, University of Florida. Corvallis in Oregon.
So we can see the change in demographics over time as the population now becomes a greater percent of the total
population from the university population and et cetera.
So we applied different demographics for each one of those clusters that you saw, and the change in demographics over
time as well.
Economics. There are economic models. The demand for retail space increases as the population increases. And there's
a relationship between the critical mass of population and the amount ofretail space. So we need to look at those models as well.
The socia-political. Socia-political is zoning. That's a socia-political activity. Future land use plans are what we call
socia-political.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In that economic model that you're referring to, you talked about retail and we talked
about earlier, we talked about agricultural, which converts into call it production which is somewhat -- it's not retail but it's not
industrial either per se.
But that's part of the economics that are associated with the area out there. That's not included? Do I understand that
then that that's not included? Because that's a work product from a large surface area that we do have some --
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: It's included where the agricultural -- it's classified as toad processing and those type of
activities.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is it in our models?
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: It's in the model and it's under the industrial aspect, because that's the way the feds classity it
when you do the old SIC or the NAC codes. So it's incorporated in that industrial part of it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, at least we got captured some of it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doctor, so you can -- up here, sir. Hello. Doctor?
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not a problem.
Just so you can time yourself accordingly, we take a lunch break at about II :45. I didn't know we'd have to take one
today, but it looks like we're going to need one. because we have still a lot to go over. So about 10 more minutes we'll be taking a
break for an hour.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Okay.
Of course land resources. And we talked about in tems of how much land to require for middle schools. high schools
and elementary schools for community parks and et cetera. And I'm going to get into that into detail.
So the Collier interactive growth model is (an) extremely complex model, and is a very complex environment we're
working in. But also has its limitations, and I'll talk about that too later as well.
The model's essentially a series of algorithms. And I just want to describe briefly an algorithm, and then I want to show
how we apply the algorithms to the model.
An algorithm is a procedure for solving a problem that has many solutions. But when you define the parameter, it
produces a solution.
And I always use the analogy of when you go on Map Quest and t want to go from Naples to Orlando and it comes up
with three different routes, so it has three different solutions. So you choose a parameter. I want the shortest route. Gives you the
shortest route, that's the solution. J want the scenic route, it gives you the scenic route. That's the solution.
We have the same thing here. Our algorithms are things like what are the -- what's going to be the school plant capacity
of an elementary school. Is it 900 students? Well, then that will produce an algorithm. That will produce a solution in tems of
how many elementary schools do we need, knowing what the elementary school population is. So we have a whole bunch of these
parameters.
Now, these parameters can be easily changed on the model. If the school district says well. it's not going to be 900, we
want to go to a 500 module, we can go in and just change the nine to 500. It will reprocess all the school data and then produce all
Page 34
161 1 '143
December 9,2008
those spreadsheets on schools where the elementary schools come on line where they will be when they're needed.
So here's some of the basic parameters we use in terms of the study area. And then we have the real specific parameters
like school plant size. But we applied the study area limits and we used the future land use plan, the Growth Management Plan for
the guidelines rules and regulations for future development.
Now, if the policy makers change those rules, regulations and guidelines, we can go in and change those zones those
changes occur in determining the new development yield that would be at build-out. And the staff can do that. They can go right
in -- they don't need me to do that, they can go in the model and do that. They can make all those changes they want to make.
And we use your current level of services, you know, for parks. We use your current level of services also -- we use
what we call the ISL standards for your fIre stations and we use the Class I when we did that as a standard.
The standards for the commercial, what we did, we did an inventory of all your neighborhood shopping centers in
Collier County and all your community shopping centers and all your regional shopping centers and then determined the average
service area and the average market to support your neighborhood, community and regional, and then applied them to the model.
And here again, if you want to change that data, you want to change the service area or the service population in terms
of a parameter, we can just go in the model and we can change it.
The type and intensity of development, according to the existing zoning for Immokalee. We found out in Immokalee
that in your 2005 study you used the 1991 Immokalee Master Plan which had extremely high densities, and it produced a
population in your 2005 study of 100.000 people at build-out for Immokalee.
We used the zoning, because the zoning was more in line with the market and what's going on. And we come out with a
build-out population of 60.000 instead of 100,000. So that's one ofthe reasons why we had a differential in the 2005 forecast, in
our forecast.
We used the ratio method for demographic trends. And I talked about one of them is that we looked at-- for like Ave
Maria, we looked at university communities and looked at the development over time to look at what the demographics would be
and the demographic changes over time.
And we do that for other developments of similar type developments. And as a result we developed a set of
demographics for each one of those clusters that are in the study area.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Excuse me"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Based on that, you're using the ratio method is what you're saying.
Okay, and that also suggests to me it's a good proof of the projections as you're going along. That should follow the
curve.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's a good check. I think. Because otherwise, the projection, what you had
said before, anybody can go in -- you know. the persons who are authorized go in and modifY something.
And particularly when I heard you qualifY the retail, the retail that exists in any given place mayor may not serve the
area, and that's proof over time by those that go out of business and are replaced by something else which mayor may not serve
the area. And then to take an average of that, I'm sure it's good science, but J find myself confused by how that can give us a
realistic projection.
So you used the ratio method all through this whole thing? Okay, thank you.
You do understand what I was projecting then, right?
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Sure.
And you have different markets for commercial, for schools and for parks, et cetera. Different service areas.
For example, for the commercial you had three neighborhood centers that are right on 951, so half of them serve the
study area and then they serve the areas west of 951. At different markets there.
So I want to talk a little about the specitivity (sic) of the model, because the model has its limitations, just like anything
else.
And essentially J kind of describe it is that, you know, they can specifY the number of children are generated in the
elementary school age or middle school age and then one of those five-year increments. And it can provide the data that we're
optimally to locate those schools that are near where these children are generated. So you can do some smart growth in terms of
trip generations and that good (sic) things.
But the one thing it can't do, it can't tell you what their FCA T scores will be in 2035. Just won't do it. Or if you want to
do it, it would cost a lot of money and might not tell you nothing.
But I get a lot of crazy questions about, you know, what happens if an atomic bottom falls and all kinds of things. And
the model doesn't have that level ofspecitivity (sic).
So what we want to do now is I want to show you the results, and maybe this is a good time to break, Mr. Chairman.
Page 35
161 1 ~
December 9,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to ask you what works for you. Ifit does, then that would be fme.
Why don't we break and come back at 12:45 and we'll resume at that time. Thank you, sir.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from lunch. We're still on the Horizon Study discussion from the Collier
County Planning Commission. Dr. Van Buskirk was partway through his presentation.
Sir, it's all yours -- oh, Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Good aftemoon, sir. Do we know what this is going to cost going forward? Do we
have a cost to start the interactive program? What's the future cost? How is it arranged?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Well, let me put it this way: My personal objective is that you don't need me at all. That's what
J'd prefer, that staff can do the whole project itself in those terms.
And it depends upon what is it you want to do. If you just want to do the update, you look at the cost for the update to
assist staff at this point in time for the baseline.
You know. usually you sit down and work out -- you have your work task, you figure your hours and your hourly rate
and so forth and so on. So I'm -- you know, I'm speculating here. You know, maybe it's $10,000, I don't know. Ifit got a little
heavy in terms of getting the data and processing data, you know. I could never see it going over 20,000 or anything like that.
There's a whole menu of items, like the Board of County Commissioners have already requested we do a library model
to the growth model. J'd have to cost that out and see what that would be to expand the software to incorporate a library model.
And some were talking about a medical model.
So, you know, the software itself isn't costing anything. You got the license for that. It's the data we're talking about
now.
And so anyway, if I had to take an educated guess, you know. 10,000, probably reasonable. Ifit got difficult it might go
up to 20. I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: One time charge or--
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Yeah, that's one time, yeah.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: All right. thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. sir, you can--
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Ready"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- move forward.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: What we're doing now is we're going to look at the results of the model. You know, we've loaded
the model up, we load the baseline up, we loaded the build-out up. We've done the distribution of dwelling units by zones over
time. We did the demand models, you know, what's the demand for neighborhood commercial centers, middle schools,
community parks. et cetera. Now we're going to see the results of that data in graphic form. And then I'll try to explain it.
So what we're looking here is that we're going to show the population distribution, we're going to show school plants,
when they come on line, where their location should be, parks, commercial centers, industrial parks.
And I'm going to talk a little bit about industrial, because that's a design model, that's not a demand model. Fire stations
and sheriffs substations.
And then if we've got time, if you want to, I to do a walk through time. The walk through time is that we actually
integrate all these disciplines, the schools, the parks, and look at I O-year decades and see what development occurs over the
decades. 20 to 30, 30 to 40, 40 to 50 to build-out, that thing.
And then there's some conclusions that I presented to the Board of County Commissions and I'll present the conclusions
also to you.
This is kind of interesting here. This is what the population is in 2007 in that build-out. And you see for Immokalee it's
around 22,500, and at build-out it's forecasted at 60,000. The 2005 study forecasted 104,000. And again, I explained to you what
would (be) the difference between the 2005 study and what the model used in temlS of forecasting.
The Golden Gate Estates is at about 33,000, and they'll be about 80,000 at build-out. You think about it, 8,000 is -- you
know, metropolitan cities threshold is about 50,000. So it gives you an idea of the magnitude of development.
And then for the rural fringe mixed use district it's about 2,000. That would be about 35,000 at build-out.
And if we look at the total. we're about 80.000 in 2007, and at build-out we'll be at 442,000. And the 2005 study had it
at 5 18.
So I'm going to talk a little bit why there's a difference between the 2005 study and the forecast from the model.
In the 2005 study they use what information and data they had, and they developed an estimate and a target. We had
historic data on the generation of credits in the stewardship area, so we were able to forecast what would be the generation of
credits to build-out and translate that into development in terms of towns, villages and hamlets.
The interesting part about that is that in forecasting that, we're going to preserve 100,000 acres in the SLA. And we're
Page 36
161 lis
December 9, 2008
going to develop compact development on 45,000 acres. So you've got a two and a half to one ratio there. Presently it's preserve
and land that's developed in the stewardship area.
The other difference was, is that in the 2005 study they used the household size that exists today. So your two large
population areas are the Estates and Immokalee. And tmmokalee is like 4.0 persons per household, and the Estates is 3.3. So they
had a very high person per household. And that similar household was applied to the SLA and to the rural funge mixed use
district.
And we know from research that the SLA is not going to have four person per household or even three people per
household. So that's where we used data of similar types of development and we used the ratio method to see the forecast of the
changes in those demographics over time.
So if you take that in the changes in demographics, that's why there's a difference between the 2005 study and the
model's forecast.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir? Doctor? Doctor? Hello, I'm here.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Oh, I'm sony.
COMMISStONER MURRAY: That's all right, we know that happens.
Would you just go back a moment, please.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Sure. I tried to backspace it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Previous. There you go.
Okay, now, the green of course is the build-out. Was that 2007 not a build-out? That was the number.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: That's the current development that existed in 2007.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that was arrived at by straight line and linear--
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: No, no, that was done by an inventory. We inventoried every -- 70,000 parcels.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was an actual. In other words, that was a -- okay, that was --
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: And we ground-proofed it and we did aerial photos. I mean, that was a pretty long drawn-out
process to do all that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. What I'm fascinated by, you used the sigmoid method, though, for those items in
red?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: That's correct. But actually, that is just build-out. So the build-out was the estimate ofthe yield
based upon the future land use amendment of the Growth Management Plan. So the sigmoid lies in between those two
somewhere.
So if we do the five-year increments between the 2007, hetween the green and the red, then the sigmoid curve will tell
us, we can hring up those sheets and it will tell us how many dwelling units and--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I appreciate that. I was just looking at the significant difference hetween what the
stat -- the number now, 2005 number and against the projection. And that's because of the availability, 195,000 acres: is that
right?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: That's of -- in the RSLA (sic).
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's what I'm looking at in specific, yes.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: That's correct.
That's based upon the credits that would be generated, and then translating those credits to development, i.e., dwelling
units.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's where we'll find our hamlets, our townships and whatever else -- our towns,
rather.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah, uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, just want to be clear.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: What we're going to do now is that we're going to -- hy shading we're going to see what percent
of development occurs in the -- in those various zones.
So if you see the real dark green, that means it's 90 to 100 percent developed. It doesn't reflect what the density is. You
know. it could be 2,000 units in that T AZ or it could be 200 units in that T AZ. So it's just reflecting the percent of development
that occurs.
And as those shades get lighter. then the percent goes down to 80 to 90, all the way down to zero to 10 percent. which is
the very light area in the beige area.
So when I activate this -- there we go -- it will show the year and then it will show the population in the study area. And
then the dark green shade will start shading in.
Page 37
161 1 +5
December 9,2008
And it's occurring mostly around the Estates. Actually, the Estates are going to build out first. The Estates will build out
between 2035 and 2045 -- or 2040. Between 2035 and 2040, somewhere in there the Estates will build out.
And now we're out to build-out year, and of course it's all shaded green.
And then the conservation areas where we have static development remain pretty much the same, they don't change that
much.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And sir, if! may again, that's where I was trying to make the point earlier. Graphically
it certainly I think speaks to it. The absence of any agricultural, how shall we say, points or graphic depictions, the -- it looks like
the entire place is going to be developed, and you -- it's somewhat distressing to me, because I thought that part of our
requirement -- again, DCA, the state has said we should try to protect our agricultural lands.
And so this really paints a picture that I don't feel confident is the truth as -- I recognize what you're intending to project.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Yeah, it's just to show the percent of development over time.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Well, but people are going to look at this, they're going to seize on it and they're going
to be misled by it, t suspect --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Chair"
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- unless they're educated specifically.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER WOLFl.EY: I think what they could not project in here is where these hamlets, townships and so on
are going to be. There aren't going to be humans all over the green area. They're going to be spotted in certain areas. But what
they're saying is the amount of population that is allowable in the area, and which won't be all of that because most of it will still
be agricultural, preservation. so on, so forth.
So it doesn't -- it's not like going to be homes like the Estates all over the rural lands. That's not the purpose of it.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Well, I understand your assertion. But if you take into consideration the Golden Gate
Estates and you see the darkness of that --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Misleading.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- and you take into consideration all the other eastem lands, they have the same
darkness. So a person would have to know what we've come to understand today to make a conclusion that's valid. This does not.
It suggests another conclusion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we'll get more information if Dr. VanBuskirk continues.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Well, you know, truthfully, you know, you've get the GIS capabilities to do that. The data is
there; the data is in the model. If we want to extract the data, they can do that to show where development takes place.
We do have -- you know, we do have designated where the villages will be in the rural mixed use district. And we have
designated the towns and the villages and the hamlets in the SLA. It's just a question of taking the data and having the GIS
translate it. This was probably the easiest way to do it.
But anyway, if you want that, maybe you can get together with Mike and your GIS people to do that.
Now, what I wanted to illustrate here, I was looking at the fringe mixed use district and the Golden Gate Estates by
itself to demonstrate when development would occur in those various zones to build-out by year.
So that population represents the Golden Gate Estates in the rural fringe mixed use district.
The rural fringe mixed use district is the last one to be built out. And that will be around 2070 or somewhere in that
order.
And then this is the stewardship area. The orange is the boundary ofthe stewardship area. And again, this just
demonstrates the percent of development in terms of what can be developed in those particular zones.
The second cluster or subdistrict to build out would be Immokalee, and the third would be the -- and I think
Immokalee's around 20 -- yeah, Immokalee's around 2055, and then the SLA's around 2060, somewhere in that order.
So if we're looking at the order of build-out, it would be the Estates, Immokalee, stewardship area and then the fringe
area.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I ask a question of Mike, please?
Would we consider large tracts ofland that are dedicated to farming as already, quote, unquote, built out?
MR. BOSI: You mean the current SSA's in there? Yeah, because they're restricted from development, there could be no
development that's going to be going on.
And I think that's what you're indicating, that the person who's viewing this slide show and seeing these areas fill in dark
might interpret that that's going to be where development is --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely.
MR. BOSI: -- inevitably going to be.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely.
Page 38
16 lIAS
December 9,2008
MR. BOSI: And it's not the case. I mean, because you have to remember, within the RLSA district there's 197,000
acres. 45,000 acres is going to receive development. So it's basically] 50,000 acres that's either going to be placed in SSA or it's
going to remain in agricultural zoning district projected by this growth model.
But the way that it's viewed on this Power Point presentation and the way -- because he's filling it in with percent
developed, it looks like wel], oh, it's turning dark, that means it must have development in there.
It might have satisfied its criteria for being developed. but there may be no development in there because it's dedicated
to agriculture or it's dedicated to conservation.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, Mike, this is as map rendition that is small. Do you anticipate -- do you
project having, if you go forward with this, having a large map that would show where the -- again, I recognize this is intended --
MR. BOS1: I think what you were looking for is in part of the 2005 build-out study they did a presentation in terms of
concentration of population --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
MR. BOSI: -- and they built the bar chart for each individual zone to show where that individual zone was adding
population.
I could work with my GIS analyst Beth Yang towards where we could have the population take those spreadsheets
relatively easily and build the population by T AZ and show you increments of that so the areas that aren't expected -- the T AZ
zones that aren't expected to have population concentrated within them, they would remain relatively untouched by the pattern of
colors.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you know, I'm going to make. whether now or later or both, I'm going to make a
suggestion that that's probably not a bad idea to do in anticipation of your final presentation to the County Commissioners, who
could probably benefit from such information.
MR. BOSI: And I'll take that advisement.
We are going on the -- we're going next Tuesday to talk to the Board of County Commissioners what happened at
today's meeting. We weren't planning a fu1l-blown presentation, because they've already had their presentation. They were just
interested in looking for what the specific recommendations that were going to come from this body.
But if we move forward with it in the future, I'll defmitely take that under advisement and would modifY any Power
Point presentation to show in that manner.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: t think you do yourselfa service if you do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doctor, if you could continue, maybe we'l] get through your presentation. Thank you.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: What we want to do now is graphically show the location and timing of elementary, middle and
high schools as a function in number of students that are generated from the forecasted population.
And here again, we're showing what the enrollment is in 2007 and what the enrollment would be at build-out for
elementary, middle, high school and total school population. And the school population goes from] 7,000 up to 82,000 at
build-out.
What we have here is that the symbols -- the green represents elementary, the orange, middle, and the red is high school.
These are the existing school plants in 2007. They're going to turn black, show existing, and then the new ones are coming on
line, and you'll see them in terms ofthe elementary and the middle and the high school over time. And this is in the rural fringe
mixed use district and the Golden Gate Estates.
And here we used the capacity for school plants that the school board was using. And generally a school plant comes on
line when two-thirds of the -- when it comes on line, it will be two-thirds full -- two-thirds of capacity will be the emollment in the
school plant.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Nothing's moving the last 30 years.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: And build-out is essentially around 2055. We call it 90 percent build-out. The reason we use 90
percent, because if you'll notice in that curve, the top of it is very flat and it takes several decades to build out.
So we're looking really, when we talk about build-out, we like to talk about 90 percent. It's more relevant for planning
purposes.
And this is of course in the Immokalee area and in the stewardship area. There we go.
When we did the analysis of the supply. you know. versus the demand models, there was a demand for 42 elementary
schools at build-out in the study area, and there was a supply for 3] sites. We were II sites short. And those shortfalls are
basically in lmmoka]ee and in Golden Gate Estates. And I'll talk about that a little later on.
But most our shortfalls are in lmmokalee or the Estates. And Immokalee, I understand there's a group that's doing a
comprehensive plan update, and they'll probably address those shortfalls as well.
So we're at build-out now pretty much in 2055.
Now the community parks, there was a demand for the parks in 2007 and then this is the demand at build-out. This is
Page 39
161 1 AS
December 9,2008
based upon your level of services for community parks and regional parks. There were no provisions for regional parks in the
future land use plan and in the stewardship area and the fringe area as well.
But what happened with the parks, when we analyze all the existing community parks, they varied from six acres to 45
acres. And traditionally you have a module for community parks. And the National Park and Recreational Association
recommends between 20 and 50 acres as a reasonable module for community parks.
We used 18, because that was the average of all your community parks in the study area.
You might want to recommend like 36. and you fall within that -- 36-acre module falls within the recommended
guidelines of the National Park and Recreation Association, but it reduce -- it's more economical. It reduces your operational cost
and your maintenance cost. And that has a defined service area, so it's easier to plan for the community parks ifyoutve got a
module to work with. So we had ajust developed module to run the model.
And per the community parks, we were -- it called for a demand of29. The Future Land Use Element provides for 24,
and we have a five community park shortfall, which again is Immokalee and the Golden Gate Estates.
And that's pretty well at build-out.
Again, if we look at the stewardship area and then this identifies the community parks when they would corne on line,
what years they would corne on line, where they would be located in teons of their zone. And here again, there was a shortfall
within Immokalee.
And this is pretty well built out by 2055.
Now, for fire stations, what we did is we -- for our parameters, we used a Class I for the location of fire stations. It
called for a mile and a half of -- their service area is a mile and a half on the all-weather road. And also it was kind of interesting
about the fire stations, these are the existing ones, that their service area, if you look at it on average, they serve about 12,000
people on average, the pumper station does.
And if you'll look at the EMS, they service about 14,000, given their service area. on average for population. So there's
opportunities to co-locate the EMS and the fire stations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley had a question of you , sir.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Let me -- if you could just leave it right there.
The ones that are coming into view, let's say in 2045 right now, is it only the ones that are in black that are existing in
2045?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: They were existing in 2007.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. that's--
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: And they exist in 2045.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Because I was reading this as the red is future: is that what that is?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: No, something happened to the --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, no, the red is existing--
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: The red is future and the black is existing in 2007.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Whether it be a school. a park or a lire station, an EMS station, if they are on the map,
it is build at that year if it is red?
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yes. The red's the year -- when they corne on line in that year, that's when--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's just they were not existing in '07. I just want to know how to read this. Okay, that's
the way it is, good deal, thanks.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: And the only place that -- we didn't have a shortfall oftlre stations, either. We had enough sites
for fire stations. There was a call for 27, and we needed 27, but the Estates is not serviced by public water supply, so they're what
they call a Class Nine in the Estates. And the Estates can upgrade to a class what they call Eight A, I guess it is, by different
options. You talked about some of them this morning. as I recall. You know, you can have the dry hydrants and the wells and the
ponds. And there's so much brush, you know, requirements, you can't have so much brush from a home and so forth and so on.
So there's a lot of things that can be done in terms of the firefighting protection in the Estates.
And this is over in the stewardship area. This would be in the towns and villages.
So by 2055 this is pretty well built out.
The fire stations are really a leading indicator. They come on line early in development, generally speaking.
Now we're going to be looking at neighborhood shopping centers, community shopping centers and regional shopping
centers. And here again, the stewardship area, there's no provision for regional facilities. When you look at the population of
2 I 0,000 at build-out, that's a metropolitan area. And you're going to be having regional hospitals, regional shopping centers and
your regional facilities.
So this shows the supply and demand for commercial space. And you'll see that in 2007 the supply retail space was 1.6
million square foot. And it was, according to the growth model, was a demand for two million. So it was almost in balance there.
Page 40
Del~Jr 9, 1,08A-5
The office and services was.3 million, and there's a demand for 1.1. And if you -- and I've talked to some of the folks
over there in the study area that for their professional services, they usually go on the other side of 951. So there is a shortfall of
office and services space.
So if you look at the total demand for office at -- and then we look at what the shortfall is and we see that the total
demand for office and retail is 3.1 million and the supply in 2007 is two million, that there's a shortfall.
Now, this is at build-out. And here again, we're looking for the supply model in terms of the future land use plan.
There's a demand for 11.2 million square foot ofretail at build-out. No. I'm sony, their supply. 11.2 and there's a demand for
29.3. So there's a shortfall. And I'll talk about that a little bit.
And then there's a supply of 6.0 million square foot of office services --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir. Mr. Wolfley has a question.
COMM1SSIONER WOLFLEY: Does this mean that we should be -- in our job here what we do on the planning
commission, start looking for more mixed use commercial type activity centers out there?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Yeah, and I'll talk about them a little bit, where that is.
If you look at the townships, what we did in the townships over in the stewardship area, we took the land use allocations
that were in Ave Maria and the proposed allocations that are in the Big Cypress and developed a template. and said this is the
template we're going to apply for towns.
In their town centers some are, you know, 300 to 50G-acre town centers. They'll say commercial, civic, residential, but
they don't give any indication of the magnitude of them.
There's sufficient land within those town centers to make up most ofthis shortfall. And I'll talk about that a little later.
But you're absolutely correct, where we have the shortfalls, we should be looking to see particularly if they come in with
a town plan and they don't show enough commercial land to meet the needs of those people, theire going to travel five, six, eight
miles and now you're extending your trip lengths, overloading your traffic transportation network. You want them to reduce that.
So for like for convenient shopping. they only have to go a mile and a half. For community shopping you only have to go two and
a half to three miles and et cetera.
And this is true with the school sites and the other sites that were right in -- then Immokalee, when they come out with
the Immokalee Master Plan, they should have addressed those shortfalls.
I'll talk a little bit about the Estates. That's a little different stol)', and I'll do that toward the end and tell you what we
think might be a solution to that.
But anyway, you're absolutely correct.
So what we're going to show here, we're going to show the neighborhood shopping centers which are in orange and the
community in blue and the regionals are in red. And then the existing ones will turn black, and they're the ones that exist in 2007.
And then the other ones, they'll be coming on line as it shows the year of20 I 0, 15,20 and et cetera.
Generally speaking, you look at a neighborhood shopping center and you look at ULl guidelines, and then we did, we
did an analysis right here in Collier County to adjust the size of your neighborhood shopping center. they're about 110,000 square
foot. They serve about 13,000 people in the service area. And for the community and for the regional, if you take all the -- those
commercial centers that need to serve your population, they only represent 30 percent of all your commercial space. The other
commercial space is your office parks, your professional office services, your hospitals and anything that comes under that service
category and that office category.
So while these are the commercial centers and this is when they come on line and where they would come on line, and
this is toward the Estates -- I think there's two neighbors in the Estates that are designated. And then I'll address that remaining
commercial space we talked about.
And this is of course over in the stewardship area. And here again, it will show when the neighborhood centers and the
community centers -- now, there was no provision for the regional center, but if you look east of Ave Maria, we kind of thought
that would be a good place to reserve land for your regional facilities, because the townships will be surrounding that. And you
can have transportation nodes in and out of your regional center. So we put a regional center there.
A regional center runs about -- I think it was about 150.000 here in Collier County. But you got Coconut sitting up
there, and that's drawing quite a bit out of that area.
So looks like one regional center would meet their needs here. And the regional center is like an eight-mile radius, so--
I'm going to talk a little bit about the indus -- the industrial model's not a demand model, it's a design model. And it's up
to the policy makers to determine how much industrial space they want to reserve in their land use plans for purposes of
industrial.
We speak about industrial, we're speaking about business and tech park. You know, the campus type activities, not the
smokestack type activities. You know, we're looking at R&D, you know, we're looking at medical instruments, we're looking at
some time types of assembly, electronics assemblies and things of that nature.
Page 41
16 I 1 ~
December 9, 2008
So that's what we mean when we talk about an industrial park. We call it a business and tecb park.
So what we did is we looked at the changes in labor force over time that occur in counties that are similar to years. We
looked at them, you know, up in Tampa and up in Pinellas and over on the east cost.
As the county is developing, gets up to its inflection line, a large portion of its work force is construction and
construction related. After the inflection point, development starts to increase at a decreasing rate. That portion of your labor
force starts shrinking. And it's usually replaced by what -- the destination is manufacturing with the feds with the NAC codes and
the SIC codes and all that.
But (what) we're looking at here is kind of business park. We're looking at R&D stuff, we're looking at medical
instnunents and things of that nature as a target industry.
So when we look at that labor force and what's needed to fill that gap as it builds out, we're filling it up with that
industrial land and that industrial space and industrial employees.
So what we did then is we detennined how much was required to do that. And also, you're diversitying the tax base as
well.
So what we said -- and this is just for illustration. The policy makers can, you know, decide whatever it is they want to
do. But for an illustration, we put a 50-acre tech park in each one of the towns in the stewardship area and in the fringe area. And
that should make sense too to the developer, because he's not going to be attracting just retirees and seasonal homes, you know,
he's going to be attracting pennanent population. and other than just your service population. So that should be a value to the
developer as well.
I guess what it is, it was a finn, I'm trying to think of -- Art Tech, is it" That was--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Arthrex.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Arthrex. And they're in medical instruments. And they're taking up ]2 acres I guess in Ave
Maria.
And so you would see like four ofthose type of -- they call them small finns in tenns of industrial development.
The other thing is we found out too, and we found this out Auburn, that Auburn capped its capacity, its university at
25,000 students. And the community is still growing beyond that. And they were a university driven economy and they put a lot of
effort into developing tech parks and actually getting a lot of them up and running as spin-offs from the university for research
and development and things of that nature.
So that university R&D can work quite well in the future and there may be opportunities here to do that with Ave Maria.
So given that, you know, you've got about two million square foot now out there of industrial, and at build-out to be
about 34 million square foot. And you say wow, that's a lot. Well. we're also taking up the slack that's east of951. too. So we're
looking at the county as a whole.
And there is sufficient land in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan to meet that demand if we
put 50 acres in each one of those towns.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Mr. Wolfley aftcr you.
And Doctor, just so you know, I'm not -- I was originally expecting about a 30-minute presentation from you today, so
we're getting into a lengthy period of time and this board still has to come to its conclusions yet and our questions upon your
conclusion of your presentation. So hopefully we can get to the end of this portion of it so we can do our discussion as well.
Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you go back a slide, please.
This is startling. Two things come to mind. One is that you indicated earlier that agriculture is put into the industrial.
And then you made a statement just now saying that this includes -- if I have heard you correctly and understand you correctly,
this number also includes the lands east which, no, I didn't understand that correctly.
So you're saying to me that in that 34.658,000 roughly square feet, that contained in there are also the tracts ofland that
are for agriculture? Because that's what --
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Only in the SRLA (sic).
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, how do we differentiate that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to use the microphone, sir, if you want to get--
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Only in the stewardship area where you're developing your towns, on ago land, if they're
developed on ago land. They're on open land and the fringe area. Otherwise it's not -- in fact, the industrial development is all in
what you currently got zoned for industrial ptrrposes, or you got designated on a future land use plan for industrial purposes, with
the exception of the towns and the stewardship area. And I'll show it to you in a minute. Itls mostly up at the airport and it's mostly
down where J - 7 5 crosses 95 1 .
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So I want to be sure then we don't have an aberration, we don't have something
that is out of whatever the graph shows.
Page 42
16' 1 A-S
December 9, 2008
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: No.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's what I needed to understand. Thank you.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Now I've got to find my way back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, you had a question?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I'm done.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Could we bring up the slide?
MR. BOSI: Do you have a question"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's just passing until we get further along.
MR. BOSI: You need to wrap it up.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: I want to show the industrial so we can be sure that it's clear. Then I'll try to wrap it up for you.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Doctor, while we're waiting, you said that there's a shortfall ofthe industrial west side
of951 that you're making up?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: What we're looking at is you're looking at the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to use the microphone, sir.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: What we're looking at is we're looking at the labor force and we're saying at build-out what will
the labor force look like in Collier County if it's a balanced labor force.
And given that nmnber of that labor force, we can translate that into how many square foot of space do you need for
industrial to support that labor force.
Some of that labor force is coming from the other side of 951. There's no more sites over there to develop. So it's
meeting the need of that labor force over there, that's essentially--
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So it's a shortfall.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah, right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're waiting, how much labor did you allocate to agriculture?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: I don't remember. I'll have to, you know--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: -- look it up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- we have to wait anyway, and I figured if you had that readily. Because since you didn't
count ag., I was wondering how you calculated the transient labor force that we have, which is probably our greatest labor force.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Well, what you do is you take the profi -- I have the profiles from the census of your labor force
and agriculture over time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. There we go. That's where we left off.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: There's where we were.
Okay, you're going to see now the -- there are two industrial areas now roughly 50 -- they represent roughly 50 acres.
And now rm going to show where the ones that come on line.
If you look down at where 41 intersects, I guess it is -- 1-75 intersects 951. That's where it's designated on the future
land use plan for industrial development. So there's several 50-acre parks that come on line down there.
The other ones are in the villages of the fringe area and the towns of the stewardship area. And that's pretty much their
build-out.
Now, this is the ones over in Immokalee. And you're going to see the vast rn~ority of them are going to be up in the
airport area. There's room up there that's designated for industrial development. So several 50-acre sites can come on line up
there.
And the other ones are the 50 acres in each one ofthe towns in the stewardship area.
So essentially, you know, the future land use plan provides sutlicient land for industrial development to meet your needs
from now to build-out, including the shortfall to serve that labor force that might be generated east of951.
And Mr. Chairman, I'm going to stop there. I guess my time's running out, huh?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. there's no set time. I just want to make sure we move with as much of the infonnation as
succinctly as possible, that's all.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Okay. I'm going to kind of run into the -- the substations, there were plenty of sites for
substations. No problem there with the substations. And then three is it, so -- and there's the other one.
We did do affordable housing problem -- or housing sub-model. And if you want to, we can chat about it. But if you
want to talk about it, it's up to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be interesting to see where you see affordable housing going in Collier County.
Again, we don't want to short your presentation, I'm just asking that we try to keep it as concise as we possibly can to
move through the day, that's all.
Page 43
16 \ 1 AS
December 9, 2008
DR. V AN BUSKtRK: Carlton did the affordable housing model.
MR. RYFFEL: I'm Carlton Ryffel.
The County Commission didn't ask us to locate the affordable housing. What they asked us to do was determine a
reasonable percentage that the county should provide in affordable housing.
And I'm going to give you the short version of this, just to make it -- Mike, how do I go back a slide?
Okay. Yeah, the County Commission asked that we determine a pro rata percentage of what affordable housing should
be in the study area. And what we did is review the inventory and findings contained in the affordable housing workshop that was
presented to the County Commission in March of this year. And that provided us some really good background information and
some idea of direction, which way we could go with this to have it make sense.
What we did, to determine the percentage of affordable housing units that should be made available, in 2007 there was a
estimated census, and it indicated that in 2007 there would be one -- there were 192,043 dwelling units.
And in that study that the county housing office did, they determined that there were 10,461 units needed in that year.
Now, through various means they were able to provide most of those housing units in that particular year. So what we
did simply was take the existing nwnber of units in Collier County. you know, seven. and we divided that into the nwnber of
affordable need in 2007. That came out about 5.4 percent.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Extrapolated.
MR. RYFFEL: Then we applied that percentage to the study area's population, based on the population forecasting in
five-year increments to determine what does that mean in terms of dwelling units.
Now, let's see. The left-hand column is the five-year increments that we're dealing with, starting with seven; 10, 15, et
cetera.
The far right column is how many affordable units you would need to add based on that percentage of 5.4 and also
based on the forecasted population.
Now, we wanted to make sure that this was a reasonable way to go. And so what we did, I explained this methodology
to the director of Collier County Housing and Hwnan Services. And also, the community development director in Sarasota
County which, as you were told or indicated in Paul's presentation was one of our comparable counties. And they both agreed that
the method we used was reasonable and logical.
Now, I didn't get into this in the slide. but using the same method in Sarasota County as Collier County, we determined
that their affordable need would be about 4.2 percent. But there is a difference between Sarasota and Collier. In Sarasota County,
they only address affordable need up to 80 percent of the area median income, while in Collier County, Collier County addresses
up to 120 percent of the area median income. Which is a significant difference.
You also have to remember that Collier County has the highest area of median income in the State of Florida, which is
almost $70.000 now.
So we made the conclusion that it would be safe to conclude that if the 80 percent were increased to 120 percent, as it is
in Collier, in Sarasota, and their percentages being nearly the same as Collier's. And conversely, if everything above 80 percent
were removed from the affordable, counting Collier, for purposes of that comparison. we thought the percentages would be very
close between the two.
So the bottom line of all this is that we feel that an affordable housing rate of about five percent appears to be
reasonable, based on the information we were given.
So that's all I have on affordable housing. I'm going to tum it back to Paul.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on that portion of it"
COMMtSSIONER MURRAY: I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'm tickled by it, but [have to find out something. We have a standard, I don't know
what to call it. We have a number that we use for a certain number of affordable houses needed. It hasn't been spoken of in the last
year or two because ofthe downturn in the economy.
But what I'm trying to ascertain, did you use that as your base line? What did you use as your base line for the five
percent deficiency?
MR. RYFFEL: I used the results that came out of the study, the county's study that was presented this year.
They -- and I don't have those slides with me, but they have the various income levels. And the -- let's see if this will
help at all. Let me just take a look here.
The households in Collier County are considered to be cost burdened if people spend more than 30 percent of their
income on housing. So in looking at the income and the breakdowns in Collier County. [ feel pretty comfortable that that's what
they did, they used that -- they looked at how many people would fall within those various categories. They didn't give me a
percentage, they gave me a number.
Page 44
16 lilts
December 9, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Your numbers are predicated entirely upon the baseline that they gave to you.
MR. RYFFEL: Yes, in this report.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you didn't proof it in any other way?
MR. RYFFEL: No.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Now. some of the benefits already realized from the growth model.
Most importantly, not only is the forecast development in population over time, but importantly, the distribution and
location of that population.
And we now have one standardized comprehensive data bank providing consistency for planning activities, including
traffic modeling and forecasting offacilities and et cetera.
It removes the uncertainty of the magnitude. distribution and timing of development in the stewardship area and in the
fringe area.
This shows the map. And you're probably familiar with it already. But the owners in the stewardship area--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Careful what you call those red dots.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: What we hope happens here is that the owners and their consultants requested the data from the
model from Mike, and Mike provided them with all the output data from the model. And then the -- we were asked to do the data
for the traffic model for here in Collier County for the MPO, to translate our data from the growth model to the traffic model.
When that happened, then the owners came in and said -- because they knew what we had -- you know, what our data
had said about the stewardship area. So they came in with these nodes, they're what we call district-wide nodes for modeling, and
identiIy what would be the magnitude of development that that node represented.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you scroll down so we can see the table?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A little bit further. Okay. Just wanted to make sure you had not the wrong one. It says town
nodes, I believe.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: So what we did is we wanted to compare our results to their results. So (what) we did is we
looked at it in the aggregate.
On this table, we had the Collier County interactive growth model forecasted population 216.000. They forecasted one
of234,000. If I aggregate all those nodes, what they had in population in those nodes.
For dwelling units. we forecasted 106,000 in the aggregate, they forecasted 113,000.
For students, we forecasted 35,000, they forecasted 36,000. That's pretty close.
And the other numbers are relatively close, too.
So we see that convergence, you know, in terms of these numbers. And we're starting to get a handle on the stewardship
area and the formulation of what future development would be.
And then for commercial employees we forecasted 61,000, they forecasted 57,000, which told me that they did go into
those town centers and allocate land for commercial purposes. They were making up that shortfall. Because (what) we do is we
take the employees, we can translate that to square foot of space, retail, and then we can translate that to acres.
Now, the industrial, we forecasted 7,000 employees, and that's those 50-acre tech parks we call for in each one of the
towns. They don't provide for any industrial development, even though they're having it in Ave Maria.
So when we looked at it in the aggregate, it looks like, you know, that we're coming pretty close together in terms of
what they're proposing out there in the stewardship area.
The other thing I did is I went in and looked at the nodes. And from the population and housing matrix in those nodes
tried to determine if I could do an algorithm of villages and towns. And their villages and towns in that algorithm come out close
to what the model had forecasted for development there.
So the only place that we really disagreed. and if you looked at their nodes. is that just east of Ave Maria, we kind of
reserved that land for regional facilities, and they put a town in there. But anyway, it's getting closer.
Now, this again is some of the benefits from the models that were translating this data now to format for the traffic
modelers. So the traffic modelers will be using this format.
So in there we had incorporated our vacancy rates, which we have in our demographic models, we have the vacancy
rate. Now, the seasonal housing, non-seasonal housing.
Now the number of autos per household, we had to do some regression analysis through the census to determine that.
And then the rest of the data is pretty much the data that comes from the model.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you given this data, or how did you derive the data on Ave Maria University?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Ave Maria, J took it from the development order.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I thought.
Page 45
16 I 1,45
December 9,2008
That development order -- at that point the development order certainly was at question during the approval of Ave
Maria, but thank you.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Now. the future benefits -- and this is what you were talking about earlier, you folks were -- is
the annual update will provide reports to the managers, policy makers, planning commission, et cetera, to track development by
type, location, trends, rate of development and impacts for monitoring and evaluation.
So as we do the annual updates, it's very easy to provide reports to the Planning Commission, to the Board of County
Commission and other agencies in terms of what development has taken place at that period oftime, you know, how much more
commercial space is going on line, how much more industrial space, how many more dwelling units, where are they going on line
in those zones and et cetera.
And also. we can start tracking trends. So if we want to make some adjustments to the demographic models and we start
tracking trends out there in the stewardship area overtime. we can adjust the demographic models. So as we pick these trends np,
we can start making adjustments in the model.
And then the model's focusing in, you know, it's getting more and more accurate in terms of focusing in on its forecast
and its forecast data output.
And then, you know, the model can be used to assist in the applications and analysis of like DRI projects, large-scale
projects of that nature and the location and timing of the population and development in the lands -- the needs that support the
population and in its documentation for testimony and hearings as well.
The initial results did identity and quantity some deficiencies. We talked about them, that there's no provisions for
regional facilities out there in the stewardship area.
We talked about the shortfalls in elementary and middle schools. No shortfalls in high schools.
Some shortfalls in the community parks. and we talked about them. And they mainly where in Immokalee and the
Estates.
And then also. when you do compo plan updates for future land use plan, in Cape Coral they use the model in tems of --
we did the study on the location of commercial nodes and the amount of commercial space that was required in those nodes and
assisted them with developing the compo plan amendments for submission to DCA and things like that.
So there are a lot of spin-offs that can happen in tems ofthe value of the model itself.
And you can determine the impacts in development and cumulative impacts over time. And if you're in a zone and
you've got a 300-Wlit subdivision, you know, and you can't zero in on the specifics, but if it's 3,000, you can zero in on the
specifics ofthe impacts of those developments.
But the smaller developments, like your 300 acres, say subdivision, you can use the parameters of the growth model to
determine what the impacts are going to be from that, in terms of how many children they're going to generate and what's their
demand for commercial space and et cetera.
This is a walk through time, Mr. Chairman. We've really covered this material. l'mjust compressing it into decades.
Maybe we'll just skip this and go to the conclusions.
CHA IRMAN STRAIN: If it's already been covered, I would agree with you.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Okay, let's do that. Mike can give you a copy of these slides, and if you want--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We do have a copy.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: You do" Okay, fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here they are right here. Whoever said where, there they are.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: These were the conclusions that we presented to the Board of County Commissioners.
The future land use plan and the county's growth management plan is a very sophisticated and progressive plan that
addresses multiple environmental and development issues. And the FLUE best represent future development and study area.
Of all the growth models we've done and where we used the future land use plan as the build-out scenario. Collier's was
the best. It really accomplished the main thrust of providing the proportion of the land use to meet the needs ofthe population.
You had some shortfalls, we talked about. Most communities don't have any provisions for school sites or fire stations or
commercial nodes or anything of that nature.
And the model had to integrate multiple disciplines. And the model does that quite well. We can integrate the schools
and the parks and the commercial and do all that thing.
The real challenge here in Collier was integrating all the different development regulations for the different subdistricts
and clusters. We had one set of development regulations for the stewardship area, one for Immokalee, one for the Estates.
That's pretty complex. And the model did meet the challenge: the model was able to do that quite well. And we were
able to segregate those clusters and then to be able to run demographic models in those clusters as well.
And we talked about the population between 2007 and build-out, what the forecasts were for the different large
subdistricts within the model.
Page 46
16 i 1 AS
December 9,2008
And we state here that there is sufficient opportunities in the future land use amendment to provide the land uses
designated for schools, community parks, et cetera, except for Golden Gate Estates and Irrunokalee.
In Immokalee, you know, we've been told that they're now developing -- fonnulating a master plan, and I'll assume
they'll address those deficiencies.
Now, in the Estates, Golden Gate Estates is what I call uniquely low density residential development.
And one strategy is to locate the sites for facilities on its periphery in which the service area is sufficient to penetrate the
Estates so that the coverage provides the necessary level of services.
So on the periphery of the Estates is where we might want to put our community parks, might want to put our
elementary schools and our middle schools and our conunercial centers as well.
So that's just, you know, one illustration of what a strategy might be. We kind oflook at the Estates, to disturb it as little
as possible in those tenns, because it's very hard to aggregate sufficient parcels there to develop a facility on it.
And I talked about it before, that the commercial centers account for about 30 percent of the commercial. And the other
70 percent is covered by office parks and hospitals and other uses such as that.
The other thing was that for the towns and villages in the stewardship area, the level of specificity needs to be
established in the development and the plans for land uses and their spatial distribution.
I'll give you an example of this. Some of those towns will call for two elementary schools. They should be so distributed
that they're within neighborhoods, they're not close to each other where they're crossing service area, again reducing -- they can
walk, reduce trip lengths and what have you.
And likewise, we have the same true of neighborhood commercial centers should be so spatially located that their
service areas don't overlap. And here again, we can reduce trip lengths to get to the neighborhood commercial and shopping
centers.
So we saw that there's a need for specitivity (sic) in there. And in some cases there might not be quite a demand for two
community parks in the town, but if you look at the peripheral development, there's a demand for two. And that peripheral
development would be those villages or the hamlets, ifso, ifthe hamlets remain.
So that was one of our recommendations there.
And the Future Land Use Element doesn't have any provision for regional facilities. And that's kinds ofimponant.
Because regional lacilities are necessary when you're going to get those kind of population thresholds out there east of95 I. And
there are several types of regional facilities that come into play.
And it needs to be updated annually. And I'm going to talk about that briefly. You folks have brought that up throughout
the presentation in identifYing development.
And also, annual -- we might want to start identitying demographic trends too and things of that nature.
And concluding, the county's already benefited fTom the models demonstrated fTom the previous presentation. And the
benefits that can be realized, ifit's updated annually, can provide added benefits for long-range planning, infrastructure and
services.
Next steps, we were just talking about the need to maybe review the parameters with the department agencies, so they're
in agreement with the parameters, in case they change them. Maybe if they get the data fTom the model, they want to change their
parameters.
One we talked about is modules for community parks.
And then you need to update the traffic model. We're doing that now, so that's being done, that step is.
And then when you're doing your Growth Management Plan update, maybe you want to use the growth model and some
of its data to translate it to development of regional facilities or things of that nature.
And then we have our annual updates and the Q and A.
And Mr. Chainnan, I'll talk briefly about -- you said how much is it going to cost and that type ofthing there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't you just tell us between 10 and 20,0000
Sir?
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just responded to Mr. Wolfley, you said between 10 and 20,000.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah. I just wanted to talk about -- yeah. And hopefully each year it gets less and less and we're
gone.
But a lot of communities had kept us on to expand the model and expand the model's capabilities. If you want to do that,
then we would look at, you know, what are the work tasks, what are the hours and what's the hourly rate and et cetera.
And the other thing is, you know, just we can put an upset figure, you know, our hourly rate and not to exceed a certain
amount. And whenever the staff needs us to call on us, fine, you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Page 47
16 i 1;45
December 9, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Are we making comments on the whole or what are we doing?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're still working on the model at this point, the whole model, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean, the whole book or the whole--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we haven't finished with just the discussions on the model at this point. So let's just focus
on finishing up discussion on the model before we go back to the book.
And Mr. Murray, then t guess you'd be --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The question that you just raised for me is --I noted early on in this document that
when we started looking at the organizations that were qualified, there were some that were obviously missing. And those are
components. There's a cost associated with those components if they're to be added; am I correct?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: You mean like libraries?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Like libraries, like--
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Yeah, sure.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- like EMS.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Well, EMS is in there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well. whatever they--
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah. right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remember seeing the voids.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Yeah. If there's a medical, you want a medical, right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My point is. is every one of those has a cost associated with it.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's an impact cost initially. And then is there any maintenance cost associated
with it?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: No. The only thing is the updates. We update the model from time to time, you know. to
streamline it. And that's free of charge. I mean, that came with the original licensing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you're saying to us that the initial bang is the hard one and after that it gets to
be the payback is over a long-tenn, just like the build-out.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a quick question. In here you use the tenn activity centers. Is that used in the
same context as we use activity centers here in the urban area?
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: The activity centers that you use, or your activities nodes that you use in your future land use
plan in terms of commercial development?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know, is that what you're talking about when you say activity centers?
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yes, uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, Mike?
MR. BOSI: The way that the growth model works is those activity centers that are on 951 have to be included and
calibrated by the model. So those are the activity centers that you refer to.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The 951 --
MR. BOSI: The 951--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- activity centers that are there right now.
MR. BOSI: Yes. correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we go off the model-- oh. Mr. Wolfley, do you have any other questions on the
model"
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, and it may be for the Doctor and Mr. Basi both.
Since I think June or May ofthis year I've been trying to ferret out the mystery map. Transportation. I tried to get on the
RLSA, I want to see transportation, and of course large landowners said no, we don't want to see that until the end.
Well, everything has to do with roads and infrastructure. A town is a town, that's great. But you've got to have
infrastructure to get to and from that town.
And then we -- then our Chair finally carne up with this map and I went halleluiah, it's six months late but here it is.
What would it take to take that map that you showed at the end that was an acrobat (sic) and use that as a baseline future
Page 48
16 lIlts
December 9,2008
with our population?
Because in what Commissioner Murray said, everything's greened out. Everything's blacked out. We kind of know
where the transportation infrastructure's going to go, which is going to show where these towns can go in the receiving areas. And
we know where the sending areas are going to be, so don't green that out, because there's not going to be any population there.
Why can't we start with that model, that map, and work from there where we show a little tiny dot. and then as that town
grows so does the population, so does EMS, so does the library and things come into form into that town.
How difficult would that be to put that into this presentation with that baseline of via suspected 22 entities" I don't want
to call them any oids or anything like that. but --
DR. VAN BUSKJRK: You want to answer or do you want me to answer it?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean, because that would be real. That would be what it is.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Okay, our data in the model is aggregating all the parcels within a zone. So within that zone we
can tell you when development will take place in terms of its magnitude of people, houses, commercial space, et cetera, schools
and what have you.
And my question, would that be sufficient to meet your needs?
COMMtSSIONER WOLFLEY: No.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Okay, now we'll go the next step. You want to get more specific than that?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, what t want is reality. Because it shows as though people are going to be living
on every acre.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: We can do that. We can take -- you know, we know in those towns -- you know, we did a
template for a town in the RSLA (sic), and we're going to assume that those towns won't vary much from that template. Except
with adjustments we want to make for regional, some adjustments for schools.
We -- and they've already shown their land uses on Big Cypress and they've shown their land uses on Ave Maria.
You know, we can then tell you over time when those facilities that come on line and where they should be located
within those land use maps that they provide.
We can do algorithms and show it for all the rest, too in terms of what we think is the most likely scenario. And we can
do that over time.
That takes a lot of effort on the GIS people. You know. the data is there to do that. and it's a question of the GIS people.
you know, in tenns of their time.
I couldn't tell you otThand how much time that will take to do that. But it can be done.
You might want to do that for say like a build-out scenario so you can see what it looks like at build-out.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. And my point is that I'm looking at the vast how many people are here and how
much public input we have. And I'm wondering one of two things: Either the planning commission is of no interest to anybody, or
that everything's really been decided and this is just formality. J mean, you know, we have no environmentalists here trying to
protect their land. They already have deals with the large landowners, so we aren't needed there.
And I guess what I'm coming to is this is a great presentation, it just -- if we were to show build-out map in the
newspaper. people would go ah. There's going to be population on every acre oftiumland. And that's not real, that's all.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: We can build a build-out really showing almost like a dot for each dwelling unit and where they
would be.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, yeah, but that -- anyway, I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions--
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Or we can show where the residential land -- like a zoning map, almost, you know, where it
would be -- where the lands would be preserved and the flow ways and the habitats and that.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sure. exactly. Now, that's what everyone wants to know is where the panthers are
going to habitate (sic), where the humans are going to habitate (sic) and how we can get roads around these--
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: And we know the development's going to be on the open lands, and we know the magnitude of
the development, you know.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean. I could go on and on. Because I know because of the committees I'm on. but I
don't think 90 some percent of the population has a clue.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: And we could do that for build-out. And that wouldn't require an awful lot of resources. It would
be more resource if you're doing the five-year increments. Then it gets -- you know. 1 mean, you can do it, but it just takes time,
that's all.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Labor, yeah. Thank you.
DR. V AN BUSKIRK: That's probably the next order offocus, you know, with the model.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. any other questions of the model before we go back to the beginning of the book"
Page 49
161 11ls
December 9,2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question of Michael Bosi.
MR. BaSI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Go back to the beginning ofthe book? Oh, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we've got to start over.
No, I've got a question of Michael. Not you, Doctor, Michael.
MR. BaSI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The nwnbers that the CIGM plan has come up with for population, build-out population and
population over time are significantly different than what county staff has used in the past.
The AUIR is based on population. I think it would be great to use the CIGM population estimates. It would cut the
AUIR cost in half.
]s that -- would the departments be using those population estimates ofCIGM, or would they be using David Weeks'
population estimates for future AUIR's?
MR. BaSI: For the AUIR purpose, we neither use David Weeks' nor the CIGM.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's not--
MR. BaSI: We use BEBR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one produced by your department which has got David's -- if you go to your department's
website, David's the one that puts those together, he does it through BEBR. Okay, I'm clarified.
Are we going to use the ones produced by comprehensive department or are we going to use the ones produced by
CIGM.
MR. BaSI: Until we would amend a decision made by the Board of County Commissioners to use the CIGM, we are
obligated to use the BEBR numbers and David's numbers for the allocation of population.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then how can we get an accurate picture of the build-out and know what levels of
service have to be sustained when we're not using the population that coincides with the one that OUf budget is set up in reality?
Because our AUIR is set up now on a population figure significantly higher than the population analysis of the CIGM,
which means our budgets are now working and skewed to a much higher perfonnance standard than what the CIGM says we
could have as an outcome.
How do we balance that?
MR. BaSI: Well, once again, go back to the obligation. We are regulatorily obligated. Until we would change our
Growth Management Plan to use a different number, we have to use the BEBR numbers. And those BEBR numbers are what we
-- is what David allocates throughout the county.
So I'm not -- the only way that we could diverge from that course would be for the advisory boards and the Board of
County Commissioners to say that they see a higher value within the CIGM and to adopt that as the accepted population
projections to be utilized by the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I understand that. And you're saying what I expected you to say, which is more of a
reason why I'm concerned about the value of the CIGM as an overall planning tool ifit isn't used by every department to plan
their levels of service standards and their build-out needs for the populations, because the population estimates between the two
different methodologies are so different.
MR. BaSI: And I would agree with that concern, and I would simply state that this would be the lirst step to potentially
replacing the utilization of those BEBR populations.
We couldn't -- until there's a level of comfort and there's a level of dependability and expectation and familiarity with
the advisory boards and with the Board of County Commissioners, I don't think anyone of those bodies would be willing to
accept the -- an abrupt change from our current methodology to the methodology contained within the CIGM.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And DCA wouldn't allow you to change without a validation ofa population statistic
other than BEBR.
MR. BaSI: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd have to go through a process.
MR. BaSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my concern is that we haven't gone through that process, yet we're implementing a
planning tool, or we're being asked to implement a planning tool that institutes the process that we have not yet approved. Maybe
we're putting the cart before the horse.
Mr. Wolfley, you seem to be impatient to ask a question. Go ahead and ask it
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, ['mjust saying, why wasn't this group provided with the numbers that we have to
use for growth?
Page 50
16 I 11tS
December 9,2008
MR. BaSI: Why what?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The base nwnbers, the BEBR. I mean, why are we working off a different -- I guess
my point is, is that can't we just all work off the same template so that we aren't continually asking these same questions? I've
heard these questions three times now throughout the last nine months, not necessarily from here. Same questions keep coming
up. We keep working off different baselines and different assurnptions.
MR. BaSI: Well, we're statutorily obligated for in the AUIR process to use the BEBR numbers. For our long-range
capital planning purposes, we're not obligated to use anyone number. What we have utilized in the past was David's numbers, in
which you've heard today was the long-range trnnsportation model. That's the 30-year plan for transportation model. They're now
using the land use forecasting produced by the Collier interactive grov..1h model.
So what I'm presenting to you today is a first step in the convergence of population numbers.
And parks master plan has to be updated. It was supposed to be updated this year. There's no allocation for funds for
that. Hopefully next year that they'll get to update their master plan, if it's decided and if it's endorsed, the CIGM. And the
by-product, the population nurnber is produced by the CIGM, is endorsed by this body and the board of County Commissioners,
and the next master planning efforts, the Parks and Recreation Department could utilize the long-range population trends
contained in the C]GM. And therefore, that's a third step of consistency. And therefore it's a slow building process that we'd
expect or that we were hoping to realize when we introduce this new planning tool to the county.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: To realize what the Chair suggested.
MR. BaSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray"
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I believe I understand what you're attempting to do, but that's the question, I think. We
have an advisory committee that came together and came up with -- they come up with questions. One of the answers is CIGM.
That's one of the efforts at making answers.
The question I have for you is are you the only one carrying the banner or, as it was pointed out earlier, communication
is critical. Have you then gone to the other departments and at least acquainted them with the possibility of another methodology?
If you have, have they qualified it? Have they come back to you and said yes, I'm interested or get the heck out of here?
MR. BaSI: The other departments are always looking to comprehensive planning for what the most valid and
appropriate numbers for long-range population projections are.
And just to quality, the Horizon Study master committee was tasked by the Board of County Commissioners. The
Board of County Commissioners directed staff to develop the Collier County interactive growth model. They asked the Horizon
Study to calculate it, to ask specific questions, to poke holes in the growth model to make sure that it's as accurate and valid they
possibly could.
That committee has endorsed the utilization ofthe growth model as a planning tool.
The Board of County Commissioners back in 2006 directed us to develop it. We are asking a second advisory board,
the Planning Commission, to see if you could recommend that there would be value to the utilization of the growth model.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did the broach -- did the BCC broach the issue of the AUIR, its use and this is a
potential replacement?
MR. BaSI: They saw the value that the growth model could provide for the long use land modeling provisions and
projections to be utilized by the infrastructure and service providing departments.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And they provided you with the authority to acquire the software?
MR. BaSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sounds like they were eager.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Michael.
You might as well stay up there, because I need you to help.
And Doctor, thank you. I think that is the end of our questions on this segment of your presentation.
DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and rnembers. And I appreciate your patience. I know it was a long
presentation. And I also appreciate your comments. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's a lot more questions that could have been asked or could be asked, but that
would probably take a whole session in itself. Because as you went along, there were a lot of issues that I would have thought
need further exploration, and the coloring of your maps. But you made it clear that you looked at agricultural on a one-to-five
basis, so a development in that area in that scenario might reflect that.
The statistics used for A ve Maria, getting those from the developer's DRI, there's a lot of issues like that that we may
want to review at some time in the future, but right now we're just going to try to get through the rest of today and see where it
goes.
Page 51
16 ~ 1 45
December 9,2008
And Michael, I'd like to take us back and formalize whatever is needed frorn this board for the BCC. And I think the
very first question that you brought up or that you rnentioned in your report was the committee requests that the CCPC make a
recommendation on the individual position points advanced by the Horizon committee when appropriate.
And let's start with there. And I think you've got several sections. I'll ask the panel if they see any reason why we should
have any comment or change needed to any of the elements produced by the committee.
It's the committee's consensus. It is not a recommendation to change the GMP or the LDC, it's simply a consensus
statement from their research in the area. Which does produce a different way of looking at it than if it was an analytical thing for
us to decide and from a language viewpoint for a code reference.
So with that, I'll open it up to the panel. Is there any comments on the pages"
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: With regard to position points the general public desires, I would just offer that we
should -- if recommended, we should otfer with recommendation with caution or care with regard to certain of the postulants
there. There are views that are based upon information given to individuals or individuals being aware of information on a limited
basis and projections rnade on a gross basis where I think -- and I'm referring now to water and sewer -- where I think that we
have to -- if we're going to suggest that it go forward, with great care.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing] would like to suggest is that the idea of a three-to-five member oversight
committee with their -- we have a very active elected official, we have a number of appointed boards. The area is riddled with
homeowners associations, civic associations, overlays, people involved in all that.
I honestly do not see what value another oversight committee adds, especially when it's going to cost taxpayers to
implement and to monitor it. Even though they may not be meeting all the time, staffs got to be involved at some point. There
rnay be advertisements needed because it will be an appointed body and things like that. I don't know all that, all the details, but at
this point in time I certainly question the need for it.
Other than that, I have no comment other than the fact that if we wanted to recommend acceptance of the committee's
report, that works.
Mr. Wolfley"
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I share some of what the Chair just said. Although I feel that if we combine several of
these committees into one, the Horizon -- well, the East of 951, the RLSA, and I could I guess think of another one could be
combined. There's some great members in each one of those, and they represent the large landowners, even some small ones and
represent different developers. They represent fann -- so there's a good representation. I think that if they were combined into one
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not recommending that. These committees all sunset. The Horizon committee will end,
the RLSA committee will end. And what the Horizon committee is suggesting is that they reappoint three to five members in an
oversight committee to monitor just the reports ofthe Horizon committee.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I stepped beyond what our purview is. I was trying to get to that, but--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can suggest anything you want.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, but I'rnjust saying, I guess I stepped a little beyond what we're supposed to do.
And I think I made my points clear about what we should do with the interactive model. So that will be it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to go through that all over again. We've got three levels to recommend for
recommendations here. The first one is just to recommend acceptance of the committee's report to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Does anybody have a motion to that effect"
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make it.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAfN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion, seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
Is there any discussion?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Nothing other than I would say that I'm especially hopeful that the Commission will pay
attention to the water issues in paragraphs two and three.
CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Page 52
De!~bJr 9, 2!08 ItS
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I have -- I hope we can recommend that there will be modifications made to the
population land use graphics that were related that we had -- some of us had sorne issues with.
That if you retain those, which I understand they serve a purpose, but that perhaps you could also provide something
that would graphically satisty the persons.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're only talking about the first tab, section one. You're talking about tab three.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They asked for -- Michael asked in his staff report --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Section one, okay.
CHA]RMAN STRAIN: -- he asked for three separate inputs.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I know, I wrote them down. Consultant approval, bridge study and position points. But
okay.
CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Cornmittee approval. We're still on the first one, the committee recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I'll save myself for later.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: In rny motion I also agree that we don't need the three to five-member plan. ] don't
know if[ made that specific.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you didn't. But if that's fine -- does the second have any problem with that?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, I'm going to vote against it then, because I think that's a good idea. Too many
times these -- a great deal of effort, a great deal of money is spent and then it goes on the shelf.
And while 1 agree that we have some very fine professionals, it doesn't hurt to have coordination. J don't know how
much more money it would cost. This is an investment already significant. I think the matter does require some future assistance.
And ultirnately it would be the deterrnination by the board anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, everything is ultimately a deterrnination by the board.
So anybody else have any comment?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just want--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- make a comment.
What I was trying to make and] can do it very shortly, every five years we review this RLSA as if that was what was
intended. And now we want a review of this. My point was merely we could combine the two and it would be a very similar
report. That was that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up -- okay. I mean, I understand where you're going now.
Okay, a motion's been made, it's been seconded.
All in favor, signity by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMM]SSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-1.
Let's move to the second section on the bridges. Nick's report.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Is it clear on the record why--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I opposed, in case one of the commissioners--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You stated your point.
Mr. Basi, do you have any question as to what --
MR. BOSI: No, I will convey that point to the commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The bridge study. Staff requests recommendation to accept the bridge study with or
withollt recommendations and to recommend proceedings with construction of the bridges east of951 as prioritized in the study,
Page 53
16 I 1 45
December 9, 2008
subject to available funding.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Wolfley, I was going to ask for discussion first so -- is that okay?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, discussion first. Does anybody have any comments about that study?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I would like to mention is that in Golden Gate we have an overlay. And this is
an issue for Golden Gate and not anywhere else. The overlay is a land planning overlay that goes on every] 0 years, I believe.
And the next appointment to the Golden Gate master plan overlay will be in the year 2010. The last one was the year
2000.
The planning issues involving bridge connections might be more thoroughly vetted if it goes through that committee.
And as Nick probably understands and anybody else, there's not going to be any money to spend on bridges for quite a
few years anyway, so I'm not sure the bridge study can't wait until it's focused on just Golden Gate Estates by a Golden Gate
Estates overlay committee.
And my point on that would -- my suggestion would be to do that. But that's just my preference from living there. So--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And my understanding, and incorrectly, I guess, that there were monies already
appropriated for at least one of those bridges, and I did not want to see that go by the wayside.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I don't -- Mike, are you--
MR. BaSI: Nick had said that there's potentially -- the maintenance of existing bridges were the first priority in maybe
years four and five.
Within the AUIR there is money allocated for bridges. He said maybe in the year four and five that might be the
opportunity for them to enact upon the first -- the nurnber one prioritized bridge. Which would put us at 20] ] .
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRA]N: Right. So that gives the Golden Gate Area Master Plan committee to reforrn again and start
coming back with an analysis based on focusing on that area for bridge improvements.
MR. BaSI: So I guess just to clarify that the position that the Planning Commission is providing, that you'll accept the
bridge study but would recommend that that bridge study be vetted with a 20 I 0 restudy ofthe Golden Gate Area Master Plan?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be my suggestion. Is that--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I would--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody seem to--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You want to rnake a motion to that effect.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was going to make the motion. But again, I had false inforrnation. Ifit is 20 I], I
would make the motion that we do need a study over the next couple of years, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the motion would be what Mr. Bosi articulated, was that we accept the study but
we would defer the action ofthe bridges till the time when the Golden Gate Area Master Plan re-meets, gets reconstituted, I
should say, and goes forward. Is that--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And that I will agree with, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to that position?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded.
Is there any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signity by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
Page 54
16i Itl-5
December 9, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
The last itern for today is for the growth model. Staff recommends that the CCPC provides direction to the BCC to
accept the CIGM as a supplemental planning tool, enter into negotiations with Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates for the annual
update of the model.
Let's have discussion first. Is there a general discussion from the board?
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I want to just reiterate one rnore time quickly that I feel that if we were to -- and I don't
know whether you want to use the word block out the SSA's the sending areas, so that it is shown on that interactive model that
those will not go to development. They'll either be agriculture or preserve.
And then the reverse ofthat, the SRA's, and show where those areas are with the infrastructure of roads and ofthose 22
suggested areas.
Now, realizing two or three or four or five of those may drop out as other communities are built. But I just think that if
we could start with a baseline ofthat map and then showing the SRA's, SSA's, along -- and I think it would be rnore real. And __
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we can change what's already been done, but I think you're recommending
improvements to the methodology.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The request from the board and from staff is that we accept the CIGM as a supplemental
planning tool, number one.
And then number two, that we recommend entering into negotiations with the company for an annual update of the
model.
So let's focus on those two directives, because that's all that the BCC --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. Well, I agree with the model, I just think it needs some work. That's all. I hit
both of them.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And I think that's fair, Commissioner Wolfley. We did that with this past rnotion, which
was to make it in consultation with the 20] 0 Golden Gate Area Master Plan update. So we can --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which is--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- certainly say that we recommend that these maps be updated as well. So--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's a different scenario. And that's fine. To update the model, we'd have to
spend -- we'd have to recommend approval then of the ongoing use of the model. Is that--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the consensus I'm seeing, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm going to make that motion.
COMMISS]ONER CARON: I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying it's reasonable what he's asking to do. If you're
going to use the model, what -- the update he's asking for is more than reasonable, right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine. Yeah, but 1-- okay, I'm just trying to get to what we're supposed to--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had made the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did you make a motion, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: While you guys were chatting, I'm making the motion to recommend approval for
updating the model and accepting the infonnation.
CHA]RMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to Mr. Murray's recomrnendation to update the model and to accept the model
as a supplemental planning tool?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating).
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley made the second.
Is there discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll be voting no on the rnotion. I don't mind it being used as a supplemental planning tool by
the Horizon committee, but in the review and the process, I didn't want to spend two days asking questions. I don't feel I
understand the model's parameters well enough to recommend approval to spend any taxpayer's money on a model that I have yet
been able to try out, that in the presentation was numerous issues that J certainly question, including some locations of sites that I
saw, some language that would institute regional laws that we don't have in our GMP.
There's no way to tie the facilities and the plan back to the AUIR, and thus the levels of service that would -- and the
costs for those levels of service.
So I'm not saying the tool's bad, I just have too many questions to recommend spending any further money on it at this
point, because we haven't been provided with enough.
Page 55
16 1 14s
December 9,2008
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I made the second, thinking that what I've been talking about would actually happen.
But now that you've said that put me back into my thoughts, I may take back my second if those things that I suggested doing are
not going to happen.
If the tool's going to be as it is and we're to approve it as it is, rm afraid I can't either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just move forward with the discussion and ferret out the concerns before you change
any of your position.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Didn't we spend the bulk of the money already?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two hundred thousand.
COMMISS]ONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, isn't it gone and behind us?
MR. BaSI: The price tag that was associated with the update represented five to ] 0 percent of the initial cost to
establish the model. The initial model was $200,000. The price tag they quoted up to ]0 -- or with an upper limit of20,000; 10
being five percent of their original cost of the $200,000, 10 percent being 20,000 if the update would cost to that extent.
The model is ours and the model will stay ours, even if we don't -- if we accept the model and don't accept the -- enter
into a contract for updating the model, it will still stay ours. It will just stay ours statically. But yeah, we spent the initial bulk of
the money to develop the model.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: If we walk away now, do we still have access to the site?
MR. BaSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But there could be no further changes.
MR. BaSI: The updating of the model is what wouldn't be provided for.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So it will be a pay-as-you-go program that you'll decide as we go ahead?
MR. BaSI: On an annual basis, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait, wait, I had--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mr. MWTdY, then--
COMMISS]ONER MURRAY: Yes, you're saying the update, but the Doctor said that updates would be provided
based on what we have done now.
I don't know that you mean updates, you mean modifications to the program?
MR. BaSI: See, there's two models. There's two models. You've got your data base and then you've got your actual __
the growth model with the coefficients.
What's free is he updates his coefficients. He updates how the model works, how the model takes your baseline data
information and processes it.
What's going to remain as constant is not that, what's going to remain constant is what our baseline data says. We're
always going to -- that model's always going to be stuck in 2007, if we don't provide for the updated--
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You mean you don't have the facility in your -- if you were as a staff person required to
do this, you don't have the facility within that software to update and cause that to happen on your own?
MR. BaSI: I don't have the staff members, nor do I have the technical expertise to ensure that I'rn doing it correctly.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But it is possible, utilizing the program that exists right now, to continue to do
that.
MR. BaSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I got that from the Doctor, and I just--
MR. BaSI: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- wanted verification.
MR. BaSI: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill?
MR. McDANIEL: Just -- and one point for the record. Bill McDaniel, and I'm here as a person frorn the general public,
as well as serving as chair of the East of951.
Commissioner Wolfley, you brought up a valid point. And I would like to suggest that there are a lot of interpretations
of information.
And there's a volwninous -- as I shared with you earlier, there's a voluminous amount of information that's entailed in
this interactive growth model.
How that information is interpreted and then ultimately brought on to a mapping scenario I think is the clarification that
you're ultimately looking for. I've seen some really cool maps that Dr. Van Buskirk has put together that showed a much clearer
picture as to what's ultimately going to be developed where town centers and so on and so forth can in fact be located.
Page 56
16 I 1 45
December 9, 2008
The map that he used today was based upon the T AZ areas, the T AZ zones, the traffic area zones that we've typified.
And per the interpretation, and with the request of information that's put in, you saw one interpretation. There are others that are a
lot clearer. It doesn't mean that it's bad, it doesn't mean that the information is not correct, it just means that it's an interpretation
Issue.
And I think easily it doesn't mean that the entire model is bad, it's just the interpretation that they utilize for today's
presentation.
Did that come across okay?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
COMMISS]ONER MURRAY: To me it does.
MR. McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Between the two of you now in that regard, you have a study. One of the tools of the
study was this dynamic software, this program, right? Is the purpose of the study to now lie on a shelf and die?
MR. McDANIEL: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So--
MR. McDANIEL: And again, and we're not going to -- you know, you all have already voted on that, so we'll let that
one --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not even relating to that. My question is really focused around the idea that if
you've already purchased it and you've done your study and you're fmished, well, we could say it's all done and just let it go away
and you can use it or not use it as you please.
However, I perceive it, even though I agree with the Chair that there are a lot of unanswered questions, I believe that as
an answer, a tool that you can use, it may prove to be effective, and that's why I made the motion, can be effective and could
ultimately be utilized. But that can't be proven unless we give it a chance.
MR. McDANIEL: And that, if I may, Mr. Bosi, bodes the question and the thought processes, because of the
information sources that we currently have available that we're utilizing for population projections, the land use map that we
currently have in existence today, there are other ways of getting to the ultimate end.
This we have found. And we ground truthed a lot of the information on the East of951 Horizon Study during our
workshops and our committee meetings. We have found that this interactive growth model on the pretense is a very, very valuable
tool that we're going to be able to utilize for our community going forward. It's far marc accurate than the information that we
have available to us. It's far more dynamic and accepts the changes of population based on political trends and socio issues that
are ultimately going to be impacting the future growth of our community.
So we're -- it is our suggestion, as was put before you, to authorize its utilization. A continuing maintenance program is
necessary because it's the same old adage, garbage in, garbage out. If the interactive growth model is not updated, ifit's not
maintained, it won't produce satisfactory information for us to be able to make prudent decisions going forward with our growth
and development. Hence the suggestion of this oversight committee to ensure that that was in fact transpiring so that the
decision-makers had that ability. Again, we're not going to -- that was the premise behind that thought process.
But bottom line is it has to be maintained, it has to be updated in order for it to be utilized and be accurate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mike, if this gets approved and we go forward and we use this growth model that we've
paid for, how would we address certain issues that, for example, Commissioner Strain has brought up? How would you get that
input from people in order to perhaps make corrections or modifications or --
MR. BOSI: And one, I would have to sit down with Chairman Strain to find out where his primary issues lied.
I can tell you what I as the community planning rnanager and the AU]R manager envisioned. After the update would
take place in April, would take a couple rnonths, sornetime in July 1 would be before the Planning Cornmission and the
Productivity Committee as a precursor to the AUIR process to let you know here was the results of our growth model from 2007,
here was the output, here was the increments at build-out and the extent of development that was projected for. Here's the 2008
updated version with all the land use decisions, and -- not land use decisions, but development orders that had been provided for
over the course of that year. And give you the change in dynamic, what the change of that picture would be as a precursor to the
upcoming 2009 AUIR.
And then from that point in time I believe that we would broach the -- we would broach this subject with the
Productivity, Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners as to whether they saw it within a value to explore
the possibility of potentially -- of potentially adopting the growth model in the population projections, in the spatial population
projections of the growth model to be incorporated within our Growth Management Plan. But that would be only ifthe advisory
boards and the Board of County Commissioners saw the benefit ofthat.
Page 57
16 I 1 A-S
December 9, 2008
But that's really how I envisioned the process to go.
What I've heard now from Commissioner Strain is there are a lot of questions, and rightfully. Because of that I think
there would have to be another full day or two of vetting just with Dr. Van Buskirk, the Planning Commission, in providing you
with a technical document, so to speak, before that meeting to be able to give a little bit more exposure to the underpinnings
within the limitations of the proprietary inforrnation to be able to have a much better vetting and understanding on the Planning
Commission's part of the actual nuts and bolts of it.
MR. McDANIEL: And this may be an over-sirnplification, Commissioner. Did he answer your question?
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all right, I'll get back to him.
MR. McDANIEL: There was a ton of inforrnation that carne out over there.
When we saw this interactive growth rnodel at the committee level, they flopped out all those charts with all that
information.
And I remember one of our committee persons, Doug Rankin, about turned a flip because there were incorrect
asswnptions made coming off of the land use maps with respect to the densities that could potentially be allowable in Golden
Gate Estates.
And so with respect to that, and we made those suggestions, Dr. Van Buskirk and his staff took them into consideration,
irnplemented them in and then brought them back with new inforrnation for us to verity and check to further assure the accuracy
of the information.
And as I said before, with garbage in, garbage out, that process can happen over tirne.
As Commissioner Strain has an opportunity to review the different aspects of the interactive growth model and all of us,
anyone necessarily that has anything to do with the growth rnanagement planning process, will have that opportunity to make
those suggestions.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mike?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Bill.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. McDaniel brought up one of the points that I was trying to make.
When it was first presented to the Horizon Study group, they got the raw data to look at. And guess what" They found
issues.
As your local planning agency, we have yet to see the raw data. Would it not be a good thing for us to see that data?
MR. BaSI: It most certainly would. The problem that I -- that was presented to me was in terrns of scheduling, that
Horizon Study committee review of the AUIR -- or growth rnodel data took place over a 16-month period.
Between the presentation of the Board of County Commissioners on the 29th of September and the scheduling ofthis
meeting, 1 guess there just wasn't the opportunity to present a whole nother round of the technical W1derpinnings and the
redevelopment of the model with an additional advisory board. We were tasked by the Board of County Commissioners to take
the growth model and develop it with the Horizon Study committee.
And it's very fair of this body to say we understand that directive, but we still have hesitations towards our full
acceptance of the model.
So what I'm hearing from you, Ms. Caron, is you would like to have a four to five scheduled process oftaking the
model through the process with yourselves. But the problem is, I don't have that within a contractual obligation within my
consultants. So that would require additional monies. I guess staff could do it without the expertise of the principals, but the value
to that exercise, I'm not quite -- I'm not sure if you'd get everything out of it that you're looking for.
But yes, I understand your contention, but staff was directed to take this and vet it through with the Horizon Study
committee. So in terrns of that detail -- that opportunity for a detailed technical review I think could present itself. It's just at this
point in time it wasn't provided for within the schedule of events.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I understand your timing issues with next Tuesday. I understand the timing issues
as well as what the BCC directed you to do, which was to deal through the Horizon Study group.
Do you think that if this went forward with approval that between now or between whenever the BCC blessed it and
when you come before us in a pre-AlJIR meeting we could have been -- we could be given that information?
MR. BaSI: Ifthat would be the desire of the Planning Commission that that process, you know, be undertaken by
myself, I most certainly -- I most certainly --
COMMISSIONER CARON: You're saying you don't have money.
MR. BOSI: I most certainly will schedule the event within the context and the understanding that it would be staff for
the most part representing our limited understanding. But we could most certainly go through and have a full vetting of all the
increments of the baseline data.
Because what the Horizon Study committee did really was review the baseline data, vet the information within the T AZ,
because they lived in the study area, they knew the specific built (sic) environment, much better than just what the spreadsheets
Page 58
16 I 1 ti-5
December 9,2008
were saying. And then we discussed some of the parameters that were utilized to produce the algorithms.
We can do -- we could provide something similar to that. It just would have to be without the presence of the
consultants, just because we haven't -- contractually we don't have the latitude with that, unfortunately.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill, did you have sornething else you wanted to add"
MR. McDANIEL: Only to the extent, Ms. Caron, you need to -- you ought to at some particular stage, as this planning
tool that's being suggested that we utilize this as an additional planning tool, so if in fact you folks choose to recomrnend its
approval and move it on through the process, you're going to have a lot of shots, if you will, at this.
There is an unbelievable amount ofinfomlation that's contained in here that will be ground truthed over time. There's
going to be things in the Immokalee overlay that none of us have any real good working knowledge of that the folks in the rnaster
planning conunittee in Immokalee will ultimately take on.
The ultimate changes that are going to occur within the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. I mean, while this process was
going on, Dr. Van Buskirk didn't know that we were whacking the hamlets as a designated development criteria in the Rural Land
Stewardship Overlay. Didn't realize that we were establishing an additional credit methodology for the preservation and
conservation of agricultural uses.
Those are all things that this model will ultimately accept as we go forth in time. But it just needs more time for that
vetting and review. And I think over that time you're going to have that opportunity to have a look at the specificities that make it
do what it does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bill.
Any other comments?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti"
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- I just want to make one.
I will be voting for it. I think we spent -- I know we spent most of the money already. And from here going forward is
pay as you go.
But I'm really interested in the possibility of finding a whole new way oflooking at population. Because every time we
do the AUIR, we really don't have an agreement on even the right figures to use.
And as you have said, this might give us another slant that rnaybe we could eventually get this through the DCA. So I
will be voting for it.
And I don't need to -- Ms. Caron, they spent months and months and months doing all the details. I really don't need the
details going backwards. That's just where I stand on it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And !'II be voting no still.
For the record clear, because the BCC wants to know why if you vote no, why you voted no.
I don't --I am dissatisfied with the inconsistencies with the AUIR, the lack of verifiable data. Contrary to Mr. Vigliotti's
conclusion, r would like more data. And so far what I've seen, there was not enough time to provide us with a verification that I
feel comfortable with.
And additionally, at these times, any additional cost to government aren't needed that aren't essential.
Mr. Wolfley, did you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. I am going to stay in my nurnber -- in my second ofthe motion.
Certainly it needs work. How can the first go-through be perfect? Ifit were, these two gentlemen behind you, you know,
they would be in every precinct, every county across the country.
It does need some work. I do feel that a committee, the combined committee will help get those issues resolved. And I'll
continue my second and vote for it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, all in favor ofthe motion for recommending the acceptance of this as a
supplemental planning tool and to enter into negotiations for the update ofthe model, signity by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed"
Nay. Just me.
Okay. Motion carries 5-1.
And I thank all of you for everything here today. It was an enlightening experience. Is there any -- unless the young lady
there would like to speak to us, she's the only member of the public left, so--
Page 59
161 145
December 9,2008
MR. McDAN]EL: She was our record keeper during the East of95].
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm sure she's probably got opinions, but whether you want to express them or not,
it's up to you.
Okay, it's public comment period, but if therels no --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I make a suggestion that somebody buy him lunch, because he didn't get lunch today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I didn't plan to be here.
Okay, is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRA]N: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We are adjourned. Thank you all.
*****
There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:41 p.m.
COLLI
.V~/
MARK
These minutes approved by the board on. \ - (')- -e+) as
presented V'or as corrected .
~- "-
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nortingharn.
Page 60
161 1 WP
December 17,2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
Fiala ~~~CTORS' LICENSING BOARD
Halas . 4<.' OF COLLIER COUNTY RECEIVED
Henning 1 .
Coyle v / Naples, Florida JAN 2 I 2009
Coletta ~/ December 17, 2008 ""amOfGountyComm,SSioners
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractor Licensing
Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 10:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at
Collier County Development Services Center, 2800 North Horseshoe
Drive, Room 609-619, Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN:
Les Dickson
Richard Joslin
Eric Guite' (Absent)
Lee Horn
Terry Jerulle
Thomas Lykos
Michael Boyd
Glenn Herriman (Absent)
ALSO PRESENT:
Patrick Neale, Attorney for the CLB
. Mise Corres:
Robert Zachary, ASSIstant County Attorney
Michael Ossorio, Zoning & Land Developmgm-Rc;v ic;w
Item #
D~ I 0 lo';Y
l0ItJ)A- b
Page 1
Copies to:
161 1 ~
December 17,2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning. I'd like to call to order
the meeting of the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board,
December 17th, 2008.
Anyone who would like to -- that appears before this Board and
would like to make an appeal will need a verbatim record of that
proceeding, which is being taken.
I'd like to start with roll call to my right.
MR. JERULLE: Terry Jerulle.
MR. L YKOS: Tom Lykos.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Les Dickson.
MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin.
MR. HORN: Lee Horn.
MR. BOYD: Michael Boyd.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So we have six, and two absent.
We do have a vacancy on the Board. Vacancy still exists for a
consumer, which we would love to get filled. The only requirement is
that they live within the City of Naples, right?
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: City -- Naples corporate city limits,
because it is a representative -- good morning, Mr. Zachary.
MR. ZACHARY: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It is the representative from the City
of Naples.
Second requirement is that you have never had any association
with the construction industry in any way, shape or form.
So if anyone's interested, we would sure like to have them
contact Sue Filson and fill out a form.
Any additions or deletions to the minutes?
Ian?
MR. JACKSON: Ian Jackson, License Compliance Officer for
Collier County.
We have one addition under discussion after the vote on new
Page 2
1611/>b
December 17,2008
chair. Jennifer Guttuso, discussing the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool
and Spa Safety Act, and which I have some paperwork to distribute, if
the addition is approved.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And Jennifer's here?
MS. GUTTUSO: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, good.
No more changes. Do I hear a motion to approve the agenda as
amended?
MR. JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Second, Dickson.
All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Have you had a chance to read the
minutes? I need either changes that you may have encountered or an
approval as they're written.
MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we approve
the minutes as written.
MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Done.
Discussion. Discussion of citation procedures.
Page 3
161
Itw
December 17,2008
I'll let you take the floor on that, County.
MR. OSSORIO: Hang on, Mr. Chairman.
Sorry about that, Mr. Dickson.
For the record, Mike Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervisor.
Welcome.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning.
MR. OSSORIO: Good morning.
I wanted to discuss just a quick bulletin about the discussion of
the citation procedure. I know that we've been issuing citations for
about 10 years. And of that 10 years, we've probably issued 4,000 to
4,500 citations.
Of that 4,000 citations we've issued over the last couple of years,
there are about 400 outstanding. And out of that 400, 129 or 160, I
believe, have been issued in '08. So there seems to be a little bit of
issue of noncompliance in issuing citations for the '08 year.
And we brought on Karen Clements. I don't know if you're
familiar with Karen Clements. She was in licensing before. She has
just started working with us and she is heading up our citation
procedure. And also she's going to be doing investigations and
obviously going out there on unlicensed activities as well.
So we added a staff member, which is good news, thanks to Bob
Dunn, that we are at full staff now.
And just wanted to let you know that you'll see something on the
agenda in the upcoming months, hopefully will be on the consent
agenda, we're going to be -- start doing on the consent. In other words,
when you approve the agenda, the consent will be approved. And at
the end of the meeting we'll have the chairman sign off on the orders
for proceeding with the clerk's office for the citation process.
So I want to let you aware of that's what we're going to be doing
the upcoming months.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody have any questions?
MR. JOSLIN: Are these citations factors you're talking about,
Page 4
161 1 AlP
December 17,2008
these citations that have not been paid? Is that what you're talking
about?
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct.
MR. JOSLIN: So there's 120 of them out there that have been
cited and not --
MR. OSSORIO: I would say over 120 to 160. I'm not sure, I
haven't really looked at it. But it seems to be a lot more issue in '08,
maybe due to the fact of the economy, whatever it is. But we need to
go ahead and start getting the procedure.
And we've had a procedure, it's just that we haven't had the
means or know how to do it. But obviously I sat down with the county
attorney and the board's attorney and we've corne up with a good
solution we're going to be starting hopefully in the next month or two.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, that's a big number.
MR. JOSLIN: Yes, it is. At $300 a -- most of the citations are
about $300 apiece, aren't they?
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, most of them are $300 apiece.
MR. JOSLIN: Sizeable amount of money.
MR. JERULLE: Do you have a list?
MR. OSSORIO: We have a list.
MR. JERULLE: Is it a public record of--
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, we have -- that's all public information.
If somebody wishes to get that, we'll do it for you.
So the policy's there, the procedure is there, and we're waiting on
just a confirmation from the county attorney and then we're going to
start proceeding. And I think we're going to get a lot of compliance.
Some citations we're going to be issue (sic) that no matter what
we do or what the Board does, we're just not going to collect. That's --
and I don't know how the Board feels about after we go through this
whole procedure on foreclosing on something that's going to cost us
more money to do than what it's worth.
So we'll corne to that bridge when we get there. But right now
Page 5
,161 1 {4w
December 17,2008
we're in the final stages of actually implementing this policy, so I
think it's going to be -- it's a good policy and I think we're going to get
good compliance with it.
MR. LYKOS: Good.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, next is vote on chairmanship
for the upcoming year. After six years as your chairman, we've gone
to a yearly chairmanship and a yearly vice-chairman, which will be
elected each December. They will serve starting in January of the new
year through December of the same year.
I've already noticed a change on this Board. It's more vibrant that
way. It's the way the County Commissioners do it. Instead of listening
to the same old guy all the time, a new voice, new face.
So with that, I will entertain nominations for chairmanship for
the year 2009.
MR. L YKOS: Mr. Chair, I nominate Mr. Joslin for chair for
2009.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I second that. Mr. Joslin has been vice
chair for the last six years.
MR. JOSLIN: It's been a pleasure.
MR. OSSORIO: And he still can't get it right, right?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He just talks a different language.
MR. JOSLIN: That's what the recorder said, Ijust talk fast.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other nominations?
(No response.)
MR. JOSLIN: I would like to -- are we just on chairman now?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, never mind.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor ofMr. Joslin,
signify by saying aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
Page 6
161 lW
December 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Unanimous.
Congratulations.
MR. JOSLIN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Nomination for vice-chairman.
MR. JERULLE: I nominate Tom Lykos.
MR. JOSLIN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We could do campaigning. I mean--
we could put signs up, whatever you want.
MR. JOSLIN: Can I sell him?
MR. L YKOS: Let's not go there.
MR. JOSLIN: I'm only kidding.
MR. JERULLE: Are you from Illinois?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Can you believe that? Absolutely
shocking.
MR. JOSLIN: Really. That is amazing.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's not all he sold either.
Interesting.
Okay, no other nominations, then I'll move for a vote. All those
in favor ofMr. Lykos?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed?
(No response.)
Page 7
16 I l.fJo
December 17,2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Also unanimous.
Congratulations, gentlemen.
MR. L YKOS: Thank you.
MR. JOSLIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I know you'll serve well. Now I can
start hushing my mouth. I'm sure many people will enjoy that.
MR. JOSLIN: Before we go any farther, as the new acting
chairman, I would like to just extend our greatest appreciation and
gratitude, Mr. Dickson, for the past years that you have been
chairman. And it has been a pleasure, I'm sure from all the Board
members and myself as the vice-chairman, to have served under you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you.
MR. L YKOS: Yes, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you.
It's nice. I'm still staying on the Board, though, so you can't get
rid of me.
MR. JOSLIN: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Jennifer Guttuso. It's now her
time.
MS. GUTTUSO: Good morning. How are you? My name is
Jennifer Guttuso. I'm the supervisor for the pool program for the
Collier County Health Department.
I'm sorry?
MR. OSSORIO: Spell your name.
MS. GUTTUSO: Oh, I'm sorry. G-U-T-T-U-S-O.
I'm here to talk about the Virginia Graeme Baker Act, briefly.
The first thing I wanted to set out there is that we as the Collier
County Health Department are actually a state office. We're called
Collier County Health Department because that's our area of
jurisdiction. We actually are a state office, though.
This Virginia Graeme Baker Act is actually a federal
congressionally enacted law, but we have been asked by the CPSC,
Page 8
161 1 #
December 17, 2008
who's administering the law, to help them enact this. They simply
don't have the manpower to do so.
So we're trying to get the word out to -- so that the contractors
know what's going on, what's expected of them, what is allowed, what
is not allowed.
So very briefly, Virginia Graeme Baker was a seven-year-old
girl who on June 15th of2002 was at a pool party. She got stuck on
the main drain grate of a spa in a residential spa in somebody's
backyard and consequently drowned. It took them 10 minutes to get
her off that grate.
For those of you that don't know, the main drain is the big grate,
the big hole, usually in the deepest part of the pool. Unfortunately
when you're talking about spas or wading pools, which are about 12
inches deep for the little kids, they're actually not that far away from
the children and arms and legs and should they fall and land on them
and things like that.
Virginia Graeme's grandfather was the former Secretary of State
James Baker. And her mother went on to lobby for safer laws in terms
of pools and spas that are on direct suction so that things like this
wouldn't happen.
As she was lobbying, not a lot was happening, although there
were a couple other children getting hurt.
What happened was there was a young child in I believe it was
Minnesota in a wading pool and had fallen and landed on the main
drain grat and was disemboweled, and that kind of spurred them. What
they did was they took this act and they buried it an extremely
comprehensive energy bill, so it actually passed through.
The law was signed into effect on December 19th of 2007. And
basically what it did was it described a minimum safety standard for
new drain covers that would be used to cover these drains so that
children would not become entrapped in terms of their body getting
stuck, because of the suction, and fingers couldn't get in and hair
Page 9
161
11\W
December 17,2008
couldn't get in and vortex around where people would be drowning.
The law gave them a year for compliance. The problem was that
they -- the minimum standard that they set out was not finished being
written yet. So by the time that safety standard was written, there was
already four or five months of that year of compliance gone.
The problem we're having now is once the standard was written,
five months behind the ball, now the manufacturers could go out and
manufacture it. But then they have to go through the testing period and
the approval process.
So now that the law is out there and it goes into effect on Friday,
physically these grates are not out there to be gotten, okay? And that's
part of the problem that we're having.
The act, the Virginia Graeme Baker Act, names it as a consumer
product safety law. So the entire law is being overseen and enforced
by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. They have
acknowledged that these drains are very difficult to get.
And so what they're doing, or what they say they are doing, is
that they will be doing their inspections on a complaint only basis for
now until they can kind of get their ducks in a row in terms of how
they will get out there to enforce this.
They're putting an emphasis on the pools and spas that cater
towards the children: The interactive pools where the water shoots up
and the kids run through them, the wading pools which are about 12
inches deep that the kids play in, and the spas. Because these are the
ones that are most dangerous for the children.
If anybody has any information or -- I'm sorry, is looking for any
information, it's -- they actually have a website. It's
WWW.CPsc.Gov. And they're outlining what they're doing there.
There's also a secondary portion of this act that requires a
secondary device on systems that have only one main drain. And this
is where the licensing board kind of gets into it. There's a list of five
secondary devices. Now, the State of Florida only recognizes one of
Page 10
161 1 14
December 17, 2008
them. It's called a collector tank, which puts the pool on a gravity feed
so the pump isn't sucking directly from the drain. Really cuts down on
the amount of suction.
But there are four other choices out there that the CPSC will
allow.
The state, once our code is revised, and we expect that to come
out in the middle of February, beginning of March, is only recognizing
one of those and that is that collector tank. So the other four devices
that are being installed are not recognized by the State of Florida.
So the contractors can go out, install these devices. They don't
need to be approved by us, they don't need to be inspected by us. And
with the Consumer Product Safety Commission not coming out, really
nobody's looking at these devices that are being installed. And what
we're finding out or what we're realizing as this law draws closer and
people are really starting to panic, while these devices are required to
be installed by a commercially licensed contractor, we're finding that a
lot of the contractors out there are not aware of the limits of their
licensing.
The -- on the federa11eve1 what it says is that any pool contractor
can install these devices. That includes residential. The county has
some limiting laws that override that, however, saying only
commercially licensed people can work on commercial pools. And
that's where we're running into some problem.
We as the health department have exposure to most of the
commercially licensed pool contractors out there, simply because we
interact with them. We have very little interaction with the
residentially licensed people.
And what we're finding is the residentially licensed people are
reading the act and kind of interpreting it their own way. And while it
does make sense, there are some gross misinterpretations out there that
I'm afraid are not going to have the safety effect that we're looking for,
as well as cost the consumers and residential people out there a lot of
Page 11
161 1#
December 17,2008
money that they really don't need to be spending.
Which is part of why I'm here, to get that commercial licensing
issue out there. But we also wanted to get out the effects of this act
and what it is that we're afraid of.
The health department does have a little bit stricter standards on
the drain covers that are being installed. And we do have a website out
there. We've tried to get that out to everyone so that they're aware of
what's approved and what's not.
If the contractors are putting on a drain cover that is federally
approved but is not state approved, we as the state, when the
inspectors go out, will be closing those pools. Because those drain
covers will be limiting the flow of the pool, will be limiting the
sanitation of the pool and start the safety issue on a whole nother
level. So we're trying to get some information out there.
Again, the health department really only deals with commercial
pools. And that's about it.
Any questions?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you very much.
MR. JOSLIN: Thank you, Jennifer.
MR. OSSORIO: Jennifer, I do have one question. I'm sorry.
On a level of licensing as a building review and permitting as in
permits, do you foresee that the building department will be getting
involved in issuing building permits for these drains?
MS. GUTTUSO: I don't believe so. It's not really a structural
change, so I don't think it's really something that the county will be
getting involved in. I do think -- as I was speaking with Rick, I do
think that there will be some changes or some addressing in the
residential permitting side of it in terms of when the spas are being
built as new spas.
But to take an existing spa or pool and just change the drain
cover, it's literally unscrewing four screws and screwing something
back. So I really don't think that the building department would need
Page 12
161
1#
December 17, 2008
to get involved in that.
MR. OSSORIO: Another question is, is that when you're
building a commercial swimming pool, that's one of the things that the
building inspector is going to look at, or is that something that you're
going to be inspecting?
MS. GUTTUSO: Actually, both. We as the state come out after
the piping is done and after they've set up the concrete shell and we
inspect the piping, we also come back after everything is finished.
And then we final it.
Once it's finaled, we take over all the inspections.
But my understanding is the county is out there when the piping
is first put in. They then come back out after the cement structure is
set up while the piping is under pressure, they do an inspection then.
And they come out at the end. I believe they do sanitary facilities and
fences at the end.
So the county is involved in the building process of it. Once it's
done being built, they then drop out and the state takes over. On the
commercial pools anyway.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay. And my last question is, you had
mentioned something about a collection tank equalizing. Is that
something we're going to get involved with permit-wise, or no?
Because that's adding service or adding to the pump house.
MS. GUTTUSO: Well, the ones that have to be retrofitted, it
will have to be permitted. I don't believe that the building department
gets involved in that. I think that is considered a repair or modification
and comes directly through our office in the state.
For the most part, I believe it was 1983 or '84 where the State of
Florida required that all new pools at that point be built with a
collector tank. So for the most part, most of the pools out there already
have them. However, there are some still in direct suction that will
have to be retrofitted.
Those plans are reviewed by our engineer and approved at the
Page 13
16 I l/W
December 17, 2008
state level.
I think they do building permits over here, though, in terms of
where they're digging and where they'll be placing these pits. Because
the pits do extend down into the ground. But I don't know what
inspections are done by the county on that level.
MR. OSSORlO: Okay, thank you.
MR. JOSLIN: One last comment. I'll just interject here, only
because I think it's -- everyone's wondering, probably on the Board,
too, of why that -- and I was the one that brought this to the attention.
First of all was because of the media coverage that I'm sure that we're
going to give on TV. Only because to let the public be aware of what's
going on with this particular act, since it is a federal act.
And the second thing is because of the licensing issue that we
have here in Collier County.
Michael Ossorio and I have been in conversation for the past two
weeks about this. And it appears, now, I'm not 100 percent certain but
I'm pretty positive, that we have a conflict of ordinance regarding our
ordinance, a swimming pool contractor/servicing repair companies
versus the state statute of 489.
And the way that the actual law has come out from the HRS says
that any licensed pool contractor can do the service. Which the State
of Florida 489 says that there are only three classifications of licenses.
There are only commercial, residential contractors or a pool/spa
servicing contractor, according to 489.
In our code, in our ordinance, it lists a forth license, which is a
residential pool/spa servicing contractor only.
The difference is is that the servicing contractor can only
maintain pools. This was a license that we issued I believe in the
ordinance change last year, which kept a licensed contractor able to
only go out and service pools, but not repair pools.
According to the code now, we have -- the code says that a
licensing service contractor. Well, apparently the State of Florida now
Page 14
161 1/0P
December 17, 2008
has overridden us to a degree and now our ordinance is really at a
moot point. And this is something that we probably need to bring up
for discussion down the road or in our ordinance change for the
coming year, put on the agenda to maybe modify it or change it.
And this is just terminology in the ordinance. But you can see
how it would affect Collier County license versus a state certified
license.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is that it? Thank you very much.
MS. GUTTUSO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Moving on. New business. Edwidge
Bourdeau, are you present?
Yes, sir, if you would, come up to this podium. If you would,
state your name and then I'll have this pretty lady swear you in.
MR. BOURDEAU: My name is Edwidge Bourdeau.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You're going to have to talk louder
than you did. You hear my level at this point? That's what I need to
hear. Okay?
You're wanting to be -- you're here to reinstate your license
without retesting. Looks to me like you've been in Port St. Lucie all
this time; is that correct?
MR. BOURDEAU: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Louder.
MR. BOURDEAU: Yes. Well, I had my office up here, and then
I decided to move it in Port St. Lucie, since I live in Port St. Lucie. So,
you know, I went down there, have met all the requirements down
there.
And from the county here, I don't believe I ever receive any
notice stated that I was supposed to renew up here. But I've been
doing that in Port St. Lucie.
And as you know, as an electrician you have to continue your
education every two years, and I've been doing that. But I never knew
Page 15
161 1 *V
December 17, 2008
that if I'm not doing business in this area I will have to, you know,
continue to renew it every year.
As soon as I did find out that I had to do that, then I called here.
And then they told me, you know, this is what -- this was my situation.
But I have -- like I said, I've maintained insurance, I've done
everything that I was supposed to down in Port St. Lucie.
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Bourdeau, I have a question for you. On your
packet here, I'm looking at four different Department of Business and
Professional Regulation licenses that you have in your possession.
MR. BOURDEAU: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: Have you ever read one of those?
MR. BOURDEAU: If! have read them?
MR. JOSLIN: Have you read the license itself, a copy of the
license? It gives --
MR. BOURDEAU: Somewhat.
MR. JOSLIN: -- you the ability to -- as an ER number, to be able
to work as a registered electrical contractor as Bourdeau Electric and
Power Electrical Company.
Also, it says very clearly at the bottom of that license, the
individual must meet all local licensing requirements prior to
contracting in any area.
MR. BOURDEAU: Yes, I understand that. But like I said, since
I had -- I moved to Port St. Lucie, so to my understanding I met the
requirements down there. But I didn't know I had to maintain it going
up here when I wasn't going in business here. That's my main problem
that I didn't know. And I'm sorry about that.
MR. L YKOS: Mr. Ossorio, how long has the license been lapsed
here in Collier County?
MR. OSSORlO: More than 18 months. And more than -- and he
hasn't taken the exact within three years. But it's always been a policy
of the Board, especially when you deal with a state registered
contractor, whatever it might be, building, residential, electrical or
Page 16
De~~b:r 17,~oofli
mechanical. He has kept up -- he is current with the state registration.
He has obviously let the county lapse. And unfortunately we don't
have any jurisdiction to reissue it, so he has to apply to the licensing
board.
I have no objections. He's done all his CU credit hours, he's
licensed in the State of Florida, and I recommend that we approve it
and pay all back penalties and fees.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And I agree with that. I mean, I'm
sitting here -- I understand what you're saying, and I understand what
you're saying, but he moved out of the area, but he still maintained his
license; he still maintained with the state and the local county. Didn't
maintain with the county back where he originated the license. And I
might have been confused about that as well.
So as long as you're not opposed to paying back penalties and
fees, I don't see a problem either.
MR. JERULLE: I have a question. Your insurance certificate
shows you have general liability insurance?
MR. BOURDEAU: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: Do you have auto insurance?
MR. BOURDEAU: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: Because it doesn't show it on the certificate that
I have.
MR. BOURDEAU: Because this is a new certificate. And I'm
not -- right now the business is slow and I'm not using the vehicles, so
-- I only got -- as a matter of fact, I only got one van.
MR. JERULLE: How about Workmen's Compensation? I didn't
see in that either.
MR. BOURDEAU: We had that back then also.
MR. JERULLE: Is that in the package?
MR. BOURDEAU: If you want to verify, you can--
MR. JERULLE: Did I miss it?
MR. JOSLIN: No, I have an exemption form I found.
Page 17
16 I 114
December 17, 2008
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, there's a -- the state requires him to have
a Workers Compo policy or be Workers Compo exempt.
MR. JERULLE: I didn't see --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Auto is not our concern.
MR. JOSLIN: The exemption form that I'm looking at here
shows that he's exempt, but yet on the company background
information, it shows the number of employees being as two.
Do you have other employees that are listed on here that
shouldn't have been?
MR. BOURDEAU: Yes, I used to. Right now I don't have any
employees at all. Since business is, you know, so slow.
MR. JOSLIN: At this time I'll go along with Mr. Dickson's
thoughts on the approval of the license, but I would want to make sure
that staff has definitely a knowledge of the W orkrnen's Compensation
or if he has more than one employee, because it's very ambiguous here
as far as the number of employees versus the exemption form.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I make a motion to approve --
MR. JOSLIN: I second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- reinstatement without retesting.
MR. JOSLIN: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion?
MR. L YKOS: I guess I would ask that we also require that all
the back fees be paid to get current.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. And I'll add that to the motion.
Any more discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Call for the vote. All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. QUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
Page 18
161 1 ~
December 17,2008
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Unanimous.
Now, you can't do this today, because all your stuff is in here.
You have to come back tomorrow, okay? And then go see Maggie. All
right? Wish you well.
MR. BOURDEAU: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Myron Smith, are you there?
Good morning, sir.
MR. SMITH: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If you would, come up and state your
name, I'll have you sworn in also.
MR. SMITH: I'm Myron Smith.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You got a citation for what? Engaging
in business as a contractor or advertising --
MR. L YKOS: Tree trimming.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- tree trimming without being duly
registered or certified. And you would like to protest that citation.
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Floor's yours.
MR. SMITH: I've been a licensed contractor in Collier County
for 17 years, I guess it is. I'm not sure exactly. A long time. And I had
-- it had lapsed. It wasn't that I -- I guess at the time it lapsed I was
unlicensed, and I do admit that.
We've had a large struggle in our house which caused our office
-- we have our office in our house, in our den, and we had a leak in the
wall and the whole kitchen, dining room and den had to be taken out.
And so we had to -- it disrupted our whole household, our whole
office.
And I have also with me proof of that what I'm saying, with the
Page 19
, 16 I 1 fJp
December 17, 2008
mold in the house and our whole house getting -- and I had just -- in
the chaos, along with my wife that during this time just got -- I don't
want to blame it all on her, but she -- it was a tough time physically
and emotionally with the whole house getting disrupted. And I
overlooked getting my license renewed at the proper time. And that's
what happened.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, I'll be honest with you, I'll be
real blunt. I don't care for people that come in here and blame it on
their wives.
MR. SMITH: I'm not.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You're the license holder.
MR. SMITH: I am.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
She usually does all the paperwork and does all that. And that
was why -- you know, I'm not trying to blame it on my wife. It is my
responsibility, absolutely.
MR. JOSLIN: Could we have Mr. Kennette to say exactly what
he saw the day of the citation?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. Mr. Kennessa (sic)?
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. KENNETTE: My name is Allen Kennette, Contractor
Licensing Compliance Officer.
What I actually saw was the -- out on Ditch Apple Lane, the
gentleman was by a tree, sharpening his saw and getting it ready to do
some more cutting. He had a lot of stuff down. There was another
worker there with him removing debris that he had cut down. They
were loading it onto a trailer. So I -- he had no markings or anything
on his truck.
I asked him for his license; he said he did have one. Produced
one, and I informed him that it had expired 9/30 of '08, that he hadn't
renewed it yet and we were in October already. And he just said that
Page 20
16\ lA-~
December 17,2008
he had not proper time to get down and do it. He knew he needed to
do it. He's been in business for 17 years. And I said well, you know, it
needs to be renewed every year at this time, you've been doing it right
along. And he said well, he's had some problems at home and that he
would take care of it as soon as possible.
I did issue him the citation for working with an unproperly
registered license.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Have you since renewed the license?
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. Immediately, the next day.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody else have any questions?
MR. BOYD: Is he licensed as a tree trimmer?
MR. KENNETTE: Yes, he is. He has a landscaping restricted,
which includes tree trimming.
MR. JOSLIN: How about the insurance requirements?
MR. KENNETTE: The -- he's Workers Compo exempt. And he
did have liability insurance. On the form that I had shows it was
renewed for 1/31 of2009.
MR. JERULLE: How long has he had his license?
MR. KENNETTE: License was issued in 1995.
MR. JERULLE: '95. Has it ever lapsed prior to this?
MR. KENNETTE: As far as I know, according to our system, it
wasn't that far back, I haven't seen anything on him on not renewing it.
We only go back so far without really pulling the records out ofIron
Mountain. But as far as we have ours, it showed that he has paid every
year, except for this one time.
MR. JERULLE: Mr. Smith, has it ever lapsed before?
MR. SMITH: No, sir.
MR. L YKOS: I make a motion that we uphold the citation.
MR. JOSLIN: I second the motion.
And also, I think staff needs to dig into the license that he does
reinstate and -- or uphold, I'm sorry, upholding this citation, but dig
into his insurance qualifications. If he's got two men working on the
Page 21
161
lAu
December 17, 2008
job, or himself plus another man, right, in tree trimming, I would think
he would need some type of insurance, Workmen's Compo or
something to protect those men.
MR. OSSORIO: The code is pretty ambiguous referencing a tree
service. If you are just trimming a tree, it's considered
non-construction, you can have up to three employees with no
insurance. If you're actually on a construction site and you're actually
cutting the tree down, then you will fall under the category of
construction. So we take that into account when we go out there.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. SMITH: I was just trimming trees.
MR. KENNETTE: The other worker wasn't working, he was just
MR. JOSLIN: Loading?
MR. KENNETTE: -- removing trees that he had already cut
down, the branches.
MR. JOSLIN: My second still stands then.
MR. L YKOS: The reason I think we need to uphold the citation
is I think we start to get into a gray area when we say how long has it
been, how long have you been in the community. You know, it
expires, these are the rules we've established. And we start being
subjective with the decision-making --
MR. JOSLIN: That many years in business--
MR. L YKOS: -- then we might as well change the rules. So let's
just keep the rules the way they are and uphold the rules that we have.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm just the opposite. We're in
discussion mode. I guess I've got Christmas spirit or something. I
mean, 17 years and he's never done it before. And he did -- your
redeeming grace was you went and got the license renewed the next
day. So I was going to give him a reprieve.
MR. SMITH: I'd appreciate that.
MR. JERULLE: I agree. I mean, if -- the reason there is a board
Page 22
16 1 IMP
December 17, 2008
is to be subjective in some cases. Otherwise, Mr. Ossorio could handle
it. I think the history has a great deal to do with it.
MR. JOSLIN: But a history also has to do with the fact that ifhe
has been in business for 17 years, then obviously he knows he has to
renew that license. He knows he has to be qualified to do this work. I
mean, because he does it the next day, well, okay, he's done it, but--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. And it only over-lapsed what, a
couple of weeks?
MR. SMITH: Right.
MR. JOSLIN: I can understand your thoughts.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's why we have a board and that's
why we vote.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, the motion is to -- the citation
will stand. Call for the vote. All those in favor? Show of hands.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those opposed?
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, citation is dropped. Because
the vote was that it stands, you didn't get a majority. Right, legalese?
Mr. Suits?
MR. NEALE: Yeah, you got it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And even though it was a tie vote, the
motion was that the citation stands. Didn't gain a majority, so a tie
goes to you as well.
So just don't let it happen again, and --
MR. SMITH: It won't.
Page 23
16\ l.fttl
December 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- say Merry Christmas.
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: See you later.
I've got Christmas spirit today.
MR. JOSLIN: Yes, you do. That's okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, my, I'm going to get this right.
Last name's easy, Ortega. Nahamani?
MR. ORTEGA: Nahamani.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Close, wasn't I?
MR. JOSLIN: That's pretty good.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning.
MR. ORTEGA: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If you would, state your name, spell
the name for her and I'll have you sworn in.
MR. ORTEGA: Nahamani Ortega. N-A-H-A-M-A-N-I.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, so we got some questions on
your experience when you applied for a license, correct?
MR. ORTEGA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Which ones are they? Which
one got kicked up?
MR. ORTEGA: The one under Genuine Homebuilders, Ms.
Kimberly Todd.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, if you look on the verification
experience, I did call Kimberly Todd, and she does not -- she
unfortunately does not know Mr. Ortega. She knows, I believe, your
brother that we have no knowledge of. And Mr. -- Mrs. Todd was kind
of embarrassed by it and took aback by it, because she was assuming
it was for Mr. Ortega. And she was kind of upset about it.
And I told her that unfortunately this gentleman has
misrepresented himself on the licensing application, so I was not able
to come to a conclusion about issuing him the certificate. So I wrote
Page 24
16 \ 1M
December 17,2008
him a letter telling him that he must apply to the licensing board for
the license.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And that's that one -- I'm
hoping I've got the right one here.
MR. OSSORIO: It should be circled with a question.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, there we go. I'm with you.
Okay, tell us what happened here.
MR. ORTEGA: All right. Ms. Kimberly Todd does know who I
am, obviously because my brother and I work for the same company.
And we used to work together as a pair. It's just the misunderstanding
was she thought she was signing for him.
My brother tells me that when he talked to her, he did explain to
her that it would be -- you know, the signature would be for me.
Because he's known her for many more years, he's got more friendship
with her. So, you know, he took the liberty of talking to her, see if she
would do that for me.
I mean, she does know who I am. Just obviously there was a
misunderstanding with the whole thing of who she signed for.
MR. OSSORIO: But Mr. Ortega, when I talked to Mrs.
Kimberly Todd, you can look on the years of experience from 2005 to
2008, she was under the impression she was signing for your brother.
She said she wouldn't have signed for you because she didn't know
your work and you just started working for the company. That's only
going verbatim what she told me.
MR. ORTEGA: Right, I understand.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did you call on the other two, Mr.
Ossorio?
MR. OSSORIO: No, I did not.
MR. JOSLIN: Also in the packet there's two other forms in the
packet that aren't even completed. One of them's an affidavit of
integrity and good character. And then also the second one is a
resolution of authorization, showing the business name and partners.
Page 25
16 \ 1~
December 17, 2008
And none of those are filled out. Is there a reason why those weren't
filled out?
MR. ORTEGA: Yeah, Maggie put an "X" on those. I think--
yeah, you can tell on the top right. Because I've already had the
license with Collier County, a fencing contractor's license.
So I guess she crossed that out. I guess you didn't need to do it
again, I would imagine that's why she did that.
MR. OSSORIO: That is a procedure issue, and we'll address that
when -- the time of application.
If the gentleman already has a license, we tend -- he does not
have to sign another good character reference. And if he owns more
than 51 percent of the company, then therefore he doesn't need an
authorization letter from the company because he is the company. So
there's certain things we do procedure-wise in the office, but --
MR. JOSLIN: Okay. Maybe a stamp or something that's already
on file or something, so we know.
MR. OSSORIO: Excellent.
MR. L YKOS: Mr. Ortega, in understand correctly, you have a
fence license now?
MR. ORTEGA: Yes, sir.
MR. L YKOS: And you want to get a license for installing
shower doors or for windows and glazing? What is it you're trying to
get a license for?
MR. ORTEGA: Yes, for shower doors and mirrors. Just -- I
mean, since the way things are with the fencing and construction, I've
got the experience with glass and the mirrors, I figured I'd also pull
that and try to get some more income coming in. That was the purpose
of trying to get this other license.
MR. L YKOS: So you've been doing fencing with your own
company and you've been doing shower doors and mirrors working --
MR. ORTEGA: Yes.
MR. L YKOS: -- for somebody else or on your own as well?
Page 26
16\
1MP
December 17,2008
MR. ORTEGA: Yes. Yes, I started doing the fencing. I ended up
having to do it weekends or after work, because with the little work
that was coming. So I started doing the shower doors for the company,
correct.
MR. L YKOS: And what company were you working for doing
shower doors and mirrors?
MR. ORTEGA: First in Miami Gardens with Best Price Glass
and Mirror, which is -- the owner changed now anyways. And now --
well, not anymore, with Creative Glass was my last employer.
MR. L YKOS: How come we don't have affidavits from either of
those companies to verifY your experience and your background?
MR. ORTEGA: Employers are not going to sign that for you. I
mean, they know you're going to be their competition eventually, so --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Not in Miami Gardens.
MR. ORTEGA: Well, I couldn't get ahold of him because he
sold his business. And my understanding was he moved away. So that
-- I was trying to get ahold of him, I figured maybe he would sign it.
But that's been a problem trying to get ahold of him.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The problem is the fact remains you're
-- the one we called on is a bust. Okay?
MR. ORTEGA: I understand.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's gone, it's over with. We didn't
call on the other two. So we don't--
MR. L YKOS: And the other two are builders, they're not glass
compames.
MR. ORTEGA: Right. My understanding was supervising, you
know, the work. These builders supervise the work while they're there,
you know, and you're doing the job. Correct?
MR. L YKOS: Well, I would personally like to see if you worked
for a glass company, a glass company that could verify your expertise.
MR. ORTEGA: My question. What if my former employer
doesn't want to do it? What ifhe doesn't want to sign it?
Page 27
161
1~
December 17,2008
MR. JOSLIN: Why would he not want to sign it for you? I
mean, if he wants to see you get ahead, I'm sure --
MR. ORTEGA: 90 percent of the time I know plenty of, you
know, people that have pulled licenses and their employers won't get it
-- you know, they won't give it to them because eventually they know
that they're going to have to go up against them. So, you know -- not
all of them, but a lot of times that's how it is.
MR. L YKOS: You tell Bev and Lance I want to see a letter from
Bev and Lance.
MR. ORTEGA: Okay.
MR. LYKOS: Okay?
MR. ORTEGA: Will do.
MR. OSSORIO: My understanding is, is when I talked to the
Creative Glass, and I'm going to paraphrase this, that you left on bad
terms, supposedly. And I'm not saying quoting. But maybe you didn't
leave on bad terms, but your brother did, because your brother is the
one who has all the experience who's actually been working in Collier
County. You've worked in Miami-Dade and I don't doubt that.
But this is your brother's affidavits. How come your brother's not
taking the exam?
MR. ORTEGA: He is. He's taking it next month.
MR. OSSORIO: My recommendation is is that your brother--
MR. ORTEGA: The reason -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. OSSORIO: My recommendation is that you withdraw this
application, have your brother take the exam and use these affidavits
and we'll -- I'll review it and see where we're at and go for it.
MR. ORTEGA: It would definitely be the easiest way. My
brother's already contacted a former employer and he said he would
SIgn.
So, I mean, in regards with me getting the other experience, from
my other former employer, most likely it's not going to happen.
And in leaving with bad terms with Creative Glass, we didn't. I
Page 28
161 1 ~(p
December 17, t008
mean, when he let us go, we talked about it, it was okay. I explained to
him why we did it. You know, he kept mentioning he's going to close
down his business, you know. And his reason was, well, I was just
upset every time I said it. Yeah, but, you know, I've got to watch out
for my family, you know, and I've got to -- you know, I've got to make
sure that I don't get stayed out in the street.
So if they're something that I know how to do, I'm going to try to
get a license for that. Obviously it's a conflict of interest, but who
wouldn't do it in my position?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, anybody ready to make a
motion?
Or do you want to withdraw your application?
MR. ORTEGA: I wouldn't want to, but it's up to you guys.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, then we'll take care of it.
I make a motion that we deny the request to approve the
experience affidavit and the application be denied.
MR. JOSLIN: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion?
MR. JOSLIN: I would feel that ifhe could get together some
more applications or some more affidavits that were correct and were
legal and Mr. Ossorio could check on them, that maybe we would
reconsider it again. But at this point, no.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You've just got to do it again. This
one ain't gonna fly.
MR. ORTEGA: No, I understand.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, all those in favor--
MR. JERULLE: And the Board -- excuse me. I think the Board
appreciates you coming in for a license as opposed to going out and
doing this work without a license. And I would caution you not to do
that. We do appreciate you coming in, but like the Board has said, I
don't think you meet the qualifications.
MR. ORTEGA: Understand.
Page 29
16 I 1 A-~
December 17,2008
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just for the -- just before you
vote, just make sure Mr. Ortega knows is that -- that he does have a
certificate with our office and we could have charged him on a
misconduct for misrepresenting to the licensing board information that
was submitted today, and we did not do that.
MR. ORTEGA: Understood.
MR. L YKOS: Holiday spirit for everybody.
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. L YKOS: It's going to end come January, though.
MR. JOSLIN: Look out.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I've got one coming up. I haven't seen
yours yet, so we'll see if it continues.
Call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion to deny.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Have a Merry Christmas.
MR. ORTEGA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Sorry it wasn't better.
MR. ORTEGA: That's okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Robert Brogdon, come on up.
Robert, if you would, state your name and I'll have you sworn in
also.
MR. BROGDON: Robert Joe Brogdon.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, you got two citations, right?
MR. BROGDON: Yes, sir.
Page 30
16 I l1\lo
December 17,2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, tell us what happened.
MR. BROGDON: Some friends of ours bought a house. A
young couple, first house they bought. The husband works with my
wife for about three years. They had a little fix-me-up that they
needed a little help in the house.
So I went over and took a look. And needed some help doing a
little demolition. So I thought well, I'll donate a little time to them.
About four days into it, Rob stopped by. And the house was
partially completed to start with. Somebody laid some tile and they
were -- drywall had been done prior to them buying the house.
Well, he come up and said I was laying tile and doing drywall
work, which ain't the fact. So that's about the name of that tune.
So he got me for unlicensed drywaller and laying floor tile,
which I did none of the above. So I deny that.
MR. JOSLIN: What were you doing there? What were you
actually doing there?
MR. BROGDON: A little bit of demolition. Tore out some
cabinets, took up a couple toilets. Just demolition work. No -- replaced
nothing. I did no floor tile or no drywall, period.
MR. L YKOS: But you did plumbing work and carpentry work.
MR. BROGDON: No, I didn't do no carpentry work or -- I
replaced nothing. Just total demolition. Put the cabinets in the garage.
MR. L YKOS: Well, you took cabinets off the walls --
MR. BROGDON: Yes, sir.
MR. L YKOS: -- and turned off the plumbing to the toilets and
pulled the toilets.
MR. BROGDON: Turned off the shut-off valve.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Lykos, I'd like to have Rob Ganguli sworn
in and we'll show you some photographs.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, please.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Go ahead, Rob, I'll have you sworn in.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
Page 31
16 I 1 Au
December 17,2008
MR. GANGULI: For the record, Rob Ganguli, G-A-N-G-U-L-I,
Investigator, Collier County Contractor Licensing.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning.
MR. GANGULI: Good morning, sir, how are you?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good, how are you doing?
MR. GANGULI: My recollection of the incident is as follows:
On October 21st, 2008, I was on the job site at 9741 Campbell Circle
and observed an interior renovation consisting of the initial demolition
and rebuilding of wall openings, plumbing and electrical work and the
replacement of existing flooring.
I met with Mr. Brogdon, who was working on-site, who
informed me that the homeowner was not present. When asked about
the work he was performing, Mr. Brogdon stated he was doing the
demo work, along with the tiling of the flooring, drywall and painting
but was not doing any electrical or plumbing work.
When asked about his licensing information, Mr. Brogdon stated
he did concrete work in Lee County and was doing this job because
his business had slowed.
My on-site research revealed that Mr. Brogdon did have a Lee
County business tax receipt for a concrete pumping business, but no
other licensing information was discovered.
Based on my observations depicted in the photographs, as well
as the information that Mr. Brogdon provided to me, I issued two $300
citations for unlicensed tile/marble work and for unlicensed drywall
work, issued a stop work order and informed the area code
enforcement investigator of the unpermitted plumbing and electrical
work in progress.
I also spoke to the homeowner, Emily Koszinski (phonetic),
about permitting unlicensed contractor requirements.
On November 6th, 2008, I was contacted by Mr. Joel Newman
of the license general contracting company Trinity Project
Management Group, CGC060140, and Collier County Certificate
Page 32
16 I 1 k&
December 17, 2008
30330, who informed me that they had been hired to permit the
necessary work and complete the construction of the residence. Mr.
Newman further informed me that Mr. Brogdon would no longer be
working on the job site.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Questions ofMr. Ganguli?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Response?
MR. BROGDON: Well, it's what it was. I mean, I didn't lay tile
and I didn't do drywall. I mean, I was just donating some time because
they're friends of ours. There wasn't no contract deal, I wasn't getting
paid for this effort at the house. You know, they're good friends. I've
been working with them for three years at work. They were a young
couple fixing to have a baby in January. Trying to expedite the deal a
little bit.
So I guess that's what you get for doing a favor, I don't know.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did she offer to pay for the citations?
MR. BROGDON: They were going to pay for the citations. But
I thought why, you know what I mean, I'll go to the hearing. Yeah,
they were going to pay for it right away. But, I mean, I thought what's
the purpose, you're struggling now to move in a house, you know, and
-- it wasn't no money deal, wasn't no transaction. I contracted to do
this work. I don't know, you know. I think he's making it more out of
something that, you know, it really ain't.
In was contracting to making a salary off this job, it would be
one thing. But, you know, they was just trying to save a little money
and help them out, and he'd do what he can, one of them deals.
MR. JERULLE: You said you didn't do any of the tile work?
MR. BROGDON: No, sir.
MR. JERULLE: Who did the tile work you see in the photos?
MR. BROGDON: That was just a little bit of linoleum. That
wasn't laying no tile. That was some old linoleum that was left in the
house.
Page 33
16 I 1;\(p
December 17, 2008
MR. JERULLE: I see tile work.
MR. BROGDON: That was prior -- the tile work was in the
house when they purchased the house. Some of it was partially
finished. The tile work, there was drywall unfinished. I mean, they had
a -- people went in there and had a report when they bought the house.
There was so much unfinished that probably started in that house and
never completed. I mean, there was a homeowners inspection when
the house -- there was a big '01 list this thick of projects started in the
house, never finished.
But I laid no tile in that home. No drywall. I never told him I
hung drywall or laid tile. The tile was laid all the way through the
living room up to the kitchen and stopped. None I laid.
MR. JERULLE: Would this work require a demolition permit in
the county?
MR. GANGULI: I believe it would. Mr. Ossorio?
MR. BROGDON: I mean, I can see demolition. I did demolition.
I mean, that's -- 1'11-- you know.
MR. JERULLE: Just asking the question here.
MR. OSSORIO: In a perfect scheme of things, what typically
happens when you're doing a remodeling job or you're trying to
explore -- probably Mr. Lykos would probably be more apt to tell us,
that sometimes you do get a demolition permit to take things off the
wall, to do some exploring to see where the electrical work is, where
the plumbing is, and then the demolition permits gets issued, gets
C.O.'d, and then you apply for your main building permit.
And obviously this didn't happen on this particular case.
MR. JERULLE: Well, that's what my question was. There was
no demolition permit?
MR. OSSORIO: There was no permit at all, no.
MR. L YKOS: If! would have stepped in a project like this, the
first thing I would have done was brought the inspectors on-site to
inspect the existing conditions to even know what the scope of work
Page 34
16 I 1 /t;(p
December 17,2008
that needed to be done to make sure that everything that was existing
was up to code.
How can you start into something without knowing what the
existing conditions are, or how code compliant they are?
MR. BROGDON: They had a home inspector come in the
house.
MR. L YKOS: I'm talking about the building department.
MR. BROGDON: Oh, okay. Right.
MR. L YKOS: And I wouldn't be very safe working in the job
where wires are hanging from the ceilings and -- it doesn't appear to
me that a small amount of minor work was done to this project. I
understand that you think there was some work that had already been
done before you got there, but I see tools laying on the floor. This is
not something that somebody stepped into.
What you're trying to imply is that a bunch of work got done,
and the people that did it left their extension cords, their power tools,
their hand tools, their garbage cans and all the demolition material and
just abandoned the job site and you just happened to step in there and
was going to do all this work for free.
MR. BROGDON: I only was there four days, sir.
MR. L YKOS: I understand. But what you're implying is that
other people did work before you got there, and those people brought
on jackhammers and power cords and air guns and compressors and
tore apart this house, and most of that work got done before you got
there to scrape linoleum off the concrete.
MR. BROGDON: No, sir. The only thing I'm saying is I did no
tile work, I did no drywall. Strictly demolition. That's my only
argument.
MR. L YKOS: Well, you're demoing walls and there's bare
framing exposed. You had to take drywall down to do that work.
MR. JOSLIN: Electrical covers over the light sockets, over the
electrical sockets, over the plugs. There's a lot of things in here that
Page 35
16 ~ 1 Aw
December 17, 2008
are being done that should have required a permit for starters, there's
no doubt.
I don't know, I'm under the impression of saying that -- I'm
going to make a motion that the citations stand. Whether or not you
were doing the work there, you were caught there at the job. And I can
tell by Mr. Ganguli's comments that he felt that you were doing that
job, and I think that's enough for us to act on.
MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion?
(No response.)
MR. JOSLIN: Christmas spirit?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I don't know.
MR. BOYD: Robert, did you talk to the homeowner?
MR. GANGULI: I did talk to the homeowner, sir.
MR. BOYD: Was he being paid, or is he actually a friend?
MR. GANGULI: I can't answer that, Mr. Boyd, I'm sorry. I can't
answer that.
The contributing factor to me writing the citations was Mr.
Brogdon's specific admission that he was not doing electrical and
plumbing work. But he was doing the others. He specified that
deliberately. And based on what I observed, I had no reason not to
believe him.
MR. BROGDON: Can I speak? I told him in had time I would
have helped the homeowner do some drywall at one point in time. But
at that point there was no drywall, you know, done in the house. And
he was saying well, you can help the homeowner if the homeowner is
present, you know.
But I'm still saying I'm helping the guys out. You know, this is
not a contract situation where -- I don't know.
MR. JERULLE: Do you have a license in Lee County?
MR. BROGDON: Yes, sir.
MR. JERULLE: And what is the license for?
Page 36
161 1 A~
December 17, 2008
MR. BROGDON: Concrete, pumping.
MR. JERULLE: So you know that certain work needs
requirements for licensing?
MR. BROGDON: Well--
MR. JERULLE: You're aware that you need a license.
MR. BROGDON: Yes, sir.
MR. JERULLE: So being in this house and doing the work that
you were doing, were you not aware that you needed a license for
some of this work?
MR. BROGDON: Well, I was going to do no plumbing--
MR. JERULLE: Whether you're helping somebody --
MR. BROGDON: -- no electrical.
MR. JERULLE: Whether you're helping somebody under a
contract or as a favor, were you not aware that this work needed to be
licensed?
MR. BROGDON: Well, it looked like a handyman list to me. I
mean, you know, there was just raw edges that somebody started a
bunch of projects in this house and never finished.
MR. JERULLE: You're not answering my question, though.
My question is were you not aware that this work required a
permit and to be done by a licensed contractor?
MR. BROGDON: My observation, me just helping them out, no,
sir, I didn't think that, no. No, I didn't.
I mean, if I would have thought that, I wouldn't even got
involved in the deal. It was kind of like, you know, you help deals --
MR. JERULLE: But you're a licensed contractor in Lee County.
MR. BROGDON: Yes, sir. I do concrete. I don't do -- I don't
claim to be a drywaller or none of the above.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Ganguli, just for the record again, when
you talked to this gentleman, he just specified that things were slow
and this is why he was doing this?
MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir.
Page 37
16 I 1 A&
December 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any more discussion?
MR. L YKOS: I have a hard time justifying any circumstances
where this scope of work is being completed without a permit without
a licensed contractor.
MR. JOSLIN: I agree.
MR. JERULLE: Yeah, I agree also.
MR. L YKOS: I don't know what -- any circumstances that you
could justify, I'm somebody's friend and I was -- I can't imagine that
we would recommend as a Board that our county employees allow
this kind of work to go on. I just can't -- I can't envision the
circumstances where we'd allow this to go on.
Electrical, plumbing. How do we know there wasn't structure of
the building being affected?
MR. JOSLIN: One thing for Mr. Ganguli. After you spoke to the
homeowners of the property, you said that there was then another
contractor that was going to continue finishing the work?
MR. GANGULI: Mr. Joslin, very expeditiously I was contacted
by a licensed contractor. The company's name is Trinity Project
Management Group. The representative's name is Joel Newman. And
he told me that he had been hired by the homeowner to remedy the
situation that existed.
MR. JOSLIN: I got you.
MR. GANGULI: There are permits --
MR. JOSLIN: After the fact then.
MR. GANGULI: After the incident with Mr. Brogdon, there are
permits ready to be picked up from Trinity Project Management to
proceed.
MR. JOSLIN: I got you.
So Trinity could have done the same work that was done there
that you saw when you went to the home as far as demolition goes
with a permit by Trinity, ifno one else had done it.
MR. GANGULI: Not chronologically, Mr. Joslin. They had
Page 38
16 I 1.ft{p
December 17, 2008
been hired after the incident occurred with Mr. Brogdon.
Am I understanding your question?
MR. JOSLIN: Yes, I understand what you're saying. I'mjust
saying that ifthis gentleman had not done that work, Trinity, being
hired by the homeowner, could have done the same work that he did --
MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir.
MR. JOSLIN: -- what you saw that day.
MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir.
MR. JOSLIN: So it was after the fact for sure.
MR. GANGULI: Absolutely.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, let's put this to bed. Call for the
vote. I have a motion that the citations, both citations, two total, stand.
All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's unanimous. The citations stand.
MR. BROGDON: Okay, thank you, gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thanks for coming in.
Thank you, Mr. Ganguli.
Jeff Baker, are you here?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: How are you doing?
MR. BAKER: Good. How are you?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good. Come up to this one.
Change Your Colors, Inc. update on a Workers' Compensation
Page 39
16 I 1 A~
December 17,2008
and review of license.
If you would, state your name and then I'll have you sworn in.
MR. BAKER: Jeffbaker.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Before you get started, I'm going to
turn this over to Mr. Ossorio. Give us kind of a background and bring
us up to date. I don't remember this one.
MR. JOSLIN: You weren't here, I don't believe.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, if you look in your package,
you'll see a finding of fact that was ordered by this Board. And you
can look at the paragraph one, probation for a period of one year, at
which time the contracting activities shall be under the supervision of
the contractor licensing staff, the contractor licensing board. Such
probation may be revoked at any time by the Board at a hearing
noticed for such purpose and to reappear before the Board within six
months for review.
This is just clearly Mr. Baker just showing up, telling me I'm
still in business, I've done what I was supposed to do, I'm still on
probation, and it's a six-month review. You can call it that, if you
wish. You can ask him any questions.
I believe Mr. Baker -- and I've talked to Ian Jackson about it,
who's the investigator on the case, that he has called in every job he
has done and he has applied by and paid all the civil fines and also
went to school and probation and did the business procedure test
agam.
So he has complied with your order. This is just a review to stop
in and say here I am, I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing.
MR. JOSLIN: So in your opinion, did everything that we gave
him for disciplinary actions so far has been done and met and
everything's on the copasetic and everything's up to par?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes, you can -- one through six, he has
Page 40
16 I 1 A&
December 17,2008
complied with everything, and he is in good standing with our office,
other than being on probation.
MR. L YKOS: Do you have employees working for you, Mr.
Baker?
MR. BAKER: No.
MR. L YKOS: So you're Workers' Compo exempt.
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. L YKOS: And you understand if you get employees, you
have to have Worker's Comp.?
MR. BAKER: Yes, sir.
MR. LYKOS: Okay.
MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion that we set aside this order as far
as for another six months, since this gentleman has done all the
requirements that we have set ahead of time.
And I commend you for doing that. We took a chance on you. I
remember the case very well. And I took a chance on you at that point
and I'm glad you made a good person out of me and made me feel
good now.
So we'll see you in six months.
Is that something we need to vote on, correct?
MR. L YKOS: Well, you made a motion--
MR. JOSLIN: I'm sorry.
MR. L YKOS: -- I'm not sure I understand what the motion was.
MR. JOSLIN: Motion that we accept this --let me see what I've
got a motion to.
What are we actually doing? We're hearing the Case No. 21660
regarding the findings of fact and the conclusions of law and the order
of the Board. And that at this moment --
MR. OSSORlO: Mr. Chairman, I don't think he has to make a
motion, this is just informative. And after today he'd still be on
probation for six months. So that will just expire sometime next year.
MR. JOSLIN: Right.
Page 41
16 Ii lA-~
December 17, 2008
MR. OSSORIO: So this is just Mr. Baker to say--
MR. NEALE: Informative.
MR. OSSORIO: -- I'm doing what he's (sic) supposed to be
doing. He's satisfied. You take it at face value and he goes on his way.
MR. JOSLIN: So he's good to go.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If -- always looking for a way to
expedite activity for the Board. Being that he's done everything that he
was requested to do in a very timely manner, could it be that the
Board could excuse him from appearing at the end of one year if you
were satisfied with him doing everything? Leave it up to county
whether he returns or not?
MR. OSSORIO: I don't think the Board -- I don't think -- well,
when I read the order of the Board, it actually just says has to appear
within six months. He doesn't have to reappear every six months. He's
on probation for one year. If you want to take a look at him in six
months, everything's okay, then it will expire sometime. The probation
will expire within a year, so --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No need to come back here.
MR. OSSORIO: You don't need to come back here, no.
MR. NEALE: No, he's good to go.
MR. L YKOS: Mr. Baker, thank you very much for your
compliance. We appreciate it.
MR. JERULLE: Good job.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Have a nice Christmas.
MR. BAKER: Merry Christmas.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You, too.
Calvert Courtney, are you here? Yes, sir, if you would, come up.
What did you do, do all this stuff while I was gone? Okay.
How are you, sir?
MR. COURTNEY: Fine.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Joslin, why don't you take this?
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Courtney, I remember this.
Page 42
16 I 1 A~
December 17, 2008
THE COURT REPORTER: Do I need to swear him in.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, that's right, thank you.
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Courtney, I know in the findings of fact that
you were before us on May 21 st of '08 and you were -- indicated you
had to do some items.
MR. COURTNEY: Yes. My recollection of it and the way I
interpreted the stipulations that I read was I think it was Mr. Lykos or
Mr. Dickson requested a profit and loss and a credit report six months
from the time that you reinstated the license. So I've brought those
with me today. There's one for each one of you.
MR. JOSLIN: This had to do with your credit report, correct?
MR. COURTNEY: No. What Mr. Dickinson's (sic) statement, as
I remember it was, is they wanted to make sure that the business did
not incur any more debt. And that's what I've brought here. He wanted
to look at the profitability of the business as a --
MR. JOSLIN: I got you, okay.
MR. OSSORIO: If you remember Mr. Courtney, we did have a
couple of cases on him. And you suspended his license and then it got
revoked. And then he petitioned the Board to get reinstated and you
denied it and I think Mr. Lykos said well, if you really wanted to, you
would pay everyone off the 30 some thousand, in which he did.
So he came back with his attorney and said, okay, I paid
everyone off, please let me have my license back.
And you said fine, we'll put you on probation. I want to see you
in six months, I want to see what you have on your credit statements
and make sure that you have a bona fide business and you're in
business and you're not taking any more deposits that you cannot do.
We have had one complaint since then, but I think it was more
of a prior one which Mr. Courtney did not know that it was out there. I
believe he is making payments on it. So the homeowner is satisfied at
Page 43
161
1 Ir~
December 17,2008
this time that he is -- you know, this homeowner is getting paid,
slowly but surely. Am I correct?
MR. COURTNEY: (Nods head affirmatively.)
MR. JOSLIN: Have you seen a copy of this report that he has
(sic) going to provide us? Have you seen a copy of this report?
MR. OSSORIO: No, I have not. He just brought it today.
MR. COURTNEY: Should I just hand them to you?
MR. OSSORIO: I recommend we just hand it out. You can
review it, if you have any questions, and it's on the record and then
we'll see what happens.
MR. COURTNEY: At the time that the request was made for the
P&L, I asked if it had to be an audited statement, and Mr. Dickinson
(sic) said no.
This is simply off of my accounting software. I use a Quick
Books programs. And it's dated from April 1 through end of business
day yesterday. So it shows where we are.
And I ran a -- had In Balance, a local credit reporting agency run
the three major bureaus on a credit check on the company, and there's
nothing there, of course.
MR. OSSORIO: You can look on the Page 3 and it says
respondent's business balance sheet and profit and losses, dated six
months from the date of hearing.
MR. COURTNEY: We were actually supposed to have this
meeting in November, but it got postponed.
MR. JOSLIN: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's nice to see someone makes profits.
MR. COURTNEY: The percentage is okay, it's just the gross
revenues are so small in this quiet economy.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Hey, there's nobody making profits,
so if you're making profits, count your blessings.
MR. JOSLIN: Really.
MR. L YKOS: Couple of things, Mr. Courtney, I'd like to make a
Page 44
16 I l-k{p
December 17, 2008
note of. We don't have your balance sheet, and that shows your debt.
And that was one of our concerns was that you'd be increasing your
debt. We don't have your balance sheet, so I'd like to see that.
MR. COURTNEY: Mr. Lykos, there are no revolving lines of
credit, there's no chattel mortgages. There is one debt to a homeowner,
a past customer, and it's in the amount of$18,000. And that's all the
debt there is.
MR. L YKOS: I understand. But in our order to you, we wanted
to see your balance sheet as well as your P&L.
MR. COURTNEY: I will admit the mistake to that. I did not
realize you wanted to see that balance sheet.
MR. L YKOS: You have a great attorney. Do you have a good
accountant?
MR. COURTNEY: I have an expensive one.
MR. L YKOS: You have $103,000 in casual labor?
MR. COURTNEY: I use 1099. I have a Workmen's Compo
exemption, and on the paver brick side I physically can't do the work.
I can a lot of the landscaping. But I have a group of subcontractors out
of Fort Myers that I 1099 at the end at the end of the fiscal year.
I call it casual labor, the entry -- that's the heading I use in the
Quick Books system. I do this myself. I don't have a bookkeeper.
MR. L YKOS: I understand.
MR. COURTNEY: Right.
MR. JOSLIN: Is this a licensed contractor that you contract to
do this work for you?
MR. COURTNEY: Yes, it is.
MR. JOSLIN: They have their own Workman's Compo
insurances and --
MR. COURTNEY: They do. And I'll qualify that statement. I
don't ask for that on every job. If the homeowner requires it -- I'm
doing no work for contractors at this point. If they ask for it, I have
them provide proof of it, and so far they have complied with that at
Page 45
16! lAw
December 17, 2008
every request. They are a Lee County/Collier County contractor.
MR. JOSLIN: Do you know what that contractor's name is?
MR. COURTNEY: Croat.
MR. JOSLIN: What is it?
MR. COURTNEY: Croat. C-R-O-A- T.
MR. JOSLIN: I think just for your own sake, it would be good to
have it on file for your insurance purposes, because if you get audited,
they're going to ask you for the certificates. And if you're claiming this
is a 1099, that could be the same thing as you paying them on the side
as just a payrolled employee that you're not paying insurances on.
MR. COURTNEY: There are some guidelines at that that are
unclear to me, Mr. Joslin. I've yet to learn that, exactly what
determines a 1099. I understand if you tell them to be there at 9:00 in
the morning that you've violated 1099 guidelines. I wish I had a better
understanding. I'm kind of doing a commonsense thing. I set up the
time for the job and do a little quality control.
MR. L YKOS: I really would like to see the balance sheet. I want
to see your payables and your receivables. If you're using Quick
Books, this is probably in an accrual report.
MR. COURTNEY: It is.
MR. L YKOS: Yeah, I'd like to see your balance sheets.
One of our concerns was that you were going to create debt
again and use customers' deposits to pay old debt and that -- I think it's
important that we can verify that you're not just moving debt around,
and that's why we need to see your balance sheet.
MR. COURTNEY: Okay.
MR. L YKOS: You should be able to print that report with Quick
Books, just like you do the P &L.
MR. COURTNEY: I use the simple start, but I can pull it. I don't
have the professional Quick Books. This is the $99 one, not the 700.
MR. L YKOS: I understand.
MR. COURTNEY: And it won't print my balance sheet, but I
Page 46
16 i 1 fW
December 17,2008
can pull it for you, I can create it. I know --
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos, how about also that we get into this
casual labor situation. As far as ifhe's saying he's using a licensed
contractor to do $103,000 worth of work for him, then he should
surely have certificates of some sort they would be more willing to
give him. So we're sure that he's covered with this insurance and not
just paying casual labor.
MR. COURTNEY: I have no problem with that at all.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, that's --
MR. COURTNEY: I'll share anything that you request.
I didn't realize -- I thought today was to come and simply
provide the credit report and to show you the P&L. I didn't have any
idea that these other things would enter into it, and I'll be glad to
produce whatever you request.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, super.
MR. L YKOS: We don't want to run your business, we just want
to make sure that you're doing a good job of doing it yourself.
MR. COURTNEY: I gotcha.
MR. L YKOS: And those reports will help us verify that you're
doing that.
MR. COURTNEY: Gotcha.
So what is the specific list of your requirements and what are the
time frames?
MR. L YKOS: Well, I think we've got end of the year coming up.
Ifwe can get an end of the year P&L and end of the year balance sheet
and --
MR. JOSLIN: Copies of the certificates by the end of the year
I'm sure shouldn't be a problem. Out of all the subcontractors that you
have worked or paid, it shouldn't be hard to do.
And then one other thing. Ifhe can provide this, do we need to
look at this again through the Board next month, or would staff be able
to --
Page 47
161 1 AlP
December 17, 2008
MR. L YKOS: Yeah, I think we should look at it at the January
meeting.
MR. JOSLIN: January meeting?
MR. L YKOS: Yeah, let's look at the P&L and the balance sheet.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay. So at the January meeting you'll have to
resume coming back here again one more time with that information.
MR. COURTNEY: Do I have to submit this to Maggie by the
1 st, or can I bring it like this?
MR. OSSORIO: No, it would be fine. I think what we should do
is that we'll collect the folders that you have outstanding here, you'll
go back, add more things to it and we'll add you to the agenda for
January -- or January 21st over in the Board of County Commissioners
chambers. No, not a problem.
MR. L YKOS: Thank you. Very good start, though, Mr.
Courtney.
MR. JOSLIN: Collect all these again?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Public hearing. We've been at it an
hour and 20 minutes. Anybody need a break? We okay? Let's do 10
minutes. 12:00 sharp back in here.
Is it going to be a long hearing? You never know? If your
stomach growls, we won't chastise you for it.
MR. OSSORIO: I'd say 40 minutes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, sounds good.
We stand adjourned for 10 minutes.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd like to call back to order the
meeting of the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board.
Moving on to public hearings. We now have a public hearing
with Daniel L. Scott.
Daniel, are you present?
Sir, if you would, come up here on the front row. I'm going to
have you sit there on the front, just in back of that podium there.
Page 48
, .16 ~ 1 k~
December 17,2008
MR. JOSLIN: You want to swear him in first?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No.
The way this case is handled, it's kind of quasi judicial. Once
you get up here, we'll swear you in. Everybody else has been sworn
m.
Does the county have anybody else that's going to testify that
hasn't already been sworn in? Ian, you haven't been sworn in, have
you?
MR. JACKSON: No, I have not.
MR. GANGULI: Mr. Dickson, the complainant also is here and
may need to be sworn in, should we require his testimony. It's pretty
redundant in comparison -- or with regard to his sworn statement that
you all have in front of you, but if you would --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I can do the packet for him. Are they
going to testify? Is the complainant going to testify?
MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, when they corne up, I'll do that.
It's Case No. 2008-15, License No. 11229, Board of Collier
County Commissioners, they are the petitioner, Board of Collier
County Commissioners, not us.
Here in the blue coat is Mr. Neale, who's the attorney that
represents the licensing board.
Mr. Zachary in the gray coat represents Collier County and the
Commissioners.
Versus Daniel Scott d/b/a Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated.
The way this thing handles is -- and get this name right,
Ganguli?
MR. GANGULI: Very good.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Got it, okay.
The county will open up, Mr. Ganguli will make an opening
statement, and then you'll make yours. Then he'll present his evidence.
You can cross-examine witnesses he has. Then the floor will be yours.
Page 49
16 I l-k~
December 17,2008
After that's over, we'll close -- you make closing statements.
Then we'll close public hearing and you'll hear us decide.
So with that, would you stand up here and state your name, Mr.
Scott?
MR. SCOTT: Daniel Scott.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And Ian Jackson is also going
to testify.
I'm going to have both of you sworn in right now, and then I'll
get the homeowner when they come up.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you have any questions, Mr. Scott,
before we start?
MR. SCOTT: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, go ahead and have a seat and
I'll turn it over, opening statement, to Mr. Ganguli for the county.
MR. GANGULI: Mr. Dickson, Case 2008-15, County
Commissioners versus Daniel L. Scott, doing business as Colonial
Carpentry, Incorporated.
Sir, I have a summary that may be a little longer than usual, but I
feel all the facts in it are pertinent.
On October 21 st, 2008, I, Rob Ganguli, Collier County License
Compliance Officer received a preliminary complaint form submitted
by a Kent G. Smith, who stated that he had been working for Colonial
Carpentry, Incorporated at the residence of Rabbi Fishel Zaklos at
1195 Creech Road, on or about the first week of July, 2008.
Mr. Smith stated he had sustained an injury on the job site. And
when he had informed the qualifier, Daniel L. Scott of Colonial
Carpentry, Incorporated of this, he was informed that he was not
covered by Workers Compensation insurance.
Mr. Smith presented a copy of a Colonial Carpentry,
Incorporated company paycheck dated for the time frame which he
stated was in substitute for his usual means of compensation through
Page 50
161 1 k(p
December 17,2008
an (sic) Employee Leasing Solutions which provided his insurance
coverage.
After contacting Employee Leasing Solutions, I verified that Mr.
Smith's last paycheck and period of Workers' Compensation coverage
was on May 16th, 2008.
Mr. Smith further state that the scope of the work performed
consisted of the installation of windows and a French door on the
addition to the rear of the single-family home.
When interviewed for the issuance of this notice of hearing on
October 24th, 2008, Mr. Scott denied that Colonial Carpentry,
Incorporated had ever worked at this job site.
Mr. Scott also stated that the slowdown in construction had
resulted in Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated having not worked in
several months.
However, when questioned by Investigator Ian Jackson about an
existing job site employing Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated on
Marco Island, Mr. Scott then recanted his statement.
A notarized statement was also later obtained from the property
owner of 1195 Creech Road, stating the presence of Colonial
Carpentry, Incorporated performing this type of work as described by
Mr. Smith at his home and during this time frame.
The notarized statement submitted by the complainant, Kent G.
Smith, regarding the form of payment from Colonial Carpentry,
Incorporated construes a violation of State Statute 440.10, and
440.107, which regulates securing the payment of Workers'
Compensation, and therefore is also a violation of Collier County
Ordinance 2006-46, Section 4.1.6.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, Mr. Scott, if you would, please,
tell us where -- come up to the podium. Opening statement. Tell us
where you're going to go.
MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Dickson, could we get the packet moved
into evidence?
Page 51
,16~ lk~
December 17,2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, thank you very much.
MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion that we move Case No.
2008-115, License No. 11229, Daniel L. Scott, d/b/a Colonial
Carpentry, Inc. packet for his administrative complaint into evidence.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I second that.
All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, gentleman.
Mr. Scott, tell us where you're going to go with your defense.
Opening statement.
MR. SCOTT: Colonial Carpentry, Inc. never did work at the job
site. Colonial Carpentry, Inc. doesn't work for homeowners, only
works for general contractors.
Workers Compo insurance: I have a copy here that Kent Smith
was still on the payroll for Colonial Carpentry up until August 4th. So
if Colonial Carpentry did do the job at any time frame until August
4th, he was still actively on the payroll.
I'm really fuzzy about the job on Marco Island. That job was not
started -- Colonial Carpentry did not work on that Henning job until
the second week of September. That's when we started that. I don't
understand that statement in the thing here.
And what statement I recanted, I don't know what he's talking
about.
The job that was done at Creech Road was for Rabbi Fishel
through a friend of a friend to take care of a water intrusion problem.
He had -- we removed the siding and -- I went over there and
removed the siding. Colonial Carpentry never had anything to do with
Page 52
16 t 1 A~
December 17, 2008
the job. I mean, there's no contract, there's no compensation, nothing.
Colonial Carpentry had nothing to do with it. It was a friend of a
friend. Went over and removed the siding and was going to flash it
properly and put the siding back on. There's no compensation. I've
never been -- it was just helping the guy out.
I mean, I -- Colonial Carpentry, I mean, I've been in business for
14 years, and I've never worked for a homeowner. I only work for
general contractors. I've always had Workman's Compo insurance
since the day I've been open. Liability insurance, vehicle insurance,
I've had it all. So I mean, I don't know what else to --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, that's good for an opening
statement.
All right, County, present your case.
MR. OSSORlO: County calls Mr. Smith.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Smith, if you'd go to that podium
over there, I'll have you state your name please and then I'll have you
sworn m.
MR. SMITH: Kent Smith.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Go ahead.
MR. GANGULI: Good afternoon, Kent. Just a few simple
questions for you.
On or about the first week of July, 2008, did you work as an
employee of Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated at the address 1195
Creech Road?
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. GANGULI: Did the work consist of window and French
door installation?
MR. SMITH: Yeah, we removed siding, we removed exterior
door, we removed some windows. We reframed a wall. We took a set
of French doors that was in the existing home and moved them to
where we reframed them on this addition. We re tar-papered it. We
Page 53
16\ 1 kfp
December 17,2008
insulated it.
There was electrical moved to compensate everything that had
been done. We then hung drywall.
And the next day that I had went back I was informed the job
was shut down because there was no permits pulled on the job. So we
cleaned up the job.
At this time I was told by Dan Scott, the owner, to carry a door
that we had removed from the home to his truck; he was going to take
it to his home.
In the process of doing this, I injured my neck and my back
severely, and now I am -- the burden is on my family and myself to
pay all these bills, and I have not been able to work since, due to
doctor's orders.
MR. GANGULI: Mr. Smith, for this particular job that you did
for Colonial Carpentry, were you paid in an unusual manner as
opposed to the ways that had been compensated before?
MR. SMITH: Yes. Generally I was paid through Staff Leasing --
or Leasing Solutions. At this time when I was going to be paid, I was
asked to go to Mr. Scott's house. He then wrote me a check out of
Colonial Carpentry checking account, and that's how I was paid.
When I informed him about my injury, that's when I was
informed I was not covered by any Workmen's Compensation.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Smith, if you look at your packet E-4, does
that depict the method of payment you received?
MR. SMITH: I don't have it, but I did review it earlier.
Yes, that is the check that would have been for 18 hours of work.
I was paid $25 an hour.
MR. OSSORIO: How long have you worked for Colonial
Carpentry, Incorporated?
MR. SMITH: Eleven and a half years.
MR. OSSORIO: And all that time you got paid by the leasing
company?
Page 54
16 I lkw
December 17,2008
MR. SMITH: Yeah. The first six to eight months I was
piecework. After that, from probably 1998 on was always through a
leasing company.
MR. GANGULI: Gentlemen, Mr. Scott had stated that his
employee, Leasing Solutions company that he hired provided
Workers' Compo coverage up to some point in August. And when I
contacted -- the lady's name was Shannon Ingram, of Employee
Leasing Solutions, I asked her the policies involved and how coverage
is implemented for people who are on the Leasing Solutions program.
And if they don't receive a check, they are not covered. Their
names may still be on the list, but if a check is not issued to them, their
coverage ceases at that point.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Ganguli, do you have any more questions
for your witness?
MR. GANGULI: I have no more for this witness, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Scott, do you have questions of
the witness?
MR. SCOTT: What's that?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you have questions of the witness?
MR. SCOTT: Oh, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Why don't you come over here to this
podium.
MR. SCOTT: This has gotten out of hand.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It was a yes or no question.
MR. SCOTT: First question is, on or about July 10th did you go
to Ohio?
MR. SMITH: Yes, I did.
MR. SCOTT: Did you call me from Ohio about a week after that
and say that you coughed in the front yard and you went to your
knees, you can't move, and your brother and your dad had to help you
up?
MR. SMITH: I informed you before I went to Ohio, I was going
Page 55
161 1 Alp
December 17,2008
to Ohio to take my daughter to visit relatives because --
MR. SCOTT: No, you were going to Ohio --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We don't
run it this way here. You let him finish the answer. We don't do two
people talking, and we don't get argumentative.
MR. SMITH: So I informed you again when I went to Ohio that
my condition had worsened.
I also asked you again, I need to go seek medical help. I have a
severe lllJUry.
And what I explained to you yes, did happen. I explained to you
I had to go to the hospital, what was I supposed to do? Was there
Workmen's Compo You again told me no, you were not covered by
Workmen's Comp., do what you have to do.
MR. SCOTT: No.
Did you or did you not come over to the house? Because I've got
two witnesses. I wish I had brought them in.
The mechanic that worked on your truck before you went to
Ohio and the shocks were replaced on your truck before you went to
Ohio the day before?
MR. SMITH: Yes, that I paid in cash.
MR. SCOTT: And you helped do that and you were fine?
MR. SMITH: I didn't help do anything. You put the shocks on
my truck, you took the tires off of it. I stood there. You asked -- you
said I could come out there because you had a lift.
You have never once called me after I informed you of my
injury. You continued to work. And you had spoke to other people
informing them that they inform me you were going to make a
decision for me when I got back whether I had a job with you or not,
which I never was called back to work.
MR. SCOTT: Should I bring in Dr. Berktold (phonetic) and
show all these people how long he's been -- he's worked on your neck
as a chiropractor and --
Page 56
161 1 /WJ
December 17,2008
MR. SMITH: Well, this has nothing --
MR. SCOTT: -- how long you've been going to the doctor --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: One at a time.
MR. SCOTT: -- for years.
MR. SMITH: This has nothing to do with this.
Back in 2002 I had a door fall on my head. Took my wife
forever to get any kind of information for Workmen's Compo She
finally got it from the man.
2006 I was injured, ruptured disc in my neck. Nothing near as
severe as it is now. I informed Mr. Scott again I need to get help,
there's a definite problem here.
I had to seek this on my own. I've been paying for a doctor ever
since 2006.
So then when I pick up this door again in 2008, now my injuries
are so severe I cannot work anymore. I had to file for Social Security
disability.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman?
I'm going to interrupt you. But this really has no bearing on the
case in hand.
MR. SCOTT: No, but he's --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I disagree. It does. Because we're
hearing some dates here that have a bearing on this.
MR. SMITH: Right.
MR. SCOTT: Well, Rob --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Wait, wait, just --
MR. SMITH: I have never got to get my Workmen's Compo for
anything -- injuries I've had except for the one in 2002.
I have all the x-rays. I've had to get MRI's. My doctor sent me
for new ones in July, because she had to see what was going on with
my body to know where I stood.
I have eight ruptured discs. Every disc in my neck is ruptured
and three in my lower back. All these injuries stem from working for
Page 57
161 1 k(P
December 17, 2008
Mr. Scott.
MR. JOSLIN: What you're telling us is that this injury that you
occurred (sic) happened while you were working at Cabinetry (sic) in
2002?
MR. SMITH: That was -- that healed up and everything. This
injury I have now stems from this 2008 lifting and carrying this door
from the home that we're talking about on Creech Road.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What happened in 2006?
MR. SMITH: I was carrying doors, it was for a job in Bonita on
Bonita Beach for D. Garrett Construction, working for Colonial
Carpentry .
The doors were extremely heavy. I was sent to the job by myself
to do this work.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And we've got a good feel for it
now, and we don't need to go through that anymore, because the issue
still remains whether or not there was Workers' Compo coverage at the
time of this alleged incident in July of 2007. That's the issue, okay?
Not car issues, not changing out stuff, none of that.
Was there coverage in place, that's the issue. Okay, you got it
defined? It doesn't matter all the other stuff. Did you have Workers'
Compo coverage.
MR. SCOTT: Colonial Carpentry had Workers' Compo coverage
but --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, that's what we're here --
MR. SCOTT: -- Colonial Carpentry didn't do the job.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- to discuss.
MR. SCOTT: Colonial Carpentry didn't do the job. Whenever
Colonial Carpentry did a job, license, insurance, everything.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And we'll decide that. Okay, very
good.
Any other questions of Mr. Smith?
MR. SCOTT: No. I mean, I'm not going -- I'm not --
Page 58
JcPmler I/: 200fW
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Do you have any redirect, Mr.
Ganguli?
MR. GANGULI: (Shakes head negatively.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Smith (sic), if you would, please
sit down.
And Mr. Smith, if you would sit down and the county continue
with your case.
MR. GANGULI: Gentlemen, obviously we have two different
stories regarding what the company payroll check was for. And I just
would like to call Investigator Ian Jackson to try to establish what may
be inconsistent here.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: I'll answer from here.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, that's fine.
MR. GANGULI: Were you sworn?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, he's already sworn.
MR. GANGULI: Good afternoon, sir.
On October 24th, 2008, Daniel L. Scott was interviewed and
served this notice of hearing at the Contractors Licensing Office. Were
you present at this interview, sir?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
MR. GANGULI: When asked about work performed by
Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated at the address of 1195 Creech Road,
do you recall what Mr. Scott's response was?
MR. JACKSON: Not quoting, his response was that there was
no work performed there. And that's of course not a direct quote, but
that was the gist of the conversation.
MR. GANGULI: Mr. Jackson, do you recall Mr. Scott stating
that Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated was not presently working at
any job sites and had not been working for, quote, several months?
MR. JACKSON: I do recall that.
MR. GANGULI: Mr. Jackson, do you have any information
Page 59
161 1 k~
December 17, 2008
indicating that this statement was not entirely accurate at the time it
was made?
MR. JACKSON: At that time I had been onjob sites on Marco
Island the previous week, roughly the week of October 14th, where
they were working as a subcontractor for Henning on a condo.
MR. OSSORIO: What was your purpose looking for this
Colonial Carpentry Contracting?
MR. JACKSON: Our office received a complaint regarding
employees being on this job site and not being on the employee list
from the leasing company.
I went to the job site twice, interviewed all companies there.
Daniel-- Colonial Carpentry was not there on either of those two
visits. But there was confirmation from the super that they were the
sub on that job.
MR. GANGULI: And one last question for you, Mr. Jackson.
Would you please inform the Board ofMr. Scott's reaction after being
confronted with this information that you knew.
MR. JACKSON: After Mr. Scott said that he hadn't been
working in some time and I brought up the job on Panama Court, he
then said, well -- it was recanted or yes, I do have that job.
And of course once again it's not a quote, but that was the
general conversation.
MR. JOSLIN: Meaning the job on Creech Road?
MR. JACKSON: Meaning the job on Marco Island.
MR. JOSLIN: On Marco Island.
MR. JACKSON: Right.
MR. GANGULI: I have no more questions for Mr. Jackson.
I'd like the Board to be aware of what I feel may be
contradictory. We have two sworn statements, one coming from the
homeowner placing Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated at that job site at
1195 Creech Road at the time of the alleged violation.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Ganguli, for the record, can you turn to
Page 60
D!~~er 17~ 200r0
Page E-8 and can you read the homeowner's statement for the record?
And this is your handwriting?
MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir.
MR. OSSORIO: And Mr. -- the homeowner of Creech Road was
at our office?
MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay, go ahead, if you wouldn't mind, just read
into the record his statement.
MR. GANGULI: Regarding work performed by Daniel L. Scott,
qualifier of Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated, Collier County
Certificate 11229.
I Fishel Zaklos do hereby affirm that on or about the first week
of July, 2008, Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated, qualified by Daniel
L. Scott, performed work at my residence at 1195 Creech Road. This
work consisting of installation of windows and a French door was
performed on an unpermitted addition to the rear of the single-family
home, resulting in Code Case No. CESD2008-000-9970, and it was
initiated to correct the leak intrusion.
And it's signed by him and dated November 10th, 2008.
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Ganguli, just one quick question.
In the packet here, it seems unusual to me that if this work and
this affidavit was signed saying that Colonial Carpentry was on this
job at that time that there would not be a contract of some sort for this
type of work being done. Was there a contract initiated?
MR. GANGULI: The Rabbi told me it was done verbally, sir. It
wasn't a written contract.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Was there any money? Any check?
MR. GANGULI: From the Rabbi to Colonial Carpentry?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. GANGULI: I cannot verify that, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
Page 61
16\ }, Atp
December 17,2008
Mr. Scott, again, do you have questions of Ian Jackson at this
point?
MR. SCOTT: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Continue on.
MR. GANGULI: The county rests.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I thought you were going to -- is the
complainant here?
MR. GANGULI: We've heard from him, Mr. Dickson.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, okay. I was thinking maybe -- I
got confused, thinking it was the homeowner on Creech.
Okay. Mr. Scott, at this point the floor is yours. If you would
come up to this podium, present your case, sir, and call any witnesses
you choose.
MR. SCOTT: Let's see. No, I don't -- I'm not going to go -- I'm
not going to stand up here and argue about it. I don't know what else
to say. I mean, we just -- Colonial Carpentry did not work there. You
know, it's just -- I have no witness.
MR. JOSLIN: Is there any vehicles in your company?
MR. SCOTT: What's that?
MR. JOSLIN: Is there any vehicles in your company?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, a van and a truck.
MR. JOSLIN: Does Mr. Smith drive one of your vehicles?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, he did.
MR. JOSLIN: Was it possible that that vehicle was at that job
site to do that work?
MR. SCOTT: Is it possible? Yeah, it's possible, yeah. That's
what he was driving. I mean, he was driving -- drove it wherever. I
mean, he had free roam to drive it wherever he wanted.
MR. JERULLE: Are you the license holder--
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: -- of Colonial Carpentry?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.n
Page 62
161 1 MP
December 17, 2008
MR. JERULLE: Are you the owner of Colonial Carpentry?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did you receive any money for that
work on Creech Road?
MR. SCOTT: No, I did not. Received no compensation. I did it
for a friend of a general contractor. That's his Rabbi. I did it for him as
-- I mean, I've worked for that company for almost 14 years. And I
just -- you know, I'm just a friend.
MR. JOSLIN: So there really was no written contract for you to
go and do this job, but as a friend of a friend through a general
contractor that you work for, do work for, he asked you can you go
over and take care ofMr. Rabbi's (sic) house, and in turn Mr. Smith
ended up on the job?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, he knew. He came willingly. I mean, we did
it for the Rabbi.
MR. JERULLE: So just so I understand it, a contractor that you
worked for -- do you mind telling who --
MR. SCOTT: What's that?
MR. JERULLE: Who was the contractor that you typically work
for?
MR. SCOTT: Core Construction.
MR. JERULLE: They asked you to go to the Rabbi's house?
MR. SCOTT: No, they did not. The person that works for them.
An employee of theirs.
MR. JERULLE: An employee of Core Construction asked
Colonial Carpentry --
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: -- to go to the Rabbi's house to --
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, he's a friend of mine. He works for the
company. And he asked if! would go over there and see where the
water intrusion was coming in, and I went over there and the siding
wasn't --
Page 63
161 1 A~
December 17,2008
MR. JERULLE: And so you took your people over there and he
drove the van to the house.
MR. SCOTT: I just went over there myself first. And we weren't
working and he said he was going to Ohio to put siding on his
mother-in-Iaw's house and work on his parents house, so he needed
some extra cash for gas to get up there and stuff, so I had him help two
days.
MR. JERULLE: And you paid him. And you've paid him then?
MR. SCOTT: I gave him money to go up north, yeah. Fix his
truck, put freeze plug in his truck, put shocks on his truck. I mean --
MR. JOSLIN: So was this out of compensation?
MR. SCOTT: We didn't have any -- Colonial Carpentry didn't
have any work so he was going up north to work on his
mother-in-Iaw's house, put siding on it.
MR. JOSLIN: So was that check that we have in our packet, was
that a check that you gave him for compensation to go and do the
work for the friend of a friend of your Rabbi's, or was it a check to
give him to go up north with?
MR. SCOTT: It was a check for cash to -- because he was
driving north. To go to put siding on his mother-in-Iaw's house and his
parents' house.
Like I said, that's when he called me about a week, week and a
half later and said that he -- his brother and his dad had to help him in
the house. So I have no idea what went on in Ohio.
MR. L YKOS: Mr. Scott, where did you come up with a dollar
amount of $450? Why not 1,000, why not 250? Where's the 450
number come from?
MR. SCOTT: He hadn't worked in -- I think the last time he
worked was in May. I mean, I was living on my --living on life
insurance money. I just helped him out.
MR. L YKOS: So again, where did that $450 number come
from?
Page 64
161 1 A~
December 17,2008
MR. SCOTT: No idea. Just 450 bucks. Probably what I could
spare.
MR. L YKOS: You just wrote a check for $450, and no
reasonable explanation for the dollar amount. Had he come the next
day, it could have been 800.
MR. SCOTT: It could have been. Could have been 200. Could
have been 1,000. I don't know. I mean, just whatever I had.
MR. L YKOS: Do you think it's reasonable that an employee of a
company, when told to show up and work somewhere, would be under
the impression that they're working for that company?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, if the company was working there. The
company wasn't working there.
MR. L YKOS: Well, if you were there working and your
employees were there working, how do you say the company wasn't
working?
MR. SCOTT: I was working there as a friend of a friend. And I
knew --
MR. L YKOS: If you're the owner of the company and you're
there working and your employees show up and do work there, how
do you say the company was not there working? Do you know if
you're driving the company vehicle and you get into a car accident,
your company and you are liable? You're not working, but you
represent the business. So if the --
MR. SCOTT: That's my work truck.
MR. L YKOS: -- if the owner of the company and the employees
of a company are working at somebody's home, how is that not the
company is working? And then you compensate somebody, how is
that not paid for work?
MR. SCOTT: The company wasn't working. It wasn't a contract
job for the company.
MR. L YKOS: Who is the company?
MR. SCOTT: Who is the company?
Page 65
161 1 AtP
December 17, 2008
MR. L YKOS: Who is the company? You said the company
wasn't working. Well, who is the company? Is it some entity that
shows up?
MR. SCOTT: It's me.
MR. L YKOS: Well, you are the company and your employees
are the company. So if you and your employees show up somewhere
to work, then that is the company working. You can't decide that we're
going to work today and our liability insurance is in effect and our
Workers' Compo is in effect and tomorrow we're going to work, it's all
the same people and all the same tools but today well, this isn't the
company working, this is just a bunch of people all getting together to
have fun.
MR. SCOTT: So you're saying if I go over to my neighbors and
I drive my van in their driveway -- I'm just trying to clarify this -- if I
go over to my neighbors or my brother's house, pull my van in the
driveway, get a saw out of the truck and work on his front door, that
Colonial Carpentry is doing the job, not me?
MR. L YKOS: That's correct.
MR. JOSLIN: That's correct.
MR. SCOTT: So what do I have to do? I mean, it's the only
truck I've got. It's the only truck that I have the tools in.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And that's especially true if you have
an employee with you.
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. SCOTT: I mean --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So it's really quite simple.
MR. JOSLIN: He's under your supervision. You've given him
the means to get there. You've given him the tools to go and work.
Whether he touches anything or not, he's on the job.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: See, what happens here today is in no
way going to help Mr. Smith. He doesn't benefit from the actions
today. This is an action just on your license, or you as a license holder.
Page 66
16\ 1 ~
December 17, 2008
So there's no gain here for him. It's just as a matter of you say one
thing, he says something else and the county says something else, and
we have documentation to prove what's been said. And then you
recant.
How do you address that I've got county employees -- they don't
have anything in for you -- that say you recant statements?
MR. SCOTT: So all these years that I've been going over to
friends houses --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need you on the mic.
MR. SCOTT: All these years I've been going over to friends
houses and driving my truck, that's the company's over there?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, you're avoiding my question.
If you take employees and go somewhere in your truck and
work, yes, you are working. That is the company.
But what about recanting statements? Did you recant
statements? Did you say times are tough and you let the Workers'
Compo lapse?
MR. SCOTT: My Workers' Compo never lapsed. I got it through
-- my Workers' Compo was always there. It goes from the --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You can't prove that, though.
MR. SCOTT: Huh?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You can't prove that.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
MR. L YKOS: Mr. Scott, with an employee leasing company, if
you don't run --
MR. SCOTT: I know, but--
MR. L YKOS: -- employees time cards through the --
MR. SCOTT: Exactly.
MR. L YKOS: -- employee leasing company, there is no
Workers' Compo So for you to say you had a policy, then why doesn't
Mr. Smith have access to Workers' Compo for his medical bills?
The fact is, with an employee leasing company, if you do not
Page 67
16 1 1 AA
December 17, 2008
submit that employee's time cards into the leasing company --
MR. SCOTT: Exactly.
MR. L YKOS: -- there will be no Workers' Compo coverage.
MR. SCOTT: Right. There was no--
MR. L YKOS: So for you to ask your employee to show up at
somebody's house and do work, you're putting the homeowner and the
employee at risk.
MR. SCOTT: I did not demand he go there. I did not --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, come on.
MR. SCOTT: You know, I just asked ifhe wanted to help. We
were going over to the Rabbi's to help. He went willingly.
I mean, I understand the Workmen's Comp., ifthere's no payroll
run, I understand that. Because I turn in people all the time when I hire
them. I understand that. They can't step foot on the job until you turn
them in.
MR. JERULLE: You did this work at the Rabbi's house. Did you
pull a permit?
MR. SCOTT: No, I had no idea it wasn't permitted. It wasn't --
all we were --
MR. JERULLE: You had no idea--
MR. SCOTT: -- going over there was to look at a water intrusion
problem.
MR. JERULLE: -- yet you're a contractor with a license and you
started the work --
MR. SCOTT: I can't pull permits with my license. The
homeowner takes care of that. If there was a permit to be pulled, he
pulled the homeowner permit.
MR. L YKOS: You removed the windows and doors and may
have done electrical work and framing and installation, and you didn't
know that you needed a permit?
MR. SCOTT: I did no electrical work. None.
MR. L YKOS: I said may. But we know that you did siding and
Page 68
16 i 1 Mp
December 17, 2008
did work on windows and doors and you didn't know that you needed
a permit, and you didn't ask the homeowner to go get one first.
MR. SCOTT: No, I've done a couple sidings and called here and
they said it was cosmetic, that I didn't need a permit for it. I called the
office and asked.
MR. L YKOS: And you've done work on windows and doors and
didn't think a permit was required.
MR. SCOTT: The door, we just hung the door. That's all we did.
We just--
MR. L YKOS: Was it an exterior door?
MR. SCOTT: Huh?
MR. L YKOS: Is it an exterior door?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, it was a double --
MR. L YKOS: Does it meet--
MR. SCOTT: -- French door.
MR. L YKOS: -- the wind load and impact requirements for
Collier County?
MR. SCOTT: I don't know if the door was or not. I couldn't--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, do you have anything else to
present in your defense?
MR. SCOTT: What's that?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you have anything else to present?
MR. SCOTT: No. I just -- like I said, we just -- we were asked to
go over and help and I went over and helped the guy. I just -- good
friend of mine and I just --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, closing statements. County?
Stay where you are, Mr. Scott.
MR. GANGULI: Mr. Dickson, it's for all of you to decide what
exactly the company check from Colonial Carpentry, Inc. made
payment -- made out to Kent Smith was for.
Page 69
16 11 1 k~
December 17, 2008
I'd like to turn your attention to Exhibit E-1 0, section two,
regarding securing the payment of Workers' Compensation.
Specifically where it's stated if at any time an employer materially
understates or conceals payroll, materially misrepresents or conceals
employee duties so as to avoid proper classification for premium
calculations, or materially misrepresents or conceals information
pertinent to the computation and application of an experienced rating
modification factor, such employer shall be deemed to have failed to
secure payment of Workers' Compensation and shall be subject to the
sanctions set forth in this section.
This in turn is a violation of what I am charging Daniel Scott
with, Collier County Ordinance, Section 4.1.6, for disregarding or
violating in the performance of his contracting business in Collier
County any of the building, safety, health, insurance or Workers'
Compensation laws of the State of Florida or ordinances of this
county.
MR. OSSORIO: Just to finish up, you heard testimony from Mr.
Ganguli, you heard testimony from the complainant that was on the
job site, you heard testimony from Mr. Scott.
His opening statement, I believe he said he was never on the job
site and now he was on the job site, and then he wasn't, and then he
was doing it for a friend.
But we have a sworn affidavit from the homeowner from Creech
Road stating the fact that he was present. And the implication is Mr.
Smith was assuming -- the complainant was assuming that he was an
employee of the company working on that job site. He had no
knowledge of the fact that Mr. Scott was a friend ofa friend working
on that job site. Mr. Smith, the complainant, only realized that he was
a worker and he went to ajob site to perform work for the company at
hand.
And with that, we have no -- we close.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Scott, closing statement?
Page 70
16 ~ 1 Iv~
December 17, 2008
MR. SCOTT: What he just said about saying that I was never
there and then I was there, when I said that I said Colonial Carpentry
wasn't there until later in the proceedings you were saying that I was,
my truck had to be -- okay, then if that's the way you look at it. I
mean, even though Colonial Carpentry wasn't contracted to do the job
and there was no contract, no notice to owner, no none of that stuff
that I always send, you know, because -- then I can understand where
he's saying that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is that it?
MR. SCOTT: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All right, do I hear a motion to close
public hearing?
MR. L YKOS: So moved, Lykos.
MR. JOSLIN: Second, Joslin.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, everybody sit down.
Now, what you're going to hear us do is get guidance from the
attorneys, and then we're going to first settle on whether you're guilty
of the charge before we go into any penalties.
Mr. Neale?
MR. NEALE: In a case like this, the Board shall ascertain in its
deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process were afforded
to the respondent.
However, pursuant to Section 22-202.G.5 of Collier County
ordinance, the formal Rules of Evidence as set out in Florida Statute
shall not apply. The Board shall consider solely evidence presented at
Page 71
16 I 1 AA
December 17, 2008
the hearing in the consideration of this matter.
The Board shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant,
immaterial and cumulative testimony. It shall admit and consider all
other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by a reasonably
prudent person in the conduct of their affairs. This is whether or not
the evidence so admitted would be admissible in a court of law or
equity.
Hearsay may be used to explain or supplement any other
evidence in a case like this, but by itself it's not sufficient to support a
finding in this or any other case unless it would be admissible over
objection in a civil court.
The standard of proof in this type of case where the respondent
may lose his privilege to practice his profession is that the evidence
presented by the complainant must prove the complainant's case in a
clear and convincing matter.
This burden of proof on the complainant is a larger burden than
the preponderance of evidence standards set for normal civil cases.
The standard and evidence are to be weighed solely as to the
charges set out in the complaint as Ordinance 90-105.4.1.6 of the
Collier County Code of Ordinances, which is disregards or violates in
the performance of his contracting business in Collier County any of
the building, safety, health, insurance or Workers' Compensation laws
of the State of Florida or ordinances of this county.
The -- in order to support a finding that the respondent is in
violation of the ordinance, the Board must find facts that show
violations were actually committed by the respondent. The facts must
show to a clear and convincing standard the legal conclusion that the
respondent was in violation of the relevant sections of Ordinance
90-105 as amended.
As the charges that are listed in the complaint are the only ones
the Board may decide upon, since they are the only ones which the
respondent has had the opportunity to prepare a defense.
Page 72
16 I 1 ~~
December 17, 2008
Any damages that the Board would find, should the respondent
be found guilty, must be directly related to those charges. The
damages may not be for matters not related.
The decision made by this Board today shall be stated orally at
this hearing, as effective upon being read by the Board.
The respondent, if found in violation, has certain appeal rights to
this Board, the courts and the State Construction Industry Licensing
Bureau, as set out in the ordinance in Florida Statutes and Rules.
If the Board is unable to issue a decision immediately following
the hearing because of questions of law or other matters of such a
nature that a decision may not be made at this hearing, the Board may
withhold its decision until a subsequent meeting.
The Board shall vote based upon the evidence presented on all
areas, and if it finds the respondent in violation, adopt the
administrative complaint.
The Board shall also make findings of fact and conclusions of
law in support of the charges set out in the administrative complaint,
should the respondent be found in violation.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, sir.
All right, gentleman, as far as the one complaint and that one
complaint only, that's all we're looking at. What's your feelings,
discussion? And I'll entertain a motion.
MR. L YKOS: I make a motion that we find the defendant guilty
of the charges.
MR. HORN: Second, Horn.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Call for the vote. All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
Page 73
16111M
December 17,2008
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, guilty of the charge.
Now the penalty phase, Mr. Neale.
MR. NEALE: As the respondent's been found in violation of the
ordinance, the Board shall consider and order sanctions under the
parameters set out in Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended.
These sanctions are set out in the ordinance and the codified ordinance
of22-203.B.l and in the revised ordinance in Section 4.3.5.
The sanctions which this Board may impose are: Revocation of
the respondent's Certificate of Competency; suspension of the
Certificate of Competency; denial of issuance or renewal of the
Certificate of Competency; probation of a reasonable length, not to
exceed two years, during which the contractor's contracting activities
shall be under the supervision of the Board; and/or participation in a
duly accredited program of continuing education. Probation may be
revoked for cause by the Board at a hearing noticed to consider said
purpose.
The Board may order restitution, a fine not to exceed $10,000
per incident, a public reprimand, a reexamination requirement, denial
of the issuance of permits or requiring issuance of permits with
conditions, and also reasonable, legal and investigative costs, as
proven.
In considering these sanctions and imposing these sanctions, the
Board shall consider five elements: Number one, the gravity of the
violation; number two, the impact of the violation; number three, any
actions taken by the violator to correct it; number four, any previous
violations committed by the violator; and number five, any other
evidence presented at the hearing by the parties relevant as to the
sanction that is appropriate for the case, given its nature.
Page 74
16t 1 tw
December 17,2008
The Board also shall issue a recommended penalty to the State
Construction Industry Licensing Board. That penalty may include a
recommendation for no further action, a recommendation of
suspension, revocation or restriction of the registration, or a fine to
levied by the state board.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Before we go into that. County? I
assume Mr. Ossorio. What are your recommendations and--
MR. OSSORIO: County's recommendation is a $5,000 fine, paid
within 30 days; $500 investigation cost; one-year probation.
Gentleman -- qualifier must reexamine the business procedure test
within one year and must take a two-hour accredited course for
Workers' Compo insurance. And no restitution. And no notifying the
State of Florida, since he's the county license holder.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let me go through that again: $5,000
fine, $500 investigation, one-year probation. And what about the
testing?
MR. OSSORIO: Must take the -- must retake the business
procedure test and take a two-hour accredited course for Workers'
Compo insurance within six months. No restitution.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And no recommendation to the state.
MR. OSSORIO: And no recommendations to the state, that is
correct.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, gentlemen.
MR. JOSLIN: What is the fine, $5,000?
MR. OSSORIO: Five thousand dollar fine, yes.
MR. JOSLIN: And $500 was for the--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Investigation.
MR. JOSLIN: -- investigative costs?
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct.
MR. JOSLIN: This is unfortunate. Gentleman, I think that this is
probably one of the worst cases that we've had as far as Workmen's
Compo goes, because there was an injury on the job.
Page 75
16 i 1 ~~
December 17, 2008
I'm not totally convinced I guess that the man was hurt totally on
the job that he did that particular day. Nevertheless, he was hurt. So I'd
more or less be willing to go along with just about anything that Mike
Ossorio has prompted us to recommend, the punishment.
Does anyone feel that the person who got hurt here should be
compensated for his injuries?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's a tough issue. And it gets into
legalities, too, because we're talking a preexisting injury. It started in
2002, was aggravated in '06 and happened again in '08.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, and there was no evidence presented as to
dollar value of the compensation or anything like that, so the Board
has nothing on the record, nothing in evidence to base any restitution
on.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Quite honestly -- Mr. Scott, I know
you're listening; it's a closed hearing -- but the recommendation of the
county was much easier than I thought it was going to be. I think the
county has looked kind of lightly on you; one, to pay a fine and learn
a lesson but to still keep you operating, still keep you in business. I
expected a revocation recommendation. I think probably some of the
other people did too.
MR. JERULLE: I'm surprised also.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm very surprised.
MR. JERULLE: By his own admission it gives the impression
that he's done this before. By his own testimony. And I just -- I'm not
comfortable -- I'm thinking about the one-year probation, I don't know
that I'm comfortable with that.
MR. JOSLIN: I'm thinking more on the phases (sic), maybe two
years.
MR. L YKOS: Well, I would say too that I agree that this seems
a little bit lenient, especially when you consider the fact that we've had
some people in here that have made mistakes and they've owned up to
those mistakes and not tried to make excuses. And it just seems that
Page 76
16! 1 ~
December 17, 2008
Mr. Scott is making excuses and trying to sidestep his responsibilities
and try to play word games with us and with the county employees.
I have a lot more respect for somebody that says I made a
mistake and I accept my punishment and I'm going to do the right
thing. And that's not the situation that we have here.
MR. HORN: My other question was notifying the state. Mr.
Ossorio said -- in our recommendation, should we be considering
making a recommendation to the state, gentlemen?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, it's a county license, so the state
wouldn't take any action.
MR. HORN: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The only thing you can do, it's a
registered license, so he just registers with the state.
The Workers' Compo people may take issue to this. I would say
that's probably not out of the realm of possibilities.
MR. JACKSON: If! may?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I think Workers' Compo would have to
physically observe the violation to take action.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Even with the finding of fact, they have to
physically observe the violation.
MR. JOSLIN: At the time that it happened, you mean?
MR. JACKSON: At the time it happens. For example, if they
show up to a job site and employees are having lunch and there's no
coverage, they can't take action.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Really?
MR. JOSLIN: Right.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, one of the biggest problems is
misreporting payroll and misclassifying payroll. That's why carpenters
ended up being a more expensive class than roofing, because all the
GC's were taking their roofers and putting them in carpentry, and then
Page 77
16 ~ 1 A~
December 17, 2008
all of a sudden carpentry shot above roofing.
Even with an audit they can't?
MR. JOSLIN: Got to be caught.
MR. JACKSON: I was at a seminar in November, and that
specific question was asked. If there is a finding of fact of our Board
for a Workers' Compo violation, will you take action, and they said no.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Wow. Okay.
Well, how do you feel, guys? We need to resolve it.
MR. JOSLIN: One other item I'm really not -- I guess I'm not in
totally agreement with is I'm not sure that I believe either one of them
totally. I think that there was probably some other underlying things
that we don't know about that has prompted this to happen. Whether it
be a friend of a friend or he did it for a friend, I'm not certain that the
injury that he sustained possibly could have been something that he
did on that job that particular day that brought him to this situation.
Looks like there may be a conflict of personalities going on besides.
So I guess with that said, I'm going to make a motion. I'll make a
motion that we place -- we have found, I'm sorry, Daniel L. Scott of
d/b/a Colonial Carpentry, Inc., guilty of Count 1,4.1.6. And his
penalty be as -- he be placed on probation for a period of two years.
He's to pay a $5,000 fine within 30 days of the hearing of this date.
He's to pay $500 investigative fees. He's to take 14 hours of
continuing education, six hours of which will be by Workmen's Compo
policies. And to retake the business and procedures test.
And no further action would be sent to the State Licensing
Board.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No restitution?
MR. JOSLIN: Restitution for $500 -- no, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No restitution. That's investigative.
MR. JOSLIN: And no restitution. I'm sorry, yes.
MR. HORN: Question. Time frame on the education?
MR. JOSLIN: The 14 hours, 14 hours of it, I'd like to see done
Page 78
16 I 1 A~
December 17,2008
within 60 days.
MR. JERULLE: What is probation?
MR. JOSLIN: Well--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Ossorio, do you want to answer
that?
MR. OSSORIO: Typically probation is a -- is something we use
in our office when a homeowner or a perspective buyer calls. Ifhe's
on probation, we tell them they're on probation. And probation also
means that this gentleman should be contacting us on a monthly or a
weekly basis, let him (sic) know what job he's on, what he's doing and
where he's going to be so then we have an opportunity as a tool to go
out to the job sites, like Ian was just telling you earlier, to check
payroll, to make sure everyone's on payroll. That's what probation
means to me.
And if there's ever another infraction, he automatically goes in
front of the licensing board for violation of his probation.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Only word I didn't like in your
explanation was should be contacting you. Is that mandatory or is it
not?
MR. NEALE: It is if the Board so orders. It is essentially
voluntary unless the Board orders it.
In the past this Board has ordered people found in violation to
report on a regular basis. They've given specific time frames.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. JOSLIN: With that, I think I -- under that circumstance, I
think I'd like to amend the motion just to say that during this probation
period that Mr. Scott will be required to report all jobs to Collier
County Contractor Licensing on a per job basis. And ifthere's any
violation at all that takes place during that time period of the two-year
probation, then his license would be immediately revoked.
In other words, ifhe's caught doing something without
Workmen's Compo or something that would oversee--
Page 79
Dec!m~e} 17, 10r(P
MR. JERULLE: Building permits.
MR. JOSLIN: Building department. There's no permits. He
doesn't require permits, so we can't say that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. JERULLE: He doesn't require --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You understand the motion?
MR. OSSORIO: One more thing, just to clarify. The $500
restitution, you mean the $500 for investigation costs within 30 days
as well?
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay.
MR. JOSLIN: As well as the $5,000 fine.
MR. JACKSON: I have a question as well, please. Sixty days for
the 14 hours of continuing education. And would that also include the
business and law --
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: -- in that 60 days?
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Just so I don't give the man something
he can't do, Ex -- not Experior, but Gainesville can do this for him; is
that correct?
MR. OSSORIO: Gainesville, he can sign up today or tomorrow
and take it the next day, not a problem.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. L YKOS: How long to pay the fine?
MR. JOSLIN: Thirty days.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thirty days was the motion.
MR. L YKOS: I'll tell you, I don't feel real strong either way, so I
guess that means I'm good with it. I don't feel it's too harsh, I don't feel
it's too lenient so I guess I'm comfortable with it, because I don't feel
real strong either direction.
Page 80
16 1 lA~
December 17, 2008
MR. JOSLIN: I want to see it happen in a sooner time; 15 days, I
was thinking. However, we do have the Christmas holidays. So let's
call it a Christmas IS-day period. So by the middle of January it
should be paid.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, I've got a motion. Does
everyone understand it? I do not have a second.
MR. HORN: Second, Horn.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, now we're in the slot.
Okay, discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Neale, you okay with the motion?
MR. NEALE: I'm fine with it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All right, sir.
No more discussion, I'll call for a vote --
MR. JOSLIN: Anything else that we missed or that we don't feel
comfortable with, now's the time.
MR. L YKOS: I'll ask a question just for clarification. Maybe it
doesn't have anything to do with this specifically. But a comment was
made by Mr. Scott that he doesn't pull permits. Maybe Mr. Scott needs
to understand what the limitations of his license are and what he's
allowed to do.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's why he got the 14 hours in the
business test.
MR. L YKOS: Okay, we're going to take care of that, okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, we're going to get some more
education in there.
MR. LYKOS: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Call for the vote then. All those in
favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
Page 81
Decelrr~r~7,2Jb8~~
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's unanimous.
Mr. Scott -- no, I'll do that -- yeah. What we've done -- come up
here to the podium.
And I really do think this could have been handled a whole lot
better. But $5,000 fine -- you'll get an order, this will all be in writing
to you.
Five thousand dollar fine paid in 30 days; $500 investigation
cost; two-year probation. On a job basis you'll let the county know
where you're working, and that's easy to do. There's three wonderful
ladies in there working, and everyone answers the phone, they're good
people.
You're going to take 14 hours of education. Best place to go is
called Gainesville Testing, they'll tell you where to go. County will
work with you on this. It's a good outfit. They're also -- you're going
to take a business and law test, which you've done before, but you're
going to do it one more time. Two hours of Workers' Compo course.
Was that in the motion?
MR. JOSLIN: Six hours.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Six hours of Workers' Compo So
you're going to know Workers' Compo well enough to sell it. Go to
work for AFLAC, maybe, I don't know, it's probably better than
construction right now.
And no restitution and no state recommendation.
I really am -- I really thought it would be harder. You're still in
business, and I would count my blessings for that. It could have gone
Page 82
16 I lA-~
December 17,2008
the other way real quick.
So do you have any questions of the Board?
MR. SCOTT: No, I learned some things that I didn't know, so --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. I'm glad you're still in business.
MR. SCOTT: I will never drive a company truck to --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Just be straight.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, I had no idea. I didn't know that.
MR. JOSLIN: You go to that business and law test, you better
ask some more questions, because there are a lot of things that you
may not know about driving a company vehicle or wearing a company
T-shirt. There's a lot of things that fall into play when you start doing
that type of thing.
MR. SCOTT: That's -- well, I got to thinking about that sitting
down over there. If I give my company truck to somebody else and
they go work at somebody's house, I'm liable for it.
MR. JOSLIN: Exactly.
MR. L YKOS: Correct.
Also, just so you don't -- I still think you're missing a little bit. If
you're at a friend's house working and you think you're not on the
clock and you damage their house, real quick they're not your friend
anymore.
MR. SCOTT: I understand that.
MR. L YKOS: You're the general contractor. And all of a sudden
there's no friendship anymore and all they say is he's my general
contractor.
MR. SCOTT: I understand how fast things can change.
MR. L YKOS: All right. Well just don't -- it's not just about the
truck sitting in the driveway, okay? People expect that you're an
expert and you know what's right and what's wrong. And the court
will feel the same way.
MR. SCOTT: Understandable.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Very good. Wish you well. Hope you
Page 83
---- .
16 1 1 A[P
December 17, 2008
still have a nice Christmas.
MR. SCOTT: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you.
Mr. Neale, do you have a short form for me?
MR. NEALE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: This is my last one. And I must admit,
this is the one thing I've never enjoyed doing.
MR. NEALE: But we shortened it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: At least you shortened it.
Case No. -- and it has to be done. Case No. 2008-15, License
No. 11229, came before public hearing, the Contractor Licensing
Board today. Consideration of an administrative complaint filed
against the license holder, which I just stated, which his name is
Daniel L. Scott, d/b/a Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated.
Service of the complaint was made in accordance with Collier
County Ordinance 90-105, as amended.
The Board having at this hearing testimony under oath, received
evidence and heard arguments respective to all matters, thereupon
issues findings of fact, conclusion of law and order of the Board as
follows:
Findings of fact: That Daniel L. Scott was present and he is
license holder -- holder of the License 11229. The Board of Collier
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida is the complainant
in this matter. That the Board has jurisdiction, that's number three, of
the respondent, and that Daniel L. Scott was present. He was not
represented by counsel.
Number four, all notices required by the Ordinance 90-105, as
amended, have been properly issued. And service was personally
delivered -- correct? Okay.
Number five, respondent acted in a manner that in the violation
of Collier County ordinance is the one who committed the act. That
the allegations of the fact as set forth in administrative complaint as to
Page 84
Decem!e~l~, 20~ A(P
4.1.6, disregard or violates in the performance of the contracting
business in Collier County any of the building, safety, health, issuance
or Workers' Compensation laws of the State of Florida or ordinance of
this county. And found to be supported by the evidence presented at
the hearing.
Conclusions of law -- I can do the down button.
The conclusion of law, alleged and set forth in the administrative
complaint as to the count which was stated was approved, adopted and
incorporated to wit. The respondent violated that section as read.
Collier County Ordinance 90-105, violation set forth in the
administrative complaint.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusion of law
pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes,
Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, by a vote of six in
favor and zero opposed, a majority of the Board members present, the
respondent has been found in violation as set out above.
Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of six in favor and zero
opposed by a vote of the Board members present that the following
disciplinary sanctions related order are hereby imposed upon the
holder of Collier County Contractor Certificate of Competency No.
11229. That is, number one, a $5,000 fine, payable to the Collier
County within 30 days.
Number two, $500 investigative costs, paid to Collier County
within 30 days.
A two-year probation during which time the -- Mr. Scott, Daniel
L. Scott will report to Contractor Licensing regularly what jobs he is
working on.
A 14-hour continuing education to be done within 16 days,
number four.
Number five, six hours of Workers' Compensation continuing
education.
Number six, to pass -- to take and pass the business/law test
Page 85
161 lA\o
December 17,2008
successfully within 60 days.
Where am I at, number seven? No restitution.
Number eight, no state recommendation. My numbers may be
out of order, but you can correct them.
And so ends and closes that case.
Any questions, comments? Anything I missed?
MR. L YKOS: I just want to clarify, that was the short version.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, yes. Yeah, the only one had two
more pages.
MR. JOSLIN: Make sure that you print me out a copy of that,
okay, so the next time I have to do this that I won't--
MR. NEALE: I will make sure that we've got printed copies. I'll
send it over to Maggie and make sure it's in the packet for next
meeting, how about that?
MR. JOSLIN: Perfect, thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I commend the Contractor Licensing
Office for what you're doing. It is extremely difficult out there. All of
us contractors know that better than anybody. And we know you have
a difficult task and we know people are bending rules. We know
they're stretched to the max. There's a lot of pressure out there. I can
only imagine some of the confrontations that you encounter. Because
there is so much pressure on people out there.
I thank you for what you do. I appreciate the opportunity to
work with you all these years. You guys are a phenomenal bunch. And
I'm glad you got the extra employee, because you sure did need it.
And to the Board I wish -- and county staff, these two geniuses
over here, and the prettiest court reporter in Collier County, I wish all
of you a Merry Christmas and may next year be abundantly blessed
for all of you.
No reports.
Next meeting, Wednesday, January 21st, 2009. They go fast,
don't they?
Page 86
Decele~ 1 ~, 200\ /W
And we'll all hope that 2009's better than 2008.
MR. JOSLIN: Let's hope so.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anything else to come before the
Board?
MR. JOSLIN: We should that the Board of Commissioners I
think for passing this resolution reimbursing all the board members
and all the people that serve on these advisory committees for some
fuel mileage, the expenses that takes to get here, to and from. I think
that was a very nice gesture on their part, and I thank them.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: With nothing else--
MR. L YKOS: They must have a bunch of extra money laying
around.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think something maybe happened.
With all that, do I entertain a motion -- I move that we adjourn.
Do I hear a second?
MR. JOSLIN: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:04 p.m.
Page 87
161 lA(P
December 17,2008
C~TRACTOR LICENSING BOARD
f{/iZtL {974~)~
LES DICKSON, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on ...../4/1/ as
presented ,}fjf or as corrected .
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by
Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 88
Fiala -OF/ap-
~:~~ing-f~ t; ,
Coyle
Board of County Commissioners Coletta , t"-' ~
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RECEIVED
JAN 1 2 2009
161
1 Al
December 3,2008
Naples, Florida, December 3, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 3:30 P,M, in REGULAR SESSION in Conference
Room #610 in the Collier County Community Development and Environmental
Services Center, 2800 N, Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN: William Varian
Charles Abbott
James Boughton (Absent)
Clay Brooker
Laura Spurgeon Dejohn
Dalas Disney
David Dunnavant
Marco Espinar (Excused)
Blair Foley
George Hermanson
Reed Jarvi
Thomas Masters (Absent)
Robert Mulhere
Reid Schermer
Mario Valle
ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Administrator, CDES
Judy Puig, Opcrations Analyst, CDES
Phil Gramatges, Director, Public Utilities
Bob Dunn, Director, Bldg. Rcview & Pcrmitting
Gary Mullee, CDES, Operations Support Manager
Bill Lorcnz, Director, Engineering & Environmental Svcs. Misc. Corres:
Nick Casalanguida, Director, Transportation/Planning . D;}.. l {) 0
Ed Riley, Fire Code Official Date.
Tom Widcs, Operations Director, Public Utilities Item # I to 1:
I -
~ic::;i,'
161
1 A1
December 3, 2008
I. Call to Order
The meeting was ealled to order at 3:40 PM by Chairman William Varian and a
quorum was established.
II. Approval of Agenda
Reid Schermer moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Dalas Disney. Carried
unanimously, 9-0.
III. Approval of Minutes
The following eorreetions were suggested:
. On Page 6, the motions concerning nominations for re-appointment were
ehanged to "Motion carried, "ll-Yes" with one abstention."
Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutes of the November 5,2008 Meeting as
amended. Second by Reid Schermer. Carried unanimously, 9-0.
IV. Staff Announcements/Updates
A. CDES Update - Joe Schmitt, Administrator
. Funding is still an issue; there is a shortfall in Fund 131 - Permitting and Land
Use - revenue is not suftieient
. Building Department is sustaining
. Either fees or the number of employees must be adjusted
. Fiscal Year 20 I 0 - eore organization may be skeletal
. Level ofserviee will be impaeted
In response to a question by the Committee, Mr. Sehmitt stated the Intake Team
Manager's position was frozen. The "team" eonsists of one person who reports
to Glenda Smith. The former manager was assigned to Code Enforeement.
(Charles Abbott arrived at 3:47 PM)
. Budget alloeations will be re-adjusted and reduced
. BCC approval is not neeessary sinee the budget is being down-sized
VI. New Business
A. Fund 131 Reserves - Gary Mullee, CDES Financial Manager
. The strueture of Fund 131 reserves is being reviewed
. Reserve fund was created in 10/2003 - initial reserve was $1.66 Million
. The Board of County Commissioners approved the fee resolution
· Previously Fund 113 (Building & Plan Review) was the only fund, and building
permit fees subsidized land use
. Zoning fees have not been raised sinee 2003
. 200 projects started before 10/13 and the funds were deposited to Fund 113
. The Clerk of Courts declared the "reserves" to be a "loan"
. $701l,OOO has been paid baek to Fund 131 at a rate of $1 OO,OIlO per year
. Work done undcr Fund 131 is paid Il)r by thc ncxt applicant
. Business has stopped, rcscrves in Fund 131 will run out in 2 - 3 months
2
161
1
A7
Deecmbcr 3, 2008
(Mario Valle arrived at 3:55 PM)
. Fund 113 eollcets fecs for prepaid eommitments (i.e., inspeetions)
Joe Schmitt outlined a brief history of CDES and the funding proeess/fee schedule
ereated prior to 2002.
. Not enough money was set aside in Fund 131; will approach Board of County
Commissioners to request rebalancing the reserves in Funds 131
There was a diseussion eoneerning the CBIA lawsuit. Under Florida Statutes,
building fees ean only pay for the services provided under tbe building permit. The
law has been in effect since 2004. In the past, building permit fees partially
supported Engineering and Zoning. The building permit fees were artifieially raised
but when the Funds were split, the building permit fees were redueed. A suggestion
was made by the Committee to "tag" fees reeeived for pre-paid serviees and to not
deposit the fees into Reserves. Another suggestion was to examine the efficiency of
the current process and to eompare it to other Counties.
(Robert Mulhere arrived at 4:05 PM)
There was further discussion eoneerning reeoneiling the Reserves. Options presented
included further reduetion of staff, redueed operating hours, and renting space within
the CDES building. Also mentioned was the new software system. Eleetronie
submittal is not yet an option due to eost. It was noted that Collier County's building
permit fces are among the lowest in comparison to twelve other Counties.
Gary Mullee stated Fund 113 will have reserves through the eurrent Fiseal Year but
Fund 131 reserves will run out in February, 2009.
Chairman Varian eonfirmed speeifie reeommendations would he presented to the
Committee in the next two months.
IV. Staff Announcemcnts/Updates
C. Public Utilities/Engineering Division Update - Phil Gramatges
. Finanees for next year are being examined
. Public Utilities is funded by rates paid by consumers and lmpaet Fees
. Thc 2009 Budget has been analyzed and redueed by $25 Million
. Rcvenues for thc month are lower than last month
V. Old Busincss
A. Meter Size Forms - Phil Gramatges
Blair Foley stated there is another proccss at the Building Permit level utilizing a
similar form with different data whieh hc will provide to Mr. Gramatges bel,)re the
ncxt Committee meeting. He suggested adding an "effective date" to the bottom of
the current I,m]] to makc it easier to distinguish futurc rcvisions. Mr. Oramatges
agrccd.
3
161
1 A7
December 3, 2008
B. Water Surcharge Charts - Discussion
Copies of the eharts were distributed to the Committee.
Tom Wides, Operations Director - Public Utilities, provided a brief history of the
rate structure whieh was expanded to 6 bloeks in 2003. The purpose of the inverted
strueture is to reinforee eonservation. The meter size is not as important as the flow
going through the meter. The average eustomer used approximately 8,000 gallons
per month. He stated the new Water/Wastewater rates are available on the website.
There was a discussion concerning water used for irrigation, rates, "I.Q." (irrigation
quality) water and dedicated irrigation meters. The Publie Utilities eontaet to obtain
more information regarding irrigation meters is Gilbert Moneivaiz (252-4215).
IV. Staff Announcements/Updates
D. Fire Review Update - Ed Riley, Fire Code Official
. A written report was submitted to Committee members
. Monthly average of reviews remains between 850 - 950 plans
. There is more time to speak to design professionals to eorrect problems
Chairman Varian mentioned a problem eoneerning the rcmodeling of older club houses
which require the addition of fire alarms. He stated the neeessity of a full meehanieal
plan is a problem when the structure is 15+ years old and no initial plans are available.
Mr. Riley stated the mechanieal plan is required to determine the proper fire alarm
eomponents for the system. One suggestion was involving a meehanical eontraetor. He
also stated the Building Department will be involved lor all renovations over $5,000.00
and will conduet a 61-G Review. He suggcsted a one-on-one eonference with staff to
review options.
Dalas Disney stated he had reeently reeeived ealls from Mr. Riley's department staff
asking for clarifieation of an issue whieh avoidcd rcjection of a client's project saving
him time and additional expense whieh he appreeiated.
In response to a question, Mr. Riley replied his department's staff is right-sized and
the department is currently finaneially stable.
VI. New Business
B. New Building Blocks - "Revisions to Plan Submittal Rcquirements" - Bob
Dunn and Ed Riley
A copy ofthc Building Bloek was distributed to the Committee.
. A round-tablc meeting with eontractors has been schcduled to preview the new
software which is expected to bc implcmcnted in March/April, 2009
A qucstion was askcd about "one revision per pcrmit type." Mr. Riley stated
any itcm covered by a building permit (i.e., electrical, mcehanieal, architectural)
could be included as part of the "one revision." Sprinkler systems and lirc alarm
systcms are separate from building pcrmits and would require separatc rcvisions. The
trades would have to eoordinate the revisions lor submission at onc time.
4
161.
1 A7
December 3, 2008
In response to a question, it was eonfirmed the General Contraetor would serve as the
"applieant of reeord" and coordinate the trades.
IV. Staff Announcements/Updates
B. Transportation Division Update - Nick Casalanguida
. The 5-year CIE is in proeess and revenues are projeeted to be down but the eapital
program will remain generally intaet
. The Santa Barbara projeet seetion of roadway from Copperleaf to Green will be
pushed baek
. Collier Boulevard is still seheduled for eompletion on 11/2012 but Golden Gate
might be pushed back a year
. Collier Boulevard (between Davis and 1-75) will start in Fiseal Year 2009
(October or November)
. Vanderbilt is near completion
. Immokalee Road is near eompletion
There was a question eoneerning landscaping for Immokalee Road (up to 95 I),
Vanderbilt, and Rattlesnake.
Mr. Casalanguida stated the current landseaping budget is $2.9 Million but the
Board of County Commissioners authorized only $1.8 Million and suggested the
Transportation Department aeeept bids for the projeet. He further stated the issue is
on-going maintenance and in perpetuity maintenanee eosts will be included in eaeh
bid. lmpaet Fees eannot be used for the costs.
VI. New Business
C. Transportation Impact Fee Update - Nick Casalanguida
A eopy of the draft report of the Transportation Impact Fee Update Study was
distributed to the Committee.
. Impaet Fees are the only revenue stream that funds capital improvement programs
. "Olde Cypress" (going south), the Estates and "Arrowhead" were part of the Trip
Length Study whieh was eondueted to see how far people drive
. The eonsultant, Tyndale-Oliver, was asked to blend the loeal numbers with the
State's numbers because Collier's numbers werc too high
. Collier County is one of the only Counties that includes Utilities in its Impaet
Fces
There was a discussion about why the retail rates inercascd, lower "pass by and
capture" numbers, and the percentages used tor reeommended new trips, and
Assistcd Living Faeilities. Other questions concerned uses and why eertain
eategories did not contain subcategories, sueh as "Specialty Medical."
Mr, Casalanguida statcd a physician (i.e., psyehiatrist) could apply tor an
administrative "speeial use" based on the number of patients seen per day.
It was suggcstcd that a sub-class should be ereated. Commcnts mcntioncd that
"restrietions wcrc vcry tight" and "physicians are ehoosing to opcn ncw offices
elsewhere rathcr than in Collier County due to eosts."
It was pointcd out full trip generation back-up was not includcd in the rctail study.
5
161
December 3, 2008
lA1
Mr. Casalanguida stated new roads are funded by Impaet fees, but other munieipalities
have additional revenue streams (i.e., tolls, sales tax). The General Fund alloeation pays
baek loans and pays for operations and maintenance.
There was further diseussion eoneerning why Impaet Fees have not been reduced when
costs per lane mile and other eosts are lower. Additional information from the
Consultant will be presented to the Committee via email. Figures from some of the
other Counties are being reviewed and updated.
The Report will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on January 13,
and January 27, 2009.
D. LDC Cleanup for the 2009 Cycle
Chairman Varian stated at the last Committee meeting it was suggested that the
Members submit reeommendations for the next eycle based on their individual
expertise. It was deeided Judy Puig will eontact Catherine Fabacher eoneerning the
Cycle and deadlines. The information will be distributed to the Committee via
email.
VII. Committee Member Comments
A. Discussion of By-Laws - Chairman Varian
Chairman Varian asked the Members to review the thirteen items that eomprised the
"funetions, powers and duties" of the Munieipal Code and if they thought the 2009
Agenda should be adjusted to include the items. He asked the Members to review
Items #6, 7 and 8 speeifically.
VI. New Business
D. Transportation Impact Fee Update - Nick Casalanguida
Mr. Casalanguida returned and requested speeifie aetion from the Committee
eoneerning the Report.
George Hermanson moved to accept the Report for purposes of discussion. Second
by Robert Mulhere.
Robert Mulhere stated the Report may be accepted, but thcre is no support for
raising lmpaet Fecs and deereases arc encouraged.
Reed Jarvi stated he did not have enough time to study the Report and would not
support it.
George Hermanson amended his motion to accept the information provided in the
Report but to oppose any increases in Impact Fees. Second by Robert Mulhere.
Motion carried unanimously, 12-0.
VII. Committee Membcr Comments
B. Discussion of By-Laws - Chairman Varian
Discussion resumed Il)cusing on ltcms 6, 7 and 8. It was suggcsted to amcnd thc
Agenda to include the items.
6
16/
lit?
December 3, 2008
Chairman Varian stated he would eon suit with Judy Puig to revise the Agenda
format.
Public Comment:
Chris Straton, President, League of Women Voters of Collier County, introduced
several members of the League in attendanee and outlined their funetions. She stated the
League's foeus for its meetings during the past year has been on Advisory Boards to the
Board of County Commissioners. DSAC was one of four Advisory Boards pieked for
study and the basis for asking Chairman Varian to speak at a League meeting.
She stated Collier County has a tradition of solieiting more publie eomments and
suggested adding the topie of "Publie Comments" to the DSAC Agenda.
There was diseussion coneerning the influence and effeetiveness of DSAC, the reluetanee
of the BCC to attaeh any weight to DSAC's recommendations, as well as the eomposition
of the Committee. It was mentioned that DSAC Minutes are available online.
Clay Brooker stated it would be a good idea to add "Publie Comments" to the Agenda.
Chairman Varian stated the topie should also be included in all advertising.
VII. Committee Member Comments
Robert Mulhere stated he attended the BCC meeting on Deeember 2, 2008 and reported
the BCC unanimously approved motions for re-appointment submitted by DSAC.
DSAC Meeting Dates: January 7, 2009 at 3:30 PM
February 4, 2009 at 3:30 PM
March 4, 2009 at 3:30 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
order of the Chairman at 5:41 PM.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVlSORV COMMITTEE
)~
.tJ V' Ch'
lam anan, ' aIrman
These Minutes weJ>X(pproved by the Board/Committee on __ I fJ /Ql____
as presentcd __L__, or as amended ______,.
7
161
1
-liliv
F()REST
LAKES
!<to\!)\\ \1 \"'D nl<: \1'\ \I.,j \1:.,1 I
RECEIVED
JAN 0 6 2009
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH
NAPLES, FL 34104
Minutes
fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta 1JL /
October 8, 2008
Board of County Commissioners
I. Call to order
Meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. by William Seabury. No quorum
was established.
II. Attendance
Members: Harold Bergdoll, William Seabury, George Fogg, Robert Jones
(Excused), Virginia Donovan (Excused)
County: Tessie Sillery - Operations Coordinator, Darryl Richard - Project
Manager, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst
Other: Chris Tilman and Thomas Roadman - Malcome Pirnie, Darlene
Lafferty - Mancan
Darryl Richard stated that a Staff and Consultant Report would be
conducted.
Darryl Richard distributed the following: (See attachments)
. Project Managers Report
. Tree Maintenance - The County Attorney's recommendation to the
MSTU was to abstain from drafting a letter to the Residents andlor
Property Associations noting it is not the purpose of the MSTU.
. Quality Enterprises Change Order
Caroline Soto distributed and reviewed the Budget Report. (See
attached)
o Purchase Orders -
i. FPL invoices have not been received for FY09
ii. Southern Services P.O.s (2) have not been opened
o Balances rolled over from preceding Purchase Orders -
i. RWA
ii. Bonness
iii. Better Roads
iv. Malcome Pirnie
v. a. Grady Minor
o Available Improvements General $1, 100,213.82
George Fogg arrived 10:10 am
A quorum was established
Misc. Corres:
Date:~
Item # t lQ L Ll)1t <b
':opies to
1611~~1
If6
The meeting was officially called to order at 10:10 by Vice Chairman George
Fogg.
III. Approval of Agenda
William Seabury moved to approve the agenda as submitted.
Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - September 10, 2008
William Seabury moved to approve the minutes as submitted.
Second by Harold Bergdoll.
Harold Bergdoll reported repairs to the damaged Manhole and
surrounding Roadway is complete.
Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
V. Transportation Services
A. Budget - Caroline Soto - Previously discussed II
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard I Chris Tilman - Malcome
Pirnie
Darryl Richard reviewed the Quality Enterprises Change Order in the
amount of $5250 for Headwall modifications.
Harold Bergdoll expressed concern with installed Headwalls between
(Fairways) 5 & 6, noted a possibility of carts rolling into the ditch, which
is a safety hazard.
Discussions ensued and it was agreed that the addition of 4 Head
Walls were necessary as a safety precaution. It was determined that
$20,000 would be sufficient monies to cover the additional installation.
Harold Bergdoll moved to approve a not to exceed amount of
$20,000 for the additional (4) Wing Walls plus the $5,250 (Quality
Enterprises for Headwall curbing.) Second by William Seabury.
Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
Chris Tilman and Thomas Roadman gave a Slide Presentation on
Project Status and reported the following:
. (F-54) Replacement of Fairway NO.5 Culvert-
i. The excavated steel pipes were structurally unsound due to
bowing and corrosion
ii. The Condo Association denied access which required a larger
amount of sod removal
iii. The new Headwall elevation will prevent standing water
iv. Installation of Headwalls are 20 ft. off of the Fairways
v. The Concrete End Walls are aesthetic
2
161
I1f6
Harold Bergdoll voiced dissatisfaction with sod installation on
Fairway 5. He compared the quality of work by various
Contractors, and noted the quality of work by Gustafson.
Darryl Richard responded that the Committee may include Sod
Installation Standards for future bids.
George Fogg offered his expertise for Spec modification. He
would work jointly with Malcome Pirnie.
. (F-41) Improve roadside drainage in the Forest Lakes Villas and
Condo area -
i. Entrance (shoulder) standing water has been remedied by
Under Drain installation
II. Under Drain - near completion
iii. Keeping the water table at a minimum to preserve the Roads
was the objective for Cul-de-sac areas
It was questioned if the Drainage on Woodshire had a blockage.
Thomas Roadman responded that the pipes are in a flat position
under the driveways, additionally grass is an obstacle. He stated
that re-grading is required.
George Fogg questioned the response from the County Attorney
for Tree Trimming.
Darryl Richard reviewed the County Attorney's letter. Noted the
FOOT standard height is 17 Y, ft.
George Fogg requested readdressing Tree Trimming at the
November 12, 2008 meeting.
Harold Bergdoll noted the concern of the Gordon River elevation.
He questioned the parameters that are controlling the Weir.
Thomas Roadman stated that the Weir information is critical for
the drainage of Forest Lakes.
VI. Old Business - None
VII. New Business - None
VIII. Public Comments - None
IX. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the
meeting was adjourned by the Vice Chairman at 11 :06 A.M.
3
161
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage
MSTU Advisory Committee
2.
n
These minutes approved by the Committee on _I \ - ! ,J ' V 4'
as presented '\ or amended .
The next meeting will be on November 12, 2008 10:00 a.m.
Collier County Transportation Building, East Conference Room
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
4
Ip6
161
lA1$
F()RES']'
LAKES
1<0 \Ii\\ ,,'. \\'111)1{ \1'\ \(;1 \L I i
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH
NAPLES, FL 34104
November 12, 2008
Aaenda
I. Call to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes - October 8,2008
V. Transportation Services Report
A. Budget - Caroline Soto
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard, Chris Tillmanl
Malcome Pirine
VI. Old Business
VI. New Business
A. Project Tree Trimming
B. Drainage Structure between MSTU and downstream Golden
Gate Structure
VII. Public Comments
VIII. Adjournment
The next meeting will be on December 10,200810:00 a.m.
Collier County Transportation Building, East Conference Room
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
1
161
1 ;!6
F()REST
I 1"'1'"
"/\.1'. ',S
no \In\ \'! \'\0 OR \1'\ \(.1 \IS 1,1
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH
NAPLES, FL 34104
SUMMARY OF MINUTES & MOTIONS
October 8, 2008
III. Approval of Agenda
William Seabury moved to approve the agenda as submitted.
Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - September 10, 2008
William Seabury Bergdoll moved to approve the minutes as
submitted. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously
3-0.
V. Transportation Services
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard I Chris Tilman - Malcome
Pirnie -
Darryl Richard reviewed the Quality Enterprises Change Order in the
amount of $5250 for Headwall modifications.
Harold Bergdoll expressed concern with installed Headwalls between
(Fairways) 5 & 6, noted a possibility of carts rolling into the ditch, which
is a safety hazard.
Discussions ensued and concern was expressed about a safety
hazard on Fairways 5 & 6. It was determined that $20,000 would be
sufficient monies to cover additional installation of 4 Head Walls.
Harold Bergdoll moved to approve a not to exceed amount of
$20,000 for the additional (4) Wing Walls plus the $5,250 (Quality
Enterprises for Headwall curbing.) Second by William Seabury.
Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
161
1 A-~
(F-41) - ACTIVE (POC: Darryl Richard, Stall Ltalson: Chris Tilman, P.E. Project Management Consultant) -Improve roadside
drainage In the Foreet Lakee Villas and Condo area and In portions of Forest Lakee Blvd (cul_ce, etc.), Engineers
Estimate $164,450; Award Is to Gustafson at $141,697.64
PROJECT PHASE
Scope Prep
Contractor Solicitation
Contractor Salected
MSTU Cmta Funding Approved
County WO Processing
Contractor NTP Date
Est. Construction Completion Date
Start - End Data
3/16/06 - 6/10106
6129/08 - 6113/08
6118/2008 (Gustafson Construction)
3/1212008
6118/08 - 7/7/08
718/08
918/08
(F-54) - ACTIVE (POC: Darryl Richard, Stall Liaison; Chris Tilman, P,E. Project Management Consultant) - Roplacement of
Fairway No.6 Culvert - Engineers Estimate $146,235; Award Is to Kyla Const. at $51,899,40
PROJECT PHASE
Scope Prep
Contractor Solicitation
Contractor Selected
MSTU Cmta Funding Approved
County WO Processing
Contractor NTP Data
Est. Construction Completion Data
Start - End Datil
6/19108 - 6/28/08
6/06/08 - 6127/08
6/2712008
3112/2008
8/27108 - 7/16/08
7118/08
9116/08
(F-50) - ACTIVE (POC: Darryl Richard) - PHASE II: Project 6b: March - Sept 2006; Reconstructlhe southern & northern ends
of the Woodshire Ditch (Merged with with F-49) Engineers Estlmata Pending
PROJECT PHASE
Scope Preparation
Contractor Solicitation
Contractor Selected
MSTU Cmte Funding Approved
County WO Processing
Contractor NTP Data
Est. Construction Completion Date
Start - End Data
6116/08 - 8/20108
6/20108 - 6130/08
7/112008
3/12/2008
711/08 -7120/08
7121/08
9121/08
(F-53) - ACTIVE (POC: Darryl Richard, Stall Liaison; Chris Tilman, P.E. Project Management Consultant) - Quail Run Lake
Shorallne Reetoratlon and Stabllizatlon- Engineers Estlmata Pending SFWMD Feedback
PROJECT PHASE
Scope Prep
Contractor Bidding
Contractor Selected
MSTU Cmta Funding Approved
BOCC Approval Data
County WO Processing
Contractor NTP Data
Est. Construction Completion Date
Start - End Date
6/2/08 - 12/30108
1/16/09 - 2/6/09
2/6/2009
2/1112009
2/17109
2/17109 - 3/6/09
4/1/09
7/1109
ii..-C""",,,,,, _......... u_~; "'" "'~'. ,.< __ _ ".,...;.~... __
Easement
PROJECT PHASE Start - End Data
Scope Prep 3126/08 - 4/26108
MSTU Cmte Funding Approved 4/9/2008
County WO Processing 4125/08 - 5/14108
Survey NTP Date 5115/2008
Survey Completa 7115/08
County Real Estata Proceeslng 7116/08 - 9/9/08
BOCC Approval Date 9/23/08
(F-51) - ACTIVE (POC: Darryl Richard, Staff Liaison; Chris Tilman, P.E. Project Management Consultant) - Forast Lakee
Condo Easement
PROJECT PHASE
Scope Prep
IMSTU Cmta Funding Approved
County WO Processing
I Survey NTP Date
Survey Complete
County Real Estate Processing
BOCC Approval Date
Start . End Date
3126/08 - 4/26/08
4/912008
4/26/08.6/14/08
5/15/2008
7/16/08
7116/08 - 919108
9123108
l
16/
IItY:
(F-48) - ACTIVE (POC: Darryl Richard) - PHASE I: Project 5: Forest Lakes Blvd. relief sewer to Lake 10
(F-47) - ACTIVE (POC: Darryl Richard, Staff Liaison; Chris TIlman, P,E. Project Management Consultant) - Milling & Overlay
Foreet Lakes Drive and elde streets from Forest Lakes Blvd. to south end (Merged with F-40) Englneere Estimate $424,382;
Award Is to Better Roads at $431,149,00
PROJECT PHASE
Scope Prep
Contractor Solicitation
Contractor Solected
MSTU Cmta Funding Approved
BOCC Approval Date
County WO Processing
Contractor NTP Data
Est. Construction Completion Date
Start - End Date
2/1/08 - 5/19/08
8111108 - 811 1lI08
8118/2008 (Better Roada)
3/12/2008
7/22/2008
7122/08 - 8/15/08
8118108
10/18/08
(F-45) - ACTIVE (POC: Darryl Richard) - PHASE I: Project 3c: Feb - May 2008; Regrade Swale Nos. 12-17 & Nos. 1-6 and
Install culvert, Total regrade langth approximately 19,704 L.F, (Merged with F-44) Englneere Estimate $520,220
PROJECT PHASE
Scope Prep
Contractor Bidding
Contractor Selected
MSTU Cmte Funding Approved
BOCC Approval Data
County WO Processing
Contractor NTP Date
Est. Construction Completion Date
Start _ End Date Prolect Delaved until next vear.
2/1108 . 3f7108
1lI15108 - 1lI10108
8/1012008
4/912008
5/2412008
8125108 -718/08
8/8108
9/30108
(F-43) - ACTIVE (POC: Darryl Richard) - PHASE I: Project 3a: Feb - May 2008; Quail Run Swale Restoration and Lake
Improvements: Regrade Swale Nos. 7-11 and Install culverts. Total regrade length approximately 5,974 L.F, Englneere
estimate $198,575 (updated 7-10-(8); Award Is to Quality at $198,047,50
PROJECT PHASE
Scope Prep
Contractor Solicitation
Contractor Selected
MSTU Cmte Funding Approved
County WO Processing
Contractor NTP Date
Est. Construction Completion Date
Start - End Date
2/1108 - 317108
6117108 -712/08
712/2008
$240,000 on 4/9108
712/08 - 7121108
7/21108
9122/08
(F-39) - ACTIVE (POC: Darryl Richard, Staff Liaison; Chris Tllmsn, P.E. Project Management Consultant) - Right-of-Way for
Roadways, Swales, and Drainage Structures. Work Scope is based on RLS 07-TRN-00068
PROJECT PHASE
Scope Prep
MSTU Cmte Funding Approved
County WO Processing
Survey NTP Date
Survey Complete
BOCC Approval Date
Start - End Date
3125108 - 4/25/08
4/9/2008
4/25108 - 5115108
511512008
7115108
919108
(F-38) - ACTIVE (POC: Darryl Richard) - PHASE I: Project 3d; Feb - Oct 2008; Construct engineered pertltlons In Lakes 8 and
10; (Malcolm Pirnie Projected Budget $500,000); Q. Grady Minor - Design Consultant
PROJECT PHASE
Design Docs Prep
SFWMD ERP App Submitted
SFWMD ERP Received
Bid Preparation
Advertise for Bid
Contractor Salected
MSTU Cmta Funding Approved
BOCC Approval Date
Contract Processing
Contractor NTP Date
Est. Construction Completion Date
Stert - End Date
314/08 - 5131/08
5/19108
9130108
9130/08 - 10115108
10115108 - 1115108
111512008
11'12/2008
1112512008
11125108 - 1130109
2/2/08
8/4/09
QE
GUALITV
EN"=Ii'!"~':':1!BEB
October 6, 2008
SENT VIA E-MAIL
Mr. Christopher Tillman, P.E.
Senior Consultant
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
4315 Metro Parkway, Suite 520
Fort Myers, Fl. 33916
Dear Mr. Tillman:
RE: Forest Lakes MSTU F-43
HeadwaD Curbing
161
Our proposal to pour the curbs on the headwall is $5,250.00. Unfortunately, we will need
to wheelbarrow the concrete so we do not damage the asphalt alone the path.
Please contact me directly should you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
2
/7~~:r-
\.-L~uis J. Gaudio
Vice President - Project Management
20& l1mem Court
a.sapl!allle, VA 21320
(7S1l!>48.-8COO
Fll.1I. (75.7) SAS-2FiOO
1 A'6
3&94 Mi!IIo.!Ilbt ~\!e. Suite 216
Ni!IIples.fl311'HI~
U3t)4lS-7200
Fu(U9:} 43S,7202
UctC8CA57231
16 Pige I 01 A co
From: TeachScott
Sent: Monday, October 06,2008 11 :37 AM
To: RichardDarryl
Cc: TeachScott
Subject: Forest Lakes MSTU / RLS 08-TRN-001 01: Tree Trimming
Darryl,
I am writing in response to the above RLS seeking guidance on whether the MSTU can send out a letter to the
residents and/or Property Associations within the Forest Lakes MSTU requesting that trees along the roadway be
trimmed to 15' in height. As you point out in your Request for Legal Services, the purpose of the MSTU is as
follows:
"The unit is created and established for the purpose of providing and maintaining improved roadway lighting,
traffic control signage and devices, roadway-related drainage and roadway restoration within the area of that unit
and to that end shall possess all the powers to do all things reasonably necessary in connection therewith."
Based upon the express purpose of the MSTU as set forth in the Ordinance, it is my opinion that the MSTU's
advisory committee is without authority to use MSTU funds to request that the trees be trimmed as requested nor
does it have any authority to address the proper trimming of trees within the MSTU.
Scott R. Teach
Deputy County Attorney
Collier County, Florida
Tel: (239) 252-8400
Fax: (239) 252-6300
10/8/2008
161
1 fr~
ITEM NO.:
DATE RECEIVED:
FILE NO,:
ROUTED TO:
DO NOT WRITE ABOVE THIS SPACE (Orig. 9189; Rev. 6197)
REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES
(please type or print)
Date: 10-2-08
To; Office of the County Attorney, Attn: Scott Teach
(Name)
') \
/f'1 ;' I ,-,
torr "1---
~ f , :
...
J
~.
/o-LO'l;
Project
From; Darryl Richard
Manager
(Title)
Transportation
(Division)
ATMDept
(Department)
Telephone # (Verv Important): 239-252-5775
Re: Forest Lakes MSTU Committee Request for Letter to Residents - re Tree Trimming
(Subj ect)
BACKGROUND OF REQUESTIPROBLEM:
(Describe problem and give background information - be soedne. concise.. and articulate.)
Tbe Forest Lakes MSTU Committee on September 10, 2008 requested that MSTU Liaison Staff send a letter to the
residents and/or Property Owners Associations within Forest Lakes MSTU Boundary requesting that the respective
associations trim tbe trees above the roadway to a specified height - specifically 15 ft. in height.
MSTU Liaison Staff is concerned that sending a letter <as per request) is Dot only outside of the purview of the Forest
Lakes MSTU Committee per Ordinance 2005-20 hut also conflicts with confirmed clearance standard of 17 ft. 6 inches
for roadway clearance from obtructioos (per roOT index 17356).
MSTU Liaison Staff request confirmation that tbis is a code enforcement related item Ind not within the purview of the
Forest Lakes MSTU Committee.
As per "Purpose" ofMSTU as stated:
"The Unit hereby created and established is for the p..rpose of providing and maintaiaing improved roadway lighting,
roadway-related drainage and roadway restoratioD withi. the area of that Unit and to that end shall possess all the
powers to do all things reasonably necessary ift connection therewith."
(Are there documents or other information needed to review this m.tter? If yes,. attach and reference this information.)
This item haslhas Dot been previously suhmitted.
(If previously submitted provide County Attorney's Office File No.) No
ACTION REQUESTED:
(Be very specific:. Identify exactly what you need in the way of legal services.)
<t
Recommendation for Staff Liaison to either send letter (see attached letter and
attachments) or not send letter as per review in terms of applicability of 'Purpose' of Forest
Lakes MSTU per Ordinance 2005-20 and that the request would conflict with established
FDOT Design Guidelines (2008 Edition).
OTHER COMMENTS:
Attachements included
cc: Michelle Edwards Arnold
(All requests must be copied to your appropriate Division Head or Constitutional Officer.)
161
1 pt
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION
.
Alternative Transportation Modes Department
2885 Horsesboe Drive South. Naples, Florida 34104 . Tel. 239-252-8192 . FAX 239-252-{;219
October 2, 2008
Forest Lakes MSTU Area Resident
DRAFT
Dear Resident,
The Forest Lakes Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) Committee on September 10, 2008 voted 3-0 to request that
property owner's within the Forest Lakes MSTU Boundary trim trees to a height of fifteen (15) feet above pavement on
roadways.
Collier County MSTU Liaison Staff as per the request of the Forest Lakes MSTU Committee is providing the following
attachments as guideline(s) for tree trimming and landscape design standards in relation to roadways.
I. FOOT 2008 Design Standards Excerpt (Index 546, Index 700, Index 17356)
2. "Proper Tree Pruning" guide obtained from Collier County Code Enforcement Office.
Thank you, On Behalf of Forest Lakes MSTU Committee,
Darryl Richard, MSTU Project Manager
Cc: Michelle Edwards Arnold
DRAFT
c
.'
{~~
c
"
"
~~ ' ~~
! (~_ tr"O a" i. . f'A S' 0" a: ~ Q; r:r {; C:-:J"
~~~~~! ~ll~ .n f~ ~~ ~la bJ H ~Jll ~
O~~OS'O gooa QOoa"~~O~ ~8qS ~ ~
S's.~~(Jq alJO. c; ~~ g g t:r~ ~ g 5-a crg-CJ'Q ~ Q>(rQ ~ ('t)
;. ~pP)Ulo80"t:I... ~ lC:lQ..;:rIl'C"VoIUJ~""=-~J:tg.~ :..--....yt<-;
o a. H Q.j;;'" ~ ~ 0 Vol 0 "0 ~ g:i!.......;:!:I ijI" (l ~ 0 S'''O c.. 0.. 0 0 J:t j
_ Ul D) i-I 0 ,.,. < t::I ~ .... i- i- ..s I.!Q ~ o.c ~ - .- c.. 0
o S-~.i;;'il = ., 0 0 ~ $! 8 ,ai!i.ll;;;.ll;;;9' 7- _-2.~ S o'~~ ao
Jil 0 '" 0 <l o.s g ~ "" 0 \; <::g f"l Fe ~€l '" ., 10 g n 8 o. 0 '0 0 0 -
'1 ~ 0 $' 0 :;.. ~'O .~g <j' _:.r-- ' . r... ~ CO) ~ t::1 ~ n 11 Q.. ~r 0
~ 8 ;;;g 0 s ..\ " 'I ~ '[. :"~ ~'" g I!" !5 ~ .P' '" '"
? 0 g. 0 n 0. ~~"", .~.;.; 0 e; ~ S- 0 S " III ~
~ S-~ ~ ~ :K. ~~c ,0. '", _~::r'-;r(Jq.:.r 0 ~ ij..-r-=f~tl. 0
_ i: 0 (') 0 en 0 ~~ ... ~ , ~. - 8 I;n --< .:~ - F7~, 0 (3 Ul ::;l ~.
~y1t ~:~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ! t~!t}ll;; S' COo ;. ~ ~ S' ~ ;l 23 S" a ~lrg- ~ ' ~ 13 ~~+\, J ~<if
~~_o-+,(.;o..(}~~'~~s~Ef~'i('Vcl"'o~ioo.~oO S"d 0;.).... cn(Jq~o\~:' ...;::
ti. '7d';C:~~::~ p)....o g ~ Os =- ~ O"'""'.!~ ~. ~ 0 o.~'~ ~ g!:: ~g-!,; g- ~ :.fiq 0 S (To <.n ~.~ ,~\:
. , , ,,"~ )c; UJ v ... --... 0 P ::r' 0 --. p) ~;::r p) .... .... v 0 0- .... .... ,... ' "-
'-:.r.._>i..~ g ~. <' p) 0 ~ (>) 5..... Po- b> .... 0 '" '<l ~ 0 D 21.... "d c:: ~.., 0 ~ 5' 0 ~ r.(iV ~
; '~-'-:r~ =' B 0 ~ (I.l ~ 0 ~ g "g ~ .a 0' g" a ;; () t:: g. (h 0 j ~ ~ "0 S' n -..J p. 2 (f
, : -S' a ~] ~ ~ ~ In ~ 3> g' ~ g- ~ g- ~ nag 8 ~ ~. ~ e- ~ 50 g g ~ g: g
(') 0 0 ..... 0 .... .., ... <l In tl 0- .a ....:E :::: (>) 0 tl n 0 0 ~ ... N Otl
c;PO"a"'-~ "ooClIlloQ.....c-"g Illo=::r!l).... .. oaP- en "'M ~
~ ~;:;tl.~::r':J. 2 :i.t:: 0'.... S fJ &:: 5.Otl.g~'~';~'D~'. .... 0 ~ -g_~;.o
o 0"" ~ "'. ~ -.' , ,,"- is.. .Q 8 n is 2. _.5 0 " ,,"'" .'eo, '.' A.o 8 .:< = 5! ~
1"'. 0 0 ,.",.p.~, o;:r 0 t;"'::r ::r' t:I ;::I 8 E!.. P (\I~e-' '-.--,- 0'" I)'Q -0:: 0
:ro~"'" ',"~ ~'" ~~ "'.,a 0..'" ~ 8 ;:r r:f.~ ~".._, .=-.:<: (\I.... g.1llo
n .... ~'~;mr.- ~'. ~- 8 0 :IS c:: .... n (') g. 0 n ...... ,:r", "'o:..:.Q.., 0 ~ ::t'
g. g ~ i1'<~:: :t5:-: a- 5 ~-6'~' g. ~ ~ If 0 g- ~ E; ~f,'~'" 'ft,'~ g. Er o.Ji R-
~ ~ 0.. ~~j>n:'}!9...' ~ Cl-"O a l:) ___ ... 0 8 g-; ~ g.f. '/" ;,::e:: ~ ~ s-~ R1:~
n 0" g '"1:?'J,~'."p, .., a. 2 g 0.<'. =..Illo Illo (") -. (") . e; t:t -. ~ -3:1".
on'" 1lJl"~:'--_'-"'-'.'. ,..'"d Illo 0 2 .... 0.. e. .... e' g :r goo.. 0 ~ (') - .;.
II' n n :=f . 2 ::: en . '"'" ~ ::r >:I :ro'::::Otl 0 n .....'.
080"'~ t:l oC.::l OOtl..(l_,c.;.Q _.Olllo("l =-~ Illo.~'
...... g" (") _. a 0 Otl ~- 0 -,:.:: ;.~:~';''''C 8 ;:I ...., r> c: 1"". ~r t:T' p- ~'~
:E 0 p) 5' ~ "S "0 ..... :~:,~<~:;--':"....~ t:I r:;:::\n t:;....... :::r 0"" ~ 0.: "'-'-~
5' 8' 5 0. e. S-::-N;t, c,..--;-.-:f-?" e: g. fi -....:: n '" _. 9-: 0. ~""..,
___ 0....:;, ",~-,,,,~",....,---~. 08 0 J::.... tn'
......y :::. tl .... '1-:,'Ol'1 ,.;,',.;._::.;::::::;,,_...... ~ c: ~ ~::E 0 '<'W'
~ ~ ,< .,~>~~':t;:':8'~r~~: .. 5' ~ ~ s ::: ~ . ~
.:~:~(, " ,~..-
.~rt
J~:~~t.:.
~.
.~""
..;~
;r~'"
:2~'
~~~ -
'\
~ll1~
;g!~j~\;li':/~" '<~-~:~it
sl'"~\e~ry~.~ 8; [ i
~ f.fi~~{-:i@. ~ l=' 5 0
15 ~~,~~~:: g [ ~ s
a'at:a~~ g.1t'"'~;:~5' S' g
a.., tn 0 0 ;J;"C' c:: IT.. .... g
. p g I=' a g::. :=;:T ::T"O
o ;.e.i::T' n ~ g.~ n ~
.., a.~~ 0 cr .... 0 8 g.
s-ecre.. s... Qo B ~
0:'0'" ~"O o"t) Slllo
~~~~ e~ ~O I
nrt ~.! J~~~'.-I!I~
Pi ....0 Illo rih;r g,.
~a:.a.e. e . t.~.-.. I\)
S].g8c ~ _ cr
~e.:'" ~ -< 0
o ~ g-g ~ ~ e
......("J iir Ul 0' ::h
Cl(;-::1C:. 0 ~ g.
g~8.g [ 'i
QI 0 o..{,Q lJ'Q
g.-.~ 5 n
7 t:r' VJ:f
~
"
~
\\./
,,,,.0'
,-...~!--
'~~\,l.i\,.
. :::~,"'\\l
. --..--,
~~
f,;;f/);
j}?"'---<"""
-:-,
,
w
,
l
t;:;
"
0'
;;:
,,-'.
"{~, .
,
~;lHis:9
e. n g R ~ a 8
.... cr c:: ED O!
Q'1l.g ~ ~ 0 .
~;; ~~.::t>~
'O.QS-,2"1D
~ O. >I ~ c ;;J...J
ngo"O ~\o
~ ~. F ~ .-i,~
~~ 8.~ .'!:~~~~a ~~ g ~
~.::r~ c::: . ..f. Sol\) J;li"VJ <l
8goo~. 'ogs-s~.-t
!;l'l ~ :-~< g. = ""'" ",>-l(l
-<:P)~CJil'O~ 1l:l000~ne:o
oq_OoE:l"O r ~ 2(;r>>r+UlQl
c::ooos~ v a~g~~&'Q
t; 0 ~ ::rOQ So l:t' ! It ::,E ~;:TOO to) ~ "r!. 9.. "0 .....
_. g ~ ~. 0 n 0 CI!I c...... D 0 0"0'---' .-. ~ ,.....
=... 0 0 tn ::1. O' 0 t'"
~ 0 " " "''' '" a", g!:l ",8 l='!l s- -, ~
~"O='~0"<t+ o~~~a~"tJ....~[;n8'~1
~~!.l;"~1i' t.."'e.gag'O~..g~>I~!!I
o fI> t: ~'1 0 I. ~ ~ e g..S- . e ~ I\) ::To ~ ~.
"" ~. . '" '" ~ ~ =: jO" _ 0 g (l ~ " t""
~.o 3~~ ~~~~ou~H~~n~
n e ~ ~ p ~ no ~ ~ g ~ 0 [!. to. I
;.r- :I I fI'> ~ SDl .
E. 08
~o am
-178
s,""
~ g: ~ ~.
..
88'.,,~
~ im" .:.~t"l-i;
~ ~. ,......
0.. ~~ /.h'
~ :-~.:('i~~f;
S' g ~.f7tj.;,1 .
'" :S.'O'Pi:f~:)
~ ~ cri.;:r' \. '~,'?:
nag, j
[2~
~"
<l!l ",E!.
."oo.;!~
bJ.g g ~ 5 ~
l13 "0. e. R =- n
t:"'.lii"O~oaaa
h- ~ ... ~ ~ !f 8
~C.~ o!:'3.~
.g 0 ;
",'" /;
. 5' S- .
lJQ OQ 0 ~
o . ". g f
. "" ".=
-;s ~ 0" 0 0 e..g
~St~g~~~.
~iig,Zir1i
Q.~ ~ 0 t:J
Q~en~o
".ll" S -, <i
~"~b~Q.
'<l~~'
,"'-
il
@
VI
~
:t
.....
<:>
Vi
~ ~
~ ~
>
.....
~ I
~
(")
~
~
Ai
~.
. .
!' ~ I
~.
i
~
~
"
. .. .. ~
l' ~ u'
Ju ~8'ii
~ ~~i .
~~8' ;
~meUI~
uuiJ'
uu' ".1
wel!1
nni.L...L
~
i
~
~
i
.
i~t'jl;
H~!tn
!11'li'
li" 'Ii
h(htl
tJ .t.,
t ,II: f~
it;lf-.
IIU;h
J~.h:if
~I~~;ii
l.~,ii-
-'A~I[~
:l~~l i.l
:- ll~fis-
t'
m
t'i
(h
Iii
if
. i~!
I n~~
~ I ~.l
~ !~.
~ IIi
~i.. I
it! i! I
iil 1 ~ i i_
n r~,
~ J \ I
i \ J ~\~\:
ii I" r \ \\\1~',
,.~ I! \ II
, "\:'
I. .
~I i ~ \ t
il I \1 \", 1
~ II LJ\ 1:
i I N ill
I t ~.
. ~3"
1 11
1 11
, 11
1 11
1 11
1 11
, 11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
n lh ! I \\
I 1 11
ij" 1 11
'\' I II
, 11
IT b'~ i ii
I I . \/i 1 11
1\ 1\"' '!~'~-li-
I I~ \ l:
i 1 11
l~ _ 1 II
I O!,~" ~ : 1:
I I ~ ..' I II
\ ',., ~ 1~1/',.1'
I ' 111:111
! .,:" , ~ l;J:I
I 1 11
..... 'i I 11
'l'lf~ l~ ; 1\
l:I ifi 1 11
I Ih ,~, '"
~ 1~1 I II
I. II \::
I I I II
'I I I I II
II l II
II 1 \\
I I I II
!! 1 II
I! i :::
lit 111
, '. 1 II
I I I I I II
, '. I 11
I 111 I II
L ", III
- J ~ ~-'QII
i 'lUll
, 11:111
! : ::
I I II
! ' "
l I
1 f
.
161
1 A
I
i~
[ *
.~ ~i' i
~i Ii '
~~ ti: ~
~i ~! ~
!i ~; !
{. B i
11; If ,f
~~ ~~
if li'
~df
Hi,
...... Ill;
~f Ii'
f I
i
;
..
I
~I
,
i
i
.-
t==I-
T \ \
I f\ '\
i , \ \\
.. I \ ,\
I! 1\\
.. ~ ~~, J ~
I II ~l,J
IU
I ',.
I
I
.
16i
1 A~
"'!-or>"
fiiii Ii ~ l! d; 4 -{
~ ~f(ii I
{ ~...~ I !f
H'j: ,., , ~
"}.i I /l; Ii
Ii t~ r- III l:!l ~ !2 II Ii-J
i Hi;~ lD
" t r
i "'ilfil Ii ~
~~H 'l a! ~ 1;: a
,. . _s i
I I ~ ,
I
\l f ~
i . -
t
i ,
~mll
~ t".
iilti~ . lIlt
~ " . ii" ,
't ;! It ~
i ,Ii
J
.
m a~ili ,
~ 'i!.,' ~.
@) Hlti~ . t ,
~ i 5' ~
'H " .
if
~ l~
~ Eart"--
..nJIr)'........;.
~ ~111 i~~ i!i~ 11. t
I i i I
I
~ .
I .u! 1'1 I" . I
I i .
li: 1 t.., it 1 Ii i , / I!
~ . _'_'.' Ii.'~ ~ I
is . .!H I ~ Ii ~
", ~ iPi .il i'l I \
~ ! !ili Iii II!. . . ,I
." I ~ l !.
~ ~ ~ ,~ 1 ill tII! i
! 1 h ! I
(;j " ,::" 11111 . i
'" ~ ~
'" ;;: 1 . ii .' I r I l'
..... ir "
- ~ IHI'I'!" i
! ;I!~ i l rn "
" ! '-i' Hi i_I .
. il
~ iN if 'W .
i 'I
! j!{' i) liji ,
. ~~ f t ~ 1 .
t . I iJ f:il "II I
--Ii ~Ii ... ~ 1 if'
ii' q
f (, .1. II I
&~. . III U
.511 . I
Ni
@
~ ~
<:>
\!l ~
~
Sil
~ I
VI
-..1< !IIi
of
O:N
...
N
;
~
"
~
i\1
'"
'"
~ ~
~ iii
'"
tI B 1lI _ ~ III
.' · r
j' f
1111
r. 1I
tit
!' -
Iff
~, I
I .
pi
! !
I
I i}l PP
. (In ~ l
1 !' f ,
I( if.. III
· it ~ {
I " i i
i ~~ I f
! !l"
~ II!!
I
I
I
i
!
I
[
J
i ~mi i
, t Il'l'
IIU I
,{(I I'
I~II I
; f'~lt
f ~"ll ~
f "1ft ~
! LI'I
; ltl"
· i if'
~~~
a~>l
<II 1;: Q iii
I
~
. .
I if 0 iPI
t. : I Ii !;
t t f f i il ti
; It i r ;.- r
l ~ I Jl 1
~ II' !!
j i - -
! It [[
I I I
Iii
I I I
H H!iH ! !
H H hH i ~
~ ~ i. i I .
tllf{f-t
: nHI i :
!il. ,...' ~ ~ It.
! n!1 !
I ~
i I HI
II tl.
s i ff~
I I tll
it Iii
II 'Ii
I.,
f.-
ht
f"
Ii
Ii Ii i
n 'I i
If I! ~
It .1 I
PI! ;
! I !
J a
. -
WI'lt"i i
H hi
It '~hi l
ph',' I
lll!!'ll
t.!IJill' ~
'.; .11 ~
Hi'I~~' 1 i
f~l Ip nl
. . ~. I '"
!~! i'U i
{~hJ'I' ~
"lfi" I
~'IJ!it ~
w:a, i
lil.~~: .
.",I-il... 1
f.1 i~ f
,
." ~
~ ~
'" ~
'" ~
Ii:
.
f qi
t 1.1
I I ,!
- - h
il
,
f
,
I
illl
" j'
,t . I
{' ,
" .
it f
I. i
P I
I' I
_I ,
, I
I
II Hll~!Il!
" ~'1 ir
I ihit' f
I fli'" .
,-,'in t
. I!}l' i
~p~ '
" l!; I
'I II ,
l!i;r ft f
f
I
!
i
! i
. \
I \
i
!
\
161
1 A2p
~
~
~
~
...... .. ........... ' 'f
l'UilF'H
iln~q~W~
it!i Hit !Ib
!II i U Ii !h ~
Iii ill Iii Hi ~
. , ~ qi I th R
i . ~ If H tit !i
i ~ni i!ll
{ t~' I h II
".' a-!l"ll ~
. > .
.
IlflUi i ! II i II
PiP! Ii H ! i! ~
. t, I. j .~ I i! I
r I' .~ i i' I I~ ~"
~ :;n ,i I H ~
t "i!~ I Ii I it:
~ H Ii ~:' I i
! HI! : H ! H ..
1 ~l! P al!l: ~
. II . i,' I I;
· ',', r, .;
J It! I! i
I hi j! I
J Ii ~ I i
fllIeOF___
.~
H I:
h ir
· -f
f '("_
\ .
. l
~II"
~
@
~
~
~ ;
~
~ I
o
~
r-
CIl
...... !Ii
"'-1-
(.0)1: .
(11" ~ .
m~ ll!
""J
~
~
~
'"
~
'"
~
"
'"
i!
~
,.
OJ
~
c
c
~
Ciii1
"'~
~~
!il
~
ili'il
;g
Ii",
"'''
~l;)
~;;':;
~~~
.... ~~~ ~
~,,>O' 'g
~ ~.~,.., ~.'
,,"
. ..
;;: ~~a- ~
.. g;~ ." ~
'G~
";g", I I \
~~~ ~ f ~ ~
~~:t ~:: ~ 9-
'" li'" .g.il ." j
:I ~!:. .. ~ g ~
~ l:: Q ~ ..
;;:~~~. ; ~
S 'b Q .
~<>. ....
::;:". ~
..
[~
..
."
~!
~ >
"
/7'-6" Mine/eor"",;.
/9' Mal(, Clearanc.
~-?
l.
1<
01
-,
'"
."
.,
,.
.,
~~
.'
~, ~
'.
3~
~ a.
..
'5"
~'I
".
if':;;
i"~
'.
~ ~
..
~:
~
"
~~ f
~
i'l"
~~ ~
~ ~i
~
~
~~
,.
....
~
-.
s: ~
'-
~~
"
lf~
>~
~::
"
m , m
:t: '"
.i.UXO"".JI:~,Ij,j
111 I'll
::: I:::
III 11:1
III 11-1
III 11'1
III : III
111 III "
oiOj.".".... ,
'" " .
'" , "' 0
)
!!.ot::
::r~
,"
~~
1: ,,~!- ~v" . - ~
.. ,,~'" ~~ " ~~
~;; ~ ~,~ ' . ~ f ~g,~ "'<>...;;'
..ii: .' ~!~ !~~ f[
~~.~ :5~
~~ "- . , ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ""
. %i
3" " "''''.. '"
[~ .~ , ~ ~gn ~""'
~... ~~ . > ~~ ~ ~. .. , .
"' O}, ; ?-1'g
'. . . ~ ~
~~ ;;,~ <>'"'3 "'._, ~ ,
~! ~ ~. :; . -'-g'3 ~~~ .
.. - >
! ": ?~~ .
~l . >
~:~ g , ~~. ~ .
g .. >
,,' . i- > h ~-,*g ~
o' [ ii:~
; ~ ~ .' ,
~'8 , ~i~ ~
~~ 'f , '" :~~ ~'!: ,~
~~ "..
~ , , .Q'''''l 1 ;
~<.l. ~ ~' ,,~ c.: , ,
.....!!;
~ i! . >
,
''-' [ .
"
<)
~
/
~
~
Iii
~
~
~
~"\
~. ~~. ~i~:
.. ~ - -'^ ~
~ ~. ~ "!~ ;c>
~ ~ ~ ~~~
5' '" ~ ~~ ~
3 '" "Of'"
",;; ~ S ~
" ; ~
:pii.
"
.~
,~
~~
."
t!
~5'
"
~
o
.
~
1
I
.
~ ~
~" -
~
~~
....
[[
[i:
'"
~[
~t
'";;0
f
.,
~
.
~
~
161
lA<b
.
~.
~
,
"
!
.
~.
"
I
!
/
'6-r=i'
" ,
iJ-..:.JdJ:t~
~l
.
""
\
~
~
~
~
~~
"'~
~~
'"~
"<3
~~
~ti
~"
i'l
~~
ili
~
i"
@
"
~
>
,
"
~
"
f
!
\..
~
~ I
~
~
) ,
/ I
" I
"" I
'-""\
~
.
,
./
"
,
l:WW t:~t: W W Cool N N N N N N N N N N _ _ _ - _ .W;;;;~iO"Cl>""'CJ>CII""c.o.......
~~ N ~ 0.. CO.....CJ>U1....W...,....O..IlIIl....O>UI 16 1 (\-~
"''''''' ~1Il1Il ~~ O-l~oorc:'"Ozm'l)ozmm z-tO-l-ltDmr;:u---oo I
mm~cc~~ )>~'"O'"O-IrgC1:t1<n~O-lO~Z m~>~~ooomZZZmc
ffl~z8gzz "'tI m::I: rnzc cn::I:-m c;)::u zz)><rri~ntr-;o
=i::::;~~m~z-l~~-tm:;o:n.,., ",z:::ozzoozm;;ocn::Ol>)>
:::o;ocnmmC/)W )>- ::u 00- "'T1;om3:m ?f.~-<~~Ui"'01J~m-lmoo
1ii< ;:}~~ ,,~ ro<=t;::)>mZz:3!::unO m
m ~~ ':Bo oo~z-ocnG)oomo-l~(f) mmbmmcn~~m~~~~<
"'Cl~~~ 00< -- -- oz cn::::D::o:::O;:;C"'U OUJ-Izcnr-)>
"'::: C~mG>om:Umm~(j)zO-l -l(/}:EI1,,;:ogm-t~-lmo5
::002Z ~o~~ ~':B~[i1 ~~~~ :;JJ~)>:::O::Ommm;o ->:;0;:0
()~"'''' C -(mcn'"'O Cii;::-Z C mo::ooos:ooco~ mm
o -1)>- Z -Glm -_zm -00:;00 <ooS:S:ccncn~Om 3::!:
Z 0"0 Z ;::m~ t5u1G1~ (JJ~!!!::O Z -f::J>s: c':::O-l-l
~ 0"0 0 ~Zm r f!::~~ ::!! ~~ ~J;;f:1 S<s<
z 0::0 0
'" "'''' '" ~~tflVJ-f;j9(Atl'JtlJfAtIJ(It -C:niltintlfYJ.fI9fl1tt/J '" iAVttl'JfAtA
00;:
-cCD::
.."'-
~-~
~ ",<<>
:tal CD
0::1'"
a -. ~
.. n -
.. ..
..
o
o
o
o
~ ~
t-.J:""
..'"
"''''
O>~
r;:;
'"
-<
-",
8
~
w
o
a
o
o
o
.s
'" '" ,n '" , v.
S: c'
'" ~
"'" , ,-
0> W <.L-
0> (J)
e,
0> ,,:,, '"
~ YJYJfAtntntntIJtlJWtIJtlJtlJtlJn
o
3
3
~ ~
..
~
lit
tl'JtIJ~~tlJtlJtAtlJi:AtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtIJ_tlJtlJtlJi:AtlJtlJtlJtlJi:AtlJtlJtlJtlJtIJ
tl'JtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtIJ_tlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtlJt/J
"'--
:""O:""'N
000 t1' co
00 0 CD.ca.--"NN--"............Q)
~8~~N8888ggg:
wowCD8000000Q)
~g~~88g8g8g~
... .....
~~-.>.~~
P\Jt1'~P\JCDCD
o,ot.!coo>-m
8845888
gg88gg
w
o
a
o
o
o
.s
r;:;
'"
-<
'"
8
o
.s
~~~OO~~~~~~^~~Q~m~
~~~~Q~~~~~~l~~~Qg=~
~~~~w~~~~~~0wi~ai~&
~~0~m~~333330~n~~~~.
00 2_ ~~~~~~~og~~2~
m:!: :::;':::;':::;':::;':::;'C: G)~ ~:::J aZ
~ ~ 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. n ~ ; ~ ~ 0 ~ ~
~.Q (()(()~(()(()~riil(()a 5"CD
n. ;;'l:::;' ~ 0
.$Io..$Io..J:>.~,JIo
U101<{101U1
u,(ncccbu,
l>oCOCDQ;lQ)
......0-....101-....1
"""-....1 l\J ())U1
OO)-....I......CO
.$Io.,JIo.$Io.~.$Io..$Io. ...
CfY'C{lCf'crcr __ 'foCf'Cf'
~f~~::g~QQ~iIl'::g~~
~-....Ic.nc.nc.nc.n00c.noOlUl:ii:
N())())O)(J) c.n.....(.nUl
-....Il\Jc.nwo 01 COQ;l
~rrr~moo~~~~~~~o~m~~
o~~~a~~~~~~~a~oo~o~
~~~~_.~n _.C:C:~n~= 0
-~~~(()5'iOOOOO~-~Q""'a~ ~
woooon~-<<<<<n~q~~~~_.
C:C:C:~~~(()(()CDCDCD~nwn_~~~-~
~~~I~'~~~~~~I CDCD(()-~ .~
(()(()(()~~-6~'~'~'~'c.n 0 03.
~.~~.w~oo~~~~~. ~o.~ ~ 0
~~~ W(()----- ~_. ~ ~
~~~ ~~fffff ~~ ~
. 2<<<<< '!<
...u...u...uouUl
:;;:;;:;;m@ ~HH6 g
=!> =!> ~.!n, +.;,;,;,;,;, ;,
21:~r:~:j-;l~ -I~-1-1-1-1 -I
wwwgw ~~~n$~~g g
t!t~m ~~~~~:::: t;;
666~6 ~~~g~~ ~
CPCPCP6'iO 666666 ~
~~QOl~ Q')Ol.J>......N.J>. _
IIlIIl
0",0
, , 0
",,~
-;-l-;-iq
",,,,o.
-<00
"'...<;t,
"''''::t
66.
a>a>0
66_
-<-
'cR i.-" "
;lJ -<
c '0 0
,-. '.t J.. '!', " tt
~, 0 " " <3
N '-L~ C V' r.~) (]l u.> lX' .' 3 '0
-, ,. c, ,-x' " D r'_' c CD ~:'\ ,,-, to
~ c; u' " ~,-', () cr, 0; Ln c '--C' I',) 3 ~
'" .' , c' Cl C C, c' ~ 8~ '";;.
,. ,--, C) (") , c, - r.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
!l
c
!!.
'0
o.
c:
r;:;m~
"->C..
.:" Q. ~
g:~i
" '"
o
.s
m
~
".
~ 0
",-
_. c
-~
c -
~
".
~~~
~~~
g;-5!:
o ..
o
.s
.."
o
o ::u
n m
O,..UI
g'C-l
lllZC
..0....
co....'"
-;"'uom
ouoen
o i:
co en
-I
C
RECE\VED
JAN 0 6 2009
16' 1 AJ1-11'
~i:i:~ :r::17!<J/} l
Hennmg /
Coyle v
Coletta r-'
Board of County Commissioners
2885 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Fl34104
MINUTES
I. Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairman Richard Sims.
II. Attendance
Members: Peggy Harris (Excused), Michael MeElroy, Barbara Segura
(Exeused), Richard Sims, Pat Speneer
County: Darryl Riehard - Project Manager, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst,
David Buchheit - Project Manager Traffic Operations
Others: David Julien - McGee & Assoc., Darlene Lafferty - Mancan
III. Approval of Agenda
Richard Sims moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by
Michael McElroy. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - August 12, 2008
Richard Sims moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Second by Pat
Spencer. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
V. Landscape Architects Report - Michael McGee
David Julien reported the Conceptual Plans for Hunter and Coronado are
underway. Additionally Coronado Base Maps are in the final stage.
A. Landscape Update - None
VII.
Transportation Operations Report
A. Budget - Caroline Soto
o Available Improvements General $865,900
o Remaining Open P.O.s $44,190.80
o Ad Valorem Tax $15,575.92 (Uncollected)
Misc. Corres:
Date:~
Item # llo 1.[ \ J1tJ
.~'::"Dins to
161
Richard Sims inquired whieh Line Item will include the $14,560 for
McGee & Assoe.
Caroline Soto replied it will be under Other Contractual.
1 Aq
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the
Project Status Report. (See Attachments)
. (G-26) Bidding - Maintenance Contracl - The following was
reported:
i. Item updates are required
ii. CLM will eontinue Interim Maintenance until 10/31/08
iii. The eommeneement of951 Refurbishment Projeet (Plants and
Shrubs) by CLM
iv. Observed during drive through - Herbicide treatment is
required for weeds
v. Santa Barbara will be under Construction until 2010
. (G-25) Golden Gale Master Plan - Discussions will be held pending
final production of the Master Plan from McGee & Assoc.
. (G-21) McGee and Assoc. Annual Contract - Darryl Richard
announced the Purchasing Department will attend a future meeting to
present the New Services Contract for Landscape Arehitects.
Discussions ensued coneerning the "rotational requirement" in the
New Service Contract for Landscape Arehitects.
Barbara Segura pereeives the Committee is in opposition to the
"rotational requirement." She noted the requirement poses expensive
ehallenges.
Darryl Richard noted a Special Meeting (October 20, 20(8) may be
required for approval of the Maintenanee Contraet.
VIII. Old Business
A. Update on Golden Gate Parkway - Pat Spencer - None
B. Grants - None
C. Master Plan Discussion - None
D. Design Process for Hunter & Coronado - None
E. Traffic Counts - David Buchheit stated that Sunshine would qualify for
Traffie Calming deviees based on the 25 MPH speed limit. He noted that
Roads are not are not designed for pedestrian traffic.
Diseussions ensued and it was stated in Golden Gate City 88% of the
ehildren are traveling on foot or via bicycle with limited Sidewalks and
Bike Paths available.
David Buchheit reported the following deficieneies in Collier County
pertaining to Pedestrian/Bicycle traffie:
o Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator - None. He noted that he is vyingfor
the position.
o Funding - None
o Complete Street Policy (vehicle & bicycle lanes, and sidewalks) -
None
Richard Sims requested Mike MeGee to send a drawing of Hunter
and Coronado to David Buehheit for review and suggestions.
2
161
1~
Discussions continued and it was noted the Committee goal is Bieycle,
Pedestrian, and Bus friendly Roads.
Richard Sims moved that Golden Gate MSTU recommend that
Collier County (appoint) a Staffperson to handle Pathways. Second
by Barbara Segura. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
o Non ADA compliant Jnterseetions - All
IX. New Business - None
X. Public Comments - None
XI. There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting
was adjourned at 5:41 P.M.
These minutes approved by the Committee on
as presented or amended
The next meeting Is scheduled for January 13, 2009 4:00 PM
At Golden Gate Community Center
Naples, FL
3
16~
l1\'Q
September 9,2008
Darryl & Tessie
Prepared by:
Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes
Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes
Golden Gate MSTU Project Status
(G-26) '\CTIVF .. Darryl &. jesSle:
BIDDING - MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
PHASE
Purchasing Bidding
Bee Approval
NTP
Start - End Date
9-15-08 to 10-6-08
10/28/08
11/10/08
(G-25) ACTIVL Darryl &1::;sli:'. Golden Gate Master Plan - revision
Golden Gate MSTU - Master Plan
Design Phase
1 st Draft - McGee
2nd Draft - McGee
2nd Draft Review
FYI: Committee requested LDC procedures
Verification of BCC Approval requirements
Stsrt . End Date
10/9/2007
1217/2007
1217/07 - 5/30/08
Pending
Pending
(G-22) ACTIVE Darryl - Design Process Coronado & Hunter (Master Plan Draft)
10-09-07: Committee requested to get copy of drainage study on Coronado & Hunter. & two quotes on
overlay and 2 inch pitched curb, repave & re-stripe from annual contractor.
12-1'--{)7: Pending finalization of master plan.
1-7-08: Pending finalization of master plan.
2-6-08: Pending finalization of master plan.
2-13-08: Staff review of Master Plan revisions in progress.
5-9-08: Committee reviewing Master Plan revisions
(G-21) ACTIVE 0'1001:0.1(; r cssic:. McGee & Assoc, Annual Contract: 04-3614-
10-9-07: Committee approved McGees proposal for $14,050.00
11-6-07: County staff has requested McGee to make changes in proposal.
11-/3-07: Staff received hardcopy of signed Work Order proposal from McGee & Associates.
12-10-07: NTP to be sent out - in progress.
12-11-07: NTP sent out with an expiration date of: 12-10-08.
(G-17) ACTIVE ONGOINl; i'cssie Annual Maintenance Contract: #05-3686; PART 1 -- "Golden
Gate Beautification MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance" - Expires 6-14-09
7-28-05: Notice to Proceed sent to Advanced Lawn Maintenance.
9-30-07: End of Fiscal Year.
10-12-07: New Fiscal Year PO's issued - NTP
161
1 A~
2-5-08: Verbal notification - Advance Lawn has breached contract. Staff coordinating with purchasing
dept. for action plan.
2-12-08: Obtaining price from CLM for a 4 month timeframe.
2- 13-08: Purchasing Dept. reviewing submittal from Commercial Land Maintenance under existing
contract #06-3928 which is the most recent CLM Contract that includes "incidentals" for repair of
irrigation system and/or landscaping during the contract period.
3-3-08: NTP for Maintenance - Commercial Land - till May 2, 2008.
3-11-08: Request for deletion of 10 ft. height and lower
3-11-08: Deletion of lOft. specification not recommended.
4-10-08: Finalization of Maintenance Contract with Purchaseing
5-09-09: Bids to go out.
(G-t8): ACTIVE Darryl - Hunter & Coronado Project
6-13-07: Committee Requested for McGee & Association to bring back to next meeting - Scope for
Designing Hunter & Coronado.
6-20-07: Staff review indicates that Hunter Boulevard would be the next project for Committee to obtain
Design Services. Recommendation is based on (t) Public Comment at previous Committee
Meetings, and (2) Available funds do not allow for both Hunter and Coronado projects to be done
at one time.
8-12-07: Committee requested McGee to give them a proposal on designing both roads at the same time.
Then Committee will decide on which one to do first.
9-11-07: McGee asked for more time to do the design. McGee to present at Oct. 9, 2007 meeting.
10-9-07: McGee distributed a "DRAFT" of Updating and Changes to the Master Plan for committee to
review and return.
12-10-07: Committee will be reviewing more drafts from McGee tomorrow at their monthly mstu meeting
on the master plan reviews.
1-7-08: Committee will be reviewing more drafts from McGee tomorrow at their monthly mstu meeting on
the master plan reviews.
2-5-08: McGee to schedule a slide show and have costs for Committee to review and discuss with
Commissioner Henning.
(G-19) Compict<.:.-n I'essie- MSTU Member Tenns:
Richard Sims, Chairman - 10-06-2010
Barbara Segura, 10-06-2010
Pat Spencer, 10-06-2009
Peggy Harris, 10-05-09
Mike McElroy, 10-05-07 - New appt. 10-9-2011
9-10-07: at the 9-11-07 meeting Mr. McElroy resubmitted his application for renewal- to be reviewed by
G.G. MSTU at meeting
9-11-07: Committee recommended Mr. McElroy for vacancy.
9-20-07: Memo sent to Filson for Recommendation to BCe. 10-09-07
10-09-07: BCC - approved recommendation - Mr. McElroy. 10-9-07 to 10-9-11 (4 year term)
(G-24) Ci;mplell.' i)llTY: & 1,;:->,,;(:: G.Gate MSTU -4 year Review Report by Committee Chairman to Bee
Every four years on a rotating schedule, in accordance with Ordinance 2001-55, the advisory boards and committees
of the Board of County Commissioners are up for review. Golden Gate MSTU Chairman scheduled to speak at
BCC - 3-11-08
12-20-07: Requested Chairman for input on the report.
01-07-08: Reminded Chainnan of deadline - January 11th, 2008 for county staff.
o }.14-08: Completed report emailed to Mike Sheffield - per deadline
2-11-08: G.Gate Chairman signed report.
2-13-08: Rick Simms will report at the 3/11108 Bee meeting. (at 11:00 AM time certain (unconfirmed))
3-11-08: Rick attended the Bee - Board approved all 4 year review reports at once.
2
~t~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W~~O~~~~~.WN~
~~~mm~~o~oo~orc~cr~oozm~orzm
mm"cc~"" ~....m....mO"Gl~C~OOro....~OZ
000>00 >~~m~~Iemz~ZOr~C~ooIZO~Gl
mmzQQ z~O~m~m-z~~ OZ~ ~m -~
~~mmm00~<>~I~rOOzz~I~>~~~~mom
<<~~~~~rm~Om~>mGl~ rz-~o> m
mm~~~~oO~z~~-o- ~ moQmo~~m
OO~o~~oo=CmGlm"~~~~~m "m~GlZm80
"OZZ -?~~~~~""Oz~ ~Gl ~~ZOO~
020000 c~m~~m~~~o~~ w~ c>Q~m
o~~~ ~ Q~ZGl~Z~~~~m ~m ~Qo~~
z ~ Z moo m~ m):>~ ~~ OOcm-
~ 8~ 8 zm~ 0 Z2~ ~~ ~~~
Q r ~ ~ ~ o~oo ~ w~c
m ~ m
-~-~~-~-~-~~~~~$$~~~~~~~~~~
z~oo~~::o---oo
m~""~~!;lIzzzmc
C>z~~zzmiitriintr~
tncn~~(J)ooz;;ocn~)>o"
*~ .,,~cm-lm 0
mmddmmm~~~<<
m~::c::o::O~0-1Z(J)~):>
....00::;;::;;-"-,,....,......,05
::090)>>~;::O::O><-)>::o;u
mo""OOcoZ mm
<ooo~~~orri ~~
zOG>~>cr::o ~~
~-"m~:g~flirn ~~
ffimZo::O 0-1
tj 9 rrl
$iR~~fA~~~~~~~
NN:~~ NNN o~ m
OO~~.NN~tn~~O. ~tnOOtn~~~woo~w'
8gN~omg~8~g22~oggb028228g~~
oo8080ooo.oooo8oo88ooooooom
8gggggggg~gggggggggg888ggg~
,..
-::; u> -"' 3
... c .
0 Ui-=> ~Q.:::::iI
..,
., 00 "a~
0 00 8 l:l.
0 00
8 00 '"
89 9
..,.....~~tA~~...tA
~
,. ,
," .~
~ (T i..C ~ " ~ y .,0
'"' c 'c' C ~;: " ~ ,
0 c ~ c ~
'" c ~ c c ~:: c
0 co c; c C "'.1 m
~m~~~~~~tA~~~tA~fAn
o
3
3
~
.
"
lit
(1'.. '..Ii (/, U.. (J; U' tfi
VI ,rl 'J' ,on u, 'f) (f?
t.:'
r...;,
,
D
o
..,.~...tA~"'fA_$"'''''$fA~''''fA$~~~~~~~~fAfA
.~)
. ..'"
OlD NN
CoOocou.-U't
:::~~g8
Co:'" A 00
ilDN-.jOO
.
..
<D
..
N
N
;"
<D
fAfA~~~fA~~fAfA~fA
'"
~moiD
o-.joo
~mo~
i::xd,,) 0:'"
OCDOCD
m
~
Ui _ -..
~ ...._ CD:::::iIn
:....w~-b;t3~~C'
omp\')~~NC:!!..
~:-"~~~~.
~:!4j.31~~.
-Entn~~~'fA~~.YJ-fA~.YJ
'"
u>o
u> ...
..,'"
NN
u> 0
...tn_~tA~~"'fA_~fAfA-fA~~-fA~'fA.YJ~tn~~~~-fA
<D'"
mm., ~N~
~U1W~a>~ ~~OlO~
ie'",,,,o if' 0 u>];< ~ 8 '0 0 u>
08::80;88000888
gg::g~8g8888gg
W
NW(J).
oomo.
<DOOCO
CDOCO~
Oooi:Do
NO&O
oo~~~~~~~~~~~ooo~
O~~OQO~~~~Oooo~~
S~~QQQ~c~'ri~33Q.<<
Joo~~~~@m ~~33~~!
~~~m~m~~n ~_m~ ~~
~~~ ~~ ::o~a.a. n~
~OS G:l!e. ~ ~ ~ ~ I; Z
~B~ ~~ gg~~ ~3
~ - i~ ~ ~~ 0
,n . ...
....
~
~....~~........~ D~~""~
0'I(.7IU't~</1~~ ~.tntn"'O'I
o 0 , C:oCio '&- -m I I I I
~~~~~~~~~$l~~~~
~CD~""CD.o) ~(x)CDtnO
~~~""""'<DO -c~CO-.jCD
~~~~~~Wa~W~~~~~~
J .:J. ~ lit J ~ Q C c n. - ~. ~ ~ :J :J
-~F.-..~E..~~-oa~~.a~~
S' N. N' _... _ ... -< .... J .... ... - .,.
~~~~~-m~ Q. ~~~ ~ 0
~~~~~ri@ooq ~~~ ~ ~
~. ~m;l>- 2 ~m~ m..!
a ~~nW ~ ~~~ ~O~
m moO, m _~~ ~3.
~ :;) ::T:;) S. tIJ .:;):J J 0
~ g~~~ ~~ ~ .
@ g~~" ~
~ 0
.. ~
):> ~.
............
rr r
000
id::i::
1>1>:f"
..,..,..,
"'''''''
:;::;::;:
666
..."'...
666
......
u>u>~
8;&0
'" ill ..'
1$':1
:IE
9
~
r
o
:l:
l'
~
lh v, Vi U, UJ
V) "TO
,,-<
('J c
3 :::-J
'" 0
~' 00
g' ;:-
(0 ~
(Jl (f; IJ 'J
I, Ul if> (f. V
,.
,"
'"'
o
00
'"
c,-, '" " ~ w en "
0 ~ N ~. W ~ '" eo N
D 0 ~ Co N W ~ co N
~ C C ,::;; m c' ~. C'
D 0 c' :::J m ~ ~, ~ 'J
C. C i:' 0 '0 r,: r.; 0-:
(I'
2,
~~:
...
fA~~'fA~~tn~tn-fAfAtn~~fAfA
~
fdC'
~!!..
o~
u>",
go:
.
..
...
..
N
N
;"
...
u>
u>
..,
'"
u>
'"
NCXlWN~.J>.~CD (J)-.j
0. c,,-Noo<cw:'" m"Nw
~~~Cilg8~~~~o
ooo;""oo:"'Coi-.>~~
OOOOOOCDO(X)(X)O
- ,..
to.) w ~-t:i
...., ID W U't 0 _"
~~~~~~~~
~:-"~~~?l iD
W....-.j....,NID
(,.)-.j-.j-.j~!:::,!
161
1 (\-1
en
CD
'g
S'
3
IT
CD
..
!fJ
N
o
o
CO
G'l
o
r-
C
m
z
G'l
)>
-I
'TIm
c:lD
zm
c)>
..c:
en:::!
c.>'TI
C'i
~
i5
z
!:
en
-I
c:
RECEIVED
JAN 0 6 2009
161
lAQv
Board of county commisSioners
Fiala
Halas
Henning ~
Coyle
Coletta
2885 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
MINUTES
I. Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 4:09 p.m. by Chairman Riehard Sims.
II. Attendance
Members: Peggy Harris, Michael MeElroy, Barbara Segura, Riehard Sims,
Pat Spencer
County: Darryl Riehard - Projeet Manager, Tessie Sillery - M.S.T.U. Projeet
Coordinator. Caroline Soto - Management Budget Analyst
Others: Mike McGee - MeGee & Associates, Dan Mote - Advanced Lawn,
Darlene Lafferty - Mancan
III. Approval of Agenda
Richard Sims moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Peggy Harris.
Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - October 9, 2007
Richard Sims moved to approve the Minutes. Second by Peggy Harris.
Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
V. Landscape Maintenance Report - Advanced Lawn
Dan Mote reported:
. Golden Gate Parkway Palmetto's were cleared
. Damage repaired from accident that occurred in front of Pizza Hut
. Internal Roadway mowing reduced to twice a month
. Golden Gate pest control treatment applied on Deeember 3, 2007
· Collier Blvd. pest control treatment applied on Deeember 4, ~W Corres:
. Problem with chili thrips on the Plumbago. Will apply treatments
aggressively Dale:
I
Item#:
.'.~i~iPS to
. Possible reduced irrigation I day per week
161
1 Ag
Discussions ensued coneerning Phase 3 watering restrictions.
Darryl Richard reported County has applied for an Exemption on Phase 3
watering restrietions for all Collier County Roadway Landseape Projects.
Barb Segura questioned ineorporating use of watering trucks into the Budget
to prevent loss of Landseaping.
Mike McGee responded reuse treated water is permitted. Marco Island is
utilizing that proeess with potable water.
Dan Mote reported the watering schedule has been widened to Sunday &
Thursday with irrigation checks arranged to take plaee in-between watering.
VI. Landscape Architects Report - Michael McGee
A. Landscape Update - Reported the Crown of Thorns missing were due to
theft.
VII. Transportation Operations Report
A. Current Budget - Caroline Soto distributed Budget report (Attached).
Items eovered:
. Operating Expense Available $150,943.41
. Remaining open P.O.s $91,727.32
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the
Golden Gate M.S.T.U. Project Status report. (Attached)
.,. (G- 22) Design Process Coronado & Hunter - A quote was
requested from Bonness for the asphalt overlay
It was suggested to request a proposal for Survey Serviees to
determine what the proper roadway grade would be and using the
minimal amount of asphalt required to piteh water to side of the road.
Darryl Richard reported Diane Flagg was in disagreement with the
request from Road and Bridge to asphalt overlay the entire Roadway
length.
Mike McGee questioned if there was a policy for Roadway
Landseaping beyond what was established in the Master Plan. Noting
the Master Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners
indicated installation of curbing only.
The survey taken was previously requested for decision-making as it
may be not be necessary to eomplete all seetions simultaneously.
The Committee asked who was responsible for fixing Roads that
were not properly engineered. (Noting it was not the responsibility of
the MSTU Beautification Committee)
Darryl Richard reported Hunter, Coronado, & Sunshine were not
included on the County 5 year Asphalt Plan.
Barb Segura questioned issues with Water puddles on the road during
rainy season without the curbing installed was noted as being a safety
issue.
. The requested Bonness quotes would cover:
I. To wedge & pitch away from eurb to the sides of the Road
2
2. Full resurfaee & re-striping
161
IAq
Mike McGee recommended incorporating into the Budget sufficient
monies to include resurfaeing the entire Roadway length. The monies
would be used on an as-needed basis.
Darryl Richard reported eost factors were not available due to the
required asphalt eost & estimate.
It was noted Diane Flagg would be working with Road & Bridge and
the A TM department to resolve the issue. The direction reeeived from
Diane Flagg is to pitch the Road only as neeessary to remove water
from the roadway.
VIII. Old Business
A. Update on Golden Gate Parkway - Pat Spencer reported the Project
would be going to bid and should be installed by summer.
Mike McGee reeommended the Committee eolor preference for the pipe
be included in the Bridge installation.
B. Grants - None
C. Master Plan Discussion - Michael McGee
Richard Sims announced Commissioner Tom Henning has requested to
meet with the Committee to diseuss unused MSTU monies from the
Golden Gate area.
It was agreed to meet in February and would replace the February 12,
2008 meeting.
Tessie SiIlery will coordinate a meeting date between the Committee and
Commissioner Henning's offiee.
D. Design Process for Hunter & Coronado
Richard Sims reported the Golden Gate Civic Association Board
Members prefer Coronado be completed first.
There were eoneerns regarding speeding and serious aeeidents that oeeur
on Hunter Blvd. noting Hunter Blvd. is more residential vs. Coronado.
It was suggested perhaps the Traffic Department eould improve the turn
lane from Coronado to flow onto Lucerne Rd.
Darryl Richard will eontact Road and Bridge
Mike McGee suggested ereation of "Community Infrastructure
lmprovemenls" utilizing unused monies. Noting curbing, fill & asphalt are
improvements that are safety issues for the Fire Department, Sheriff
Department & the Community.
Mike McGee distributed & reviewed Master Plan "revised draft."
IX. New Business - None
X. Public Comments - None
3
161
XI. There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting
was adjourned at 5:37 PM.
Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee
Richard Sims, Chairman
Tho<e mi"""," 'Ppnwoo by tlw Co~ittre "O~ ~ 7 ~
as presented_or amended ~ .
The next meeting Is scheduled for January 8, 2008 4:00 PM
At Golden Gate Community Center
Naples, FL
4
1 A~
161
1 ft~
t
2885 Horseshoe Dri\le
NapIes,FL 34104
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes- September 9, 2008
V. Landscape Architects Report - Michael McGee
A. Landscape Update
VII. Transportation Operations Report
A. Budget - Caroline Soto
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard
VIII. Old Business
A. Update on Golden Gate Parkway Bridge - Pat Spencer
B. Grants
C. Master Plan Discussion
D. Design Process for Hunter & Coronado
E. Traffic Counts
IX. New Business
X. Public Comments
XI. Adjournment
The next meeting is scheduled for March 10, 20094:00 p.m.
At Golden Gate Community Center
Naples, FL
Fiala (\t;;i.1f/~
Halas
H8nning~
Coyle
Coletta
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD RECEIVED
JAN 2 3 2009
161
1 /t/6
October 23, 2008
Naples, Florida, October 23, 2008
Hoard of County Commissioners
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in REGULAR
SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County
Government Center, Naples, Florida with the following members present:
Vice Chairman: David Correa
Raymond Cabral
Renato F. Fernandez
Manuel Gonzalez
Valaree D. Maxwell
Cosme Perez
Ernesto Velasquez
Luis Alejandro Bernal
(Excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Mike Sheffield, County Manager's Office
Commissioner Jim Coletta
Misc. Corres
Copies to:
I
161
IAro
October 23, 2008
I. Introduction
A. Call to Order/Welcome - David Correa
The meeting was called to order by aeting Chairman David Correa at 6:00 P.M.
A Quorum was established.
The Committee paid tribute to Jim VanFleet. It was stated that Jim VanFleet
was a friend of the Hispanie Community. It was noted that the Community has
suffered a significant loss.
Manuel Gonzalez arrived 6:02 P.M
Valaree Maxwell arrived 6:03 P.M
There was a moment of silence in honor of Jim VanFleet.
Commissioner Coletta affirmed Jim VanFleet was a pillar of the Community.
He noted the various Boards that Mr. VanFleet served and was a reeipient of
the Outstanding Advisory Award. Moreover Mr. Van Fleet's professionalism
will be truly missed.
B. Approval of the September 25, 2008 HAAB Meeting Minutes
Raymond Cabral moved to approve the Minutes of September 25, 2008 as
submitted. Second by Ernesto Velasquez. Motion carried unanimously
7-0.
II. Old Business
A. Law Enforcement Report - Manny Gonzalez reported on the indicators of
dangers to the sick and elderly as it pertained to Mr. VanFleet. He stated that
a Wellness Cheek was requested by the Sheriffs offiee:
Trash cans
Dogs barking
. No response at the door
Hasn't been seen by Neighbors
. Mail in mailbox
He reported on the down trending eeonomy and crime in Collier County:
. lnereased in activity at pawn shops
. He reeommended investing in an automobile loek eap to prevent gasoline
theft
Additionally the suggestion was made to call 911 as a "Non Emergency" to
request a Well Being Cheek for the siek or elderly.
III. New Business
A. Address from Commissioner Jim Coletta - stated the County shares the
same eoneerns on issues as the HAAB and reported the following:
2
161
lA-/o
Oetober 23,2008
~ To Eeonomy - abandoned homes
~ Noted a deereasing erime rate
~ HUD Funds will be used to purchase foreclosed homes
~ Suggested uniting the Communities to maintain their neighborhoods
~ A task force has been formed to lend guidanee to individuals going
through foreclosure
~ 5 Food Banks are at all time low
~ Collier County Budget eut of $80,000,000
~ Emergency Services will be effeeted
~ Volunteers are needed for Library and After School Programs
The Committee thanked Commissioner Coletta for the information.
Additionally they vision a new path to being an effeetive Board for the
Community in memory of Jim VanFleet.
Discussions continued and the following was noted:
o Golden Gate - Highest rate offoreclosures
o Pereeives that builders are hiring arsonists to eliminate debt
o High pereentage of thefts are eommitted by the employees of builders
o Suggested using a loeal realtor to manage foreclosed homes
o Suggested utilizing youth offenders on probation - in addition it would
provide support to eomp1ete the eommunity service requirement
. Michael Sheffield reviewed IV: Comments /Announeements
B. DiscussionlNominations for HAAB Chairman
The floor was open for nominations for Chairman and Viee Chairman for the
effeetive January I, 2009.
* Cosme Perez nominated Valaree Maxwell as Chairman
Raymond Cabral as Vice Chairman
Diseussions ensued and it was agreed that David Correa will remain as acting
Chairman for the remainder of2008.
Raymond Cabral moved to keep David Correa as acting Chairman until
the end ofthe year (2008.) Second by Renato F. Fernandez. Motion
carried unanimously 7-0.
* Renato F. Fernandez nominated Manuel Gonzalez as Chairman
* Valaree Maxwell nominated Manuel Gonzalez as Viee Chairman
* David Correa nominated Valaree Maxwell as Viee Chairman
Nominations are now closed for Viee Chairman.
All those in favor of Raymond Cabral please raise your hands.
7 for Raymond Cabral- Raymond Cabral is Vice Chairman.
Nominations are now closed for Chairman .
3
161
1 frio
October 23,2008
All those in favor ofValaree Maxwell please raise your hands.
5 for Valaree Maxwell and 2 for Manuel Gonzalez - Valaree Maxwell is
Chairman.
IV. Comments / Announcements - Reviewed under III A.
A. Applications for the current HAAB vacancy are due in the Board Office by
10/30/08
B. Beeause of Thanksgiving, the next HAAB meeting will be held a week earlier
on November 20,2008
III. Public Comments
None
*****
Being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
order ofthe Acting Chairman at 7:09 P.M.
COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1) ;() l
David Correa, Acting Chairman
These Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on
as presented .~. or as amended
j-j)
". l_/ '
---J....--_'
4
RECEIVED
JAN 1 2 2009
Fiala
Halas
Hennin
Coyle
Coletta
61
ltri(
Board of County Commissioners
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES
DEC. 4, 2008
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION
ATTENDEES:
Emilio Rodriguez, Fire Chief
Kirk Colvin, Chairman
Bill Rafeldt, Advisory Board Member
Ted Decker, Advisory Board Member
Jim Gault, Advisory Board Member
Kevin Walsh, Resident
Bill Sehmidt, Resident
Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer
I. CALL TO ORDER
Kirk Colvin opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
II. OLD BUSINESS
A. Chief's Report
B. Nov. 2008 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
I. Copy of Minutes distributed.
2. Minutes approved by all Advisory Board Members.
3. Kirk Colvin approved and signed Nov. 2008 Minutes.
C. BBC workshop on ALS Engine Program
I. To be held 9AM-Noon on Dec. 8.
2. Joe Langkawel and Chief Rodriguez to attend.
D. Ted Decker was thanked for his partieipation on Firefighter Oral Board.
I. 90 applications were reeeived for the open firefighter position.
2. 13 interviews were held.
3. ICFD reservist, Zae Klotz was selected for the positiOlMisc. Cooes:
Date: 0 l'D 09'
Item #.l01.L I A \ 1
161
lA-I)
E. Chief Rodriguez attended a special BCC/Marco Island City Council meeting.
I. Discussed MI taxes paid to Collier County vs. County serviees received.
2. All agreed to form a committee to study all M.l. transfers of funds.
3. ICFD Mareo Island mutual aid assistance was not diseussed.
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. ICFD & EMS completed 3 day HazMat Response training Dec. 2-4.
1. All ICFD firefighters obtained this HazMat II eertification.
2. ICFD ean now supply 2 Hazmat responders at all times.
3. Our ambulance unit is equipped to respond to ealls in & out of county.
B. ICFD Christmas Party will be held at 6PM at the Capri Fish House on 12/10.
C. Kevin Walsh has applied for the last vaeant Advisory Board member position.
I. Kirk Colvin made a motion to approve Mr. Walsh's appointment.
2. Ted Decker seeonded the motion.
3. Mr. Walsh was unanimously approved for his new 2 year term.
D. The next ICFD Advisory Board meeting will be Jan. 8.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Date: / / Bf Dct
161
lId!
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE / RESCUE
ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA
December 4, 2008
eHIEF'S REPORT
A. OPERATIONS REPORT
B. VOLUNTEER REPORT
e. TRAINING REPORT
D. BUDGET REPORT
OLD BUSINESS
Approve last months min.
Meeting with the Bee on the ALS Program
NEW BUSINESS
Vote on I new Board Members
161
1 ft-{f
CHIEF'S REPORT
December 4, 2008
OPERATIONS REPORT
Isles of Capri Fire / Rescue personnel provide 24 hour emergency services for the Isles of Capri
community with a consistent avenu!e reSDonse time of3 to 4 minutes. From 8:00 a.m. to 8:00
a.m., a minimum of at least four fully state certified Firefighters are assigned to the fire station.
Additionally, the Isles of Capri Fire / Rescue Department has the only Advanced Life Support
(ALS) equipped boats in Collier County. This means that a medical emergency on the water, be it
a heart attack or traumatic injury, can be handled with the most advanced emergency care possible
in the fietd.
The Isles of Capri Fire / Rescue Department welcomes citizens to stop by the station for free btood
pressure checks. We also provide home and condo fire prevention inspections, along with CPR
classes.
"'UPDATES'"
Isles of Capri Fire / Rescue is now an Advanced Life Support Provider (partnership with EMS)
Call TVDe In-Disfriet OukJf-District I NIonthIv Total I YTD
Fires:
Structure 0 1 I 1 I 6
Vehicle 0 0 0 1
Brush 0 0 0 12
A1anns:
Fire Alarms 2 27 I 29 I 433
Medical Alarms 0 0 0 0
Medical:
Ambulance Calls 13 3 I 16 I 104
Vehicle Accidents 1 1 2 20
Medical Assists 0 0 0 1
Haz-Mat:
Haz-Mat Calls 0 0 I 0 I 9
Power Unes Down 0 0 0 2
Marine:
Boat Fire 0 0 0 0
EMS via water 0 0 0 21
Dive Rescue 0 0 0 0
Search & Rescue 2 0 2 4
Marine Assist 0 0 0 0
Note: In-District includes all Marine calls in District 01 (Collier County Waterways)
Co~T County
~~-
s~(
16' 1 Jr./?
RECEI\1EIY
JAN 1 5 2009
Board of County Commissioners
Memorandum
Fiala -lJP"/31-
Halas ,/ "J$-
Henning I
Coyle v
Coletta ~-
To:
Sue Filson, Exeeutive Manager, Board of County Commissioners
Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Program Coordinator ~
From:
Date:
December 10,2008
Subj ect:
Transmittal of approved signed Minutes from the November 10, 2008
Conservation Collier Land Aequisition Advisory Committee Meeting
Please find attaehed the following:
. Approved, signed Minutes from the November 10,2008 Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee Meeting
Please call me at 252-2961 if you have questions.
Environmental Services Department
Community Development & Environmental Services Divis/ok
:::~~l 0 109
ltemf1J~M I'd-
16l
1 ,4/~
Deeember 8, 2008
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, December 8, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM, in REGULAR
SESSION at, Collier County Development Community Services,
Conference Room #609/610 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida,
Naples, Florida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet
Will Kriz
Marco Espinar
Wayne Jenkins
Michael Delate
Tony Pires
Jeffrey Curl
Mimi Wolak
Jon Staiger
ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney
Cindy Erb, Real Property Management
Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator
Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental Specialist
Christal Segura, Conservation Collier Land Manager
Annisa Karim, Environmental Specialist
1
Decem!r92t08 1 If /~
I. Roll Call
Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9:07AM. Roll eall was taken and a
quorum was established.
II. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Jenkins moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Delate. Carried
unanimously 8-0.
III. Approval of November, 102008 Minutes
Mr. Kriz moved to approve the millutes of the November 10,2008 meeting. Second
by Mr. Jenkins. Carried unanimously 8-0.
IV. Old Business:
A. Confirm Attendees for 1-23-08 CREW Tent Meeting
Chairman Poteet indieated hc would attend.
Mr. Pires noted he may attend.
Ms. Wolok arrived at 9: J 2AM
B. Program financial status update - Staff
Laura Davisson, Collier County Office of Management and Budget provided
the doeuments "Conservalion Collier Land Acquisilion Fund (J 72) Financial
Snapshot" and "Conservalion Collier Land Ad Valorem Revenue Forecasl" dated
Deeember 8, 2008. She noted the following:
. After the purehase of Pepper Raneh, there is approximately $3.2M
available for FY '09 Land Aequisition ($2.7M available at the end of the
ealendar year excluding 15% for maintenanee).
. The figure aceounts for aequisitions approved by the Board of County
Commissioners and those on the Deecmber 16, 2008 Board of County
Commissioners agenda.
. It is estimated the Program will reeeive approximately $27M over the
ncxt 4 years for land acquisition.
. The debt serviee for FY 2009 is $4.5M due 1/1/09 and $782,000 due
7/1108.
. The 2008 series bond is a total of$14.7M.
. $7M ofliquid assets was utilized for the purehase of Pepper Raneh.
. Total bonded to date is approximately $46.5M with the voters approving
a maximum bonding amount of$75M.
It was noted the bonding opportunities for the Program are shrinking due to the
previous eommitments and the Program's sun-setting requirement whieh affeets
the potential revenue stream for finaneers.
C. Real Property Management Update - A - list properties
Staff provided the following updates:
Kave Homes - Closed on 12/1/08.
2
161
1 AlZ,
December 8, 2008
Rivers Rd. - Closings this month, (Cangialosi, Maloney, Steams, ete.)
Trinh/Mcllvane Marsh - Closing this month.
Camp Keais - Agreements on the BCC agenda for 12/16/08; additional
agreements offered today for Conservation Collier approval.
Unit 53 - Closings upeoming
Winchester Head - Closings upeoming.
Cindy Erb, Real Property Management reported the property owner of a 2.27
acre pareel aeeepted an offer on November 26, 2008. She requested direetion
from the Committee if the Program should proeeed on aequisition of the pareel.
Ms. Wolok moved to move forward on acquisition of the parcel. Second by Mr.
Staiger.
It was noted Staffwill verify the validity of the required property appraisal.
Motion carried unanimously 9-0.
Pepper Ranch - Closing on 12/29/08.
RJS, LLC. - Offer to be tendered this week with a eondition of closing in March,
2009.
D. Contracts
1. Unit 53 - Berman, Canales, Hinz
Cindy Erb, Real Property Management presented the following Exeeutive
Summaries dated Deeember 8, 2008 and attached agreements:
"Approve an Agreemenl for Sale and Purchase for 1.14 acres under Ihe
Conservalion Collier Land Acquisition Program, al a cosl nol to exceed
$18,700 (Berman). "
"Approve an Agreemenl for Sale and Purchase for 5.0 acres under Ihe
Conservalion Collier Land Acquisilion Program, al a cosl nollo exceed
$80,300 (Canales)."
"Approve an Agreemenl for Sale and Purchase for 2.27 acres under Ihe
Conservalion Collier Land Acquisition Program, al a cosl nollo exceed
$36.800 (Hinz). "
Mr. Delate moved to approve all three Executive Summaries (as noted
above). Second by Mr. Espinar. Carried unanimously 9-0.
2. Winchester Head - Balinski, Perrone, Zell
Cindy Erb presented the following Exeeutive Summaries dated December 8,
2008 and attached agreements:
"Approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase for 1.59 acres within Ihe
Winchesler Head Multi-parcel Projecl under the Conservalion Collier Land
Acquisition Program. al a cosl nollo exceed $26, 750 (Balinski). "
3
161
1 A / 2.----
Deeember 8, 2008
"Approve an Agreemenl for Sale and Purchase for 1.14 acres within Ihe
Winchesler Head Mulli-parcel Projecl under Ihe Conservalion Collier Land
Acquisilion Program, al a cosl nollo exceed $19,300 (Perrone, Tr.)."
"Approve an Agreemenl for Sale and Purchase for 5.0 acres within Ihe
Winchesler Head Multi-parcel Projecl under Ihe Conservalion Collier Land
Acquisition Program, al a cosl nollo exceed $82,800 (Zell)."
Mr. Delate moved to approve all three Executive Summaries (as noted
above). Second by Mr. Espinar. Carried unallimously 9-0.
3. Camp Keais Strand - Dinda/Walsh
Cindy Erb presented the following Exeeutive Summary dated December 8,
2008 and attaehed agreements:
"Approve an Agreemenl for Sale and Purchase for 5 acres under Ihe
Conservalion Collier Land Acquisilion Program, al a cosl nol to exceed
$13,100 (Dinda/Walsh). "
Mr. Espinar moved to not approve the above Executive Summary, as there is
110 public access or use of the parcel. Second by Mr. Kriz.
Chairman Poteet recommended delaying a deeision on the aequisition based
on Board of County Commissioner's input to the Committee.
Motion carried 8 "Yes" - I "No". Chairman Poteet voted "no."
E. Conveyance Proposal Updates
Alex Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator provided the following
updates:
Caloosa Reserve - none.
Benfield Road - reeeived an email from the owners on November 18, 2008
withdrawing the pareels from conveyanee to the Program. No speeifie reason was
provided.
The Committee requested Staff to eontact the owners and determine the reason for
the withdrawal.
F. Starnes Panther Habitat Units (PHU's) - Staff report from December 2nd
BCC meeting
Alex Sulecki noted at the Deeember 2, 2008 BCC meeting 3 options were
presented for the eost of the PHU's to be reimbursed to the Conservation Collier
for County mitigation:
1. No charge for the units.
2. Cost of land actions required above and beyond typiea1 Collier
Conservation Land Management plus 25% oftypiea1 Grant
funding ($372/PHU).
4
16' 1
Deeember 8, 2008
Aft-
3. As proposed by Conservation Collier, cost ofland aequisition
and management, however this option was more than the
eontract price ofPHU's.
The BCC direeted Staff to utilize option number 2, however to monitor the costs
and adjust as appropriate.
It was noted this option will generate approximately $722,000 of funds for the
Program.
Speaker
Brad Cornell, Collier County Audubon Society, noted endorsement of option 3.
He reeommended as the Program moves forward (Pepper Raneh, etc.) the loss of
potential Grants be faetored into the reimbursement costs for mitigation eredits.
V. New Business
A. Members conflict of interest
Mr. Pires noted a eonfliet with the Su pareel and has previously filed the
necessary memorandum.
B. Final Updates and Cycle 6 Ranking
Alex Sulecki provided an overview of the ranking proeess for the aequisition list
noting the following:
. A-list properties are aetively pursued by Staff for aequisition and given
priority rankings.
. B-list properties are of interest, but not actively pursued by Staff and are
automatieally re-ranked and eonsidered in the next eyele unless removed
for eonsideration by the owners.
. C-list will not be pursued but may be re-nominated by owners in future
eycles.
Mr. Espinar noted the County Attorney's Offiee indicated he had no eontliet
with the Stirns parcel.
Speaker
Brad Cornell, Collier County Audubon Society reeommended plaeing the Su
pareel on the "A-list" due to its environmental and edueational value. Placing the
Gore pareel on the "A or B list" due to its wildlife eorridor value, however he noted it
may be a candidate for mitigation for the proposed 1-75 interehange. Plaeing the
Rivers Rd. properties on "at least the B-list."
Amber Crooks, Conservancy of Southwest Florida recommended plaeing Su on
the "A-list" due to Manatee and Gopher Tortoise habitat. Kirby and Murphy
properties on the "A-list" due to its close proximity to the Naney Payton Preserve.
She recommended not acquiring the Stirns pareel in the Rivers Road area as it is not
as environmentally sensitive as other pareels in the area and eontains structures.
5
161 1
Deeember 8, 2008
4/2---
Paul Consentino, landowner requested his properties be placed on the "A-list" and
indicated he will remove any existing debris on the properties at his expense.
Jim Culkar, Delasol Home Owners Assoc. reiterated the Association' previous
position in opposition to acquisition of the Devisse (Euclid Ave.) pareelunless
development is loeated on the Southerly end of the property. He noted the owner has
obtained a permit for a drive and home eonstruetion from Florida Department of
Environmental Protection issued December 4, 2008. This permit requires the
wetlands to be left in a natural state and the Association prefers this alternative and
requests the pareel be plaeed on the "C-list."
Fred Kermani, representing the owners of the Su parcel noted there is a
possibility of owner financing for the property.
Bart Zino, Heritage Way Resident indieated he objeets to the aequisition of the
Devisse (Euclid Ave.) pareel and recommends it be placed on the "C-list" due to a
potential nuisanee factor of a Pub lie Park in the neighborhood.
David Hilton, representing Virginia Devisse provided a brief history of the property
including issues in acquiring legal access and noted a permit has been issued for
eonstruction of a home and driveway. In addition, adjaeent property owners should
not be dietating whieh properties should be identified for Conservation acquisition
and use. He requested the pareel be placed on the "A-list."
Dr. Robert Gore, landowner (69 folios) noted he has been the steward of the
properties for 20 years and outlined the environmental benefits of the parcels. He
would eonsider transferring the 10 aere pareel eontaining the residenee to the
Program with a life estate agreement. In addition, he would consider severing the two
parcels in the northeast area near the "test traek" from the aequisition eonsideration.
Alex Sulecki provided final updates on the properties under eonsideration noting the
following:
. 1-75 - property values have deereased from the appraised $16,000/aere to
approximately $ 13,OOO/aere. No final decision if the 1-75 aeeess will be
eonstrueted.
. Rivers Road - structures may be re-located, however it is not
economieally practical. The Transportation Department indicated
Moulder Drive may not be paved as a driveway for publie use. It was
noted the Committee may reeommend a Land Development Code
amendment for the Program's aeeess drivcs.
. Devisse (Euclid Ave.) - the eonservation easement underlying the
aeeess easement was released by South Florida Water Management
Oistriet. The BCC returned the Delasol Park property to the Delasol
Homeowners Assoeiation.
6
16~
1 ir/~
December 8, 2008
Cycle 6 rankinl!s
An "Active Acquisilion Lisl Worksheel - Cycle 6" (whieh alphabetieally listed the
pareels numbered 1-26) dated Deeember 2008 and "Conservalion Collier
Properly Summary" dated November 10,2008 was provided for assistanee in
ranking the properties.
Gore(#15)
Diseussion ensued on the merits of aequiring the parcel and the status of funds
available for acquisition.
Ms. Wolok noted at this time in the process, the properties should be ranked on
eeological value and prioritized. Available funding should be addressed at a
later date when necessary.
Mr. Staiger noted diseussing the bonding and funding eapability is premature and
the property should be slated for aequisition based on its eeologieal benefits.
Mr. Kriz moved to place the Gore property on the B-list. Second by Mr. Pires.
Motion carried 7 'yes" - 2 "no". Mr. Staiger and Ms. Wolok voted "no."
1-75 Properties (#'s 1-7, 12-14,18,20,26 - ALM LLC, Argay, Arias (2), Ayra,
Berman Trust, Blake Trust, Faust, Fernandez, Gascon" Mayr,
Mohabir,Velez).
Mr. Espinar moved to place the /-75 properties listed above on the B-list.
Second by Mr. Pires. Motion carried 8 'yes"-/ "no". Ms. Wolok voted "no."
Rivers Road properties (#'s 8,9,11 and 22 - Consentino (2), Devisse, Paganes)
Mr. Delate moved to place the above Rivers Road properties on the A-list.
Second by Mr. Staiger.
Discussion ensued on the Rivers Road Stirns parcel and its merits and eonditions
for acquisition
Speaker
Lou Stirns, landowner addressed the Committee noting the pareel is aetually 10
acres (as opposed to the listed 9.7 aeres) and he was willing to remove the
struetures and fill in the pool, ete. as required at his expense. He also noted the
septie tank is 1250 gallons.
Mr. Pires called for the question. Chairman Poteet polled the Committee who
unanimously supported Mr. Pires' request.
Carried unanimously 9-0.
Rivers Road (#24 Stirns)
Mr. Pires moved to place the Stirns parcel on the A-list with the condition of
requiring the removal and/or filling in of unneeded structures (house, pool,
etc.). Second by Mr. Espinar.
7
161
1 If /~
Deeember 8, 2008
Diseussion ensued on the merits of the Program acquiring a paree1 eontaining
numerous improvements.
Motion carried 5 ')1es" - 4 "no". Chairman Poteet, Ms. Wolok, Mr. Delate and
Mr. Kriz voted "no."
Devisse (#10 Euclid Ave.)
Mr. Kriz moved to place the Devisse property on the C-list. Second by Mr.
Jenkins. Carried unanimously 9-0.
Jovce (#16)
Mr. Jenkins moved to place the Joyce property on the A-list. Second by Ms.
Wolok. Carried unanimously 9-0.
Kirbv (#17)
Mr. Espinar moved to place the Kirby and Murphy properties (#'s 17 and 21) on
the A-list. Second by Mr. Curl.
Discussion ensued noting the properties should be eonsidered separately.
Mr. Espinar amended the motion to place the Kirby parcel (#17) on the A-list.
Second by Mr. Jenkins.
Motion carried 5 ')1es - 4 "no." Chairman Poteet, Ms. Wolok, Mr. Pires and
Mr. Delate voted "no. "
McGinnis and Purpero (#'s 19,23)
Chairman Poteet moved to place the McGinnis and Purpero properties on the
B-list. Second by Ms. Wolok.
Chairman Poteet noted this is the only property proposed in Distriet 3 as the
Ordinanee requires property representation in all Distriets. In addition, the parcel
provides public visibility opportunities and meets the Programs requirement for
providing green spaee
Discussion ensued regarding the merits of the aequisition with regard to the
pareels close proximity to urban roadways (the intersection of Pine Ridge Road
and Logan Blvd.) and concern over the laek of eeologiea1 value.
Motion failed 4 ')1es" - 5 "no." Mr. Delate, Mr. Espinar, Mr. Kriz, Mr.
Jenkins and Mr. Curl voted no.
Mr. Espinar moved to place the McGinnis and Purpero properties on the C-list.
Second by Mr. Curl.
8
161
Deeember 8, 2008
Motion carried 6 'yes" - 3 "no." Chairman Poteet, Mr. Staiger, Mr. Pires
voted "no. "
Murphy (#21)
Mr. Pires moved to place the property on the A-list. Second by Mr. Delate.
Motion carried 7 'yes"- 2 "110." Chairman Poteet and Mr. Kriz voted "no."
Mr. Pires left al 11: 18AM.
Su (#25)
Mr. Kriz moved to place the property on the C-list. Second by Mr. Delate.
Diseussion ensued noting the property is favorable as it is located in close
proximity to a school (Manatee Elementary and Middle Sehool) and its bigh
eeologieal value.
Motion carried 5 'yes" - 3 "110" with 1 abstention. Chairman Poteet, Ms.
Wolok and Mr. Curl voted "no." Mr. Pires abstained.
Mr. Pires returned a111:21AM
A-List Prioritization
Rivers Road - (Consentino (2), Devisse, Paganes and Stirns - #'s 8,9,11, 22
a11d 24)
Mr. Pires moved to prioritize the Rivers Road properties of Consentino (2),
Devisse, Paganes and Stirns (#'s 8,9,11, 22 and 24) as A-1 subject that the
owner of the Stirns parcel clean up and remove the structures as necessary.
Second by Mr. Staiger. Carried unanimously 9-0.
Joyce (#' 16)
Mr. Jenkins moved to prioritize the Joyce parcel as A-I. Second by Mr.
Espinar. Carried unanimously 9-0.
Kirby and Murphy (#'s 17,21)
Mr. Kriz moved to prioritize the Kirby and Murphy parcels as A-2.
Motion carried 8 'yes" -1 "no". Mr. Pires voted "no."
Mr. Staiger moved to approve all Cycle 6 ranking a11d Prioritization actions
taken by the Committee. Second by Mr. Espinar.
Motion carried 7 'yes" -1 "no" with 1 abstention. Mr. Pires abstained.
C. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member Program
None.
9
1
4/2---
161
1 ,4/~
Deeember 8, 2008
D. Coordinator Communications
Alex Sulecki noted the following:
. She attended the Ross Show sponsored by the Collier Building and
Industry Association whieh outlined the status of real estate values in the
area.
. She has received a request from Veriseope to aecess the Pepper Ranch
property to film scenes for National Geographie. They will pay a fee of
$1000 for use of the property. The request will follow a standard
County proeedure for allowing publie aeeess to a property.
Maggie McCarty of the Collier County Film Commission noted the
property has previously been used in this eapaeity and would market any
of the Programs properties in the future if so desired.
. The Board of County Commissioners has approved a mileage
reimbursement for Advisory Board members traveling more than 20
miles to meetings.
. The Collier County TV channel is moving to ehannel 97 on Dee ember
16, 2008.
. Clarenee Tears of the South Florida Water Management Distriet will be
plaeed on a future agenda to diseuss Distriet priorities in relation to the
Program.
VI. Sub-Committee Meeting Reports
A. Outreach - Tony Pires, Chair
Previous meeting was caneelled and will be reseheduled.
B. Lands Evaluation and Management - Marco Espinar, Chair
Meeting immediately following this meeting to diseuss Pepper Ranch.
C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures - Will Kriz, Chair
None.
VII. Chair Committee Member Comments
Mr. Espinar noted the Program should propose a Land Development Code
amendment for aeeess standards to Conservation Collier properties. It was
determined suggested this should be addressed by the Ordinance, Poliey and
Proeedures Subeommittee.
Mr. Pires noted the County should eonsider providing proper notifieation
(eonstructive notiees, etc.) to property owners with development orders affeeted by
Management aetivities (eontrolled burning, ete.) conducted in aceordanee with
Conservation Collier Management Plans.
VIII. Public General Comments
None.
10
161
lA-/~
Deeember 8, 2008
IX. Staff Comments
Alex Sulecki congratulated Chairman Poteet for being named 2008 Golden Gate
Citizen of the Year.
Christal Segura, Conservation Collier Land Manager served notiee that the first
preseribed burning on the Nancy Payton Preserver will be this week or next, weather
permitting.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the chair at 11:41 A.M.
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee
~/
/
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on
as presented or as amended V-.
/ - /'J. -09
@
]1
Fiala ~ tJ"/'1 H /.<'~
Halas. 91
Henning ~
coyle: //
CmUfles, ~mber 9, 2008
LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in
regular session at lO:OO a.m. in the Headquarters Library with the following members
present:
RECEIVED d'C r- /
JAN 2 2 2009 / .-J ( - '- -
",,",d uf County c0156e'1 1 It J Q
CHAIRMAN: Doris J. Lewis
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Loretta Murray
Connie B. Hennink
Karen Louwsma
Andrew Reiss
ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Direetor
Linda Fasulo, Exeeutive Direetor, FOL
Roberta Reiss, Literaey Coordinator
Luz Pietri, Administrative Assistant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Lewis asked for comments or eorrections to the minutes of Oetober 21, 2008. There
being none, Mrs. Hennink moved, seeonded by Mr. Reiss and carried unanimously, that
the minutes be approved as submitted.
LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT
Mrs. Reiss reported the following events: I). One of her students beeame an American
eitizen. 2). Tutor training for 'Sehool on Wheels' is going very strong. Some tutors at
Lely High Sehool are tutoring illiterate adults in their own language. 3). Lastly, she
reported that the other regular literacy programs are pretty busy, also.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
The Board reeeived the nominations submitted for seleetion of the Library's Employee of
the Month. Mrs. Murray moved, seeonded by Mrs. Louwsma and carried unanimously,
to seleet Roberta Reiss, Literaey Coordinator, as EOM for the month of November.
Then, Mrs. Murray moved, seeonded by Mrs. Hennink and earried unanimously, to se1eet
Kathleen Dolan, Referenee Librarian at HQ, as EOM for the month of Deeember 2008.
In referenee to the South Regional Library eonstruetion, Mrs. Matthes reported that the
library is 99% completed. She brought some panel samples and pictures of ehairs being
eonsidered for purehase. Also, the staff is in the process of buying books and furniture.
Advertising for staff will start in February. The Friends have invited the Media to attend
an Open House at the South Regional Library on Thursday, December 12th from 9:30 to
I I :00 a.m. All Library Board members were also invited.
Mite. Cones'
Date: DJ..tl f) I 09'
Item .J lQ Ii \)4 l ~
:opies to
161
lk(j
In referenee to the Envision Ware Program, Mrs. Matthes stated that this software has
been installed at four library branches already. It has not been a smooth proeess since the
system keeps losing eonneetion to the printers. Staff is working on it. No eharges have
been implemented yet.
NEW BUSINESS
In regards to LAB recommendations to the BCC for new members, Mrs. Murray
reeommended that the eurrent Chair, Doris Lewis, be re-elected for District 4. Mrs.
Louwsma seeonded the motion. Mrs. Louwsma reeommended that Roehelle Z. Lieb
from Distriet 5 be seleeted to replace her. Mrs. Hennink seconded the motion. The
motions were unanimously approved.
GENERAL CONSIDERA nONS - None
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mrs. Matthes diseussed the grant (ICMA) she's applying for. It'll be late January or
February before she knows if it's approved. The Library Policies eonsidering fee charges
for the use of the publie eomputers will be going to the BCC for approval sometime in
January. In reference to the Rose Hall eonstruetion at the Mareo Island Braneh, Mrs.
Matthes reported that the Mareo Island Chapter of the Friends has agreed to mateh the
funds for this projeet. The Peliean Bay Property owners have eleeted Mr. Jim Carter,
past eommissioner, to raise funds to keep the Vanderbilt Beaeh branch open. Another
Retirement Ineentive is being proposed for County staff. The Library was able to replace
one staff member at the Golden Gate Braneh. Mrs. Matthes was given the go ahead to
replaee a referenee librarian at HQ through the Job Bank, whieh means no benefits
offered. The budget for next year will be redueed by 10%.
REPORT OF THE FRIENDS
Mrs. Fasulo reported that the annual Sock Hop will be taking plaee at the new South
Regional Library on Friday, Deeember 12th There will be ruffles and other surprises. A
one-aet play presented by Christopher Councill, a Broadway Star, will take place on
February 8th at 8:00 p.m. at the South Regional Library. The tieket priees are $40.00, with
discounts for FOL members. Mrs. Fasulo also announeed that the Lecture Series is
already sold out. Among the speakers are Debra Dean and Lisa Jaekson. Mrs. Fasulo
eneouraged all board members to become members of the Friends.
161
ADJOURNMENT
Mrs. Matthes thanked Mrs. Louwsma and Mr. Reiss for their serviee to the Library
Advisory Board. There being no further business to eome before the Library Advisory
Board, Mr. Reiss moved, seeonded by Mrs. Louwsma and earried unanimously, that the
meeting be adjourned. Time: 11: 15 a.m.
Approved by:
0~~~
c)
Doris J. Lewis
Chair, Library Advisory Board
1 Af3
RECEIVED
JAN 1 3 2009
Fiala ~
Halas /!-~
Henning \/ ~
Coyle
Coletta ~ ---
~(;d((i of County Commissioners
THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
HELD ON DECEMBER 8, 2008
In attendance were the following:
Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief
Mitchell Roberts, Chairman Copeland
John Pennell, Plantation Island, Advisory Board Member
James Sinul1ons, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member
The mceting came to order at 6PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mitehell Roberts made a motion to accept the minutes as read it was seeonded by Jolm
Pennell and was passed.
OLD BUSINESS
1. DOT Letter
Chief McLaughlin - He said the DOT letter is completed as per their request and is ready
for them to approve and for the Chail1l1an's signature. Upon its approval the Department
will make sure that copies are sent off to the Board of Conunissioners and the appropriate
DOT Personnel as mcntioned in the letter.
[vlitchell Roberts read the letter aloud as per the attached.
A motion was made by John PelUlell for the Chairman Mitchell Roberts to sign the letter
read aloud and attached here in it was seconded by James Simmons and passed.
Chief MeLaughlin suggested to may be sending a eopy to the State Legislature of our
area and the governor.
Mitchell Roberts said that is a good possibility. He suggested that maybe send this one
off and if we don't get a response back in a timely marmer and if we don't send a copy of
the letter letting them know we did not l'eeeive a response.
Chief McLaughlin said this is taking it to the next level.
Mitchell Roberts said that the letter is cc to Dan SunUl1ers and the Board of County
Commissioners. He asked for a suggestion as to the cc list.
1M
Misc. Cooes:
Date Dd'{l 0 l D9
'tern #lQJ: L lj4 I Lt--'
Page I
161
1
A\~
James Simmons asked who we were sending it to.
Mitehell Roberts - We are currently sending it to the Assistant Secretary of engineering
and Operations for Florida DOT. The initial letter was directed to the head of the Florida
DOT but she pushed it down to him.
Chief McLaughlin - Because it is an issue may be the letter should be sent to the
legislator to let tbem know there is an issue down here you may get a better response,
Mitchell Roberts said maybe we should send a copy to the head of Florida DOT.
Chief McLaughlin said this is a politieal issue obviously awareness is the key if you get
more people who are in power they can enact ehange. Somebody at this level is making
the decision based on the policy of the DOT.
Mitchell Roberts made a motion for the DOT Letter to be sent to Stephanie C.
Kopelousos and to om State Representative it was seconded and passed.
Mitchell Roberts is worried that when the Port of the Islands station opens with half the
personnel and one ofthe trucks there the eoverage will lessen in Everglades City it could
be LlI1protected for 10 to 15 minutes where now it's only scconds. The structlll'CS hcrc
will burn a lot fastcr than the ones at the P0l1 of the Islands.
Chief McLaughlin - This is the issue as a Fire Service Manager loosing the fire
protection that the citizens are paying for to eover a transient population that is not
compensating for the service. It is a bigger burden than a financial issue it has become a
fire life salety issue because when the fire protection leavcs here there is nOBe. Some onc
will have to address that because the eitizens are Bot getting what they are paying for.
2. Gym Equipment
Chief McLaughlin- Still waiting for the Stair Master he explained that we had to
J'C-order due to the fact the company would not accept a plll'ehase order for payment so
special permission had to be obtained to place it on the County Visa Card. They re-build
these units when ordered so we are looking at possible the end of the year or the first of
January 2009 then we will be all done with our gym equipment.
Page 2
161
1
A-I~
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
PO BOX 70
EVERGLADES CITY, FL. 34139
December 8, 2008
Kevin J. Thibault, PE
Assistant Secretary for Engineering & Operations
Florida Depm1ment of Transpoliation
605 Suwannee St.
Tallahassee, FI. 32399-0450
Mitchell Roberts, Chairman
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board
c/o Ochopee Fire Control District
PO Box 70
Everglades City, FI. 34139
Re: Responding to Letter ofOetober 21, 2008 as per Attaehed:
Dear Mr. Thihault,
Along with the reply sent on 10-21-08 I havc also attached some inJi:mnation1 obtained
as to increasing the toll to pay for more Florida Highway Patrolmen. How is it thai per
your correspondence "it does not appear that the dcpmiment has the clear authority to use
thc funds we would receive from the Alley Proposal for this purpose" as in a Fire RcselLe
facility on 1-75 when per the at[ached information tolls were raised on 2-5-05 from $1.50
to $2.00 for Sun Pass users and $2.50 for eash users f(]r automobiles to fund Troopers
starting 7-1-06. I-low it is that toll funds can be used j(lr this purpose but not for
Fire Rescue Services which are being provided at the costs to taxpayers in the Distriet
and when personnel and equipment rcspond to 1-75 lessens their serviees. Our District
pays the highest millage rate in Collier County for onr Service. With budget constraints
this is putting a big hit on the Departments financial stahls especially when 30% to 40%
of our call load is on 1-75 there is a need for a station on this highway just like there was
a need to increase Troopers this is a lifc safety issue.
I would like a better explanation as to why on one hand you can raise the toll for more
Troopers but when you have an additional Life threatening situation it can't be done.
Olll' apparatus and EMS have to travel fi'OlJ1 Everglades City making the one way
Trip approximately 45 minutes that is not conducive to saving lives in a life threatening
situation on 1-75 <lI1d there arc many.
Page 1
16l
I feel more information is needed to draw a final conclusion and I believe duc to all the
activity in the way of aecide.nts tbis is a serious situation and should be addressed as such.
Thank you for your eousideration coneerning this matter.
Sincerely,
---.-----... ---7
--::;--.-;--~- ~:::""--,,,-~--,~
.~--~-~~.../?-_._"<~---
,,"_""7. p>r>~/ ,..':--.. . _~ -,
~</0";;Z~'-;:c':::~>' G~~)
.// / //;;::/;y ".7. // . '--.-
f/ ~. Y 7 .>"^""
'~""-
Mitcbell Roberts, Chainnan
Ochopee Fire Control Distriet Advisory Board
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Dan Snlluners, Bureau of Emergcnc)' Services Director
Page 2
1 A'l~
161
Florida Department of Transportation
CHARUE CRIST
GOVERNOR
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399.0450
STEPHAN1E C, KOPELOVSOS
SECRETARY
October 21, 2008
Mr. Mitchell Roberts, Chairman
OchoJlee Fire Control District Advisory Board
201 Bnekner Avenue
Ochopce, FL 34139
Dear Chairman Roberts:
Secretary Kopelo\lsos has asked that 1 respond to YOUI' rccent letter to her concerning the funding
of Fire and Emergency Services for Collier County.
As mentioned previoLlsly to Captain Les Williams of Collier COLlnty Emergency & Fire Services,
it does not appear that the department has the clear authori ty to use the funds we would receive
from the Alley proposal for this purpose. Florida Statutes (specifically FS. 338.165(2)) dictates
that revenues beyond thc opcration and maintenance of the facility 'shall be 1!sedjol' the
cOJ'islmclion. l!Ioinlenance, or improvement of an)' road on Ih" Slate Highway S)'slell1l1'tlhinlhe
county 0)' counlies in which Ihe revenue-producing projeel is located.' Our ability, therefore, to
partic.ipate in your proposal does not appear to be available.
If YO\l sho\lld have any questions, please let me know.
1\ S~Ct'Z (':)J
\~ily-: --,,-,- .. . \7 j'\~
KeGl J. Thibault, P.E.
Assistant Secretary for
Engineering & Operations
KJT/pc
cc: Secretary Stephanie K.ope1o\lsos
PI"'''' ~hl" ch:~ra fl ",.,.
1 itlLf
I
Fk~ vU uN) / IrLL i&IY7{'}/!.' f0J 1[0'/" (",/11
(Jo 'Y' vJ{}3j ,'10{
16 ~lAL~
j~'f2t(L\! t1:5r<t;D (Que'S )-tOI-1..5 (F PlC!).~ .~
f'e;{)!sl::'O az '7 ""'2'5'
Q: Will the private company that you lease the Alley to be American'l
A: Possibly. Any Concessiol18ire that meets all the Department requirements will have an opportunity
whether Americall or mnlti-national.
Q: If the state is already making a profit off the tolls from Alligator Alley, why give it away'!
A: The leasing of the Alley allows the Departmcnt to receive significant upfront funds for advancing
other transportation projects tbat otherwise would be dclayed for several years.
Q: If the Department will give a private Concessionaire the okay to raise the toll 011 tlle Alley,
why doesn't the Departmelltjnst raise thel1lnow and let the state keep all that extra profit?
A: An increase in tolls wonld only provide for a modest return on investment and not provide the
large amount of upfront funds needed to advance important transportation projects.
Q: Why is the lense for 50 years?
A: The tinancialmodels that are being developed for this asset indicate that 50 years is the optimum
term iength for a Concessionaire to have an equitable return on its investlnent.
Q: I alll very concerned for the Everglades, Who will oversee this Concessionaire to guarantee
that the Everglades are protected?
A: The Department will directly oversee the Concessionaire to ensure that all requirements of any
agreements are fulfilled, inc1nding regnlatory compliance and protection of Everglades National
Park.
Q: If the private Concessionaire damages the Everglades, what is .Florida's reconrse?
A: The Department's agreement with the Concessionaire will include several escalatiug measures of
recourse to ensure that the Concessionaire prevents or restores any damage to the Everglades
original condition, inclnding monetary damages, default and ultimately termination of thc leasc.
Q: Can we take the lease bac1r? And tln'ow them out of the country?
A: Yes, there will be language. in the agreement to provide for termination of the lease under certain
circumstances. No, the Departme.nt is not anthorized to throw companies out of the country.
Q: When the slate raIsed the Alley tolls a couple of years ago, it was supposed to cover extra
FHP Troopers. What is the sllltus of that'!
A: TIte additional troopers were assigned and will cOl1tiune to be assigned.
Q: If tolls are raised to $10,00 as reported by the media. where will it go?
A: There are no present plans to have tolls reach SiD.OO in the inU11ediale fnlLlre. Toll increases on thc
Alley will be subject to administrative rulernaking and will be expressly stated in the conccssion
agreement. Funds the Depnrtment receives under the Concession will be used to reilnburse
outstanding contractual obllgations, operate nnd maintain the facility, contribute to the Everglades
Fund of the South Florida \Vater Management District, and accelerate constmction of much-needed
transportation projects in Broward and CoWer counties.
Q: Will the Alley's Road Rangers be fully funded with the increased tolls?
A: This remains an open question at this time.
Q: Why doesn't Florida have a state income tax?
A: This is not a question to which the Department can respond.
01-2007 _Newsletter
16 I 1 1+ l~
Page l of 1
District J Traffic Jncident l'vlanagement (TIM) Teams were awarded a Certificate of
Outstanding Achievement, in recognition of outstanding service to ITS in FIOlida for
championing improved cnforeement and safety on Alligator Alley and Accident
Investigation Sites (A1S) on future widening projects on 1-75.
Increased law enforcement presence on 1-75 along Alligator Alley was a top priority for the
TIM Teams in the District. A proposal which outlined the need and costs for the additional
troopers IVas developed. It proposed to use toll revenue to fund the additional troopers. The
District 1 Traffic Operations ITS Section championed this cause and prcscnted the proposal
to FDOT Distlict 1 managcment. FDOT Distliet 1 worked with Turnpike Enterprise and
Central Office managemcnt in an effort to get it approved. Through everyone's efforts, the
tolls on Alligator Alley were raised for Ihe first time since 1969, for two axle vehicles,
!-,"rti;,]ly to fund the additional t!Copel s. The Flodda Highway Patrol is currently in the
proeess of hiting and training additional troopers. This will increase safe.ty for al1l11olorist&
traveling along Alligator Alley.
16J
1 AI~
Chris Birosak
ITS Program Manager
I'jr.
'#IF.,,''''. .
\4
AI/-.
SUMGUIDf'
. Overview Existing Projects
- Freeway Management Systems
- Advanced Traveler Information Systems
- Advanced TI'affic Management Systems
. Higlllights Incident Management Program
. Future ITS Projects
1
16/
1 A-!~
Collier-Lee TIM Team Highlights
- Funding for 14 Dedicated Troopers on 1-75 along
Alligator Alley
, Tolls l,aised on Feb, 5, 2006, from $1,50 10 $2JH) I'D'
SunPass Users end $:2,50 fer Cash Users lor Automobiles
. DHSlv1V has Budget Issue to Fund Troopers starting Joly 1,
200(1, Legis!21ture Must Approve This Session
. FHP tlAust Hire and Train New Troopers
- Accident Investigation Site6 (AIS)
. I\pproved in Concept by FI-1VVA
. Construction Plans Being Revised to Add to Golden Gate
and Alico Road Intercnange Projects
. Considering Addinq Sites for Other Upcoming 1-75 Capacity
improvement Projects
. Charlotte-Sarasota-Manatee TIM Team
Highlights
-. Sunshine Skyway Bridge Closure Signs
, Raised Awareness and Coordinated EffOlis of
FHP, FOOT, and Manatee County 10 Automate the
Flashers on Warning Signs on South Side of
Bridge
16J
1 ,4-14
3. Firet1ghter Physicals
Chief McLaughlin- The physicals are schcdulcd for the 22"" and the 23d of this month
they are very comprehensive. Per NFPA standards we are required to do physicals at a
level that is well beyond what your nOllllallocal doctor would do we fOlmd a company to
do it at a very good rate. This company is doing the physicals for North Naples Fire
District, East Naples Fire District, Golden Gate Fire District, Marco Island Fire District,
Isles of Capri Fire District and now our Department. These physicals take approximately
three hours per person. These physicals will also include a full body scan and stress test
also chcst x-rays and heavy metals testing will be done for a base line and repeated every
t1ve years. Our personnel are exposed to a lot of hazardous materials and things of that
nature if in 15 to 20 years down the road if some body develops something we could
possibly track the exposure or at least when it OCCUlTed. We are up and running every
one has their blood work paper work we are good with that.
4. Station 66 Clean Up
Chief McLaughlin - They are priming today, they've put everything baek and have
disinfected as well five more dead rats were found making the total 18. The smell from
the dead rats is gone, new ceiling tiles were put in and the walls put back up. Next the
floors need to be redone and the cabinets in the kitchen. There is a possibility of a
donation of cabinetry through a new job banker. It's looking prelly good out there. The
pest control company Massey was notified about placing rat boxes at Station 66 and still
has not done so. He contacted Facilities Maintenance to let thcmlutow they still have not
placed the boxes out there. He is unhappy with this situation he feels it should have been
done it's been six weeks since they were notified. He is talking about getting some feral
cats fj'Olllthe pound along with a feeder for them to keep down the rat problem Massey
suggested this option. Big Cypress will be burning the under brush around the station so
it's going to look a lot better out there and also help the problem.
Mitchell Roberis asked with all this maintenance did they plug up as many of the whole
as possible.
Chief McLaughlin - They removed some things that were probably avenues then with the
rat boxes that should do it. We are also going to put traps in the attic if we get them in
there we call get them out then we will have a good grip on the rat problem over time.
Mitchell Roberts felt more of a presence out there on a regular basis would be helpful.
Chief McLaughlin ~~ We will be out there every week to stali up the generator. We didn't
realize it was that much of a problem. We eliminated the termites which was the original
problem.
Page 3
161
1 AlL}
5. POli of the Islands Update
Chief McLaughlin - He had the Executive Summary, attachments along with the 15
amendments for the sale at POli of the Islands. The bottom line is we expect this to pass
on 12-16-08. We will be taking $600,000 out of Reserves, $180,000 out oflmpact Fees
and an additional $100,000 or more for renovations. The architect originally told him it
would cost $175,000 to renovate. He went hack and talked to various personnel at
Facilities Maintenance and they agreed that he needed to subcontract individually instead
of an architect ruling over all. We did find the engineer (hat did the building originally
that will sign off on the structure pmi at a tremendous savings. The arehiteet has rejoined
the project. He needs some one who can put in a door, two walls, a kitchen and a
plumber that's the extent of it. I can subcontract these pieces out at a tremendous
savings.
Mitchell Roberts said therc is nothing structural at this point.
Chief McLaughlin - The only structural thing is putting thc over head door in, there is no
header.
Mitchell Roberts ... There is nothing that's structural at that point.
Chief McLaughlin - The only structural is putting the over head door in. Thcre is no
header. Columns with a steel bend what ever they come up with they will covel' it up.
The companies k.now the structural engineer that originally did the building. He has
alrcady spoken to the AC company they will move the existing five ton unit to our side of
the building for about $8,000 that includes all the duct work and when I start adding thc
numbers up it will be $85,000 to $90,000 to remodel instead of $175,000 that the
architect said. He has the backing of the County's Facility Maintenance that this is the
way to go. We are not putting a lot of tluff in the building we do need some things to live
in the building this doesn't inelude furniture or anything. Appliances, furniture, bunks
and beds will have to be purchased for the living area with the funds coming out of
reserves to cover these expenses. We are going to get it up and running. The company
doing the remodeling is going to reuse the ceiling grates and outlets in an effort to keep
the costs down. Hopefillly everything will be done by April 1,2009.
Mitchell Roberts - The money that comes out of the Reserves is this like a cost share
type of thing for utilization.
Page 4
16l
1 A Ii
Chief McLaughlin - The purchase is $5,488,000 that includes the building and parking
lots. We arc paying for a pcreentagc of the building. Wc are getting a good chunk of the
property ovcr half of the building at a cost of approximately $900,000. So out of the
whole purchase price we are doling very well. The sign will probably read Port of the
Islands Station 61 and the sign under the entrance door will say Oehopee Fire Control
District. Therc is somc talk about upgrading to an ALS Engine cventually. There is
$93,000 and in Rcscrvc for Contingency, $871,000. $600,000 will bc taken out for the
purchase leaving $27],000 that will probably be enough for thc future. Wc will need to
purchase a new tanker truck next year this one is 20 years old it either needs to go into
rcservc or bc tradcd it is constantly in repair status.
Mitchell Roberts - Asked if it will be the same or small like the new truck.
Chief McLaughlin - It will be the same but with a squarc tank instead of elliptical. Thc
square tank is cheaper it will be thc standard 3,000 gallon capacity with a larger cngine so
that it will handle better than the current vehicle. The t,mker was purchased in 1992 at
the same time that Golden Gate Firc Rcseuc and Big Island Cork Screw did. Our Tankcr
is the only one left in service the othcrs gone.
On 11-18-08 Thc board of County Commissioncrs passed a resolution allowing Advisory
Board mcmbers to claim milcage if thcy have to travclmore that 20 milcs round trip to
attcnd meetings. The letter stating this information and the mileage form was presented
to the Advisory Board. James Simmons travcls 60 miles round trip to attend the Oehopee
Fire Control District Advisory Board Mcctings. Chief McLaughlin suggested that James
Simmons read the information earefillly it is tumed in once a year in July and he would
have to keep a schedule. lie suggested that he confirm the mileage with map quest as
wcll.
6. Firefighter Position
Chief MeLaughlin- He hasn't seen it yet it's not posted. He will be contacting Human
Resourecs to scc why it hasn't been posted yet. Thcy have reccived all the paperwork
regarding the Lieutenant's promotion. He mentioned that he has been working with HR
in trying to change some ofthc hiring practices. Due to thc time it takes for the whole
process is costs our Department a lot ofmoncy in ovcrtime fill in while awaiting new
personnel. He fecls wc should have a hiring pool test candidates onec a year and dcvelop
a list to hire from. Once a pcrson is rcady to retire we could begin the process of
selecting a new cmployee and stm1 the hiring proecdure.
Mitchell Robcrts.- You can't actually advcl1ise until that person leaves.
Pagc 5
161
lAI~
Chief McLaughlin - All the other Fire Departments hire from a list. Human Resources
have suggested that he just not fill the position to alleviate the oveltime. They don't
seem to understand we have to meet a minimum manning standard so the positions on
shift have to be filled until some one is hired. He said it has probably cost $12,000 in
over time due to hiring practices.
Mitchell Robelts -He asked ifhe could put something in writing regarding this idea and
the cost savings then send it to Jim Mudd.
Chief McLaughlin - He said that isn't the chain of command I have to go through
Dan Summers.
James Simmons.~ I~Ie brought up the Job Bankers to coyer the over time.
Chief McLaughlin- He said we have moved forward with that. Human Resources asked
him what the impact was on the budget by hiring Job Bankers he told them the
Depattment would save $540 a day. He has one Job Banker but he is going to get
another onc. He needs two or threc to fill thc shifts Job Bankcrs have other jobs and
can't work all the time. 1~1e had to explain to I~hllnan Resources that he needed more that
one Job Banker. Also they wanted him to commit to how many hours they would work
and there is no way to do that it depends on leaye time.
7. Assistant Chief Position
Chief MeLaughlin- Per Dan Summers he has to advertise this position again. He has
requested a meeting due to the fact that he has not been able to hire the candidate he feels
is qualified for the job. 1~le wants to know why he can't hire him and see if possibly there
is a way to over come the problem. He was dismissed fi'om the City of Naples but it is
going to be hard to get some one so qualificd to work for $60,000 whcnlhis position as
most Departments pays $90,000. lIe does not want to hire some one he has to train he
wants this person to be ready day one.
NEW BUSINESS
I. Light Bars
Chief McLaughlin - The current light bars because of how the operate are a big draw on
the vehieles electrical system also they do not meet DOT requirements. The new bars
won't drain the electrical system due to lower voltage and they are up to DOT Standards.
Because we are on 1-75 so mueh visibility is important. Right now the biggest thing hc
has going is the POJ1 of the Islands Station. He said he desperately needs help the
previous manager did nothing for career development. lIe is working on that but it takes
years. At Isles of Capri when he was Assistant Chief there he only had six gllYS hcre we
have 14 people. We could do so much more for thc pcople ifhe had some one to give
him a hand.
Page 6
161
James Simmons - He needed clarification about what positions were open he thought
there were three a Lieutenant, Captain and Assistant Chief.
Chief McLaughlin - He has a current position that has never been filled.
James Simmons - You were also talking about a Captains position.
Chief McLaughlin - We don't have a Captains position in the County system we only
have an internal position he makes Lieutenant's pay. He is captain in name only. I gave
him the rank of Captain so he could do some things. We had a Lieutenant retire three
people tested for the position and it was filled by his son Robert R. Mayberry as of
11-21-08.
James Simmons - When Port of the Islands is up and running you are going to need an
Assistant Chief.
Chief McLaughlin He needed him six months ago. He can't keep up with all the
projects and he has meetings he has to attend as well.
A motion was made to adjourn the meeting and was passed the meeting ended.
j
Mitchell Roberts, Chairman
Oehopee Fire Control District Advisory Board
Page 7
1 AI~
flala
Halas
Henning
~~Y~~a :-~' =
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PARKS AND
RECREA nON ADVISORY BOARD
161
1
4f5
December 17, 2008
Naples, Florida, December 17,2008
RECEIVED
JAN 2 3 2009
i{oar<1 ~}j (;(ltJllfv (~Ol(lmiSSJoner~
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, in
and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date
at 2:00 P.M., at the North Collier Regional Park in the Administration Building in
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: John P. Ribes
VICE CHAIRMAN: Edward "Ski" Olesky
Frank Donohue
Barbara BueWer
Paul Nyce (Absent)
Kerry Geroy
Bart Zino
ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Director, Parks & Recreation
Murdo Smith, Parks and Recreation
Tony Ruberto, Sr. Project Manager
Tona Nelson, Sr. Administrative Assist.
Annie Alvarez, Senior Man. V
Peg Ruby, Parks and Recreation
I. Call to Order
Chairman Ribes called the meeting to order at 2:07 PM
Misc. COIIl!S:
10
~opies to
16 !i
.~ ~;
1~/5
December 17, 2008
II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was held.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Olesky moved to approve the agenda. Second by Ms. Buhler.
Carried unanimously 6-0.
IV. Approval of November 19,2008 Meeting minutes
Mr. Olesky moved to approve the minutes of the November 19,2008 meeting subject to
thefollowing corrections:
. Page 2, V. New Business, a, bullet 1 - From "The Board of County
Commissioners approved the $IM payment to the City of Naples" to "The
Board of County Commissioners approved the $1 M payment to the City of
Naples (a 10 year payment in accordance with the inter-local agreementfor
Park related 1mprovements and Beach Parking Element with the City of
Naples")
Second by Chairman Ribes. Carried unanimously 6-0.
V. New Business
a) Directors Highlights
Barry Williams provided the following highlights:
. The Board of County Commissioners has approved a re-imbursement for
mileage for Advisory Board members traveling greater than 20 miles for
meetings.
. The Collier County Planning Commission rejected the proposal for additional
parking at Bayview Park. Staff will provide an update on the status of proposal
at the next meeting.
. Discussions continue on the feasibility of a County A TV park at the
Miami/Dade Jet Port and other areas under consideration. No permanent site
has been chosen.
. The Beach Park Facilities upgrade at the end of Vanderbilt Beach Road is in the
design phase. A public meeting will be held immediately following the regular
January meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to obtain input on
the proposal. Board members will receive information on the proposed upgrade
in the packet for the January meeting.
b) Employee ofthe Month for October and November
Sandy Santos was recognized as employee of the month for October.
c) Pepper Ranch - Barry Williams
An update was provided noting the County has agreed to purchase the Pepper Ranch
parcel for $32.5M. The Parks and Recreation Dept. may participate in Management
activities of the property.
2
Decemlr~,L08 l,fg
VI. Old Business
a) Port ofthe Isles Marina - Barry Williams
The following update was provided
. The County has agreed to purchase the Marina site for $4.765M.
. The purchase includes the ship store, parking areas, an area ofland and
easement rights.
. The Ochopee Fire District Reserve funds were utilized towards the Purchase
. $585,000 of South Florida Water Management District funds were utilized
towards the purchase (funds in relation to provision of an A TV Park)
. An Ochopee Fire Facility may be constructed on site to serve the area.
. The Hotel and boat slips remain with the owners.
. The County will assume operations on January I, 2009.
. The ship store will continue to operate "as is" (acting like a convenience
store for the neighborhood).
Discussion ensued questioning the method of the appraisal and with only the parking
area, some land area and ship store acquired, concern the County overpaid for the
property .
Barry WiUiams noted the appraisal at the direction of the County Appraiser's Office.
b) Champ Series Boat Races Prize Purses
A copy of the "Prize Money Payout' for the Races in November at Sudgen Park was
provided in the packet for informational purposes.
VII. Marketing Highlights - Peg Ruby
The Winter/Spring 2009 R.E.A.I. guide (Recreation Education Activities Leisure) was
presented to the Board for Review and is also distributed free of charge at County
Facilities, Schools, Libraries, etc.
VIII. Recreational Highlights - Annie Alvarez
Snowfest and Christmas Around the World
An update was provided noting both events were successful. Due to budget cuts, fewer
buses were initially utilized for Snowfest Transportation, but as demand increased during
the day, additional buses were placed into service to accommodate the large number of
visitors.
IX. Capital Project Highlights - Tony Ruberto
Well Installation - Immokalec Sports Complex
Consultants were retained to address the supply well, injection well and pool heater
problems at the Facility. It has been determined to place a sand trap on the supply well and
re-locate the ~ection well approximately 300 feet from the heaters. The old injection well
will be abandoned. Bids for the work are due to the County by 12/23/2008.
It was noted the bid deadline for the proposed Soccer field improvements for the East
Naples Community Park is December 29, 2008.
3
161
llr IS
December 17, 2008
X. Adopt a Park - Paul Nyce
None
XI. Informational Items
Attendance Report
Submitted
Adopt Park Assignments
Submitted
Capra Update
Submitted
BCC Recaps
Submitted
Meeting Schedule
Submitted
Recreation Activities
Submitted
Operational Data
Submitted
XII. Public Comments
Phillip Litow, Danford Street resident addressed the Board regarding concerns for
proposed improvements for Bayview Park noting the following:
. The neighborhood is 100 percent opposed to the proposal for the parking lot
located approximately v.. mile from the Boat Ramp.
. The neighborhood is in the process of resurgence and the current proposal
decreases area property values.
. There is currently not a parking problem at the site as the persons using the
area, park along the road.
. Concern if the parking lot is constructed more boaters will use the facility
and overflow parking will remain along the streets.
. He recommended the County "buyout" all property owners affected by the
parking lot.
Discussion ensued on the merits of the proposal. It was determined Gary McAlpin will
provide an update on the proposal at the next Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
meeting which will be open to the public for comment.
Mr. Zino stated the County has addressed his concerns at Starcher-Petty Park and the
facility is now in great condition.
Meetinl!: Attendance RepOrt
Mr. Nyce was absent.
There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned
by order ofthe Chair at 3:11 PM
4
16' l-krS
December 17, 2008
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Chai
These Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on
as presented ')( or as amended_
.
1.1..\.()'J
5
RECEIVED
JAN 1 5 2009
/
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta ~
161
1
tttlp
,,,b'; '.iI cou~OF THE MEETING OF THE
PEUCAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
Naples, Florida - December 3, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, tbat the Pelican Bay Services Division BoarrI, in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 p.m., in REGULAR SESSION at Hammock Oak Center. 8960 Hanunock Oak
Drive. Naples, Florida. with the following members present:
Mary Anne Wombte, Chainnan
John laizzo
Michael Levy
Hunter Hansen
Annette Alvarez
Jerry Moffittt
Jolm Boland
Absent: Ted Raia
Ted Gmvenhorst
Geoff Gibson
Also Present: John Petty, AdministJator, Pelican Bay SeJVices Division; Janice Lamed. District Offices, I1..C; Kyle Lukasz, Field
Opemtions Manager, Pelican Bay Services Division; Tim Hall, Tunell, Hall and Associates; Jim Hoppensleadt, President/CEO,
The Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc.; Doug Finlay, City of Naples; and Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary, Pelican Bay Services
Division.
AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
10.
11.
4.
5.
6.
Introduction and Welcome of Hunter Hansen and Ted Gmvenhorst
RollCall
Jack Curran/Steve Carnell from Collier County Purchasing Dept. with a
presentation on procuring Management Agreement.
Approval of Minutes of November 5,2008 Meeting
Audience Participation
Administrator's Report
Recommendations for Replacement of Jim Burke
Surface Water Utiliz.ation Plan Update Report
Financial Report
Chairwoman's Report
Generat Comments.
Committee Reports
Clam Bay
No Report
Government Relations
No Report
Budget Committee
Update - Next Meeting 12/ll/08
Ordinance Review Committee
First Meeting was November 25, 2008
Capital Projects
Update on Oakmont Parkway Irrigation
Update on Vanderbilt Bcach Rd. Bollard Lighting
Update on Crosswalk
Commnnitv Issues
prior Capital Considemtions, i.e. Pathways and Larger Mobility It~ Cones:
ptan Reviews
None
7.
8.
9.
tic
7661
Copies to:
Pelican Bay Services Division Mttting
December 3, 2008
l61
1
'f}Jtp
12. Committee Requests
13. Audience Participation/ConUllents
14. Adjourn
ROLL CALL
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Good afternoon. I woold like to call this meeting to order. Mary, could you please take
the roll call.
MS. McCAUGHTRY: Yes, Madain Chair. LeI the record reflect all membeIS are currently present except for Dr. Ted
Raia, Geolf Gibson, and Ted Gravenhorst who are out of town. Our newest member, Ted Gravenhorst, sent me an email that he is
a full time member of the coIIlIl1Ullity and he will be here for the January meeting.
INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. I unders1and that there is a budget meeting for the Foundation and several people
in this room are likely to be wanting to leave. So I think we need to move forward on a timely manner. First, I would like to
welcome Hunter Hansen and Ted GmvenhoISt who couldn't be with us today. But, Hunter, thank you very much for serving on this
board.
MR. HANSEN: You're welcome.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Hunter is the general manager of the Naples Grand Holel and Beach. Did I say that right?
MR. HANSEN: Pretty close. Y 05. Naples is the Naples Grand Beach Resort. I also oversee the Edgewater Beach Hotel
in Old Naples as wet!.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: 'That's a lot And we really appreciale your time and efforts fur us.
MR. HANSEN: You're welcome. Pleased to be here.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We have a Mr. Jack Curran or Steve Carnell. I'm not sure if they're here, either one of
them.
MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, we don't see them in the room.
APPROVAL OF 1115/OS MINUTES
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I did not either but I thought, well, maybe I'm wrong so okay. Let's skip tlmt and go on to
the approval of the minutes from the November 5th meeting. Do I have a motion to approve or any questions. suggestions?
MR. MOFFA TI: Madam Chair, I have a couple of comments and corrections of errors to the.. .
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jerry, I'd be disappointed if you did not.
7662
Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
1
ti/~
MR MOFFA TI: Well, they give them to us. J suppose we're supposed to read them.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Absolutely.
MR MOFFA TI: Page 763 J under Chairwoman Womble speaking for the second time, middle of the page, in reference
to a John Ashley.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: J believe that was John Pelty and I bave that circled also.
MR MOFFATI: 7637 top ofthe page. The second time I spoke I talked about Ted being vel)' active in the community,
vel)' active in the President's Council, 00l Residents' Council.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right
MR. MOFFATI: 7640 at the top Mr. Gibson said, I'll second that. J know Ted also as opposed to; I have Ted also
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right
MR MOFFATI: 7660 top of the page where I was speaking. I think I said something that. It's the lot that's sitting there
covered with dodder vines, I believe I said. Bmndywine, I'm 00l sure what that...
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Dodder vines.
MR PETrY: Dodder vines.
MR MOFFA TI: Okay. And that's all.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Well-
MR PETrY: 1 think that's three Os for dodder, d-<HI-d-e-r.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: - at the top of 7646. I believe we need to change the second line at the beginning of the
sentence as Pelican Bay hnprovement District evolved into - I helieve that should state as Evolved into Pelican Bay Services
Division Board and then strike the County. Those applications were then sent to PBSD. It went from PBill to PBSD. And I think
that had to be the gist of that sentence.
MR PETrY: Madam Chair, actually, it did go to the County first. The Comity sat as the PBill board. It took them two
years to come out with the trdIlsition plan ...
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay.
MR PETrY: ... and then PBSD was created so...
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So then maybe the applications were sent firslto the County and then on to Pelican Bay
Services Division Board? Is tllat how yon want it to read? Did you read tllis?
7663
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
1
4fltt
MR PETIY: Well, I'm sony. What page are we on?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We're on page 7646 at the very top, second line. The sentence begins, As Pelican Bay
Improvement District evolved into Pelican - as it reads - evolved into Pelican Services to tile Coonly. Those applications were
tIlen sent to PBSD. And tI1at didn't make too mucll sense tI1at way.
MR PETIY: I'm sony. Madam Cl1air, I tl10ugltt I was just correcting the lristoricaI issue there. The granunar is
probably exactly wllat I said and is incorrect
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I dou't tlrink so.
MR. PETIY: Whicllever way you'd like to fix it, 1 would gladly fix it.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, yon were indicating that any permits were to go to the Counly first and then come
tIrrouglt Pelican Bay Services Division Board or vice versa. Whicll did you want to say?
MR PETIY: Pelican Bay Services Division first.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I would think so. Okay. So permits go to Pelican Bay Services Division Board and tIlen
on to tile County. And 7648 there's a smaII typo. Cl1airwoman Womble at the very bottom, second one up, but rigltt above Dr.
Raia speaking. And then I said, I did not get the time, not the date. And I believe tllat lakes care of tllat. Any otller improvements,
additions. SIIggestions?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do Illave a motiou that tile minntes will be approved as read now?
MR IAlZZO: So moved.
MR LEVY: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That was Jolm laizzo so moving and. I believe...
MR. MOFFATI': Mike.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBEL: Micl1ael Levy seconding the motion. All rigltt. Do we Ilave any audience members woo
would like to make comments?
MR. PETIY: Madam CI1air. if I could, two things. One is we need 10 call the vote for the minutes.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Excuse rne. Thank yon.
MR PETIY: Secondly. once you get tllat done. we do Ilave the folks oom Collier Coonly here, Collier Coonly
purchasing.
7664
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3, 2008
161
1
IHlt
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Wonderful. Terrific. All in mvor for the minutes to be approved?
-------- ------------~-
Mr. John Jaizzo moved, seconded by Mr. Michael Levy iDId tIJ1JH'UVed uniDIimously the
Minutes of the November 5, 2008 meding as correded.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So approved. And we have Mr. Curran and Mr. Carnell; is tbat conect?
COLLIER COUNTY PURCHASING DEPT. PRESENTA nON
MR. CARNELL: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you. These gentlemen are from Collier County Purchasing Department and we are
welcoming you. and thank you for coming.
MR. CARNELL: Thank you. Members of the board, my name is Steve Carnell. I'm the director of purchasing for Collier
County government. And as some of you may be aware, we are responsible for processing the purchases of goods and selVices tbat
your district office makes and work vCJy closely with Kyle. and Mr. Petty as well. We wanted to talk to you today about the
management selViccs contract tll3t you have in place presently. This contract was last solicited for competition in the spring of
2007, and it was done on a very infonnaI basis at the time. Now, asa malterofCouuty policy, it was done within the boundary of
the policy at tbat time because we require purchases of $50,000 or less are allowed to be handled on an infonnaI basis, where the
department that's going to procure the services or needs the services goes out and gets what we call quotes, an infunnaI price olkr,
if yon wilL or a proposal. And at the time three finns were contacted with regard to tile management selVices contract, but two of
them really are finns tbat really aren't in the business of providing the services, at least not on a regular basis. And we had received
caIls from some of your previous board members earlier this year asking about the contract and the stains of it. and we had issued
the purchase order for it hack in May of 2007. And then we renewed it this year, but we renewed it with the inleut that we were
going to be looking to help this ~ with obtaining this contract a little more completely and comprehensively in the future. So
what we have in mind today is we w.mt to just put that infonnation in fronl of you and see if we could concur on a target date of
attempting to have competitive proposals in place when this current contract eXl'ires in May of 2009. Now, wll3t that would entail
would be we. Mr. Curran, who's a purchasing agent in our department. lie woutd be working very closety with whoever you-all
would designate in this process who would help us with the selection. And tire way our process works is we would put together
what we call a "Request For Proposal," a fomlai solicitation. And tllen we'll do a search. We've already actually Slarted a little bit
of a search to see what kind of competitive options are oul there in tenus of management finns that are available to be considered.
7665
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
1
~10
And as we develop this RFP, we would need to develop a scope of work in terms of 1he exact type of contract duties you want this
management firm to provide. And I undersland from the past that there's been some discussion among your board, your
predecessors, I understand some of you are new to Ute bomd this year, but tltere bave been SOIIte discussion about the scope of work
under this contract. And Ibis would give you a good opportunity 10 first decide wbal you wanl thaI scope of work to be. And we'll
assist you, facililate that process, and ltelp you get there. And then we'll pu1 it out for competition and we'll, again, involve you-all.
You-all will Ite involved alllbe WdY tbrougb. Really, you're going to ultimately make the decision in tenus of wbich linn is
setecled. We'll fucililate the process. If the negotiated contract were 10 exceed $50,000, then we would need the approval of the
Board of County Commissioners as well. The current contract does not exceed that number presently SO it does not require the
board to approve it. It's really rests on tlris bomd in tandem wi1h my department in making the selection. Rea1Jy, tile essence of it is
going to be you-all as a group making tlte cboice of which linn you want based on the criteria and the scope of work you set fortb.
So wbat I wanted to do today was just kind of get tlte process started and get a little bit of direction from tltis board as a whole in
terms of how you'd like to proceed. What we would lypically do in a selection like this is put together a committee of 1hree to five
voting members who will review the proposals when tbey COllte in, score them and rank tllem with Mr. CurmIlS' assistance, and
1hell you-a1l would reach conseIlSlJS as a group as 10 wOO your top c1JOice is, and yon would dispatch us to go negotiate a contract
with that entity. Now, wbat I guess I'd like to see is really a lot of this depends on wbatlbis boord's comfort level is and how yon'd
like to proceed and do business on this. If you'd like to delegate. say, initial autbority and bave the chairwoman work wi1h us to
develop the scope and bring the scope of work back to tbe board for considerntion, we can do that and bave you approve that scope
of work before we put the RFP out so everybody's on the SUlne page as to wbat the expectation of the services to be provided are. Or
we can work in a subcommittee of 1hree or four folks. My SIlggestion would Ite that we not l1y to involve the whole bomd in every
decision up front. but that the whole board would approve, at somc point. wbat tlte scope of work is, and tltat 1he whole board would
ultimately make a selection as to wbich firm they want to use wi1h some kind of person or persons working as inlennediary wi1h
Mr. Curran in between those two steps of this process. So that's wball'm here for today. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.
I can explain 1he process to you in more delail. Whal can I do to c1amy this for you'! Are tltcre any coouoents or questions for us'!
MR. LEVY: This is for 1he job position tltat Mr. Petty is curreutly filliug'!
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
MR. LEVY: All rigbt Would it make sense for Mr. Petty to write up ajob description or a scope ofwurk'!
MR. CARNELL: We wouldn't have an objection to thai as long as tile board reviewed it before we proceeded too far into
7666
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
1
Al0
the process and you-all were comfortable ",ith what you saw and agreed and had a conseJl5llS that tllat's wllat you wanted for a
scope.
MR. lAIZZO: You described the process that you're proposing right now. What has worl<ed for you in the past? Because
I don't remember this kind of a description before.
MR. CARNELL: Yeah. And I don't think weVe done anything like this with you-alt for severn! years.
MR. lAIZZO: I don't recall.
MR. CARNELL: Yeah. And it's a great question. Wbat has woIked the best when we're dealing with a citizen's board is
typically to have a subcommittee who meets with, in this case it would be Mr. Curr.rn, and works out the front-end details of tllat
scope of work, drafts it, and develops it. Then we take it to tile full board and have them bless it. And then that subcommittee
becomes tlle selection committee, if you will, that then reviews the proposals when they come in. Is everybody in attendance today?
Is this your full board?
MR. IAIZW: No, it's partial.
MR. CARNELL: Okay. In tIying to answcr your question, I would suggest a group of about three to live who actually
read the proposals and score them with Mr. Currnn's assistance. He would be woIking as a nonvoting member to fuciJitate the
process. And when you do that process, it depends in part on what the response is from tile market. If you get tlrree proposals and
it's pretty clear~ who your No. I finn is from just reading the proposals, Mr. Currnn's going to do a reference checking fur you.
And there's going to be things we'll do behind the scenes to get you background and infunnation on the finDS, which we'll bring to
you, the selection committee folks. If it's a smaJl response, like, say, three firms, then it may be that that group deliberating can
reach a decision based on reading the written proposals and discussing them. Ag;Jiu, Mr. Curran has a process that's vCl}'
systematic. He'll walk you through and you can reach consensus. If it's a Jarger group of firms, then you may want to interview
them and bring them in. Again, we would facilitate those interviews, set them up for you. Or maybe you have a top two or top
three you want to drill into a little further. And we can help you do that as well. Some of that yon have to kind of go with the flow
and see how it plays out, but my suggestion would be to have a subcommittee to. .
MR. IAIZW: It seems like the budget would be a natural place to review that, but Itow are yon compensated?
MR. CARNELL: Oh, I'm a County employee and we do all the purchasing for all county departments and special
district"
MR. lAIZZO: And I think that bill. John. comes out of - tllat tab COUles out of where?
7667
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
1
4llt
MR. PETIY: Well. out of your pocket always, sir.
MR. IAlZZO: Always?
MR. PETIY: Always the residents of Pelican Bay. You guys pay for it all.
MR. IAlZZO: Would that be part of the indirect costs, reimbursements?
MR. PEITY: The service that is provided by purchasiug, yes. It's oue of uol only your control features, it's one of your
bencfits. And, yes, you do supposedly pay for it, but I've got to tcll you that the indirect costs dou~ covcr everything we get from thc
County. So the due diligence that you gel in tlns type of review probably goes above and beyond what you nonnaIly pay for.
Because, again. this is donc evcry two years, CVCJy tl1reC years type deal And what yoo said earlier that yoo didn't recognize this
fonnat, it is because it's heen a fuw years since we've done it and it's heen going both ""ys. It has gone by RFP whcre it has heen
groups, companies come in and have gone through the entire process. And then I think the last rouple of limes there was a renewal
period of about a three-year timc framc aftcr it's gone out for bid.
MR. CARNELL: Yes.
MR. PETIY: This last time the bidding process in 200? was by invitation, if you r=tIl. It was at the timc whcre Severn
Trent and I split. So there were only two bidders asked to come 10 that particular competitiveness. So tllC)"re talking about opening
it back up for three or more entities to compete hopefully. I think that's it.
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Before we go any further, we probably should rome up with a target date. Is that a good
place to start?
MR. CARNELL: Yes. FiIst off, my suggestion would be let's determine bow yoo want 10 draft the scope of wOli<. You
rould havc Mr. Petty give you a document. And then he certainly would know what he does day-to-day as well as anybody, and
that may be a very good starting point.
MR. PETIY: I'm not going to tcll them what I do.
MR. CARNELL: Trade =t.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I know what you do. You'redonc.
MR. PETIY: Madam Chair, one of our past chain; had done IlIC 1<HI0 list for tIlC administrator at a minimum and that
was Mr. Carroll.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right.
7668
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
1
j}Uty
MR. PETTY: And I think that we have that on file.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes.
MR. PETTY: We can show that to YOlL And then tllC only issne is bow much time is currently required on-site.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It was.
MR. PETTY: And that was a di1furence, I do believe, that we discussed between tllC 24 and 48 price range 1ype of deal
and wonld be how you would scope out the requirements for the position so it would be priced nut properly.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: How much time do you need in order to meet that May date since the contrnct is up in
May?
MR. CARNELL: We need to get started soon. My suggestion would be that if you want to look at the previOlJS
chairman's notes tllat Mr. Petty's referring to, the outtine of the administrator duties, !hat perhaps you could look at that at your
January meeting. And if you're comfortable with that tllCll tlJat could be forwarded to Mr. Curran and he can start developing the
RFP document and process. And tllCn I also need direction in tenus of who will communicate "ith purchasing between meetings
so to speak. Wonld you-alllike the chairwoman to handle that function or would yon like it to be someone else or, again, a group of
people? Eventually I'll need to appoint a selection committee ofnlCmbers of this board.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair ...
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: More than likely we'll need a subcommittee and we will get back in touch with you and
give you the names of the peopte that you'll be woIking wi~ Mr. Curran.
MR. CARNELL: All right. Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Would that be most comfurtable for you? That way you can go on about your business and
we have an idea what we need to do in order to expedite your siuGltion. So I believe that would be the best way to handle this unless
Mr. Petly or someone else has a suggestion.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, I just have one caveat to put to that and it is County JXllicy that since J would be applying for
the JXlsition that I no! be involved in the process. You don't want me slicking anything in the language where I may be tile only one
that may provide it. You can go and put a caveat in there that they must have a life insurance JXllicy that the beneficiary is the
board and nobody else will do tllal. And so these guys know wllat they're doing in this type of process. Collier Counly has done
tillS for tillS particnlar board several times in the past. They have always dollC a veJy good job. I don't think there's going to be an
issue.
7669
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
1
~ltt
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I don't either. Jeny.
MR MOFFA TI: I assume there are other positions like this that you've sent out RFPs for other advisory boards?
MR CARNELL: Yes, we have.
MR. MOFFA TI: So we can also get that infonnation to throw in the bopper and find ...
MR CARNELL: Yes. You-all are unique in the sense of having an administtator by contract. In the sense we don~
necessarily have other boards that have that exact service. But, Mr. Moffim, we have had many instances where we have put out
consulting agreements for advisory boards where we had the same kind of structure and fonnat. Now, in tenns of the scope of
work, we wdIl! to look at what the pI'C\ious chairman CUlne up with and we1. also do some research in tenus of other independent
districts and similar boards to see what we can find in terms of other contracts that are out there as weU.
MR MOFFA TI: I asswne Mr. Lukasz could be of some great value to us in defining that resp<lllSlbili1y also.
MR CARNELL: Yes.
MRMOFFATI: Noreaction.
MR PETrY: That again, let me suggest to you that that would be a problem. If your administtator is to supervise the
staff, which inctndes Kyle Lnkasz, it may be difficult if Mr. Lukasz is defining Ille function of thai person. So my snggestion to you
is that you look at the existing and comparables, but it may be diflicult to get aOj1hing from staff I don't know that I want to put
them in an awkward position.
MR MOFFATI: I don't know. We wouldn~ look to him to do the definition. I would look to him for anything that's
mtique here that he sees that we ought to consider.
MR. CARNELL: Let me say, I really appreciate what Mr. Petty is saying and trying to stay objective and not intrude in
the process in any way or create an appearance of iIupropriety. I really respect that. But by the same token, in my experience, the
practitioners of the job know and ~ have insight 10 offer.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right.
MR. CARNELL: So I think we are tbe people that can help you manage that. We'U be objective. And we can take input
from Mr. Pet1y and we can bring Ilmt to you and we can help you decide what you want in tenns of the scope of work and get you
there.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well. I think Ilmt's totally reasonable, and I think Kyle can help from his viewpoint. not
really give us anything slated in any kind of manner or contract, but at least give us his ideas of lnaybe somellung Ilmt would be
7670
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
I Al~
beneficial.
MR MOFFA TI: Madam Chair, the only other thing I'd like to say is I'd like to volunteer for the committee.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Do I have anyone else who would like to serve on that committee?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I'm going to put Geoff Gibson on because he's not here today plus he's good at
management. And I would like to also be on that committee. So I will get you names and probably at this point you'll be
contacting me or I you if that's all right. and I'll give you tlJaI information.
MR CARNELL: WelI, do I have a consensus that we would in JatruaIy discuss tile scope of work and see if we can reach
some agreement on that?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, sir.
MR CARNELL: That way I can get Mr. Curran out the door and moving at that point and get some agreements on that.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: He tooks like he's ready right now.
MR CARNELL: Oil, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. I think that's reasonable. Jerry. are you okay with that?
MR. MOFFATI: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay.
MR MOFFATI: !fyou want to wait that long, tllllt's fine.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, but with the Christmas holidays and Hanukkah holidays and the Kwanzaa holidays
and all tile holidays coming up.
MR. PETIY: Meeting notices, the room availability.
CHAlRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right. B=tuse we are Sunshine Law folks, we have to be very careful about that t)'jlC of
thing. So be looking at your calendar. We11 be looking at ours, and we11 try to get together sometime early in January. Does that
sound reasonable?
MR. CARNELL: That's great. Very good. 'Thank you for your time. Any other questious for yon?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. Well, just one. If we stay underneath the $50,000, that's totally up to us as to what
linn we choose.
MR CARNELL: Yes.
7671
Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting
December 3, 2008
161
1 <A:tlt
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Should we go over $50,000, what is actually the situation at that point?
MR CARNELL: Well, it would be the same process in that you-all would still make a choice, but we would take that
choice to the Board of COllity Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And they could choose or not choose?
MR CARNELL: They would make the final decision.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Correct. Okay.
MR CARNELL: They would be advised of what this board had decided, recommended. They give a lot of credence to
that.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: AmI, to your knowledge, arc there very many firms that would consider less than $50,000
for this kind of management area?
MR CARNELL: You know, that's a great question. I don't honestly know. We're going to find out in the weeks ahead.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Fair enough.
MR CARNELL: We've got some leads, but we don't know yet.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I want to thank you both for coming and we look forward to working with you. Thank you
very much.
MR CARNELL: Thank you for your time.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And, Jerry, thank you fur volunteering. Where are !lie rest of you? Okay. I tIrink we cut
short any audience participation. Does anyone have conunenls or suggestions or questions for the board?
(No response.)
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Mr. Petty, would you give us your administrator's report, please.
RECOMMENDATIONIREPLACEMENT OF JIM BURKE
MR PETTY: Yes, Madam Chair. First item is a reconunendation for replacement of Mr. Burke. And we'd like to
recommend that the replacement for Mr. Burke be Mr. Burke. It's a rather unique situation. TIlUIIkfuIIy Mr. Burke has reapplied
7672
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
1 AllR
and is willing to serve again after his brief vacation in running for office at the local fire district. So his name has come through the
county process and we offer it to the board for consideration. And we ask that you consider giving a recollnnendation so we can
send it on to the County Commissioners so that they may appoint him at their next meeting.
MR LEVY: Is that the only person who applied for lIlis position?
MR PETIY: Yes, sir. He is the only one that passed all the criteria.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And is that date up at this point?
MR. PETIY: What is the question?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The time for applications.
MR PETIY: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. I wanted to make that clear.
MR. PETIY: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: AIl right. Do I have a...
MR. MOFFA TI: I wonld be happy to recommend Mr. BUlke to replace Mr. Bnrl<e.
MR. HANSEN: l second that recommendation.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay, all in fuvor?
Mr, Jerry Moffatt moved, seconded by Mr. Hunter Hansen and approved
unanimously to recommend to the Bee to appoint Jim Burke us a member of this
board.
--~---~~--
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mr. Butl<e will be back on our board next IIlOnth. Mr. Butl<e, how's it feel back there
compared to up here?
MR. BURKE: It feels good.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Don't get used to it. All right. Mr. Petty. about the surface water.
SURFACE WATER UTILIZATION UPDATE
MR. PETIY: The next item has to deal with what we\.e been referring to as a "closed loop." We have been talking about
7673
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
~f/~
1 It"
the engineering and the cooperntion that we were hoping to provide to the golf course in their attempts to I1y and find additional
irrigation water within Pelican Bay. As the boaJd knows, tlley !lave drilled a well down to the area of the aquifer, wllicll is down
around 250 to 300 feel or so. And tIley were l10ping to take extra effluent doting the wet season and store it in that area and then
pull it out in the dIy. OEP that regulates wilat waters can be put in w!lat areas Ilas said you can't do that. The water that you put
down in that aquifer must meet potable water standards. We !lave been looking at our water management system for improvement.
One of the tIlings that we can do for tile water management system to improve it is to ilatvesl the wet weatller flows wllicll is
sometlling that's recommended by both South Florida and otber enviromnentalists. And basically w!lat it means is when we !lave
the six inches of rain dming the summer, instead of letting it go over the weirs and out the tide. capture that fresIlwater, store it. and
use it on-site dming tile dIy periods, not only for irrigation but also to rec!large tins official aquifer wllicll is tile fresIl water tlmt's
undemeatll tile ground, keep saltwater intrusion from coming in, since we're so close to the ocean. And we've been looking at that
closed-loop system wllicll has been a recent recollllllendation from South Florida. Our system is close to a closed loop. It is very
close. We tIlink that we may be able to aa:omplish tlJUt. If so, we may be able to ilatvesl excess fresIlwater during the summer
months, but we don't 1mve any way to distribute it. We'd like to distribute it along tile length of Pelican Bay, but we don't have a
system to do that. Our right-<Jf-way system is currently tied into the Counly's efl]uent system. wllich is a pressurized maio that we
can't really tie into very well. The golf course turns out to be right in the middle of Pelican Bay and runs along tile width and conld
distribute the water wllich would then be captured by our water managemenl system and then recycled again and again and again,
wllich is what a closed-looped system is all about. It's kind of like the car washes today. When you wash your car, tile water gets
recycled and it washes the next car, and ies good for maybe 10 or 12 washes. [n our case, we would want to do the same thing witll
tile rain. We wonld want to repeat the rainfull event again and again and again. We had a meeting witll the golf course and their
engineer, Mr. Aqnaviva, and Ilis focus is based on the golf course's need for water. When il comes to our pennit and the
closed-loop system, we all decided t1~t it was in the best inlerest of PBSO if we wished to go forward. that we should do so witll our
own engineer wllicll is why we didn't bring Mr. Aqnaviva here to talk to you about it because he is not focused on the closed loop.
He's focused on tile water usage of tile golf course. We wonld want to basically bring to you, if you'd like to continue, our engineer
who wonld talk to yon abon~ tile historic water issnes of tile system of Pelican Bay and oftllis coastal wne and see if we want to go
further from tIlere.
MR. LEVY: Jolm, can this excess water, can that be pumped into the deep well that exists?
MR PETIY: No, sir. We don't believe so. Even \bough al times il could meet Ihe requirements. we don't think it's going
7674
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
1 ,4'~
to meet the requirements during a heavy rainfull event when we're basically pulling all of the nutrients from around your house,
around every shrub. Heavy rainfulI events typically have a high nutrient 100?I. And if we l1y to capture it, it wouldn't meet the
regulation. After its three-day retention in our system, yes, it would, but since it wouldn~ do it all the time, you'd have to assume
that it couldn't do it. And, tllCrefore, you'd want to put this into another lypical stomge device. Now, since it is a closed-loop system
and you can reuse the same waler again and again and again, you don~ have to store a complete season's worth of water in a
structure. You only have to store a fraction of it because in a closed loop, you repeal.
MR. LEVY: Are you just pumping it back up into a Jake, an existing lake. is that what we're doing?
MR. PE1TY: Basically, that's what happens. We lake it from the stomge tank. We disburse it along tile access line,
which in tins case, would be the golf course. It would go into this official aquifer that is controlled by our water management
system, the berm, along Clam Bay. Since we control the elevation and we're backing up tlmt water table, the water didn~ go
anywhere. It's still there. So we can take that, put it back into the stomge tank and do it again.
MR. LEVY: The storage tank being one of our Jakes?
MR. PETTY: We don~ know what the stomge tank would be, whether it be a lake, a lagooll, or some kind of tank. 1bat's
what we were looking to get some engineering help on. 1bat would be one of the key pieces. The otIlCr piece would be walking it
through South Florida Water Management District., thrOUgll its policy people. We know that if we go to the local office, they're
going to give us the local form to fill onto And this is such a new concept, we're going to have to wOlk it through policy which
means you need an engineer to walk it through South Florida and see if that concept will flow.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Any questions?
MR. lAIZW: Jolm, I'd likc to make a comment. We can't tax the residents of this counnunity for the golf course's need
for water. It just doesn't seem like it's our bailiwick. I need to confront that issue right there.
MR. PETTY: 1bat's a good questiOIl, Madam Chair, and the issue here or the benefit to PBSD is not that the golf course
gets any water. And t don~ know if there would be a fee for such or if tllCre would be some cost recovery. 1bat's beyond what I can
say today. The only reason that I bring it to your attention is we have talked at length about sevemt options to make our water
management system better. We've talked about diJfusers and bubblers and water fountains and longer retention times, et cetem.
This is one of tllose ways that we can become better water managers by completing tile closed-loop process. So I bring it for YOIlr
consideration nuder tllat objective, not one of providing the golf course with water.
MR. IAIZW: The end result is it's the need not for the community. the residents at large, but it's a need for tllC golf
7675
Pelican Bay Senices Dhision Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
1 !tl0
course. And that's the divider, that thougbt rigbt there, divides me from that effort being on tlris board. For that consideration I
can't accept it.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay.
MR PETIY: We're boping to get feedback whether positive or negative. Before we start spending time on this issue, we
bring it to you for consideration.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jerry.
MR MOFFATT: Jolm. who would \JSC this water? Would it, as John suggests. strictly be the golf course or the
conununity in general?
MR PETIY: TIle golf course would \JSC it fur its JlUIllOSCS, wbicb is irrigation. TIle conununity would \JSC it for water
management purposes, wbich is to keep the official aquifer at its bigbest levcl possible and stop saltwater intrusion. Saltwater
intrusion first bits any local wells and we don't !lave any in Pelican Bay. So that's not our concern. And that starts affecting the
local plants and landscaping. And that's going to be our biggest concern. We would like tn keep that fteshwater bubble as bigb as
possible keeping hack saltw>lter intrusion not only to make a better water management system, but so that the residents get a benefit
as well. So it would be a step above our current selVice.
MR MOFFATT: So you could take tile water that you're storing that the golf course is going to use and sell it to the golf
course at some price?
MR PETTY: Y on can~ sell water per se in tbe state of Florida, but you can charge to recover your cost of treatruent or
transmitlJl!. And, yes, sir. that is something that we would discuss. We just don't know what that would entail yet.
MR MOFFATT: Do we have an engineer!
MR PETIY: We have several as a marter of fuel. And if it is found that you want to go forward, that's my ne)o.1 issue is
give yon their names and see if you !lave a preference.
MR LEVY: John, woold it be an issue with the contaminants and whatnot if tile water's going to keep being recycled and
recycled and recycled, yon're mentioning how wben there's runoff, it picks op potassium and other things that are in the grass and
whatnot, if we keep doing this with the same water over and over again, are we going to gcnerate a new problem? In other words,
when we make our tests and whalnot in Clam Bay, the water's okay and, in fact. create a new problem by picking up too many
nutrients in the water.
MR. PETIY: Very good question. Part ofthat is the engineering that we're seeking. By recycling we hope to actuaJly cut
7676
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
l6J
1 Al0
down on the amOlmt of cbemicals that are nsed. 'The golf course is one of tbe biggest users of chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides in
Pelican Bay, but they are one of the most frugal groups that we know as well. By recycling the water, they'll know exactly what is
in the water quality and will cuJback their chemical usage accordingly. Their superintendent bas been here forever and bas long
been accustomed to cutting bad< bis nitrogen and fertilizer usage based on the nitrogen looding available to him in the water
suppty. So we hope to actnally not have that problem in the future based on our relationship witb the golf course in the past. And
we also know that if we're going 10 store SUIfuce water for any period of time, in Olis case we're lalking about several months, that
that water wonld have to he kept under aeration so that the biological activity that is going to occur natnrally wonld be kept down to
a level that wouldn't prodnce a methane or an odor. So YOll would aerate this storage, wbether it be a lagoon, take, or tank. And in
aerating it, the InicroorganiS1l1S break down nitrogen to its most slable cycle wonld do so long before you used it. So, no, sir, we
don~ expect it, but O!at is part of the engineering.
MR HANSEN: John, I have two qnestions. What is the potential cost of this project and, two, what wonld happen to
grass on the golf course if something like this didn't go through')
MR. PETrY: The grass at the golf course I can~ speak to firsthand. I can give you serond-hand reports, which is that it
bas been a nightmare llying to keep it green for the last 28 years. They have not been given a large amount of water to use. When
the golf course first opened, bock when it was PBID and we had the utilities, we gave them an allowance of no more than a half a
million gallons a day, period. That's difficult to run a golf course of that size OIL They have another 9 boles now, I think, 27 boles,
and I think their allocation from the County is up to 750,(XlO gallons a day, whicb is the exact ratio that they had from day one.
Very difficult to maintain a course of that level with that kind of water. I know of a couple other courses because rm not that good
a golfer. Long Boat Key, for example, only because Janice's busband works there, t think they're up to, wl!at, one and a half
million?
MS. LARNED: Not quite a million.
MR. PETrY: They were looking to put in an RO facility because they were trying to put in one and a half million gallons
a day and they were going to build a reverse-osmosis water treatment plant that would desalinate seawater. So tbe issue of the golf
course is an issue on water. We have OUT S}'1I1IlIlthies. but there just isn't that much that we can do.
MR. HANSEN: And the potential cost of tItis project?
MR. PETrY: We Olink for Ole cost of the golf course will be considerable because lhey wonld have 10 he responsible for
most of the collection or transmission systems and that's wbere most of tbe money's going to be. On OUT side, we're looking at
7677
Pelican Bay Services Dhision Meeting
December 3, 2008
161
1 *{~
mostly engineering fees on getting the lbing pennitted. So for us, I believe, ii's going 10 be mostly engineering, 1 may have to
modify that if the engineer comes back and says thai our systems may need some modification. Wc have seven water management
systems in Pelican Bay that act separately. If you're going to try to collecl waler, you're going to have to find water fiom all seven
because they are independenl or at least the top four. As such, there may be something that the engineer would reconunend for
where you would pool that water or where you would put that well, bull don~ see us being a lot for structure. I see us being a 101 for
the pennit and the oversight.
MR. WZZO: And that number is?
MR PETTY: Until we get the engineer 10 give us a proposal, I couldn'l hazard a guess. It depends on the pushback fiom
South Aorida. It would all boil down to this, bow many hours is he going 10 be tied up.
MR. LEVY : You mentioned a well here. Sloring it in a well. TIris would nol be a deep well?
MR PETTY: No, sir. You would pull il 0111 of a well. Now, our water managemenl system, you see it in the lakes, but
the water managemenl system actually con1rols this official aquifer. There is no difference fiom the water in the lake and the waler
underneath the sod. For the purposes of use, we would probably pull from under the sod where we could filler il through the sand
versus pulling il out of the lake and getting fish and little ducks and turtles and stoff.
MR LEVY: I thought we were pulling the waler out from the berrn instead of releasing it into the gulf and just pumping
it back up.
MR PETTY: Yes, sir. We would do thai based on waler table fiom the berrn location. But remember litis official
aquifer is one big entity. Where you put the straw really c!oesn'lmatler. Water's going 10 seek its own level. So we're going to try
and pullhat straw as close 10 where we can practica1ly use il so we don~ have 10 build a lot of distnbntion system. So we're going to
put the well as close to the distribution point as possible. That's Ihe idea.
MR HANSEN: I'm back to the financial question. You know I'd be cnrious to know what the parameters are of this
engineering study and report. Is this going 10 be $10,000 or $100,000 of their time or...
MR. PETTY: That's why we are looking 10 the board, if you'd like to know that...
MR HANSEN: It would give you some kind of an idea of whal their time line would be.
MR. PETTY: We'd like to spend under $5,000 and get one of tile local engineers or an engineering linn that understands
Pelican Bay or has its history and have them give il a cursory review and Ihen COlne and speak 10 you about the issne and tell you
what they think tile time and material and the deplh of Ibis projecl may be. TIris is not a project tlJat has been done 50 places
7678
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
I Al0
around the State of Florida. As fur as I know, there's only one site that has a closed-loop system and it is in the agricultural zone
below Lake Okeechobee. We are in a unique position to consider a closed-loop system since we handle both the street drainage, the
secondary draining, which is the swales and the lakes, and the primmy discharge, which is the Clam Bay. We handle it all, all
three layers. So that's not often the case and we are one of just a few people who may be even able to look at a closed-loop system.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay.
MR. MOFFATT: Sounds like we need some more infonnatioo. I would be in fuvor of moving ahead with a dollar
amount you mentioned of getting ao engineering firm to do tbe cursory review and then come speak with us.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We don't need this lOr a vore, I don't believe, do we? Don't we just...
MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, staff takes direction withont a vore on these 1ypes of issues. If it's the consensus of the board
to move forward and get a little hit more infunnatiOll we can do that.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, we can~ move forward until we do gel some information so it behooves us to go
ahead and direct you, please, to see if you can find an engineer that would be worthy of this kind of a project and find out what 1Iley
might indicate we need to do and how much might be involved.
MR. IAIZZO: It would be a very delicate balance if that system would be put into place. We would be possibly starving
the mangroves too for freshwater. So I don~ know whose going to get tile "aler first. wbether we make sure it gets sufficien1ly
passed to the west of the berm or are we stealing it before it gets a sufficient flow into the west side of that benn? So fm very
reluctant even to en1crtain this any furtllCr.
MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, that's a very valid poiot. You want to be awful careful what you're borrowing from Peter to
pay Paul.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right.
MR. PETrY: In this case, there's 110 way 1I13t we want to do any damage to the Clam Bay system. And our water
management system by design does emulate the constant sheet flow through a small, what we call "weep holes" in the bottom of the
entire basin along the benn. Freshwater, if it's available, flows continuously. We're not talking about harvesting that. And the
conditions that Mr. laizzo just brought up would be part of the engineering thai we could not harm the mangroves and the estuaries'
freshwater typical supply. When you're tal.king about halVesting excess rainwater, it is just 1I13t. It is that six-inch rain even!. It is
that over the normal thaI typically goes to tide, not 10 Clam Bay, bol just stJaighl onllo tide.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And lhat's wbere the engineer comes in, Jolm. I believe.
7679
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
I
Allp
MR. PETrY: And it wonld be a balanced system
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Marcia, I'm sorry, but I'm going to ask you to jot down what you want to say and bring it
forward at the end of the meeting because we're trying to get people out the door to anolher meeting. Can you please?
MS. CRA YENS: Yes, but it's about this issue with South Florida Water Management.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I know. And I know that you have done a lot of research so I do want to hear it. Can you
stay just for a little while longer. This won~ be mnch longer.
MS. CRA YENS: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you. And don~ forget. Jot it down so that we've got it.
MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, irt can just get this quickly out now. tlllink I'm done. We have several engineers. As Ille
board knows, the engineer that has the most history was Steve Means passed away two months ago. And Wilson Miller bas
evolved to the point where the people there now do not have Ilmt type of history. So we're tooking at either going with Agooli,
Barber & Brundage or Hole Montes or one option is available to us is the genlleman that wrote the original water study for Pelican
Bay in 1977 is available. We could work him through the county system.
THE COURT REPORTER: The name?
MR. PETrY: I didn't say a name. The firm that did it back in the '70s was Gene Jenson and the engineer John McQue.
If there's any interest in trying to maintain that legacy, then we would go with him. The second longest involvement, I guess,
would be Dan Brundage who worked on our original pennit back in '78. And, of course, Hole Montes, Stanley Hole wrote our
water managelnent application to South Florida in 1978. He has been retired, but the finn still is IlJCre and I think he's in charge.
Herman's son is still there and I remember George being around back in the '&Os. So we have good choices. If there's any direction
from Ille board, let Jne know.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: I think the direction should be among the tIuee of you, Kyle, and Tim, and yon. Figure out
who of these tIuee folks that you can possibly rome up with among Ille three of you whieh do you think is the most valuable and the
must valid for us.
FINANCIAL REPORT
MR. PETrY: Thank you, Madam Chair. The last item is the financial report. Our budget ronunittee we got direction
from the chair and the election ronunittee to make some changes to the financial report. We have soft numbers. As we talked
about at our last meeting, we e~1JCCt hard numbers OOm the County in January. We have done a balance and we lmve done a new
7680
Pelican Bay Services Divisiou Meetiug
December 3. 2008
161
~l~
fonnat and it is ready for the budget commiuee at their next meeting which we will present to them and we will bring back to you at
your next meeting in thai new approved fonnat
CHAIRWOMAN'S REPORT
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Very good. Let's see. I have a report. First of all, thank you to those of you who
called and checked on my mother 10 see how she W<IS doing. My mother bad fullen and broken her hip. She is one of the original
fulks that came 10 Naples back in the early 1900 hundreds. And she's 96 and she has memories back 10 when she was three years
otd and coming down here on the lrain. So she's a wonderful walking histOI}'. And it's a good thing that she's doing well and she's
one tough cookie. So thank you to those of you who sent your prayers and your thoughts and your telephone calls. Thank you very
much. I appreciate it and she does too. She's doing very well considering she's 96 and she's putting weight on her foot 011 the side
where her hip W<IS broken which is astonishing evel}'one. So [ guess il wasn'l an easy life when you came down here for the
wintertime by train and no roods Wltil 192 I. So she's tough and thank you vcI)' much. As fur as any otlter comments I have, I want
10 thank all of you who have laken the effort and time to serve on this board. And we've bad quite a rocky time of it for the tast few
months with people coming and going. And I do see that we are going to Il3Ve five of us whose tenus will be coming to an end on
March 31st And I'm hoping thai you will reapply because we are working well together and wc have some excellent new members.
And I would like to see all those applications coming forward. And I want to remind you that as of the second Tuesday in
December, which is it next Tuesday?
MR PETrY: Next week?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It's the second Tuesday of December the Collier C01lI11y Commissioners will put forward
the request fur applications. And you have 28 days after tllat in order to reply, get an application in. Mr. Petty and Mary lnade sure
tlIat we have the infunnation on how to go on-site and get the application. So, please, those of lIS who are, and I'm one of them too,
please reapply. We do work welltoðer and I'd like to see alt of lIS back up here again. lolU!, do you lIave or, Mary, do you have
the list of who exactly of our board will be coming to tile end of tlleir tenn on March 3 I st?
MS. McCAUGHTRY: [do have it but not with me, Madam Chair. I'm sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Is it on-site now on our website? Is ilUp to date?
MR PETrY: llis.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It is? All right. So I would recommend that we all lake a look at how long our tenns are
and. please, I am going 10 request that you do that vel}' tiring for us.
7681
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
1 1+/~
MR BOLAND: You may want to put an ad in the Pelican Bay Post because, as you know, this is a Republican
conununity. A lot of people cancelled their subscriptions to the Naples Daily News. So if you want to get a majority of the people
in Pelican Bay, you'd probably be better off in the Pelican Bay Post.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, the only thing I can do at this point becanse I'm staring at the production schedule
for the Pelican Bay Post is to call and check and see if we can get that into the next issue that will be out December 16th, 1 believe.
And I doubt il, but maybe they can slide it into a small blmb of some kind. We missed the last production. And that's another one
of the comments I'm supposed to be ll1llking. I missed that. 1 have been planning to write the article and that was the day that I got
the infonnation when it had to be done, that's when my mother fell and so I was kind of involved.
MR. BOLAND: TIley could put it on the Channel 96 too. You could advertise on that.
MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, we have sent them the data as well for whatever type of publication or usage that they could
spread the word.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Great. Great. I saw Jim here and I think I mentioned that to him in passing a
couple of days ago. So I'm sure it11 come out on 96, but thank yon. Okay. That's all J have to say. Let's IlIOve along. Conuninee
reports, we don't have Clam Bay really as an issue other than in our water management. We're keeping an eye on that. We have
Tim Hall here to collect infonnaoon and put it down. And government relations, I don't believe we jlave anything, other than Jim
Burke is now one of the fire commissioners. So anyone have something else?
(No respoIISC.)
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. For the budget conuniltee the nextlllCCting will be on December 11th.
MR LEVY: That's changed to JanU3l)' 26th.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: JanU3l)' 26th. Okay. Good. Good to know.
MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, typically during tins process we look to the chair of that committee to give a sunnnary of the
relevant topics.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And wc have Mike here and Jerry left.
MR. LEVY: The first meeting it was decided that Jerry and J would a1tcrnate as chairs of the bndget conuniltee. And
Jerry's going to be the chair at the Ilextmeeting. John already mentioned that the red flag/green !lag report. We asked for a little
change in fonnal, which he's going to give us at the next meeting. Also, as he lnentioned, going to take a look at the soft close for
7682
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
16 f
lltl ~
fiscal year '08 and see how that compares with what the assumptions were what they used for fiscal year '08 in coming up with the
fiscal year '09 budget. So we can see whether we cut a little more or a little less in carry forwards. And then the third thing that
we're going to go over at our next meeting is a schedule or a plan, so to speak, on the steps we're going to take or go through to
come up with our fiscal year ' I 0 proposed budget.
MR. PETIY: Schedule of project?
MR. LEVY: Yes. And I tllink that's the highlights of our first meeting.
MR. PETIY: It went very well.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It WdS a very good meeting. [ was there. Nice job.
MR. LEVY: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. The ordinance review committee we had Mike Levy, Ted Raia, of course, Mr.
Petty, Ms. Lamed, Mmy, and L And we went over the MSTBU ordinance and discussed different types of govenunents and which
ones have a tittle more power than others do do in order to possibly get more of what we're \lying to do with our community. We
discussed the NERPA (phonetic) that's a part of our community and went over the irrigation system to some extent. We really
discussed mainly what it is we're living in, what is our community, what type of community is it, what type of government do wc
have, and had several people from the audience make some comments thai were inleresling and also helpful. And mainly, we're
going over ordinances that involve who we are, what our rights, and what the provisions are for our ordinances. And we're going to
be meeting again, I believe, on December 23rd. Is that correct, Mmy? We're not doing that? Okay.
MS. McCAUGHfRY: No, Madam Chair. We're meeting the fourth Tuesday starting in January.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: lnJanuary.
MS. McCAUGfITRY: So the 27th will he the first meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay.
MR. PETIY: I'm afraid the shopping days just started getting claustrophobic, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No, that's good Because when I wrote it dowlL I knew tlmt we had some conditions. We
didn't know if we were going to do il or not. Okay. Perfect. Don~ you lo\'e the Sunshine Laws? I can'l talk to my 0\\11 folks bnl,
thank you. Okay. That W'dS pretty much it. Are there any questions about that from the board?
(No response.)
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Well, as we see fit, we're going to go through different ordinances. different legal
7683
Pelican Bay Seniees Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
1
~l~
matters, and just try to get an idea of where we are, stay on the same page. And if we have anything IIIajor to report, we will.
Okay. And we'll see you on January 27d'at if you'd like to comcand visit us. The budget meeting on January 26th is at one o'clock,
is it?
MR. LEVY: Yes.
CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. 11l3nk you. Mike. And I believe ours is also at one o'clock. That makes it a lot
easier. All right Capita! projects, update on the Oakmont Palkway. This is Kyle Lukasz,
MR LUKASZ: The Oakmont ParkwdY irrigation is proceeding along pre11y close to schedule and should be completed.
At least the irrigation portion should be completed by the end of the month. VanderlJilt Beach Rood bullard lighting, the only tiling
we're lacking is having the meters set and we do have power there. Those lights are operating and that project is completed. And
the crosswalk at Myra Janco Daniels modification has been made to the pennit which now extends tll3t pennit to the end of
Febrmny and also includes the construction of the crossw.Ilk. The process Il3s beg1m with the easement from Tierra Mar and that
should be finalized in tile middle of January before we can do the final on it. Tierm Mar Il3s a meeting set up in January at which
time we anticipate their approval and the easement be recorded and then we'll proceed "ith tile construction.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Kyle, was there any chance to get some kind of a price on solar panel usage?
MR. LUKASZ: I didn't get that yet. I've spoken with the contraclor. He is supposed to be getting me that infonnatioll.
We still need the easement because we're also using that power for the bubbler to put in the lake there. So as far as the easement
and getting the power, we still need that and I'll get the option for the solar panels for tile next meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBlE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. HANSEN: Kyle, are the projects coming in witllin the budget amounts?
(Simultaneous speakers.)
MR LUKASZ: Myra Janco Daniels so fur will come in a little under budget.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, since we've already gone over budget on these items, they better be under budget now.
We've already expanded the budget once when the cost caIne in, much higher than wll3t we'd hoped.
MR HANSEN: So are there any e.'I.'jlCClations beyoud the revised budgeted numbers?
MR LUKASZ: Not wll3t we reported to the board at this point.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Terrific. Thank you, Kyle.
7684
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
1
AIlf
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, we have one issue to bring additional and that has to do witb Tim Hall of Turrell, Hall &
Associates. As we discussed at the last meeting, bis conllact is up in Fcbruaty. We're looking for transition to the new committee
sometime in that JanuarylFcbruaty and now we're even !binking March time fmme. The new committee is coming off in a slow
due process kind of w<lY.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right.
MR. PETTY: We have said that we will not abandon Clam Bay and will maintain our duties there until relieved, and it's
being drawn out a little bit. We didn~ expect tn have to ex1end Turrell, Hall & Associates' contract, but we'd like your permission to
do so. We do now think that Turrell Hall sboutd be obtained for anotber six-month period, which is !be block that we buy from
bim. We tlrink that be would be good in tbe transition wi!b the new group. We can~ think of another envirorunental scientist that
we could recommend higher than Tim Hall So we think it works and we'd like your permission to go allead and negotiate that and
process.
MR. LEVY: Jobo, does tllllt have to be run by !be County first to make sure that tlley're not going to withbold payment?
MR. PETrY: I'll put it through the manager's office to make sure tllat this doesn't .iolate any procednres that they're
looking for. I have to tell you, in my discussions with !be manager's office, !be transition in this type of issue is exactly what !bey
hoped we would do. There is a second issue as well tlla! I'd like yoo-al\ to consider beyond the exiension. And that would be
currently Tim Hall does not take on anotber job if he thinks that it is conlJicting with anything to do with Pelican Bay. And as the
new Clam Bay group has sometimes been at conflict wi1h us, slalf is going to ask you, because Tim won't., stafl's going to ask you if
you would allow bim to work wi1h the new entity because wc think, again, he is !be best environmental scientist that we could
possibly recommend. So if you would give him that pennission while be is working under our contract or any extension 1hereof,
that you would give bim authority to wOIk witb Mr. McAlpin and other County entities, again, for !be sake of the mangroves.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMB~E: I tlrink at this point I need to talk to Tim. TiIn, are you going to be comfortable wi!b that
kind of a situation? ArKL yes, I totally agree tllllt be is !be environmental scientist that we want., but bow are you feeling abont that?
MR. HALL: I tlrink that as long as my responsibilities to 1he outside entities are confined to science where I'm saying, this
is what's out tbere. Here's what it is. And l'm not brought into a political conlJict of interest in tennsofwoo'sright about what 1hey
want to do, I think I'm able to say, here's what's out there, here's my opinion of it, and then step back; and under 1hose guidelines,
yes. I tlrink I can work tllllt way.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Well. I have a feeling that if it turns into anything more uncomfortabte, you would
7685
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Deeember 3. 2008
161
1 AI!;
definitely let us know.
MR. HALL: Absotutely. Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. Okay. Terrific.
MR. PETIY: Madam Chair, on these two issues..
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We need to vote.
MR. PETIY: We need to vote on each one separately. The first one is to continue the contmct for six months.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. John, I understand the situation for that I am wondering...
MR. PElTY: There's no rush, Madam Chair. We coo1d wait until the Janumy meeting since he does have a contract
with us through Februmy if you'd like time to think about it.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Anyone on the board have a concern or a suggestion, question?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do we have a quorum with Jeny gone?
MR. PETIY: We do, Madam Chair. We have six membelS present out of eleven. That gives us our quorum.
MR. HANSEN: It sounds like he's got a good reputation. He's well thought of and well respected. I think we might as
well after discussion I would make thatlllovement.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I see 00 reason not to. We have the lOOney in tile budget.
MR. LEVY : Yes. We don~ know what the County's going to do with their 200,000 at this point that's in the budget.
MR. PETIY: We suspect that we are using Fund 1I1, which is the County's revenue sharing with us out of tile numicipaJ
services tax tlrnt you-all pay. So it comes ont of your pockets anyway, guys. That, yes, it should cover the contract and the budget
does have tlris anticipation. So we don't have to do any budget ameud.Inents. We're just looking for your approval.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. May llrnve a secoud for or a motion that we have...
MR. PETIY: Motion but no second. No secoud yet.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No secoud yet. Motion only. A motion for us to cootinuc with a contract for Tim Hall
helping us with our water management system.
MR HANSEN: I move we contiuue.
MR. PETIY: With the Clam Bay.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Witl, the Clam Bay system.
7686
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
16/'
1 AlII
MR. HANSEN: I respectfully move that we continue with the contract as stated.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do I have a second?
MR. LEVY: I second.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. All in fuvor?
Mr. Hunter Han._ moved, seronded by Mr. Michael Levy and apprOlJed
unanimously to extend the rontrad of TIU1'W!iJ, HuH and Associates for an addiJionol 6
months as regards the Clant Bay system.
~----- --- - --- - -- ---- - -- - ----~------ --.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Opposed?
(No response.)
MR. PElTY: Thank yon, Madam Chair. The second matler I'd like yoo to consider is allowing Tim Hall to work with
Collier County and the new Clam Bay group without violating his contractual conditions cnrrently while on our c."1ension.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All rigbt Do I have a motion?
MR. LEVY: One question. Are we going to get feedback from him with regard to...
MR. PElTY: I'm sure he'll lell us everything that he knows.
MR. WZZO: As an overseer, rigbt?
MR. PElTY: It has been the policy of all the contractors that we work with, including myself, that if we had a contract
with anybody else if it had relevance to Pelican Bay, that they would bring the infurmation back and share. In this case, he's
working for a government entily, so any information that he produces. of course, is public record. So, nf course. he'll share. Well
make him.
MR. LEVY: That sounds like an advantage to ns, then, to have somebody who can keep us posted. I'm sure there will be
a lot of Pelican Bay people attending.those meetings. Here's somebody we know who'll be attending the meetings too.
MR. PElTY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And "ith the environment and its best at heart which is even more important.
MR. PETIY: And, again, the mangroves are at risk. So we'd like to have the best.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. Okay. So do we have a motion that Tim Hall be given the chance to be comfortable
working witll both the government and witll our board?
MS. CRAVENS: (tnaudible.)
7687
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
16/
1
~10
CHAJRWOMAN WOMBLE: Pardon me?
MS. CRA YENS: lsn~ it the new Clam Bay Advisory Committee that you are allowing him to work with not, for
instance. just Mr. McAlpin or Coastal Zone Management?
MR. PE1TY: Madam Chair, the recommendation from staff is to work with the new Clam Bay committee. The CAC is
not involved, as far as we know. As fur as we know the new Clam Bay committee when they were created or established are to
speak directly to the Board of County Commissioners. So that is the entity that we're looking for Mr. Hall to be able to work with.
But the contract would go through Collier County and would be administered by Mr. McAlpin. TI,ere's no doubt about that. So we
are asking for pennission for Tim Hall to be able to work under other County offices in reganIs to Clam Bay while he is under
contract with us during this extended time period.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Do I have a motion to that ctrect? Anyone want to make a motion?
MR. LEVY: So moved.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay.
MR. WZZO: Make a motion.
MR. HANSEN: I second.
MR. LEVY: Make a motion that it's acceptable for Tim Hall to be an adviser for the Clanl Bay Advisory Committee at
the same time that he's working for us recognizing that he's going to be under anolher County COmIae!.
MR. IAIZZO: Basically supporting onr interests with this County board.
MR. PE1TY: No, sir. No, sir. We're not sending him there as our emissary. We're basically asking for you to relieve
him of that obligation so that he am go to work for them. Otherwise, he'd have to ten them no thanks and they would have to
accepl somebody clse. So we think fur continuity of Clam Bay that Tim Hall, who's been here for ten years, would probably be the
best person. So we're asking for your pennission 10 aUow him to do that.
MR. lAIZZO: So he's going to wear two hats basically. He's going to work for us and his other life he'n work for the
County, and then we'll have the benefit of the feedback that he's learned on his time with the County or the advisory committee for
the area?
MR. HANSEN: Wasn~ there some stipulation of language that there's no conflict of interest?
MR. PE1TY: That is the interest here is that we're looking for you to alleviate that conflict.
MR LEVY: He's not full time under our purchase order. !llough; right? I mean, our purchase order...
7688
Pelican Bay Senices Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
1 Alit
MR. PETrY: Oh, he has lots of other clients. No. He likes us to think he's the only one.
MR. LEVY: He's got the time to do tbat, yes.
MR. PETrY: So in this case he should always come before yoo. The same way I have done in the past where in talking
with the FOlllldation when they want to go over the history of the 12-acre utility site, I came to you and said, can I have permission
to do SO because this has the potential for a conflict. I bad to come to yoo and ask for pemlission. It's in my contract. Tim bas the
same concern.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: He WeaIli the saIne green bat. 101m laizzo, it's the saIlIC green bat. He's an enviromnental
scientist. He just doesn't want to be caught into a conflict of interest and that's where we're headed.
MS. CRA YENS: Can he bring the project to PBSO before he gets involved with it so that yoo know wbat it is?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Marcia, yoo're out of order. I believe we have a motion before us.
MR. PETrY: We bave a motion. We baven't heard a second.
MR. HANSEN: I second the motion.
CHAJRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Those in favor?
Mr. Michael Levy moved, seronded by Mr. Hunter Hansen and approved
unaninwusfy ,,, aJ/ow Tim Hall of TUJTeII, Hall and Associates UJ work with the Clam Bay
Advisory CommiJtee and other Cou~ entities while still under contract with PBSD as
regards Clam Bay.
---~~-~
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Opposed?
(No respouse.)
MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, that's all I bad to bring to your attention. Thank you.
COMMUNITY ISSUES
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Thank yoo. All right. Capilal projects, we got that. Community issues, prior
capital considerations, for instance. pathways and larger mobility ilelus. John.
MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, Mr. Molfun bad asked to bring these otbers back up for discussion. As yoo know. he's on
the budget committee, and was going through minutes had read where these itetns bad come up during tbe last budget prep. If you
rec,lIL we bnd looked at one capital project last yenr during our budgct considerations, which WlIS improving the pathWllys.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right.
7689
161
lAt{P
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
MR. PETrY: We talked about I think it was improving them in width and in quality. To stop doing the patch
piece-by-piece policy that we currently have, and how mncl) would that cost. And I think Mr. MolIatt wanted to talk about tllOSC
issues and what he calls larger mobility issues which, again, have to do with how do you walk how best to get around, how do the
bicycles get around, et cetera, how do we tie all that together. Unfortunately, he had to \eave early.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, fortunately, I know why he's coming up with that. Aside from the budget, he's been
attending strategic planning committee meelings and thai is one of tlle things tll3t we are discussing in those meetings about
anything to do with the future of Pelican Bay. And that's certainly one of those futuristic ideas that we are going to make it a better
place, we need to have better sidewalks, better pathways, and better mobility. It's been brought before that committee that possibty
we could do a transportation slndy. ThaI's being considered. lbe survey thai \WlS sent out is going to be offered to the public very
soon with Town Hall meetings. And we're expecting that this will be one of the issues that comes before the entire community.
Ami as we all know, there is a lot of work to be done. There are a lot of places on the pathways tltat need to be addressed. So we're
thinking more in terms of the future and making it a better situation all over the entire community, not just patching. So possibly
that's what Jerry \WlS coming up with. I would imagine that's it.
MR. IAlZZO: That's best be kept with strategic plarming then.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: At this point. yes, because it's still in the working phase nf where our priorities are. And
with the economy the way it is, we are being careful as to what we decide on first, second, third, fourth, and the issues that are
before us are myriad. So thai is still in the plamling stage, but it is definitely part of that process fur the future.
MR. PETrY: Madam Chair. the only thing I can add to Mr. laizzo's statement is that there is an issue that does affi:ct
PBSD and, that is, when you go to implement, that is wllere PBSD would need to get involved in tlle process because we are
maintaining that right-of-way.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right.
MR. PETrY: And we need to be able to work with that system. But wailing for the strategic planning group to do all the
pnblic vetling I think is marvelous. We don't spend money twice.
MR. LEVY: Bnt you got estimates, as I recall, John. You have some budgetmy estimates. Are you sharing with the
strategic planning committee?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Hewill as soon as he hands it to them.
MR. BOLAND: I have a question on that pathway. We discussed this last year. And you really can't go to the left
7690
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
161
1 AI(P
because of the trees. You have to go to the right. Now, there was some discussion on it and we never got an answer on it. I'D give
you an example of my association in Crescent. We maintain up wm the wall at Crescent np through the pathway, sidewa1k, as I
recall. Now, do we, the people of the Crescent, own that particular piece of land or is it the County's or is it Pelican Bay common
area? And that wonld have to he investigated because you're looking at an awful lot of property there and asking the people to give
this np. Forget the pathway part, just to get the approval to go onto that property, some of the associations, like I said. the
economy's in had shape, wonld want monetary reimbursement for it. I don~ know. You were saying you were doing that study.
That's something you shonld reaDy took at. I don't know if anyone knows that.
MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, we have looked at that and we know in almost all areas M10 owns what.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay.
MR PETrY: And there arc some issues if you want 10 move the pathway, there's an issue of private property that you
want to discuss in getting an easement or not. Now, maintaining it to Illat edge of bicycle path or palllway, wllatcver you want to
call it, that's something we all do in Pelican Bay by gentleman's agreement. Now, we all know where the easement line is. The
trouble is, and since the pathway wiggtes, if I mowed it, I wonld have this 2 inches to 2 feet to 10 feet that woutd he mowed. It
would look stupid. So a long time ago Kyle with his good conunon sense went to property owners, each one, and said, guys, this is
wllat we got to do. It's the only thing that makes sense. And IllCy've been doing it now for 18 years or sincc he's been here, what,
16 years. That doesu't denote a properly line, but we are aw.tre of that. We don~ Iltink we're going to llave too much trouble. It
may cut down on an option or two where we'd like to expand a little bit, but we think we can work with it. A1; fur as the trees arc
concerned, some of those trees we were going to go around. both ways. We think that might he a nice touch. Take Ille pathway and
split it and go around the tree. Right now a lot of the pathway is in the .- zone because the trees have grown up. Of course, the
palllway now is crumbling because IllC rools arc there. So what we'd like to do instead of cutting down the tree is take Ille pathway,
split it, and go around.
MR. IAIZZO: If Illis thing won1dn't go through, we'd get variations in the width of that pathway for miles.
MR. PETrY: We already have various widths in the pathways. A1; you know, Pelican Bay Boulevard heading towards
the Ritz Carlton it gels skinnier than it is over by Tierm Mar. And it gets a straight line instead of the meandering weave. So the
weave is pretty nice when you're walking it as long as you're not drinking at the same time.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That might he a better fit. Any other questions?
(No response.)
7691
16/
lA-If;
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3, 2008
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right Plan reviews. I see none.
MR PETrY: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes.
MR PETrY: Until we get the olher member back, we don't have a quorum.
MR IAIZZO: Nothing on the motion.
MR PETrY: As long as we don't vote, we're okay.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION/COMMENTS
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: WelL let's go to audicnce participation. Yes. sir.
MR SIDElL: My name is Steve Sidell, excuse me, and I live at San Marino. I have to apologiz.e. This is our first PBS
meeting this year. It's about our 50th over the years. [am a little concerned or interested about this Ordinance Review COImnittee.
I think I heard yon say that you were studying certain rules and regulations and ordinances and so forth. And it stmek me that the
Foundation is going through a whole series of meetings and I just picked up 79 pages of a report they put out. Is there some conflict
there?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No.
MR. SIDELL: Are you working together? What's the...
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We were initially the Pelican Bay Improvement District and there WdS a change. By
ordinance by the Commissioners we changed 10 Pelican Bay SeIVices Division board. It was more an understanding of exactly
what our powers and rights and what we should be doing as a board. That's wbcrc we're looking at not anything else. We aren~
superseding anything else or worrying about that. We are just trying to see where we fit into the community and exactly what our
rights and privileges are as a board. That was it.
MR SIDELL: So you're n()t trying to expand your respousibilities in any way either?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. We're trying to make sure that we are actually committed and pctforming our
particular situation and responsibilities.
MR. SIDEll: llmnk you. I got two numbers for your next meeting. Is it Jannary 27th or 22nd?
MS. McCAUGHTRY: Twenty-seventh.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Seventh?
MR. SIDELL: Thank yon.
7692
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
16'
14(&
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. I'm glad you said that. Marcia.
MS. CRA YENS: Hi. I kind of lost my voice. I don't know if you can understand me, but primarily Ijust want to speak to
the permit issues. And we've spoken about the permil issues for Clam Bay in great detail a lot of times, but there's also the permit
issue on water management, the original permi~ which is a vel)' comprehensive water management pennit. I think it allows you 10
modiJY it for any new surfdCC water management issues yon might want to deal with. But also, and I have wriucn this and I'll send
you an e-mail on i~ South Florida Water Managemenl District has some new directions they're going in. And they have a progrnm
for funding alternative ways of securing waler, particularly for irrigation. And that's what I WdS trying to say earlier is PBSD may
be able to apply for funding and they may be able 10 get expert guidance from the South Florida Water Management District.
Thanks.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Terrific. Jolm. doyou have any knowledge of that funding that's posstble?
MR PETrY: Typically, South Florida Water Management District funding and expert don't all fit in the same sentence.
They're very good engineers, excellent engineers. Their eD\1ronmenlal record is 1101 good. And their financial skills are terrible.
So any money thaI comes from the Slate, the DEP Fund, which is overseeing South Florida, and we can look at that, although I can
give you the canned response that I always say, when DEP is offering molleJl or the State of Florida oIfers money, tile s!rings
attached typicalty cost you more than the money is worth typically. That doesn~ mean we shouldn't look at it though.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Could you do that for us?
MR PETIT: Oh, absolutely, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: 'Thank you. Are you still speaking 10 Mr. Foley and he 10 you?
MR PETIT: No, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No?
MR PETIT: No. It's why I wish to go to the policy IDUkers in Pahn Beach versus the regional office that is stuck with
their procedures and they don't have the authority to go past their procedures. So I need to go to the policy IDUkers that's one of Ule
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
December 3. 2008
16r
1 Allp
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. May I have a motion to adjourn?
MR. IAlZZO: So moved.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Mr. laiz:w has made a motion. A second?
MR. BOLAND: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank. you, Mr. Boland. All in favor?
~ ------- --------~-~---~
Mr. John laiz:;;o moved, seconded by Mr. John Boland and approved
unaninwusly to adjourn the meding.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We are so a<!joumed.
Tbere being no furtber bosiDess tile meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC., BY CAROLYN 1.
FORD. RPR FPR AND FORMATTED BY MARY MCCAUGlITRY. RECORDING SECRETARY FOR PELICAN BAY
SERVICES DIVISION.
7694
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U.
Advisory Committee
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples FL 34104
161
1
~
A-n
RECEIVED
JAN 0 6 2009
Fiala ~~
Halas -
Henning V
Coyle
Coletta -(jz
October 21, 2008
Board of County Commissioners
Minutes
1. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:35 PM.
11. ATTENDANCE
Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Bill Jaeger, Helen Carella, John Weber
County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Tessie SiIlery ~ Operations
Coordinator, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst, Steve Curnel- Purchasing Director
Brenda Brilhart - Purchasing, Rhonda Cummings - Purchasing, Michelle Arnold
- A TM Director, Pam Lulich - Landscape Operations Manager
Others: Darlene Lafferty- Mancan
111. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Add: V C. Purchasing Department
Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Dale
Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 16, 2008
Change: VI!. B. motion should read Dale Lewis moved to accept the "$25,000
Design fee from McGee & Associate based on a $250,000 Project estimate with a
minus or plus of 10% cap. Second by John Weber." Motion carried
unanimously 5-0.
Betty Schudel moved to approve the September 16, 2008 minutes as amended.
Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
Steve Curnel reported the following on the new Contract for Landscape
Architects:
. Selection Process was complete
. 5 Firms awarded for even distribution of work load
i. Located in Collier County - 4 Firms
ii. Located in Bonita Springs - I Firm
. Firms will be assigned alphabetically for a term of I year per MSTU -
Effective January I, 2009
. Wyndham has been placed with Radio Road MSTU
. Suggested 2 options -
i. Have Wyndham attend a meeting for Q & A
ii. Meet with all Firms Mise Corres:
. It was stated that Wvndham has experience with MSTU Projects
- Date: O~
l"t
ltem#:
161
1 An
Discussions ensued and it was stated that Radio Road projects have been
consistently delayed. It was noted that it took 10 years to complete Phase I of the
Project. It was perceived that changing Landscape Architects was not justifiable
to Tax Payers as it takes time for a new Firm to be brought up to speed. This was
an additional cost that the MSTU was not willing to pay.
Steve Curnel responded that Fee Schedules were identical for all Landscape
Architects. He stated Phase I plans were complete and he would confer with
Wyndham Studios for a time impact.
Michelle Arnold reported that it was a County wide effort.
Darryl Richard stated based his experience with Wyndham Studios continuity
for Phase II Design would be carried throughout.
Dale Lewis stated during business dealings he had encountered similar situations
with the end result always being additional cost incurred.
Discussions took place concerning the status for Phase II Design.
It was determined that the assigned Landscape Architect would take the
Conceptual Design to the Final Phase II Design.
The Committee expressed frustration, noted that 13 major changes had occurred
by County direction at cost to the Taxpayers. The Committee requested to
continue with McGee and Associates until completion of Phase II.
Dale Lewis stated that a motion was passed by the MSTU Committee at the
September 16, 2008 meeting for McGee and Associates to complete Phase II.
Steve Curnel replied that the Purchasing Department was working with all
MSTU's to reach a fair and equitable solution as requested by the BCC.
Dale Lewis moved to invite Wyndham Studios to the next meeting to discuss his
Fees for Project II from Windjammer to Kings Lake, to see when a start up date
would be and how fast Wyndham Studios can get the project going within the
(Radio Road MSTU) budget. Second by John Weber.
Motion carried 3 ye s - 2 no - Betty Schudel & Helen Carella voting no.
It was noted that Purchasing Department will attend the November 18, 2008
meeting.
V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT:
A. Budget Report - Caroline Soto distributed and reviewed. (See attached)
. Available Operating Expense $148,750.33
. Budgeted Improvement General $788,700.00
. Improvements General Actual Expenditures $130,012.18 (Hannula)
Darryl Richard stated McGee and Associates will continue under Contract as
Landscape Architect Consultant until December 31, 2008.
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the
Devonshire Maintenance Contract Bid. (See attached) Upon receipt of Bids
they will be email to the Committee.
C. Purchasing - Previously discussed IV
VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT - None
161
1 An
VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECH REPORT: Mike McGee
A. Monthly Report - None
B. Radio Road Project Phase I and Phase II-A - None
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
Michelle Arnold introduced herself. She noted the MSTU Committees were
doing excellent work.
IX. NEW BUSINESS
Betty Schudel expressed concern of a leaning Pine Tree over Devonshire.
Darryl Richard responded CLM would be advised
Discussion ensued concerning the Mahogany Tree that is impeding the Shrub
Hedge on Devonshire.
It was noted that additional easement is required to replace the Shrub Hedge.
Betty Schudel reported there was a 25 ft easement in place. She was requested to
obtain the report.
X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS - None
XI. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Stephanie Sagen and Charlotte Tarr, Cape Sabal residents distributed an aerial
map of the proposed Median on Cape Sable Dr. (See attached) They were
requesting installation of irrigation in the proposed Median by the MSTU.
It was determined that Cape Sable Dr. was out of the MSTU jurisdiction. The
suggestion was made to install plantings that do not require continual watering.
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 5:00 PM.
Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee
)j~'i,jj~
Dale Lewis, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Committee on
as presented A or amended
~ '
IL - ,) /. G 1,
The next meeting will be held at 3:30 PM, December 16,2008
Collier County Transportation Building/East Conference Room
2885 Horsesboe Drive South
Naples, F'L 34104
161
IItf7
'" Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U.
Advisory Committee
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples FL 34104
November 18, 2008
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes: October 21,2008
V. Transportation Services Report
A. Budget Report- Caroline Soto
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard
VI. landscape Maintenance Report - ClM
VII. landscape Architects Report- Michael McGee
A. Monthly Report
B. Radio Road Project Phase I and Phase II-A
VIII. Old Business
IX. New Business
X. Committee Member Comments
XI. Public Comments
XII. Adjournment
The next meeting is scheduled for December 16, 20083:30 p.m.
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
~
I- co
III CI
~CO~
010 -
c(........
00'"
a:Z:G
O~.a
LL. 0
- ...
o u
~ 0
<'>
....
ex;
o
'"
~
16f
1 fr/1
..
3-
tOj!
=0
to I-
~
N6'r-~CO
OOCOC'\lM
I.OONN""':
~8 ~~
to-ci ..0
o~ ~
~- 5:?.
00
00
g~
N
0808<'>"''''88<'>0<'>08
o 'OI;t ('l')('I')C") ,....0.......0
g g g gg .,;.,; g g ~ g ~ so!!2
It)It) It)....gjgj........'''coIt)CSCS
oJ..,:~-MM.,.:,..:oi..,:..,:
"'ltLt) NN
~co
w
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.l!l
c
..
E
""
E
E
o '
u~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 l!l 0 co 0 0
. 0 0 '" ex> co
ci N g 0; M 0;
0 .... '" ~ CD
0. ~ It) '" .....
~ oj N ..,: ~ ~
88
gg
It) 0
.00
o~
e~
8
~
.0
~
<'>
080
o 0
ggg
.... ex> '"
lli&t'ioi
",~....
co co
- ~'
8000
000
cig!2g
8....cso
,u'iricio-
.... ~co
88gg88gggggggg8g8g
g2gg2gci!2ggcigggg2gggg
~~wo~ OlD lOlOlOlOm,....,....,....,....
N ~ooo) N N~ ooooooriri
,....,-,.... U)OI)o:)NN
~........
...
'"
~
...
"
m
B.
ii
"
ti
<(ER-fA.tR-fA.U}-fA.tR-UJ-flR-tR-UJ-UJ-tfl...
~
.f\ (:) <Xl C:J C' C "
~, c, co ('\.! m c.. 0 ....
5 i:'J (:) en a; ,') C) 0 "
C ,:"4 () CO m " .... CO
';0 (0 U,' " m OJ '" 0 '"
E '..n " C0 '"
~
..
(l:
Vi If) (/) U) tA (f) ./i U) tFJ if:)
t:ft W U) ~
c: c
.. c
(J)<(
rom
~ ~
::> ::>
tit)
'" '"
- -
i::.c:
u "
4:~
~8.
III III .,
" " C>
~~!9
c c .,
III III 0
-'....JB.
~ CD ~ '" CD <'> 0 lil CD ex> .... ....
'" ex> .... ~ .... '" .... ~ '" '"
~ N ,..: ~ ex; cD ~ ... N ~ ~
- " <'> 0 It) ... ~
to"" ~ ~ ... '" 0 It) It)
"" 0 ci
ti c ... '"
<( ... ~
ill
"
c"
., "
Em
<(
E
~
-'
<(
I-
o
I-
.,
li"cc
OJ 000
c.t'f/1;W'-.r::.
EE-g~~.!.1
"C Q) n:J"C.C: :::::J
a..a...-J.=.=:::E
'"
.,
"
.~
~~ Q).~
._ t,) (Q
.g ~ f6 t)
u c: .... ....
., " " "
_ 0 fI) Q)
wu.Ecn
ex> ex>~1t)
=I!i~<(Sl",8
iiiSZ~~~
<0 <'>
~o
r.DrD
99
.......
<DCO~
".''''z
<(c(
::;;:;
00
-' -'
I- I-
'" ~
~~~~~
a~g~i~~
ll.."'-gg'<::Z
........
., C>
'" C
c>>~~"O
E~Ecc
ca w as m 0
Z >- a.. ....J :a;
~ 8-~ .g>
"Ouo -=c:
;}I) tt: co
""
> 13 u 'C
.,. 0
uu i.:
luui~iu
'2S2~oc;o~
.!:: 000
o lOl.Ol,()
...........
.<:i
E1!
'Q.i Q)
a: c
rl~
u 2l
o c
., !l!
.!:: :J
'0 .,
.E.E
.,
.,
"
~
"
o
'"
.,
(l:
c=-
Ui
~....J
OB.
11.11.
(J)
~~~
"'.,-
<(<(-5,
c: 06 ellS 'Q)
~$mU:
iffffcn
:;:;~~
....0008"'0
NOCO f'..O
o;ggggg~
OCOlt)OOO
N ~ci&Ciai
-~ ~
88gct
!2gg~
i <:s f'.. 0 co
&Ci ~ a)-.:-~
.... It)
... ... ... ... ...... ...
" '" 0
": It) It)
" N ~
co '"
"'. ....
'" ..,: .....
~
... ... ... ... ...... ...
...
...
00000
000 0
so!gggg
i:1)co~oo
N f'..- 0- -q-- ..
~
~ .... III CD ..... GO at
W B. a.
::>~cn ~<( (J) (J) a. (l:
~!Z~ ~:;~ ~~~ 5 ~wz 8
ww~cn a:~:;~ a:moc~W ~~w Z
a:(l:Qu~ ~w~<( ~a:w~~:;~w~~z
Wl-U<(~ >ZcnJ <(OB.-Jw~B.cnc::>
~cn~~~ ~~~~ :;c~~m5~~!zJ~
08wz~~cwa:~ w~<(~~mw~~~~0
~1-~8WU~~~z ~~cnc~a:&ZwOoffi
~~~a:~~ffi~~~~~~~~a:~a:~~~~~
~~~~~~I-~ocZ~C~w~~~~~a:~~~
.Z z <( 01- O....J ~ ~ a. 4' ~ ~ a:!::l w o~ w 01-0 !i c a: ~
w_~ ~w>_w~~~~~~ ~ _U~~
~~~~~~~=~~N~~~~=~fi~~~R~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....J
~ 0
><~uw!fuz ~
<(wwa:B.~W I-
1-a::::li:!<(I-~ Z
::E~oo:;:;51>o
!:!ZU~OO<(UJO
o;::~a:a:a:3:a:olI
~ZI-t;~~a::I-(I)
~Wl-wa:a:o~a:
:;cn~~~LL ~
~I-WZcncn~'#.0
~~~~~~~ffii
u~~a:I-I-UZI-
w
-' ~
(l:0 z
a.U i=
a.UI-Z
<(1-00
(I)(J)Zu
Zzoa:
~~~~0
I-I-www
1-1-...>>
WW0a:a:
~~iwW
cc (1)0
~::> ww
mml-a:a:
~ ~ :: ~ ~
Fiala f>r: /'YJC- 1 h I ~
RECEIVED ~~~~n~J ~":, ,
JAN 0 8 2009 Coyle .J(f. I:: ; [, :1
c mm'sSloners Coletta ------ i 'I! JAN 08 2009 "'I
;,,"roo.counti'l:NUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNT'.iUlI -. ~.
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMIT~----- \
North Collier Regional Park, 15000 Livingston, Conference Room A of the Administration
Building; December 18, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the North Collier Regional Park,
15000 Livingston, Conference Room A of the Administration Building, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN, Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell
Fred Thomas
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Tom Jones
Jim Howard
Bill McDaniel [arrived at 10:50]
ALSO PRESENT: CDES staff members Thomas Greenwood and Mike DeRuntz of the Comprehensive
Planning Department, Jeff Wright of the Assistant County Attorney's Office, Nick Casa1anguida of the
Transportation Division, Laura Roys of the Engineering and Environmental Department as well as
approximately 25 members of the public.
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:05AM by Chairman Ron Hamel.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established as 8 of II members were present [Bill McDaniel
arrived at !0:50am], with Tammie Nemecek and Dave Wolfley excused due to conflicting meetings.
III. Approval of Agenda
Fred Thomas moved and Tom Jones seconded to approve the agenda as distributed. Upon vote, the
motion carried unanimously.
IV. Approval of Minutes of the December II, Meeting.
Ron Hamel stated that page 2 states that the Committee discussed the RLS program in public about
45 hours. The Committee felt it more appropriate to indicate the number of meetings the Committee
held. Gary Eidson stated that the language on page 3, under #4 should contain more information to
the effect that any additional information provided within the report beyond that discussed and
agreed upon by the Committee would not be placed within the Report. Gary Eidson moved to
approve the Minutes with the two changes as discussed above. Tom Jone-'MIfC.~.the motion.
Upon vote the motion carried unanimously. 0 .
Date: ;;L I D D 9
v. Presentations. none l'^ Ii A (')
Ilem# t! I I'D
IIPage
< ,",
161
1 #/~
VI. Old Business
A. Revie"; of draft Phase II ReDort. The schedule to present the report to the EAC, CCPC and
BCC in a public meeting format was reiterated as January 2St" 29th and 30th to the EAC and
CCPC and March 16 and possibly 17 to the BCC with all three groups having a court
reporter and television.
Pol!cies 3.11, 4.14, 5.6. The proposed additional amendments to Policy 3.11 [proposed by
Brad Cornell] and Policy 4.14 [proposed by Nick Casalanguida] and included in the draft
Report highlighted in yellow were aired by the Committee. Additionally, Brad Cornell
verbalized a possible change to Policy 5.6.
1. Pol!ey 3.11 proposed further amendment on pages 34, 54 and 127. After much
discussion and debate and objections and/or reservations concerning Brad Cornell's
proposed additional amendment (Attachment AJ voiced by Tom Jones, David Farmer,
Fred Thomas, Russ Priddy, and Tim Durham, Fred Thomas moved and Gary Eidson
seconded, to not provide any further amendment to Policy 3.11. Upon vote, the motion
carried, 7-1 with Brad Cornell voting in opposition.
2. Pol!cy 4.14 proposed amendment on pages 38, 60, 148. (Attachment B] Nick
Casalanguida explained the proposed amendment and that is also agreed upon by Wilson
Miller and ECPO. Motion by Fred Thomas to accept the proposed additional
amendment. Second by David Farmer. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
3. Pol!cy 5.6. Brad Cornel/ referred to Policy 5.6, paragraph 3, subparagraph a,
subparagraph ii and explained the rationale for eliminating the following words in the
t1rst sentence: "required by regulatory agencies". (Attachment C] After considerable
discussion, Brad Cornel/moved and Gary Eidson seconded to amend this sub-paragraph
by removing the words: "required by regulatory agencies that are" and to replace the
words "immediate adjacent" with "contiguous". Upon vote, the motion carried 7-1 with
Fred Thomas voting in opposition.
4. Discussion of Attachment D. [comments received related to the RLSA processes,
application requirements, and design guidelines and standards as set forth in the LCD].
The Committee discussed at length #1 on Attachment D and concluded that there is no
need to provide EAC and CCPC oversight during the SSA approval process since the
process is ministerial in nature due to the fact that the LDC is very specific and the entire
SSA applications are reviewed by Environmental Services [both in the oft1ce and ground
truthing], Comprehensive Planning, and the Legal Department. Tom Greenwood advised
the Committee of the procedures currently used regarding SSA reviews and approvals
and there is little ability for subjectivity, either by Staff of reviewing advisory bodies due
to the detail of the LDC.
Al Reynolds stated that Attachment D is related to the LDC and that is not something
that the Committee is tasked with.
After further discussion, Tom Jones moved and Gary Eidson seconded to reiterate the
Committee action taken on July 15th which was to not have SSAs go before the EAC and
CCPC and that the Committee supports having the SRAs going to the EAC and CCPC.
Further, the motion was to have Attachment D made part of the Appendices section of
the Report. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
5. Formatting and specific Comments to Draft Report. Tom Jones provided the
following edits:
a. The Stewardship Overlay Map, the Attachment A-Stewardship Credit Worksheet, the
Attachment B-Land Use Layers table, and Attachment C-SRA Characteristics Table
need to be moved from Section 3 to Section 2;
2lPage
161
1
,4(~
b. Place additional tabs in the Phase II Report at the beginnings of Sections 2, 3, 4, 5,
and 6.
e. Tom Jones stated that he would provide an eITata sheet by Monday, December 220d
of other changes.
d. Page 30.. .delete the following sentence in the Preface: "The substantive
amendments included in this Section include amendments to 12 of the 77
RLSA Overlay policies."
e. Page 30,..a typo in line 3 of the preface..."actives" to "activities"
Bill McDaniel moved and Fred Thomas seconded to allow staff to make grammatical
and typographic coITeetions to the Report without Committee approval. Upon vote, the
motion carried unanimously.
Section 1 of the Report r substantive amendments 1
Fred Thomas moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to approve Section 1 with any and all
grammaticaf eOITections and other modifications as discussed previously. Upon vote, the motion
carried unanimously.
Section 2 of the Report rRLSA Overlav in its annotated entiretv 1
Brad Cornell moved and Fred Thomas seconded to approve Section 2 with any and all
grammatical corrections and other modification as discussed previously. Upon vote, the motion
carried unanimously.
Section 3 of the Report r supportine. docnmentationl
Tom Jones stated that he wants the Committee to review Section 3 in its entirety prior to
Committee action. Nicole Ryan and others made comment that some of the maps were not clearly
legible.
The Committee, after discussion, directed staff to secure Rooms 609/610 in the CDES building
for a January 6 meeting which would start at 9am and continue until finished to review Section 3
and take action.
The Committee, after discussing the fact that the Supporting Documentation in its entirety had
not been reviewed by the Committee and that some of the maps in this draft are not legible, took
the following action: Fred Thomas moved and David Farmer seconded to table action on Group
3 pending presentation at the January 6 meeting by Wilson Miller. Upon vote, the motion carried
unanimously.
Section 4 of the Report r public participation and comments, Committee deliberations,
Committee actions 1
. Policy 1.8 on pages 106 and 107.. ..Tom Jones stated that the language related to the
Environmental Services proposal should be removed as ES withdrew their proposal and
that the Committee deliberations on August 5 should reflect that the proposal was
withdrawn by ES.
. Page 1 18...under Committee September 30, 2008 Action, the reference to the DCA ORC
report should be deleted as it does not related to the ORC Report.
. Policy 4.2 [beginning on page 134 and ending on page 137]...Tom Jones stated that the
Committee on September 30th voted to accept the Wilson Miller September 18, 2008
calculation of Credits and SRAs under existing and revised RLSA and that this should be
shown as a Committee action.
. Page 137...referenee at the top of page 137 should be "Appendix H" rather than
"Appendix N"
31Pilge
161
1 A/~
Fred Thomas moved and Gary Eidson seconded to approve Section 4 with the changes and
corrections as outlined above. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Section 5 of the Report [Policv 3.7 of theTransportation Element]. There was no further
public, staff, or Committee discussion regarding this proposed new Policy 3.7 for the
Transportation Element of the GMP. Fred Thomas moved and Gary Eidson seconded to
approve Section 4 with the above changes. Upon vote, the motion earned unanimously.
Section 6 of the Report r Appendices 1 The Committee members directed staff as follows:
. Separate table of contents for appendices
. Make certain that all Appendices are legible. [staff will complete this task prior to final
copying]
. Incorporate all presentations made to the Committee into the Appendices for one eopv for
review by the Committee on January 6m. [staff will not be making multiple copies for the
January 6 meeting]
The Committee discussed having the appendices on a CD and on the web site and not included in
the report. Tom Jones stated that the appendices should all be in the Report and legible so that
the reader has a complete document.
Anita Jenkins suggested that reference be made in the cover letter and in the Appendix that the
plan awards have been given to the Collier County Rural Lands stewardship Area from the
following organizations:
a. 1000 Friends of Florida, Better Community A ward, 2005
b. FlCE, Engineering Excellence A wards, Honorable Mention, 2004
e. Economic Development Council of Collier County, Innovation Awards, 2003
d. Sustainable Florida Council, A ward-Winning Best Practices, 2003
e. American Planning Association, Florida Chapter, A wards of Excellence, 2003
VII. New Bnsiness
VIII. Public Comments.
IX. Next Meeting. Mr. Hamel stated that the next meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 6, 2009
in Conference Rooms 609/610 of the CDES Building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive beginning at
9:00am and continuing until completed with the major items on the Agenda to be:
· Presentation of Wilson Miller of the Section 3 Supporting Documentation;
. Review and Action on Section 3 [Supporting Documentation] and Section 6 [Appendices]
. Discussion of presentation of Committee's Five Year Report
X. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by acclamation at I I :55 PM.
-,-.-
iew Committee
These minutes approved by the Committee on
amended
, as presented
or as
4lPagc
161
1
Art
Attachment A
Policy 3.11 (recommended amendment)
L In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow-way or habitat restoration.
Examples include, but are not lirrrited to, locations where flow-ways have been constricted or
otherwise impeded by past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife
corridors. Priority shall Be given to restoration within llle Cam]l Keais ~trand FS}I. or
eontigllolls HSf,s. Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration
activities within a FSA or HSA the Camp Keais StruBd FS}. ar contigHous HS}.s, f-oHr two
additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. An
additional two Stewardship credits shall be assigRed for each acre of land dedicated for
TestoratioB acti'lities '.vithiR other FS.^.s and HS.^.s. The actual implementation of restoration
improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs of
restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the
restoration. Should an owner also complete restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded
with feHF additional Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the
restoration met applicable success criteria as determined by the permit agency authorizing
said restoration. The additional Credits shall be rewarded for either caracara restoration at 2
Credits per acre, or for exotic eontrol/burning at 4 Credits per acres, or for flow way
restoration at 4 Credits per acre, and for ef other appropriate native habitat restoration at e 2
to 6 Credits per acre,depending on ecological need, inyestment, lag time to yiability, and
technical difficulty. Within the area proposed for restoration, Land Use Layers 1-6 must be
removed. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration Credits shall be
included in the Stewardship District of the LDC. Note: The language in yellow is
proposed by Brad Cornell for Committee review and action,
Attachment B
Policy 4,14 (recommended amendment)
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or 3lteria1 road or indirect access
via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed
devefopment in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA
approval. an SRA proposed to adioin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as Open
shall provide for the opportunitv to provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections from said
areas to the Countv's arterial/collector roadwav network as shown on the Countv Build Out
Vision Plan so as to reduce travel time and travel expenses, improve intereonneetivity, increase
internal caPture, and keep the use of countv arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between
developments in the RLSA.
51 '; age
161
1 Itfl
PlIalie er l'rivale reads ana eel1fleetini!: si&nalizea inleFSeeliens within er aaiaeent te an i'>R.f. shall
ae maintaineaav tRe jlrimafY tewn er eemmllnity it serves. Public and private roads within an
SRA shall be maintained bv the primarv town or communitv it serves. Signalized intersections
within or adiacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained bv the primarv town or
communitv it serves. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or
arterial road( s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier
County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A
transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDe, or its
successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and
analysis. To the extent reQuired to mitigate an SRA's traffic impacts. actions mav be taken to
include. but shall not be limited to. provisions for the construction ancl/or permitting of wildlife
crossings. environmental mitigation credits. right of wav dedication(sl. water management and/or
fill material which mav be needed to expand the existing or proposed roadwav network. Anv such
actions to offset traffic impacts shall be memorialized in a developer contribution agreement.
These actions shall be considered within the area of signit1eant influence of the proiect traffic on
existing or proposed roadwavs that are anticipated to be expanded or constructed. Note: Tbe
areas bigbligbted in yellow above are proposed amendments advanced by Nick
Casalanguida and Jeff Perry.
Attachment C
ii. Wetlands and immediate adiaeeat contiguous upland buffers rea Hired aY rei!Ulaterv azeneies that
are utilized by listed species, or serving as corridors for the movement of listed species, shall be
preserved on site. Wetland flowway functions through the project shall be maintained.
Attachment D
December 11, 2008
STAFF NOTE:
The Committee, at the end of its October 28, 2008 meeting, stated that they would like to discuss the
below comments when it reviews the draft Pbase II Report.
Tbe following comments received are related to tbe RLSA processes, procedures, application
requirements, and design guidelines and standards as set forth fn the Land Development Code
4.08.00. Tbese comments are attacbed for record retention and sbou1d be considered dnring tbe
time of tbe LDC amendment process.
I. SSA approval is not subject to EAC or cepe review only BeC. SRA approval occurs via EAC,
cepe and BCC process, as should have been provided for SSA approval. [Mark Strain]
2. Concentrated centers of development will produce a night time glow from electric
light sources, the impacts of which should be considered on nearby conservation
lands, such as Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. [Mark Strain]
3. Require exotic clearing and ongoing management/maintenance for designated stewardship
sending lands. [FWF]
611' age
161
1 (tIt
4. My particular concern is that, as currently implemented, the RLSA program SSAs and SRAs do
not come before the Environmental Advisory Committee. These projects are too complex for the
Board of County Commissioners to assess without timely inputs from the EAC on relevant
environmental issues. [Judith Uushon]
5. No exotic removal and maintenance is required for SSA designation. Staff has observed
substantial amounts of exotic pest plants, and is concerned that their growth will continue to
decrease the habitat value in the years to come. The presence of high concentrations of exotic
plants in the sub-canopy has long been recognized as deleterious to nati ve species, both plants
and animals. This would not be a concern where management of the exotics were part of a
restoration plan.[EnvironmentaI Staff)
6. [Further define] Procedures for recording and handling changes in ownership of SSA lands
[FWF]
7. When sold who is responsible for carrying out SSA obligations [FWF]
8. Allow non-native, non-invasive plantings if beneficial to wildlife [FWF]
I. What requirements are in place for the maintenance of areas that have been restored in SSAs?
[CCPC]
2. Specific criteria for lighting standards still need to be evaluated and established in order to reduce
the impact of urban lighting on wildlife and habitat areas. As Ave Maria and other towns begin to
devefop; standards must be in place to ensure a minimum of glow to the rural area.
[Conservancy]
3. Need for Smoke [air] easements [FWF]
4. Explore Dark Skies [FWF]
5. Need for Buffers and language to address human-panther/bear/other wildlife encounters [FWF]
6. Need for buffeling between communities by natural features and agriculture. Need for buffering
of natural areas by low intensity uses. [Defenders of Wildlife]
7. Policy should be developed on coexisting with wildlife, preventing conflicts with wildlife,
responsible homeowner practices tailored to this region, and community contracts with businesses
such as waste disposal services.[Defenders of Wildlife]
8. All new developments in the RLSA should be required to use dark sky guidelines or provide what
their maximum illumination will be. It is a rural characteristic that could be of value to many
people.[Environmental staff)
7lPage
161
""'"'_",, BIUlC. M.s.7.1t.
1 -k16(
Adl'lsory oO",,,,,ttllll
270!i Horseshoe Drive South RECEIVED
Naples, FL :-14104 JAN 2
. 06 009
BOord of County Commissioners
October 23, 2008 Fiala
Halas
MINUTES Henning
Coyle
I. Call Meeting to Order ColettaC'P --
The meeting was called to order by Dick Lydon at 2:12 P.M.
II. Attendance
Members: Bud Martin (Excused), Dick Lydon, Charles Arthur (Excused),
Bruce Forman, Bill Gonnering
County: Darryl Richard - MSTU Project Manager
Others: Jim Fritchey - CLM, Chris Tilman - Malcome Pirnie, Darlene
Lafferty - Mancan, Michael Ward - RWA, Lew Schmidt, Jackie Bammel
III. Approval of Agenda
Add_' V. C. Review RWA Proposal
VII. A. Bridges
B. Ordinance Modification
IX. A. Approval of Advisory Board Applications of Alvin D. Martin &
Charles Arthur
Darryl Richard noted the Budget Report was emailed to the Committee.
Bruce Forman moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by
Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - June 5, 2008
Dick Lydon questioned the approved $25,000 contingency monies which
was not included in the Budget Report.
Darryl Richard replied he would make inquiries.
Bill Gonnering moved to approve the Minutes of June 5, 2008 as
submitted. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously
3-0.
V. Transportation Services Report
A. Budget Report - Caroline Soto
It was requested to email Budget questions to Caroline Soto
Misc. Cooes'
9'
to
161
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard stated that the Committee
would receive the Project Manager Report via email. He reported the
following:
'? (VA-24) RWA Swvey
i. FPl requested changes for additional pot holing to locate and
verify utility depth
ii. A Utilities record for Gulf Shore Dr. is non-existent
iii. Determining utility depth is necessary prior to boring
iv. "Additional" RWA Services are needed to confirm utility depth
v. FPl approval is required to press forward with the Design
C. Review RWA Proposal- was distributed and reviewed. (See
attached) The Professional Services Fees in the amount of $50,000
plus $1,000 (for Reimbursable Expenses) was reviewed.
Discussions ensued and it was confirmed that the estimated Services
Fees included the $25,000 Contingency Funds still an additional
$26,000 was required.
Dick Lydon moved to approve the adjustment (for an additional)
$26,000. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
An updated Project Timeline was requested for the December 4, 2008
meeting.
VI. landscape Maintenance Report - ClM - Jim Fritchey reported routine
Maintenance is being conducted.
Darryl Richard reported problems with the Ixora.
Jim Fritchey responded that Firebush was an alternative.
The ClM Maintenance Contract was questioned.
Darryl Richard reported the Contract expires in December 2008. In
November the Contractor bids will be emailed for Committee review.
Dick Lydon reported sidewalk Tree Trimming is required.
VII. Old Business
A. Bridges - Dick Lydon reported the following:
o (1) Bridge is fully operational for pedestrian and bicycle traffic
\) Projected Traffic Bridge completion date is 1 year
B. Ordinance Modification - It was agreed to table the discussion for full
Committee participation
VIII. Working Group Update's
A. Utilities - Charles Arthur - None
B. Maintenance - Bruce Forman - No Maintenance issues to report
C. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin - None
D. Liaison - Dick Lydon - None
IX. New Business
2
1
ftf~
161
1 I} [1
Dick Lydon reported the Wiggins Pass Dredging is scheduled to
commence December I January with completion prior to Turtle nesting.
A. Approval of Advisory Board Applications of Alvin D. Martin &
Charles Arthur
Bruce Forman moved to recommend the reappointment of Alvin Martin
and Charles Arthur to the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Committee. Second
by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
X. Public Comment - None
It was agreed to cancel the November 6, 2008 meeting.
XI. There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:53 P.M.
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
Advisory Committee
~,
. (/)
\
These minutes approved by the Committee on { J . l...f . <J if
as presented X or amended
The next is scheduled for 2:00 P.M., December 4, 2008
at ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER
625111TH Ave.
Naples, FL.
,
~
....
161
"""Ii.,"'t BIUII. M.s.7.1t.
1 4/~
AdviSOry 00....111..
2705 Horseshoe Drive South
'\!aples, FL :14104
December 4, 2008
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes: October 23, 2008
V. Transportation Services Report
A. Budget Report - Caroline Soto
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard
VI. landscape Maintenance Report - ClM
VII. Old Business
A. Ordinance Modification
VIII. Working Group Update's
A. Utilities - Charles Arthur
B. Maintenance - Bruce Forman
C. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin
D. Liaison - Dick Lydon
IX. New Business
X. Public Comment
XI. Adjournment
The meeting schedule to be determined
ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER
625 111TH Ave.
Naples, FL.
161
1 At1
~
"..".""t "... M.s.7.1t.
AdviSOry eo".".ltt..
~70!i Horseshoe Dli\'e South
Naples. FL :i4104
October 23, 2008
Summary of Minutes & Motions
III. Approval of Agenda
Add: V. C. Review RWA Proposal
VII. A. Bridges
B. Ordinance Modification
IX. A. Approval of Advisory Board Applications of Alvin D. Martin &
Charles Arthur
Bruce Forman moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by
Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - June 5, 2008
Bill Gonnering moved to approve the Minutes of June 5, 2008 as
submitted. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously
3-0.
V. Transportation Services Report
C. Review RWA Proposal - was distributed. The Professional Services
Fees in the amount of $50,000 plus $1,000 (for Reimbursable
Expenses) was reviewed.
Discussions ensued and it was determined that an additional $26,000
was required for RWA Services.
Dick Lydon moved to approve the adjustment (for an additional)
$26,000. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
IX. New Business
A. Approval of Advisory Board Applications of Alvin D. Martin &
Charles Arthur
Bruce Forman moved to recommend the reappointment of Alvin Martin
and Charles Arthur to the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Committee. Second
by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
Advisory Board Application
Page I 012
filson_s
------=:
From: budmartin@mac.com
Sent: Wednesday. July 30. 2008 9:56 PM
, filson s
ubject: New On-line Advisory Board Application SUbmitted
16J---tAl~
Advisory Board Application Form
Collier County Government
33111 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
(239)252-8097
Application was received on: 713012008 9:56:16 PM.
Name: !Alvin D Martin Jq Home Phone: ~39-514-3067\
Home Address: 19790 Gulf Shore Drivel
City: \Naple~ Zip Code: ~
.
Phone Numbers
Fu: I Business: ~39-269-53331
e-Mail Address:~udmartin(al)Dac.co~
Work Place: \Retired!
How long have you lived in Collier County: ~ore than 151
Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the law? ~
Are you a registered voter in Collier County? ~
Board 1 Committee Applied for: !vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee!
Category: \Not indicate~
Do you currently hold public offfice? ~
!vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee!
Do you currently or ever served ou a Collier County Board or Committee? ~
.
Please list our commu' activities:
anderbilt Beach and Ba Association - Director, See
Education:
IBSChE - MIT 1961 MSChE - MIT 19621
7/3 1/2008
16\
1 ~r4
fUson S
ccarttlllroeal1hlink.net
sund8Y, AUlJust 10, 200810:14 PM
lilsOl'_s rd ,........... 5 ..~.......
loleWOn-line ~"(i;IJfY Boa APP'.....-.. u.....""""
AdvisOry Board APpneation Form
collier County GovernJllent
3301 E. TaIIlialDi Trail
Naples. FL 34112
(239)252-8097
Ff(lflI:
..:
subject:
APplication was received on: 811()/2008 10:14:21 pM.
NalDe: ~harles Arth~ llolDe Pbone: g,39 594-895]
llolDe Address: ID9 Chanlle1 Dri~
City: ~ Zip Code: @@
Pbone Numbers
Fax: Business:
.Mail Address: ~carthur((j).earthlink.na
Work Place: I!teti~
llow long have you lived in Collier County: 0
llave you ever been convicted of any offense against the law'! ~
Are yOD a registered voter in Collier county'! ~
Board I COlDmittee APplied for. ~anderbilt BeaCh MS~
Category: \Bot indica~
Do you currently bOld public oflfiee'! ~
the C()IDIII!ttee Which is on tb
a critical 1 would like to continue fo
. Do,. n_'" _ _._".... ~ c._......- c_-'@
1
-
-
161
1 Al~
fil'
._8
-----.-------
\ From: budmartin@mac.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 30. 2008 9:56 PM
. filson s
"!::'bject: New On-line Advisory Board Application Submitted
Advisory Board ApplkatioD Form
Collier County Government
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
(239)252-8097
Applieation was received on: 7130/2008 9:56:16 PM.
Name: \Alvin D Martin Jq Home Phone: 1239-514-30671
Home Address: \9790 Gulf Shore Drivel
City: \Naple~ Zip Code: S41081
.
Phone Numbers
Fax: I Bnsiness: \239-269-5333\
e-Mail Address:ll>udmartin(a}mac.coml
Work Place: !Retired!
How long have you lived in CoDier County: ~re than 15\
Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the law? ~
Are you a registered voter in CoUier County? ~
Board / Committee Applied for: !vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee!
Category: \Not indicated!
Do you currently hold puhlic oftlice? ~
!vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee!
Do you currently or ever served on a CoUier Conoty Board or Committee? ~
.
Edueation:
IBSChE - MIT 1961 MSChE - MIT 19621
7/31/2008
. . ::;ChE - MIT 1961 MSChE - MIT 19621
161
1 A [i
Experience:
\37 Years P&G - various positions!
.
.
.
713l/2008
161
llr{1
D'lTA INC.
CONSUL TING
.&. '-, '.L ..lL
. Planning . Visualization
I Civil Engineering . Surveying & Mapping
October 13, 2008
Darryl Richard
Collier County Government
Transportation Department
2885 South Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Subject:
Professional Service Proposal for Vanderbilt Beach MSTU - Phase I
Additional Services (RW A, Inc. File No. 080010.00.01)
Dear Darryl,
RW A, Inc. is pleased to submit the following proposal for land surveying and subsurface utility
services associated with the redesign of the existing FPL aerial lines. Outlined below is our
understanding of the project profile and the assumptions we have used to develop our scope and
associated fees in response to your request for proposal. The Scope of Services listed below are
based on a request for additional information by FPL, after their review of the existing Control and
Topographic Survey performed by this firm.
PROJECT PROFILE
. Collier County (Client) intends to assist the MSTU with the redesign of the existing FPL aerial
lines located within the MSTU boundary in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East in
Collier County, Florida.
. The Client has issued a request for additional services to provide additional vertical
information on existing, buried utilities within the project area. This shall be done at critical
points as defined on the marked up survey on September 22, 2008.
. RW A will provide a detailed topographic and control survey and existing underground utility
location of Phase 1, as depicted on the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU powerline-underground
installation exhibit, received on January 4, 2008. The surveying limits are 10' outside of the
existing right-of-way of Gulfshore Drive South, from the South right-of-way line of V anderbilt
Beach Road to the North right-of-way line of Bluebill Avenue, Gulfshore Court from
Vanderbilt Beach Road to South Bay Drive and South Bay Drive to Vanderbilt Beach Road.
(completed under original contraci Scope)
. Phase I will include the three following streets: Seabreeze Avenue, Channel Drive and
Bayview Avenue.
. The Client desires to retain the services of RW A, Inc. (Consultant) and proceed with the
Project as described within this proposal.
. The project will be permitted, designed and developed in four phases.
6610 Willow Pari< Drive, SUite 200, Naplea, Florida 34109' (239)597-0575, fax: (239)597-0578
www.coosult-rwa.com
161
1 ,4{q
RWAJNC.
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
. The client will make available all pertinent information associated with the project including,
but not limited to, legal descriptions, existing surveys, permits, title policies and other
available documents.
. The vertical datum will be collected in NA VD 1988 and converted to NGVD 1929.
. The surveying services will be completed and delivered within 90 business days after receiving
an executed contract along with a Notice to Proceed and the marking of the existing utilities by
Earth View, LLC.
. This proposal includes performing all services described within on a one-time basis.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.0 Underground Utilitv Verification
1.1. RWA shall have Earthview LLC, expose and mark using vacuum excavation, the
utilities lying under the 27 potential conflict areas.
1.2. RW A., shall field locate, horizontally and vertically, those utilities identified and
exposed. This information shall be processed and added the existing Topographic
Survey as a revision. The survey shall then be reissued for distribution and further
engineering design.
2.0 Services Durin!! Installation
2.1. RW A shall mark up to 25 sanitary service laterals at the potential conflict point
prior to the installation of the buried FPL utility.
2.2. RW A shall have Earthview LLC, using Ground Penetrating Radar, determine the
depth of the existing sanitary service at that point to assist with potential conflict
resolution.
3.0 Reimbursable EXDenses
3.1. Expenses for blueprints, reproduction services, overnight or express delivery
services, and vehicle mileage, sha11 be reimbursable to RW A, Inc.
Page 20f4
S:I2008\0800IO.00.PO Vanderbilt Beach MSTIJ\OII2008-10-13-PSA-D.Richard.doc
----~---,~._~.__._,,-_._"'.__....~._--;-
161
I ~(1
RWAINC
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES
The professional service fee estimates for the associated scope of services are listed below.
Scone of Services Fee ~
1.0 Underground Utility Verification $ 35,000 Fixed
2.0 Services During Installation $ 15.000 TIMIE
Total $ 50,000
3.0 Reimbursable Expenses $ 1,000 TIMIE
Note: T/M/E denotes Time, Material and Expense billing category. Stated Fee is an estimate
only; client will only be billed for actual hourly costs related to individual surveying services.
Deliverables
. RW A will submit an Auto-cad Version 9 or higher electronic file in DWG fonnat as required
by FPL.
. RW A shall issue a revised Topographic Survey. Up to four copies will be provided in hard
copy print, signed and sealed by a Florida registered Surveyor and Mapper.
Excluded Services
The professional services to be provided by the Consultant are limited to those described in the
Scope of Services. All other services are specifically excluded. Listed below are excluded
services that may be required or desired by the Client:
. Constroction Layout Services
. Preparation of Sketch and Descriptions
. Easement Vacations
. Staking for installation of buried lines
. Special Purpose Surveys
. Radar Tomography
Page 3 of 4
S:\2008\080010.00.PO Vanderbilt Beach MSTUlOl\2008-1D-13-PSA-D.Riclwd.doc
161
1 Al1
RWAINC.
ACCEPTANCE AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED
Period for Acceotance
This Proposal/Agreement is open for acceptance by Client through November 21,2008. After
the acceptance date, the proposal may be withdrawn or subject to modification by RW A, Inc.
Acceotance
If this Proposal/Agreement satisfactorily sets forth Client's entire understanding of the
agreement, please sign one copy of this agreement in the space provided and return it to RW A,
Inc. as authorization to proceed with the work.
Owner/Client Authorization
I hereby certify that the undersigned is the Agent to the Owner of the property that is the
subject of this proposal. I hereby certify that the undersigned has the authorizing authority to
execute this contract for professional services. I hereby authorize the performance of the
services as described herein and agree to pay the charges resulting thereby as identified above
in accordance with the attached Standard Business Terms and Conditions and Rate Code and
Fee Schedule ofRW A, Inc.
Accepted this _ day of
.2008.
By:
Title
Please Print Name
For: Collier County Transportation
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this professional service proposal. Please call if you
have any questions. We will look forward to hearing back from you soon.
S' c rei
Michael A. Ward, PLS
RWA, Inc.
Project Manager
Page 4 of 4
S:12008\0800 lO.OO.PO Vanderbilt Beach MSTUlOII2008-1 O-13-PSA-D.Richard.doc
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
RECEIVED
JAN I 5 2009
161
1 ~l
December 5, 2008
Board of County Commissioners
MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
Naples, Florida, December 5, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, in and
for the County of Collier having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM
in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610 of the Collier County Community
Development and Environmental Services Building, located at 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive,
Naples, Florida, and the following persons were present:
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE:
Secretary to the Special Magistrate:
Honorable Brenda Garretson
Sue Chapin
ALSO PRESENT:
Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney
Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist
MISC. Comls:
Date Dd.-/lOI09
!lo ILl)tJ
161
1 /?;(
December 5, 2008
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Meeting was called to order by the Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson at
9:00 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath.
A. Hearing Rules and Regulations were given by Special Magistrate Garretson.
Special Magistrate Garretson noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, the
Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating
Officer(s) for a Resolution by Stipulation; looking for compliance without being
punitive.
RECESS: 9:12 AM
RECONVENED: 9:25 AM
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist, proposed the following changes:
(a) Under Item V(B), "Hearings," the name ofthe Deputy Sheriff was corrected
to Pam Hughes.
(b) Under Item V(B), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County due
to compliance:
. Agenda # 2, Case # PR 041089 - BCC vs. .Justin Kaczmarek
. Agenda # 3, Case # PR 003269 - BCC vs. Larry Hershey
(c) Under Item V(B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED by the
County due to incorrect folio information:
. Agenda # 4, Case # PU 4425 - BCC vs. Thomas Marine Construction Inc.
(d) Under Item V(B), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the
County due to property sales:
. Agenda # 6, Case # PU 4427 - BCC vs. Novastar Mortgage c/o Saxon Mortgage
. Agenda #7, Case # PU 4453 - BCC vs. Novastar Mortgage c/o Saxon Mortgage
(e) Under Item VI(A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following cases were
DISMISSED by the County due to Bankruptcy proceedings:
. Agenda # 1, Case # CEPM 20080003523 - BCC vs. Jill Weaver & Henry Tesno
. Agenda # 2, Case # 2006100088 - BCC vs. Jill J. Weaver
. Agenda # 3, Case # 2006070466 - BCC vs. Jill Weaver & Henry Tesno,
. Agenda # 4, Case # 2006070464 - BCC vs. Jill Weaver & Henry Tesno
(t) Under Item VI(A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following case was
DISMISSED by the County due to an Agenda error:
2
161
1 I?J f
December 5,2008
· Agenda # 5, Case # 2007110125 - BCC vs. Bolomin & Raymonde Charles
(g) Under Item VI(A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following cases were
WITHDRAWN by the County due to anticipated County abatement:
. Agenda # 6, Case # CENA 20080007121 - Thomas L. & Jacqueline Wood, Jr.
· Agenda # 7, Case # CENA 20080008113 - Felipe & Isabel C. Ramirez
The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made
during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on November 21,2008 were reviewed by
the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted.
IV. MOTIONS
A. Request for Abatement of Fines
1. Case # 2007070693 - BCC vs. Jeffrev & Claudia Konkus
The Hearing was requested by the Respondents who were not present.
Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Patrick Baldwin was present.
Jerry Osinski, Broker/Owner of Weichert Realtors on the Gulf, was present as an interested
party.
Violation(s): Ord, 2004-58, Sec. 6, Subs. 15
Pool is black, algae filled & stagnant
Violation address: 15073 Topsail Ct., Naples, FL 34119
Mr. Osinski stated he represented the present owner of the property, Aurora Loan Services,
who purchased the property from the Bankruptcy Court in September, 2008. Aurora Loan
Services had applied for abatement of the fines.
The Special Magistrate stated she had reviewed the documents submitted in the case.
The Investigator stated the violations had been abated and the County did not object to the
Request.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, and finding the violations did
exist but were CORRECTED prior to the Hearing, the Special Magistrate GRANTED
the Request for Abatement of Fines.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3
161
18/
December 5, 2008
A. Stipulations:
5. Case # PU 4426 - BCC vs. Lal!una Bav Associates, LLC c/o Lacev Stevison
The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was represented by Lacey Stevison,
Business Manager.
Collier County Public Utilities Enforcement Investigator George Cascio was also present.
Violation(s): Ord. 2005-44, Sec. 9.1
Unlawful accumulation oflitter. Spillage & overflow around
containers in enclosures - Health, Safety & Welfare issue
Violation Address: No site address - common area
A Stipulation was entered into on beha(f of the Respondent, Laguna Bay Associates, LLC, by
Lacey Stevison, Business Manager, for the Respondent on December 5, 2008.
Ms. Stevison stated she had the authority to appear on behalf of the Respondent.
The Special Magistrate stated the violations had been abated.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, and finding the violations did
exist but were CORRECTED prior to the Hearing, the Respondent was found GUILTY of
the alleged violation(s) and was ordered to pay a civil penalty in the sum of $250.00,
together with an administrative fee of $5.00, on or before January 5, 2009, unless altered
by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. The Respondent was
ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the
prosecution of this case in the amount of $50.00 on or before January 5,2009.
Total amount due: $305.00
B. Hearings:
1. Case # SO 149310 - BCC vs. Marie Co Louis
The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present.
Collier County Sheriffs Office Deputy Pam Hughes was also present.
Violation(s): Ord. Sec. 130-66
Parking in fire lane
Violation Address: 4849 Golden Gate Parkway -Winn Dixie
The Respondent stated her physician had placed her on bed rest due to advanced pregnancy.
She filled her water gallon from the machine outside the store. She was standing next to her
car and the emergency flashers were turned on. She stated she did not see the fire lane sign.
The Deputy stated the fire lane curb is designated in yellow and the phrase "fire lane" was
also printed in yellow on the asphalt. She observed the Respondent's vehicle was parked in
the fire lane and issued a citation on October 25,2008.
4
161
1 ~r
December 5, 2008
The Special Magistrate stated the fire lane is reserved solely for the use of emergency
vehicles and the Respondent did admit to parking in the fire lane. The Special Magistrate
further stated no exceptions are allowed when the Statute is violated.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the
alleged violation(s) and was ordered to pay afine of $30. 00, together
with the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution
of this case in the amount of $50. 00, on or before January 5,2009, unless altered
by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
Total amount due: $80.00
C. Emergency Cases:
NONE
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Motion for Imposition of Fines:
8. Case # CESD 20080007341- BCC vs. Marie LaFrance
The County was represented by Code Enforcement Specialist Jennifer Waldron and
Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau.
The Respondent was present.
Violation(s): Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22, Article II, Sec. 22-26(B) & Florida
Building Code, 2004 Edition, as adopted by Collier Co., Sec. 104.5.1.4
Permits were applied for kitchen addition & frame storage shed but
owner did not obtain a Certificate of Completion
Violation address: 2351 51 st Terrace, Naples, FL 341 ] 6
Specialist Waldron stated the violations have not been abated.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the amount of $1] 7.43, together
with fines in the amount of $5,800.00 for the period from November 6, 2008 through
December 5, 2008 ($200/day for 29 days), for a total amount of $5,917.43.
The Respondent stated she obtained a second permit because the first permit expired. She
was unable to complete the work during the first permit period due to lack of funds. She
stated the work will be finished soon.
Supervisor Letourneau stated two of the required inspections (final AlC and final electric)
were completed on December 2, 2008. The final roofing, final shutters and final building
have to be inspected.
5
16118/
December 5, 2008
The Respondent stated she will be able to purchase the storm shutters and have the work
completed within the next two weeks.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Imposition of Fines in the
amount of $5,917.43, but ruled that the daily accrual of fines will be stayed until Monday,
December 29,2008. If the Respondent completes the work and obtains afinal inspection
and Certificate of Completion by that date, the fines of $5,800. 00 will be waived and the
Respondent will be required to pay only the Operational Costs of $1 17.43 by December 29,
2008. The Special Magistrate further ruled the Respondent must provide proof of the
Certificate of Completion to Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement will issue an Affidavit
of Compliance. The Special Magistrate stated if the Respondent has not complied by
December 29,2008, the fines will again continue to accrue.
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Request to forward cases for Foreclosure - Collections:
NONE
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA:
NONE
IX. REPORTS:
NONE
X. NEXT HEARING DATE - Monday, January 12,2009 at 9:00 AM
The Hearing will be located at 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive in the Community
Development and Environmental Services Building in Conference Room 609-610.
*****
6
16 I 1 b [
December 5, 2008
There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of
the Special Magistrate at 10:08 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING
~sS~retson
These Minutes ~re approved by the Special Magistrate on
as presented L, or as amended _'
.\~v~ P,doI:>,\
\
7