BCC Minutes 01/09/2007 R
January 9, 2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, January 9, 2007
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas/Jim Coletta
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Michael Pettit, Chief Assistant County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
tI""
"
,I
c,_ \
-~-
AGENDA
January 9, 2007
9:00 AM
Frank Halas, Chairman, District 2
Jim Coletta, Vice-Chairman, District 5
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THA T ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
Page 1
January 9, 2007
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Captain Alejandro Castillo, The Salvation Army
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. November 28, 2006 - BCC Regular Meeting
C. December 5, 2006 - BCC/PUD IOU Workshop #7
D. December 5,2006 - BCC/Solid Waste Workshop
E. December 12 and December 13, 2006 - BCC/Regular Meeting
F. December 14,2006 - BCC/LDC Meeting
G. December 15,2006 - Value Adjustment Board Meeting
Page 2
January 9, 2007
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards
5- Year Recipients
1) Ms. Carol Wright, Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee
2) Mr. Alvin Martin, Vanderbilt Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee
10-Year Recipients
3) Mr. Kent Orner, Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing January 14,2007 through January 20,2007 as
Purple Martin Week. To be accepted by Mr. Jerry Glasson, President, Purple
Martin Society of Collier County.
B. Proclamation designating January 31, 2007 as Raymond L. Lutgert and Scott
F. Lutgert Day. To be accepted by Dr. Jeffrey Allbritten, President, Edison
College, Collier Campus.
C. Proclamation designating January l5, 2007 as "See the Dream and Live the
Vision Day" to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. To be accepted by Ms.
Rhonda Cummings and Ms. Dianna Perryman.
D. Proclamation to recognize January 9,2007 as "International Holocaust
Remembrance Day". To be accepted by Mr. Murray Hendel.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN
B. Presentation by MCM, Inc. on status of Golden Gate Parkway 6-laning and
Airport Road Overpass.
Page 3
January 9, 2007
C. Presentation by APAC on status of6-laning of Immokalee Road from
Collier Boulevard to 43rd Street.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Lori Young to discuss a new ordinance regarding
offender residency boundaries.
B. Public Petition request by Bobbie Dusek to discuss "Fighting Against
Insurance Rates".
C. Public Petition request by Thomas Selck to discuss drainage, septic location
and erosion matters associated with Permit No. 2005080737.
D. Public Petition request by Mayor Sammy Hamilton to discuss waiver of
EMS fees for the annual Everglades City Seafood Festival.
E. Public Petition request by Chuck Mohlke to discuss County Commission
District Boundaries.
F. Public Petition request by Connie Stegall-Fullmer to discuss Goodland
Zoning Overlay.
G. Public Petition request by John Sullivan to discuss a berm or sound wall
adjacent to proposed Northeast Water and Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1 :00 D.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation to consider adopting an Ordinance Amending Collier
County Ordinance No. 75-l6, as amended, which establishes the time, place
and conduct of the meetings of the Board of County Commissioners, to
clarify and provide for super-majority voting as permitted by general law,
special law, ordinance or resolution, and to consider adopting a resolution to
settle certain types of land use disputes and land use litigation by super-
majority vote.
Page 4
January 9, 2007
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
B. Appointment of members to the Library Advisory Board.
C. Appointment of members to the County Government Productivity
Committee.
D. Appointment of member to the Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory
Committee.
E. Appointment of member to the Environmental Advisory Council.
F. Appointment of member to the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad Hoc
Committee.
G. Appointment of member to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
H. Appointment of member to the Contractors' Licensing Board.
I. Discussion on details of Goodland Overlay. (Commissioner Fiala)
J. Request to reconsider Petition A VROW-2006-AR-9918. (Commissioner
Fiala)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. To request direction from the Board regarding the purchase of a 1.14 acre
parcel, currently under contract within Golden Gate Estates, Unit 53 under
the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, possibly at an
additional cost of $50,000. (Alex Sulecki, Senior Environmental Specialist,
Community Development)
B. This item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. To provide information on the status of
the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority activities and the ongoing Toll
Feasibility Studies for 1-75 and to discuss future options with the Board.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
Page 5
January 9, 2007
C. Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Agreement to participate
in the Catalyst Project for Economic Development - Florida's Rural Areas of
Critical Concern (RACEC's). (Tammie Nemecek, Economic Development
Council. )
D. Recommendation to approve award of Bid #07-4077, Asphalt and Related
Items to Better Roads, Bonness, Quality Enterprises and FT A Holdings,
LLC. For an estimated annual expenditure of $2,650,000.00. (Norman
Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
E. Recommendation to provide direction to staff regarding an applicants
request for after-the-fact approval of an alternative road impact fee
calculation for dry storage units at the Calusa Island Yacht Club and Marina,
and to provide direction to staff regarding an applicants request for after-the-
fact approval of a previous individual calculation of road impact fees for wet
slips at the same marina. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
Services)
F. This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m. This item was continued from the
November 28,2006 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to deny petition to
convert fields at Veterans Community Park to (2) lighted Little League, (1)
lighted Girls Softball, and (1) lighted baseball field. (Barry Williams,
Director, Parks and Recreation)
G. To receive approval to purchase the group insurance coverage and vendor
services necessary to manage the group insurance program. ($4,137,435)
(Len Price, Administrator, Administrative Services)
H. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the
County Manager or his designee to create an additional thirteen (13)
permanent Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions within the Community
Development and Environmental Services Division to address critical
immediate land use approval, permitting, and inspection needs, and to give
approval for any subsequent Budget Amendments required to fund such
positions. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Page 6
January 9, 2007
A. Recommendation to authorize the Hispanic Affairs advisory board to present
a proposed amendment to the HAAB Ordinance No. 91-37, as amended, and
codified as Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 7, in the Code of Laws and
Ordinances, amending Section 7, Functions Powers and Duties, to clarify the
HAABs goals and objectives, and providing an effective date.
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners review the
Collier County Ethics Ordinance No. 04-05, as amended, discuss the status
of the ordinance and possible revisions, and direct the County Attorney's
Office to return with a proposed amendment if desired.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Delasol Phase Three. The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
2) Recommendation to approve final approval of the water utility facility
for Forest Glen, ParcelS.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Forest Glen, Parcel 6.
4) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Forest Glen of Naples.
The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
Page 7
January 9,2007
maintained.
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Florida Club of Naples.
6) Recommendation to approve Second Amendment to the Marco Island
Cable Franchise Agreement that extends the cable operators
franchised area to all of unincorporated Collier County and whereby
the cable operator commits to install fiber cable for the use and benefit
of Collier County.
7) Recommendation to award contract No. 07-4039 for $49,716 to Fraser
and Mohlke and Associates, Inc., a consultant firm, to take the
primary lead within the public participation phase of the East of
CR951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study and collect and
tabulate the results of the public polling.
8) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve
for recording the final plat of Carolina Village, approval of the
standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval
of the amount of the performance security.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award a construction contract to Better Roads,
Inc. for Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) Intersection Improvements at
Sanctuary Road, Bid No. 07-4090, Project No. 66065, in the amount
of $826,725.20.
2) Recommendation that the Board of Collier County Commisioners
approve award of Bid #07-3986R, Annual Contract for Concrete
Sidewalk and Curb Maintenance to N. R. Contractors, Inc. for an
estimated annual expenditure of $250,000.
3) Recommendation that the Board of Collier County Commisioners
approve award of Bid #07-4043, Milling of Existing Asphalt
Roadways to FT A Holdings, LLC, Better Roads, Inc. and Bonness for
Page 8
January 9, 2007
an estimated annual expenditure of $100,000.
4) Recommendation that the Board of Collier County Commisioners
approve award of Bid #07-4057, Purchase and Delivery of Metal and
Polyethylene Pipe to Contech Construction Products, Inc., Ferguson
Waterworks and HD Supply Waterworks L TD for an estimated
annual expenditure of $50,000.
5) Recommendation to approve a Resolution establishing a No Parking
zone on the south shoulder of Radio Lane beginning at the point of
tangent for the eastern driveway leading to the Circle K store and
extending 600 feet eastward at a cost of $l900.
6) Recommendation to Direct the County Manager or his Designee to
Draft a County Ordinance Governing the Threshold Amount of Land
or Easement Purchases Requiring One or Two Real Estate Appraisals
(Estimated fiscal impact: $0.00 )
7) Recommendation to approve an Inter-local Agreement between the
School District of Collier County, collectively referred to as "District,
and Collier County, herein referred to as County, for possible future
operational improvements as it pertains to Elementary School'M'
traffic impacts.
8) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman
of the Board of County Commissioners to execute a Local Agency
Program Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation in
which Collier County would be reimbursed up to $200,000 for
sidewalk construction on Floridan Avenue from Broward Street to
Confederate Drive (Project #60l201).
9) Recommendation to award Contract #06-3975 Annual Fixed Term
Professional Transportation Planning Consultant Services to one (1)
additional firm (Estimated Annual Amount $300,000).
10) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the County
Manager or his designee to execute the attached Federal Transit
Administration Section 5310 grant application and applicable
document, and to accept the grant if awarded. ($317,000)
Page 9
January 9, 2007
11) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the County
Manager or his designee to execute the attached Federal Transit
Administration Section 531l grant application and applicable
document, and to accept the grant if awarded. ($837,244.80)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to convey a Utility Easement to the Water-Sewer
District for five public water supply well sites, associated pipelines,
and access on the Collier County Fairgrounds property at an estimated
cost not to exceed $61.00, for the North East Regional Water
Treatment Plant Wellfield, Project Number 70899.
2) Recommendation to approve Work Order # CT-FT-397l-07-05 under
Contract # 06-3971, Annual Contract for General Contractors Service,
to Chris-Tel Company of S.W. Florida. in the amount of $168,878.00
for interior renovations at the North County Regional Water
Treatment Plant (NCRWTP), Project Number 700953.
3) Recommendation to approve a deduct Change Order to Contract 04-
3535, Work Order UC-235, with Kyle Construction, Inc. for
$50,597.00 for the South County Water Reclamation Facility
Reliability Improvements Lely High School Force Main, Project
72508.
4) Recommendation to award Contract(s) #06-4015 Solid Waste
Professional Engineering, Technical and Financial Consulting
Services to the following firms: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.; CH2M Hill,
Inc.; Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.; Brown and Caldwell; and
R.W. Beck, Inc. not to exceed $750,000 per contract per year.
5) Approval to transfer funds and the associated budget amendments for
Agreement ML070554 and ML040284 with the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) from Miscellaneous Grant Fund
(116) to Water Pollution Control Fund (114) in the amount of
$244,414.
6) Approval of agreement with the South Florida Water Management
District to monitor ground water in Collier County in the amount of
Page 10
January 9, 2007
$337,601 and the associated budget amendment.
7) Recommendation to executive agreement with WCI Communities,
Incorporated for cost sharing for the replacement of the 6" watermain
on Tower Road for a fiscal impact not to exceed amount of $11 0,600.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a Second Amendment to Lease
Agreement with Collier Model Aeronautic Club, Inc., for the
continued use of vacant County-owned land at an annual income of
$10.
2) Recommendation to appropriate reserves in the amount of $32,930 to
replace the Fire Suppression Hood at Golden Gate Community
Center.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to Fund 516,
Property and Casualty Insurance in the amount of $533,500 to
efficiently manage the payment of Builders Risk Insurance premiums
on various capital construction projects.
2) Recommendation to repeal Collier County Resolution No. 95-474 and
discontinue the collection of fees for the provision of a Vendor
Subscription Service.
3) Recommendation to approve the addition of the classification Deputy
Administrator - CDES to the 2007 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification
Plan.
4) Recommendation to approve a Sign Easement with Wal-Mart Stores
Inc., allowing Collier County to install a permanent sign on vacant
land to advertise the Countys Museum with no annual rent.
5) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
Page 11
January 9, 2007
6) Recommendation to ratify additions to and a modification to the 2007
Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan made from October 1, 2006
through December 15,2006.
7) Recommendation to award Bid 07-4083 "On-Call Electrician Repairs
and New Installation - County Wide" to multiple vendors. ($164,000
annually)
8) Recommendation to award Bid 07-4097 "On Call Plumbing
Contractor Services" to Shamrock Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc. as
primary, First Class Plumbing as secondary and Eddie Bock's
Plumbing as the third vendor for Plumbing Services. ($190,000
annually)
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve a resolution providing for the
establishment of a Use Agreement between Collier County Board of
County Commissioners and the Florida Bureau of Public Lands and
authorized Chairperson to sign the Public Use Agreement after
approval by the County Attorneys Office. (Wiggins Pass dredging-
State Park beach renourishment)
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve and execute Site Improvement Grant
Agreement(s) between the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency and a Grant Applicant(s) within the Bayshore
Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment area.
2) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of
$112,000 to Fund the Planned Unit Development at the Immokalee
Regional Airport/Florida Tradeport.
3) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency
approve a one-time monetary sponsorship of$5,000.00 to Bayshore
Cultural Arts, Inc. for Hearts In The Garden event from the Bayshore
Gateway Triangle Trust Fund (Fund 187) FY07 Marketing &
Promotions budget for event set-up costs, rentals, security, printing
Page 12
January 9, 2007
and advertising expenses only, and declare the sponsorship serves a
valid public purpose.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
Leadership Marco Government Luncheon on November 29th, 2006 at
the Marco Island Yacht Club; $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala request board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the 22nd
Annual Scholarship Fashion Show on Wednesday, December 6th
2006; $60.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a meeting serving a valid public purpose. Attended The
Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Executive Session,
recognizing United States Senator Mel Martinez, on Tuesday,
December 19,2006, at the Chamber Building, 2390 Tamiami Trail
North, Naples, Florida. $lO.OO to be paid from Commissioner Halas'
travel budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a meeting serving a valid public purpose. Attended The
Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Executive Session,
recognizing United States Senator Mel Martinez, on Tuesday,
December 19, 2006, at the Chamber Building, 2390 Tamiami Trail
North, Naples, Florida. $10.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala
travel budget.
5) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending the 50th Year Anniversary of Friends of the Library on
Friday, January 12, 2007, at the Collier County Library Headquarters
in Naples, Florida. $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel
budget.
Page 13
January 9, 2007
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) To file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board Approval for Disbursements for the Period of
December 2, 2006 through December 8, 2006 and for Submission into
the Official Records of the Board.
2) To close out Grey Oaks Fire Station Number 20 capital project fund
and remit unspent excess to North Naples and East Naples Fire
Districts.
3) Authorize the Supervisor of Elections to accept voter poll worker
recruitment and training fund with a 150/0 matching contribution.
4) Authorize the Supervisor of Elections to accept voter education funds
with a l5% matching contribution.
5) To obtain Board Approval for Disbursements for the Period of
November 25,2006 through December 2,2006 and for Submission
into the Official Records of the Board.
6) To obtain Board Approval for Disbursements for the Period of
December 9,2006 through December 15,2006 and for Submission
into the Official Records of the Board.
7) To obtain Board Approval for Disbursements for the Period of
December l6, 2006 through December 22, 2006 and for Submission
into the Official Records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to Approve a Stipulated Final Judgment as to
Parcels 140 and 141 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Regent
Park Cluster Homes Association, et al., Case No. 04-3452-CA
(Immokalee Road Project No. 66042). (Fiscal Impact: $13,150)
Page 14
January 9, 2007
2) Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be Drafted Incorporating the Same
Terms and Conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the
Amount of$125,000.00 for the Acquisition of Parcels 720, 820A,
820B and 920 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Elhanon
Combs, et al., Case No. 03-2352-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project
No. 60027). (Fiscal Impact: $74,897.80)
3) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $39,000.00 for the acquisition of Parcels 136, 836 and 936
in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. David J. Frey, et al., Case No.
03-2353-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project #60027). (Fiscal Impact:
$29,157.00)
4) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel 139 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Edward Stanley Sanditen, et aI., Case No. 02-5165-CA
(Immokalee Road Project No. 60018). (Fiscal Impact $77,732)
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve
an Agreed Order Awarding Attorneys Fees and Costs in Connection
with Parcels 128 and 728 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v.
Terry L. Lichliter, et al., Case No. 03-2273-CA (Golden Gate
Parkway Project No. 60027). Fiscal Impact: $1,946.80.
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve
an Agreed Order Awarding Supplemental Attorney Fees in
Connection with Parcels 117 and 717 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier
County v. Jack E. Green, et al., Case No. 03-2227-CA (Golden Gate
Parkway, Project #60027) Fiscal Impact: $1,245.00.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve a
Stipulated Final Judgment as to Respondent, Exxon Mobil Oil
Corporation, for Parcel No. 133 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County
v. First National Bank of Naples, et al., Case No. 04-3587-CA
(Immokalee Road Project No. 66042). Fiscal Impact: $2,300.00.
8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve a
Stipulated Final Judgment as to Respondent, Exxon Mobil Oil
Corporation, for Parcels 131 A and 131 B in the Lawsuit Styled Collier
Page 15
January 9, 2007
County v. Stonebridge Country Club Community Association, Inc., et
al., Case No. 04-3588-CA (Immokalee Road Project No. 66042).
Fiscal Impact: $3,750.00.
9) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel 805 in the lawsuit styled CC v.
James M. Brown, et al., Case No. 06-0525-CA (Santa Barbara
Boulevard Project No. 62081). (Fiscal Impact $130,580)
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve a
Stipulated Final Judgment in the Amount of $158,675.00 for Parcel
145 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Regent Park Cluster
Homes Association, et al., Case No. 04-3452-CA (Immokalee Road
Project No. 66042). Fiscal Impact: $36,347.75.
11) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcels
7l8A & 7l8B in the lawsuit styled CC v. Berean Baptist Church of
Naples, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1 254-CA(County Barn Road Project
No. 60101). (Fiscal Impact $1,396.50)
12) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners and the
Board of County Commissioners as the Ex-Officio Governing Board
of the Collier County Water-Sewer District approve a Settlement
Agreement and Release with Schenkel & Shultz, Inc., relating to the
project known as the Design and Expansion of the South County
Regional Water Reclamation Facility Second Floor Process Control
Building, Contract No. 01-3235 and Work Order/Project #725091, as
amended, and authorize the Chairman to execute any necessary
settlement documents following final review by the County Attorney.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
Page 16
January 9, 2007
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Request the Board of
County Commissioners to set a public hearing date of April 24, 2007 for
consideration of a Development of Regional Impact Development Order
amendment for petition DOA-2005-AR-7136, Grey Oaks DR! located in the
northeast, southeast, and northwest quadrants of Airport-Pulling Road and
Golden Gate Parkway, in Sections 24, 25 and 26, Township 49 South, Range
25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PUDA-2005-AR-I0157).
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. RZ-2006-AR-I0150
Buckstone Estates, LLC, represented by William L. Hoover, AICP of
Hoover Planning and Development, Inc. and Richard Y ovanovich, of
Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., request a rezone from the Rural
Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Multi-Family-6 zoning
district (RMF-6[with a limit of 4 homes/ per acre]) for a 4.61 acre project
known as Scenic Woods. The property is located on the south side of Wolfe
Road approximately mile west of Collier Boulevard (County Road 951 )in
Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
C. This item was continued from the December 12~ 2006 BCC~ the January
9~ 2007 BCC meetinf! and is further continued to the January 23~ 2007
BCC meetinf!. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VESMT-2006-AR-9775, Hanson to disclaim, renounce
and vacate the Countys and the Publics interest in the south 30 feet of the
South half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the
Northeast quarter of Section 24, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
D. This item was continued from the December 12~ 2006 BCC meetinf!~ the
January 9~ 2007 BCC meetinf! and has been continued indefinitely. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. Recommendation to approve Petition
A VROW-2006-AR-9477, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 95 to
disclaim, renounce and vacate the Countys and the Publics interest in a 60
Page 17
January 9, 2007
foot wide right of way easement known as 7TH Avenue NW (Cherrywood
Drive) over portions of Tracts 15 & 16, Golden Gate Estates Unit 95,
according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 45, of the
Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and more specifically described
in Exhibit A, and to accept a 20 foot wide alternate drainage easement and
two 10 foot by 10 foot alternate drainage easements over portions of Tract
15, as more specifically described in the attached exhibits.
E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance No. 99-85, as amended, the
Seniors Homestead Exemption Ordinance, to increase the additional
homestead exemption for qualifying persons age 65 and older from $25,000
to $50,000 pursuant to the Florida Constitutional Amendment approved by
referendum on November 7, 2006.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 18
January 9, 2007
January 9, 2007
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
The Collier County Board of Commissioners is now in session. I ask
that anyone that has a cell phone or pager, if you'd be so kind as to put
it in the silence mode.
And at this time we're going to have the invocation, followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance of the flag. The invocation this morning will
be given by Captain Alejandro Castillo of the Salvation Army.
Captain?
CAPTAIN CASTILLO: Thank you. Let us pray. Holy are you,
oh, God, who created the heavens and the earth and everything that
lives in it.
I look around me and see your works everywhere. What a
beauty, what perfection, what power of display in the air (sic).
I look up into the night sky, I see thousands of his stars. You can
see galaxies upon galaxies in heavens. I cannot begin to comprehend
how immense you are. There is no one like you, Father. No one can
touch my heart like you do, Father. Lord bless this meeting. In Jesus'
name, amen.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
At this time I'll ask the county manager if he has any changes on
today's agenda.
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes Board of County
Page 2
January 9, 2007
Commissioners' meeting, January 9, 2007.
Items 3Al, 3A2, 3A3, the recipients are Carol Wright, Alvin
Martin, Kent Orner, will not be available to accept their awards today,
therefore, this item is continued in two cases, and we'll mail one
recipient's pin out. That's basically withdrawn for today's agenda.
The next item is to withdraw item 6C. It's a public petition
request by Thomas Selck to discuss drainage, septic location, and
erosion permit associated with permit number 2005080737, and that
withdrawal is at the petitioner's request.
Next item is item 8A. The draft resolution was inadvertently
omitted from the agenda package. This resolution accompanies the
ordinance for consideration of adoption by the board under this
agenda item. The board has been provided copies of this draft
resolution, and that correction is at staffs request.
Next item is to add an itelTI 91(, and that's a name change of the
Collier Regional Medical Center to the Physicians Regional Medical
Center-Collier Boulevard, and a name change of the Physicians
Regional Medical Center to the Physicians Regional Medical
Center-Pine Ridge.
That item is added at Comn1issioner Coletta's request, and I
believe all the commissioners were given the particular letter that
generated this particular add.
The next item is item 16A 1 and 16A4, and both those items
should read that this item requires that all participants be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
16Al goes on further to say, it's a recommendation to grant final
approval of a roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the
final plat of Delasol, phase three. The roadway and drainage
improvements will be privately ll1aintained.
The 6 -- the same on 16A4 about the ex parte disclosure by
commission members, and it goes on to read that -- recommendation
to grant final approval of the road way (private) and drainage
Page 3
January 9, 2007
improvements for the final plat of Forest Glen of Naples, the roadway
and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. Those
corrections were made at staffs request.
The next item is to withdraw item 16H3 and that -- and 16H4,
and that's both for Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Fiala to
request approval for reimbursement of attending a meeting serving a
public purpose, to attend the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce
executive session recognizing U.S. Senator Mel Martinez on Tuesday,
December 19, 2006, at the chamber building, which is 2390 Tamiami
Trail North, Naples, Florida. And in each particular case, both
commissioners could not make that particular event.
The next item is item 16J3. Note that backup material for this
item did not attach into NOVUS and, therefore, did not appear in the
agenda packet. Proper distribution of backup material has been made.
And, again, on 16J4, the same note. Those were two particular
items from the Supervisor of Elections.
Next item is to move item 17B to 8A -- excuse me. 17B to 8B.
Again, to move 17B to 8B. This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members. It's RZ-2006-AR-10150, Buckstone Estates, LLC,
represented by William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning &
Development, Inc., and Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman &
Johnson, P.A., requests a rezone from the rural agricultural zoning
district to the residential multifamily-6 zoning district, RMF -6, with a
limit of four homes per acre for a 4.61-acre project known as Scenic
Woods.
The property is located on the south side of Wolfe Road
approximately a half a mile west of Collier Boulevard, County Road
951, in Section 34, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County,
Florida. That item is being pulled at Commissioner Coyle's request.
Next item is item 1 7B. And just so you know, that the agenda
index should read that the property is located on the south side of
Page 4
January 9,2007
Wolfe Road approximately a half a mile west, just as I read it in the
previous statement, but in the agenda the half mile was omitted.
The next item is item 17C. The correct number for the proposed
resolution should be resolution number 07, rather than resolution 06,
and that's at staffs request. We normally get those when we have a
calendar year change, and this year is no exception.
Next item is 17D, and it's the same thing, the resolution should be
numbered 07 because it's 2007, rather than 2006. Both items on 17C
and 17D are corrections at staffs request.
Commissioners, there are two time certain items today. Item 10B
to be heard at 11 a.m. to provide information on the status of the
Southwest Florida Expressway Authority activities and the ongoing
toll feasibility studies for 1-75 and to discuss future options with the
board.
And the next item is item 10F to be heard at four p.m. This item
was continued from the November 28, 2006, BCC meeting. A
recommendation to deny petition to convert fields at Veteran's
Community Park to two lighted little league, one lighted girls softball
and one lighted softball field.
Mr. Chairman, that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Attorney
-- or County Manager.
County Attorney, do you have anything to add to today's agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: No, nothing further, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time I'll ask for ex parte
on the consent and summary agenda, starting with Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have no further
changes to the agenda, and I have no ex parte disclosure for the
consent agenda; however, on the summary agenda, item number 17B,
I have had a brief meeting with the representative of the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Page 5
January 9, 2007
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, and good
mornIng.
I have no changes to the agenda or -- and no declarations to the
summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I, myself, have no ex parte on
either the consent agenda or the summary agenda, and I have no other
further changes to today's agenda.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no changes to the
agenda nor do I have any ex parte except for one little thing, and I
guess it's not even worth mentioning. But on 16A -- I'm trying to find
the thing right now -- 16A8, Carolina Village, although I never met
with anybody on it, somebody mentioned it to me on the telephone,
actually the developer of this just mentioned -- or I'm sorry, mentioned
it in a meeting to me saying that they referred to it as something
similar to Carolina Village, which I've never heard of, and I didn't ask
any more questions. But just to, you know, to be cautious, I will
mention that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received an email from Bruce
Tyson on 1 7 A.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, it's my fault.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received an email
correspondence from Bruce Tyson on 17 A.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coletta, you had something else to add, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I neglected. I missed one
item. On the consent agenda, 16A1, I received some emails on that
Page 6
January 9, 2007
particular issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
If there's no further changes, I'm looking for a motion to approve
today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 7
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Januarv 9. 2007
Items 3A1. 2 and 3: Recipients Carol Wright, Alvin Martin and Kent Orner will not be available to
accept their awards. (Recipients' request.)
Withdraw Item 6C: Public petition request by Thomas Selck to discuss drainage, septic location
and erosion matters associated with Permit No. 2005080737. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 8A: The draft resolution was inadvertently omitted from the agenda package. This
resolution accompanies the ordinance for consideration of adoption by the Board under this
agenda item. The Board has been provided copies of this draft resolution. (Staff's request.)
Add on Item 9K: Name change of Collier Regional Medical Center to Physicians Regional Medical
Center-Collier Boulevard, and name change of Physicians Regional Medical Center to Physicians
Regional Medical Center-Pine Ridge. (Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Item 16A1 should read: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to grant final approval of the
roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Delasol Phase Three. The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. (Staffs request.)
Item 16A4 should read: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to grant final approval of the
roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Forest Glen of Naples. The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. (Staff's request.)
Withdraw Item 16H3: Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a meeting serving a valid public purpose. Attended The Greater Naples Chamber of
Commerce Executive Session, recognizing United States Senator Mel Martinez, on Tuesday,
December 19, 2006, at the Chamber Building, 2390 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. $10 to be
paid from Commissioner Halas' travel budget. (Commissioner Halas' request.)
Withdraw Item 16H4: Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a meeting serving a valid public purpose. Attended The Greater Naples Chamber of
Commerce Executive Session, recognizing United States Senator Mel Martinez, on Tuesday,
December 19, 2006, at the Chamber Building, 2390 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. $10.00 to
be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Item 16J3: Note that backup material for this item did not attach into NOVUS and therefore did
not appear in the agenda packet. Proper distribution of the backup material has been made.
Item 16J4: Note that backup material for this item did not attached into NOVUS and therefore did
not appear in the agenda packet. Proper distribution of the backup material has been made.
Move Item 17B to 8B: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. RZ-2006-AR-1 0150 Buckstone Estates, LLC, represented
by William L. Hoover, AICP of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc. and Richard Yovanovich of
Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., request a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) [zoning
district to the Residential Multi-Family-6 zoning district (RMF-6) with a limit of 4 homes/per acre))
for a 4.61 acre project known as Scenic Woods. The property is located on the south side of
Wolfe Road approximately % mile west of Collier Boulevard (County Road 951 (in Section 34,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Commissioner Coyle's request.)
Item 17B: Also note that the last sentence in the title on the agenda index should read, "The
property is located on the south side of Wolfe Road approximately % mile west. . . . .." (% was
omitted). (Staff's request.)
Item 17C: The correct number for the proposed Resolution should be "Resolution No. 07-_",
rather than "Resolution No. 06-_". (Staff's request.)
Item 170: The correct number for the proposed Resolution should be "Resolution No. 07-_",
rather than "Resolution No. 06-_" (Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 10B to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. To provide information on the status ofthe Southwest Florida
Expressway Authority activities and the ongoing Toll Feasibility Studies for 1-75 and to discuss
future options with the Board.
Item 10F to be heard at 4:00 p.m. This item was continued from the November 28,2006 BCC
Meeting. Recommendation to deny petition to convert fields at Veteran's Community Park to (2)
lighted Little League, (1) lighted Girls Softball, and (1) lighted baseball field.
January 9, 2007
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F, & #2G
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 2006 - BCC REGULAR
MEETING; DECEMBER 5, 2006 - BCC/PUD IOU WORSHOP #7;
DECEMBER 5, 2006 - BCC/SOLID WASTE WORKSHOP;
DECEMBER 12 AND 13, 2006 - BCC REGULAR MEETING;
DECEMBER 14,2006 - BCC/LDC MEETING; DECEMBER 15,
2006 - VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING - APPROVED
AS PRESENTED
Motion for approval of November 28,2006, BCC regular
meeting; December 5, 2006, BCC/PUD IOU workshop number seven;
December 5,2006, BCC/solid waste workshop; December 12 and
December 13, 2006, BCC regular meeting; and December 14,2006,
BCC/LDC meeting; and the last is December 15, 2006 Value
Adjustment Board meeting. Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
Page 8
January 9, 2007
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JANUARY 14,2007
THROUGH JANUARY 20, 2007 AS PURPLE MARTIN WEEK-
ADOPTED
I believe at this time we go to proclamations then?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. 4A, it's a proclamation recognizing
January 14,2007 through January 20,2007, Purple Martin Week, to
be accepted by Mr. Gary Glasson, president of the Purple Martin
Society of Collier County.
Mr. Glasson, if you could come forward, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just come on right up here. It's kind
of like the hot seat.
Proclamation: Whereas, the Florida legislature has designated
Collier County Purple Martin Capital of Florida; and,
Whereas, in a very short time, thousands of our very beautiful
feathered friends, the Purple Martins will return from their winter
home in Brazil; and,
Whereas, these birds will be searching for suitable housing to
enable them to nest and rear their young; and,
Whereas, the Purple Martin Society of Collier County is desirous
of urging the public to erect proper housing for these very valuable
winged creatures by placing said houses on their property; and,
Whereas, during the period of January 14th through January
20th, the Purple Martin Society of Collier County will endeavor to
alert the public how valuable these birds are in helping to diminish the
insect and mosquito population. We wish they were here in the
summer too.
Page 9
January 9, 2007
Whereas, the Purple Martin Society of Collier County urges all
citizens to join the society to show their concern for these valuable
and friendly winged creatures and learn to protect and preserve them.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January 14,2007,
through January 20,2007, be designated as Purple Martin Week.
Done and ordered this 9th day January, 2007, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Frank Halas, Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman, I motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And I'll second that.
We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Fiala and a
second by Commissioner Halas in regards to accepting this
proclamation.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes unanimously.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Congratulations. Sir, if you'd just turn
around here so we could get a picture.
Thank you very much. Did you want to say a few words or
anything?
MR. GLASSON: I'd just like to.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Over by the mike, if you would, sir.
MR. GLASSON: First of all, I'd like to thank the commission for
this proclamation. As a correction, the birds are here in the
summertime. They arrive -- well, we're looking for them now, and
Page 10
January 9, 2007
they depart sometime around Labor Day. So they do gobble up some
of the insects.
And I'd like to invite anybody and all. We hold a monthly
luncheon at the F oxfire Country Club October to May, the third
Monday of the month. Anybody interested in the birds, come join us.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 31,2007 AS
RAYMOND L. LUTGERT AND SCOTT F. LUTGERT DAY-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is 4B. It's a
proclamation designating January 31, 2007, as Raymond L. Lutgert
and Scott F. Lutgert Day to be accepted by Dr. Jeffrey Allbritten,
president of the Edison College, Collier campus. Dr. Allbritten?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whereas, Raymond L. Lutgert
and Scott F. Lutgert have envisioned a first-class community in
Collier County, in which unparalleled climate, lifestyle and business
prospects are completed (sic) with exceptional opportunities for
education, healthcare, the arts and other amenities; and,
Whereas, for four decades, the Lutgert Company has supported
numerous of charities, organizations and other programs in Collier
County throughout extraordinary vision, leadership, generosity of
financial support; and,
Whereas, Raymond L. Lutgert has pledged $5 million to Florida
Gulf Coast University for a new 73,OOO-square-foot facility for a
college of business; and,
Whereas, in partnership of Duke University Health Systems, he
has established the Raymond L. Lutgert Cancer Center on the Naples
Page 11
January 9, 2007
Community Hospital campus; and,
Whereas, as a gifted artist, he has created a -- created and
donated, "Education... the Lyric of Life," a sculpture that has a focal
point of the Collier County campus of Edison College; and,
Whereas, Scott F. Lutgert has served as chairman of the Board of
Trustees for Florida Gulf Coast University and provides invaluable
leadership on other community boards, including NCH Healthcare
System and the Philharmonic Center for the Arts; and,
Whereas, Scott F. Lutgert's leadership as a founding trustee and
current chair of the Naples Winter Wine Festival which (sic) helped
raised over $38 million in six years for the Naples Children and
Education Foundation, with proceeds supporting charitable programs
with ( sic) improve the physical, emotional and educational lives of
underprivileged or at-risk children in Collier County; and,
Whereas, the induction (sic) into the South Florida Junior
Achievement Business Leadership Hall of Fame for his outstanding
contribution and dedication; and,
Whereas, the Board of Commissioners is pleased to offer a
special tribute to Raymond L. Lutgert and Scott F. Lutgert, whose
vision and efforts on behalf of Collier County merits the recognition
and gratitude of our citizens.
Now, there, be it resolved that the Board of Commissioner Board
of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, does hereby
recognize Scott L. Lutgert -- I'm sorry -- Raymond L. Lutgert and
Scott F. Lutgert for their steadfast commitment to challenging and
enrichment (sic) lives through the achievement of academic and
educational opportunities and proclaims Wednesday , January 31,
2007, be designated as Raymond L. Lutgert and Scott F. Lutgert Day.
Done in this order, 9th day of January, 2007, and signed by the
chairman, Frank Halas.
And Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve these
proclamations.
Page 12
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: --- motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala in
regards to approving this proclamation.
All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously. We have
two. One for each gentleman.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we get a picture?
MR. ALLBRITTEN: Oh, certainly. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Dr. Allbritten, do you have any words you want to
say, any comments?
MR. ALLBRITTEN: Be happy to. Thank you very much. We
do appreciate very much the county commission recognizing this day
in honor of the Lutgerts, two individuals that have been very generous
in this community, and certainly in terms of education.
We are honoring them on that day with our Holland T. Salley
Life Award Distinction at a function that day, and we're very excited
about that.
We have mentioned the issue of the wine festival and the
dedication it has to the community that the Lutgerts have been
involved in, and many of you saw the fact that we are going to be
building a dental school on the campus for the resident dentistry
Page 13
January 9, 2007
program for the pediatrics programs in Collier County. It's directly
responsible for that through their leadership, so we thank you very
much for this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 15,2007 AS "SEE
THE DREAM AND LIVE VISION DAY" TO HONOR MARTIN
LUTHER KING~ JR. - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next
proclamation,4C. It's a proclamation designating January 15, 2007,
as See the Dream and Live the Vision Day, to honor Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. To be accepted by Ms. Rhonda Cummings and Ms. Diana
Perryman.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it's my honor to be able to
read that petition (sic). Please come up front.
Whereas, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., spoke passionately of his dreams of an America
where all citizens would be judged by the contents of their character
and not by the color of their skin, where all Americans would enjoy
the riches of freedom and the security of justice, where the doors of
opportunity would be open for all; and,
Whereas, the celebration of Dr. King's birthday is intended as a
time for all Americans to reaffirm their commitment to the basic
principles that underline our Declaration of Independence and our
Constitution, equality and justice for all; and,
Whereas, on January 15,2007, the people of Collier County will
remember Dr. King's dream and vision and renew our commitment to
the fundamental principles of freedom, opportunity and quality; and,
Whereas, the Collier County branch of the NAACP would help
Page 14
January 9, 2007
us all to remember Dr. King's dream and vision by presenting the 10th
Annual Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Parade to be held in the City of
Naples on January 15,2007.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that January 15, 2007, be
designated as See the Dream and Live the Vision Day.
Done and ordered this, the 9th day of January, 2007, Frank
Halas, Chairman, and I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta in regards to approving this proclamation, and
seconded by Commissioner Coyle.
Hearing no further discussion, I'll call the vote. All those in favor
of this proclamation, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good to see you again.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You can turn around and we'll get a
picture of you.
Would you like to say a few words?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think Fred Thomas would like
to get one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you like to say a few words,
please?
MS. CUMMINGS: Good morning. First of all, I'd like to thank
Page 15
January 9, 2007
the Board of Collier County Commissioners, County Manager, my
supervisors, Kelsey Ward and Steve Carnell, for allowing us to
volunteer our time and efforts to the NAACP. Weare employees of
the county, so that's extra special for us, and I'm so grateful for this
opportunity.
We're -- we'd like to invite everyone to come out and celebrate
with us January 15, 2007, in Cambier Park. We're going to have a
parade. It starts at Broad Street and Third Avenue, and it will end in
Cambier Park. The parade starts at 11 a.m., and it will end in Cambier
Park at 12:30, where a huge celebration will be held.
We have many, many, many sponsors. I'll just name a few.
1055, the Beat, is our title sponsor, Wal*Mart, Florida Gulf Coast
University, Naples Daily News, Naples Community Hospital, the
Collier County Health Department, and many, many more, and we
just -- we're just so thankful. And Mr. Weeks says McDonald's
Corporation, yes.
Mr. Weeks is the vice-president of the NAACP, Collier County
branch and we -- would you like to say a few words?
MR. WEEKS: Not really. I think they've covered it all. It's
really a day for the kids. I know most of you are still kids. I won't
leave you out. So bring your, I guess it's grandchildren, at this stage
of the game, and the youngsters out. They all love a parade. It's going
to have a lot of music.
And the program at Cambier Park is going to be extra special,
many vendors. Health issues will be addressed, eye tests, all types of
screenings that Naples Community Hospital is offering.
So all I can say is, come on out and join us, you know. We're all
together in this thing. Let's have some fun, at least one Monday -- and
I guess you're off, aren't you?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're never off.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Page 16
January 9, 2007
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JANUARY 9,2007 AS
"INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY" -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation is 4D. It's a proclamation to
recognize January 9, 2007, as International Holocaust Remembrance
Day, to be accepted by Mr. Murray Hendel. Mr. Hendel?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And Jack Nortmon and Ms. Alice
Grady. I think all three of you should come up. If you have any
more, bring them too.
MR. HENDEL: We only have three today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you for being here
today.
Whereas, in a resolution co-sponsored by the 104 member states,
the United Nation's General Assembly has designated January 9th as
International Holocaust Remembrance Day in an effort to keep the
memory of the Holocaust alive and to reaffirm unfaltering resolve to
prevent the recurrence of such crimes and future acts of genocide; and,
Whereas, January 27, 1945, is currently recognized as the official
day of remembrance for Holocaust victims in many countries and
marks the day when an advancing Soviet army liberated the largest
Nazi death camp, Auschwitz- Birkenau in Poland; and,
Whereas, Collier County encourages all its citizens to recognize
the grievous crimes committed during the Holocaust and to remember
the suffering of the 11 million humans who perished; and,
Whereas, the Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida promotes
tolerance and understanding by teaching the history and lessons of the
Holocaust through its educational programs.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Page 1 7
January 9, 2007
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January 27,2007, be
designated as International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Done and ordered this 9th day of January, 2007, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Frank Halas, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I second it.
Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle,
seconded by Commissioner Fiala. I'll give her the credit for that one.
And any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor of this proclamation,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would anybody in the crowd like to say
a few words? Okay, please.
MR. HENDEL: My name is Murray Hendel. I'm co-president of
the Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida.
I'd like to thank the Board of County Commissioners for this
proclamation, and I'd like to invite everyone here to our celebration on
January 28th at the United Church of Christ. It's a Sunday. It's at four
o'clock, January 28th. We will have a concert and a program, and
everyone is invited.
Page 18
January 9, 2007
We also wanted to announce that on March 4th, we're having
Judea Pearl, the father of Daniel Pearl, at our annual fundraiser, and
that will be March 4th at the Community School.
Our mission -- our museum has its mission to promote tolerance
and understanding through the teachings of the lessons of the
Holocaust. We are proud that we've had over 5,000 students of
Collier County and Lee County during this year.
We have experienced large growth, and we are applying to the
State of Florida for a grant. And among the programs that we're going
to request are creation of an educators' guide to the Holocaust
Museum, educational programs that support a boxcar that we're
bringing to the county, an exhibit -- a temporary exhibit on the short
life of Paul B., a Hitler youth, Nicolas Winton, the power of good film
presentation, and improvement of our computer system website, audio
archive and library. And we want to thank Senator Saunders and
Representative Richter for forwarding this in the Florida legislature.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.).
Item #5A
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER COLETTA AS
CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER HENNING AS VICE
CHAIRMAN - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to presentations, 5A,
which is selection of the new chairman and vice-chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we have
Page 19
January 9, 2007
Commissioner Coletta as our chairman for the upcoming -- or this
year, 2007.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second that.
Okay. Are there any other nominations?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing -- the nominations are closed.
All those in favor of electing Commissioner Coletta as the chairman
for 2007, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously.
Before I turn the gavel over to our new chairman -- and then we'll
go through the process of electing a vice-chair, I'd like to say a few
words in regards to -- on behalf of everyone that sits on this dais. I
believe that -- not only the dais, but also the staff, I believe we've
accomplished an awful lot in this past year, and I just would like to
spend a few minutes, if you would let me, Chairman --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- before I turn the gavel over to you--
and reflect on some are of the items that we accomplished here in
2006.
Working together, the commission and the county staff and the
community, we have experienced a truly remarkable year marked with
numerous accomplishments.
We started off with Hurricane Wilma, which was October 24,
2005. That was under the chairmanship of Commissioner Coletta. He
brought that storm here to us.
Page 20
January 9, 2007
My duties were to make sure that we got the unscheduled
cleanup, which was around $35 million. With due diligence and great
teamwork by our staff and our contractors, and accounted (sic) for
every nickel, we recovered about 31 million -- $31.8 million from
FEMA.
What we ended up with is a cost to the taxpayers of $3.2 million,
and the county manager said that we were working diligently to try to
even lower that. I think that we accomplished an awful lot under that
time frame.
And the other thing that was of very good -- was very successful
is that we were able to establish temporary housing for those who
needed it without any problems that plagued other areas, such as
Charlotte County when Charley hit in that area.
Some of the major road construction improvements -- and I know
that lots of times we take a lot of heat in the Naples Daily News that
things aren't moving fast enough, but I can assure you that some of the
projects that are ongoing -- just so that you people understand what
we're -- what we're accomplishing here in Collier County.
The Golden Gate overpass, where hopefully that will be
completed by mid 2007. The I-75/Golden Gate interchange, which is
an FDOT proj ect, its opening is scheduled in early 2007.
The Goodlette- Frank/Golden Gate Parkway --
Goodlette-Frank/Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge Road, that's to
be -- should be completed sometime this coming month. In fact, it
may be even done by the end of this month.
The Immokalee Road. We have three components on this. We
have three sections that are under different contractors, all the way
from U.S. 41 to 34th (sic) Street, and they are on schedule, including
the one from Astaldi that was a hotly contested item.
The completion for all three segments, we are -- look very
hopeful that that's going to occur by September 2008. So all six -- the
whole complete six-laning from U.S. 41 to 43rd Street should be
Page 21
January 9, 2007
completed at that point from time.
Rattlesnake Hammock Road. We had a groundbreaking for that
last year, and it should be completed sometime in 2009. The
Vanderbilt Beach Road, Airport-Pulling Road to Collier Boulevard,
that completion should be in the first quarter of 2008.
Collier Boulevard between Golden Gate Boulevard and
Immokalee Road. It's a phased construction program. It should be
completed probably by April 2009.
Phase two, the computerized signal system, which added even
more density or, I should say -- how about reduction of traffic delays
or driver delays, and that is a SCOOT system that was implemented
from U. S. 41 to Airport Road, and that seems to be working along.
We had a 6 percent increase just using the SCOOT system above other
items that we used to enhance the movement of traffic along Pine
Ridge.
Critical public safety proj ects. We're in the process of breaking
ground probably the first quarter of this year for our new emergency
services center, which will be located in the Lely area. The sheriffs
special operations center, Naples Airport, we awarded the contract by
the Board of County Commissioners October 25,2006. An EMS
station on Santa Barbara. That was completed in November of 2006.
New recreational opportunities for our citizens. We opened a
2008 -- $54 million North Collier Regional Park featuring a
state-of-the-art Sun and Fun Lagoon, and that opened June 25, 2006.
We acquired the Caribbean Gardens and Naples Zoo property for
$42 million. We opened the Vanderbilt Beach parking deck for an
additional 340 parking spaces for beach parking.
We completed $23 million, City of Naples, Collier County beach
renourishment project, and guess what? No rocks.
The Eagle Lakes Community Park, which is located in East
Naples, the interactive water features, tennis courts, pavilions,
maintenance buildings, pathways to Triangle Boulevard, asphalted
Page 22
January 9, 2007
berm surrounded by the park's three lakes.
The Gordon River Park, a quality park located at the northeast
comer of Goodlette-Frank Road and Golden Gate Parkway. Phase
one, we received $6 million from the State of Florida Community --
Florida Communities Trust Grant for reimbursement of land
acquisition for this proj ect.
The series of boardwalks and pathways is planned for this
passive park setting, water quality improvement components, and also
the Freedom Memorial should be located at this site.
Phase two, Gordon River Greenway Park, $9 million grant from
Florida Communities Trust, a series of boardwalks, pathways and a
passive park setting. Water quality improvements is also one of the
components so that we can help clean Naples Bay area.
Improved access to government services. I think this is one of
the things that everybody looks forward to in regards to making it
easier for you to get to your government. We opened the Collier
County Government Center parking deck, which is located to my
immediate right out in the parking area whereby we just opened that,
and we have 1,130 new parking spaces available for people that want
to visit this complex and also to visit the courthouse.
We opened the North Collier Government Service Center, a new
multi amenity full-service facility. It was opened in June 2006, and
that's located at Orange Blossom Drive and Airport next to the -- our
new -- our library that's over there. It offers services provided by all
constitutional officers.
We got -- completed the Golden Gate Library design plan, and
the construction is to start sometime in February, 2007. The South
Regional Library construction will commence by the spring of 2007,
with a scheduled opening for July 2008.
Landscape beautification master plan adopted in 2003. The
alternative transportation modes department landscape section has
installed 28.3 miles to date of landscaping along six-lane highways.
Page 23
January 9, 2007
On schedule, to install an additional -- eight additional miles at the end
of this year.
Successful rollout of residential recycling cart program, which is
very astounding of what's taking place here. This includes about
92,000 residents that presently reside here in Collier County. And the
new easy-to-use 64-gallon recycling containers has resulted in the
residential recycling of better than 60 percent recycling, and we're
moving even higher levels to that.
We've launched the -- and redesigned -- we have launched the
redesigned new website for colliercounty.gov website, which is more
friendly and easier to use. We've made a good start on affordable
housing by approving units for our future inventory. Obviously there
is more to do in this area.
No inventory is accomplished -- excuse me. No inventory
accomplishment would be more complete without reference to the
groundbreaking of Ave Maria, our new town and university. How
many counties in modem times have the opportunity to participate in
the planning and growing ofa completely new community on virgin
land? I'll tell you, that's quite an accomplishment I think we've made
here.
On the personal note, at the federal level, I personally have
traveled to Washington, D.C., presented our board-approved fiscal
year 2007 federal agenda projects, I've requested funding and
appropriations from Congress, participated in up-close-and-personal
presentations to Representative Connie Mack and representative
Mario Diaz- Balart in August.
On-the-ground briefing, helicopter fly-over, and offered
on-the-site in-the-field perspectives they could not get from their
offices in the nation's capital.
At the state level, I've been honored to represent Collier County
on the Florida Association of Counties Board of Directors, I've been
active in the Florida Growth Management Work Group meeting with
Page 24
January 9, 2007
commissioners from other counties, I've monitored the impact fee task
force meetings. I'm proud to say that our involvement in networking
and exchanging of information and ideas has been positive and very
rewarding.
As your county board commissioner chairman through fiscal year
2006, I'm very proud of what we have achieved, enthusiastic about
winning the recent election, and I'm looking forward to the future.
Although we have accomplished so much, I feel there is so much
else that we can do to keep Collier County a great place to live, work
and play.
I am convinced that working together, the board, the staff and the
citizens, can tackle the challenges of 2007. I am confident we have a
(sic) team it takes to be successful.
Thank you, and now I pass this gavel on to my fellow
commissioner, Commissioner Coletta.
And I want to make one parting statement. Congratulation to the
national champions, University of Florida team and Urban Meyer.
Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas, we appreciate your year of service. You're
served the board exemplary, and the public too. We've seen some
tremendous steps forward in the past year, and we appreciate all the
effort you put into it, and we'd like you to accept this plaque on behalf
of the commission for the time and service that you put in.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. And I want to
thank each and every one of the commissioners that sit on this dais.
As we worked together, we've accomplished an awful lot, as you can
-- probably understood when I read my brief statement, that together
we can accomplish a whole bunch. And thanks very much, not only
to the county commissioners, but also to the staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. How about a picture
Page 25
January 9, 2007
there?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And at this time I'm going to turn
the gavel over to Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Halas.
We're going to have shuffling to do around, but we'll take care of that
after the next order of business.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to nominate Commissioner
Tom Henning to be vice-chair.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd second that. Okay. So we have a
motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hope you'll take it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- on the floor for Commissioner Tom
Henning to be the vice-chair, and second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any other nomination?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it.
Congratulations, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're going to take just about a
five-minute break while we do some strategy moves around here,
moving books back and forth, chairs and whatever. Please, bear with
us just for a moment. We'll get back to the people's business real
Page 26
January 9, 2007
shortly.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Ladies and gentlemen, I just
wanted to, one more time, thank my fellow commissioners for the
trust they've put me, and I'm sure that this coming year will be very
productive.
The next thing on the agenda is going to be the presentations.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want to start off with that, Mr.
Mudd?
Item #5B
PRESENTATION BY MCM, INC. ON THE STATUS OF THE
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY 6-LANING AND AITPROT TOAD
ORVERP ASS - GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y EXPECTED TO
OPEN FEBRUARY 2007, 6-LANING AND AIRPORT ROAD
OVERPASS ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE AUGUST 2007
MR. MUDD: 5B, it's a presentation by MCM, Inc., on the status
of the Golden Gate Parkway six -laning and Airport Road overpass.
This was heard previously by the board. The board asked for this item
to come back because there were some unanswered questions.
Mr. Feder, do we have a representative?
MR. MENIA: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could you speak right into the mike,
sir?
MR. MENIA: Yes. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and
good year to all. My name is Juan Menia, and I'm the vice-president
Page 27
January 9, 2007
ofMCM Corps.
The last time that we were here, there were some questions with
respect to our schedule and our budget. And I had written a letter on
the 20th of December saying that those -- to completely answer those
questions, we would need to have done a traffic switch that's going to
occur at the end of the month, but that was requested to come anyway,
and I think it's helpful, that way we can see each other and you can ask
any other questions.
The primary concern last time that we met here was the assets, as
somebody addressed them, of coming over. 1-75 will be completed
and traffic will be on it within the next week and a half, but already I
would say 80 percent of all of the assets of that job are already back
on Airport-Pulling.
We're scheduled to do a traffic switch that we were thinking
would be in the middle of -- early February. We're going to do it for
the end of this month, which will allow us to get into the last
component of the bridge walls that we last time discussed that there
could be some muck underneath. And the extent of that muck is an
unknown that could affect our schedule, your budget, so it could affect
many -- it could create variables.
We still won't know that until we do the traffic switch, but I think
that by the time the next commission meeting occurs, that will have
taken place, and we will now know -- or we will then know where
we're at with our final budget and schedule with respect to that issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Ifwe could, Mr. Feder, would
you please give us a staff assessment?
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator.
I think that what is noted is where we stand right now.
Obviously without completion of ramp B, which is the south side
roadway west of Airport, we don't have the ability to then pull out
those lanes that are servicing today the eastbound movement on the
Page 28
January 9, 2007
north side west of Airport and get at that issue of what remaining
muck we have. Our anticipation is a small triangular piece, but, again,
this muck has gone its own direction, and we've had to identify it as
we've gone through with the job.
We are concerned that, in fact, all the resources come back.
They are starting to pull back to the job. They're working on the
structure itself. We still need crews. We don't have the pipe crews
that we need both for the crossing on the north side of the project
across Airport Road allowing that north section to be opened, and
open up that lane northbound.
We don't have the opening of that south road. We're hoping that
those resources will be here and that the dates you just heard will be
adhered to. Obviously the quicker we can get that done, the quicker
you get answers, and more importantly, the quicker we finish the
project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's going to happen with the
traffic that starts getting off 1-75 on Golden Gate Parkway?
MR. FEDER: Without completion of the overpass, we're
continuing to work there. First of all, the interchange -- and I'll refer
to the contractor if he has a better date. But I'm told probably
February that will be open to traffic.
At that time some of the diversion from Immokalee and Pine
Ridge would be expected to come off the interchange at Golden Gate.
People that will be able to go through the construction site will still be
open to traffic; however, that will not be ideal. Some people will then
revert back to Pine Ridge and Immokalee awaiting that last
completion.
However, we just did some improvements to turn lanes and
issues, as you're well aware, at Livingston and Golden Gate, so a lot of
people that are trying to take the new interchange and then head down
Livingston will be able to be very well serviced. So I think you'll seed
Page 29
January 9, 2007
some use of the interchange. Some people will pull back to Pine
Ridge and Immokalee waiting for the completion of the overpass.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That sort of -- well, that tells me
that what we're going to do is wait for it to solve itself by letting the
traffic back up, become inconvenient to the motoring public to the
point where they become frustrated and find alternate routes. What
are we doing to direct them to right places so that we don't --
MR. FEDER: We will get information out as -- with the opening
of the interchange, advising motorists that, in fact, the overpass is still
under construction, advising that there will be some delays to that
construction, but it is still open to them, that the access to Livingston
has been enhanced, so the motoring public will be able to make a
decision.
But the fact of the matter is, traffic does find its own path, and
people will choose based on their particular set of circumstances
which route to take.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we going to put signs out at
1-75 indicating that westbound on Golden Gate Parkway is under
construction and recommend alternate routes?
MR. FEDER: We will get information out, and we'll try to make
sure the motoring public has everything that they can make a decision
from, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, getting information out is
good for people who regularly travel the roadway. It does nothing for
visitors and tourists and others. And what I'm trying to prevent is a
disaster with traffic backing up, everybody becoming frustrated,
because this should never have happened.
MR. FEDER: I understand--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's one thing that anybody
with an ounce of brains should understand, and that is that the
overpass should have been completed first before the 1-75 interchange
was completed.
Page 30
January 9, 2007
MR. FEDER: And that was the commitment we had from the
contractor when the work started. That's not the situation we're
facing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm very, very upset with that
decision, and --
MR. FEDER: It was not a--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- I know that -- know for a fact
from personal experience that there was nobody working on this
overpass project for many, many days, if not weeks.
So it seems to me that there has not even been a good faith effort
to get this thing completed anywhere near on time, and I think it's
absolutely inexcusable that we have been sitting here while the
contractor transferred all of the assets to the proj ect that should have
been completed last. And I think I know why that was done, but I
don't agree with it.
But our task now is to try to find a way out of this mess, and I
want to -- I want to know what kind of traffic control measures -- not
just getting information out. I want to know what kind of alternate
routes are going to be designated, I want to know where the signs are
going to be placed and where that traffic is going to go.
MR. FEDER: We'll get you information on our efforts. I do
need to note, with all due respect, that before Golden Gate was open,
that same traffic was finding a path. This will give them additional
opportunity. It will not be ideal. And as I said, the fact of the matter
is, you drive through there once, if you're not familiar with the area,
you make your decision as to whether or not you take that route a
second time.
Now, having said that, there's no excuse for us not to give them
information, and we'll try to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Norm. I
appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
Page 31
January 9, 2007
MR. MENIA: Mr. Coyle, if I could, I feel compelled -- you
know, you're addressing something that is -- we pride ourselves in
how we do our work, and we monitor our schedules very tightly.
You must be aware of the several impacts that we've had to this
job that have extended the contract eight or nine months. We are the
ones that are -- that should have been out of here in September. This
has not worked well for us. This is not something that we put upon
the county or put upon ourselves. The finding of muck, the
redesigning of S walls, the delays in designing S walls, these are not
issues of a contractor.
So we are here in the same situation as you are. You know, we're
not happy to still have to be out here. These jobs should have been
finishing simultaneously, and we move our forces back.
Now, a contractor will regularly, when they've got a delay or an
impact on a job where they have what we call float, reassign its
resources to wherever they're necessary.
But, you know, we provided ourselves. We do a lot of work. We
do a lot of heavy civil work. We do a lot of commercial work. And
this is not a circumstance that we're comfortable being in either. Just,
you know -- and we don't like to be in part of the -- of the
inconvenience that Collier County could -- ultimately could be put in.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Feder, has the contractor
requested additional funding for these change orders?
MR. FEDER: In the past, yes, and we brought to you, of course,
two and a half million relative to the design change in the S wall and
the muck.
I will defer -- I'll differ a little bit from what you just heard, and
that is, is yes, there was some float days. There's an awful lot of work
that could have been done around these areas of problem that we
would have liked to have seen done.
Having said that, we're hopeful that we'll get the crews and we'll
start getting moving on this proj ect now.
Page 32
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think everybody was well
aware of the anticipated completion dates and the sequence of
completions. Unexpected occurrences exist in most major contracts
and change orders are paid for, and we are willing to pay for these
change orders.
What we expect from a contractor is the contractor will make a
good faith effort to try to adhere to the original schedule if they're paid
additional money to compensate for these change orders.
So -- the same thing applies in the building of a home. Just
because I have a change order in the building of a home does not
necessarily mean that I expect a delay in completion date for
certificate of occupancy for the home. It means you put more
resources on there and I pay you more money, and that's what we say
we've been doing.
And so I don't agree with your interpretation of this. I think
you've just decided to go to the site where you're going to get the
biggest bonus for completing it early.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're going to move to
Commissioner Halas now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make sure that -- I,
again, was out there to visit the site last week, and things have been
moving along a lot quicker.
I noticed that we have a lot more assets out there working --
personnel, I should say -- out there working on this.
My concern is that once this interchange opens, are you going to
make sure that all of those people that are presently assigned to the
interchange are going to be put on the overpass?
MR. MENIA: That is -- that is what is occurring presently. Yes,
that was my commitment to the board, and it's something we -- and I
have to go back to Mr. Coyle, because it is -- if the owner decides to
change the tile of the roof and it takes eight months to get there, to get
Page 33
January 9, 2007
to the level of having the roof ready to receive tile becomes -- and it
doesn't become a critical factor anymore as long as you're ready when
the tile gets there, if you can understand that. And that's what occurs
here. It's not like anybody decided to just wait.
We have to, by force -- we're not getting critical pipe on this job
here until approximately the 26th of February so -- or the 23rd. We're
still trying to better the date. But -- and that pipe was not pipe that we
wanted to put. That pipe was a change that has been ongoing for
several months, and at the last minute, we changed the pipe. Not we,
MCM. The designers decided to change the pipe.
So there's other factors that, had they not occurred, we would
have had to bring in more resources or dealt with our own issues in
order to make this happen. But I don't want to go back and forth on
how we pretty much, you know, run our business, I guess.
But, yes, the answer to your question, all the assets will be here.
We will meet the dates that we have set forth barring any muck --
additional muck considerations or additional -- any other
considerations that might come to be.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what's your best guess as the
vice-president of the corporation, when do you think that we'll start
moving traffic over that?
And then the last question is, when do you think this whole
project will be completed?
MR. MENIA: I think probably in March we'll be putting traffic
on the bridge, and probably by July, August, early August, we'll be
out of this project completely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 30 August?
MR. MENIA: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That was about my
assessment when I first went out there the first time. So hopefully that
-- with the additional personnel, maybe you can help be able to speed
this up so that we can get this completed even quicker. We'd really
Page 34
January 9, 2007
appreciate it.
MR. MENIA: We will do our best.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I've taken the
opportunity to drive this corridor several times, and people in doubt
would drive that, too, not to congest your construction area. But the
assets, the people working on the interchange is just phenomenal.
And if those assets are moved to the overpass, that's going to be very
impressive. I've never seen so many people on one job in all my life
here in Collier County.
So I think you're a person of integrity, and if you say you're
going to move those assets to the overpass, that will help us out
greatly. So thank you.
MR. MENIA: We are going to do that. That is our plan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, did you
have some closing comments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, just a couple more questions.
The muck seems to be a problem for all of us. How long have we
known about the muck problem?
MR. MENIA: Well, the muck problem has corne and gone three
times on this proj ect already, and we all know that there is one area
that, because of the logistics of the project and the maintenance of
traffic, the scheme of the maintenance of traffic that we simply can't
get to that work zone until we get to the final traffic switch.
What we find under there, Mr. Feder suggested a
triangular-shaped configuration of muck. I don't know. I wouldn't --
it may be a small problem, it may be a large problem, or may be not
even a problem. We really have to get there to see what we have. The
first time we encountered muck, we though it was going to be a week,
and it took us -- we were close to six weeks pulling out -- muck out of
the ground.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And once -- what is necessary to be
Page 35
January 9, 2007
done to begin to determine the extent of the muck problem?
MR. MENIA: He calls it ramp B. To me it's the traffic switch
that takes -- that allows us to get in to finish our last wall on the
project, which is the wall on the west -- yeah, the northwest wall on
the project. That will allow us -- that's where the muck is at, on that
wall or below that wall. You will notice if you drive by there, that that
wall is only partially built. It has to go another 2- or 300 feet further,
and those 2- or 300 feet extends into the existing roadway. So we will
have to move the traffic off that roadway, and then we can get into
that area and start our excavations and see what we have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And when do we think we're going
to get to that point?
MR. MENIA: I would -- we are -- we're targeting the end of the
month to be able to do the switch. I wrote in a letter that it was either
the end of the month or the first week of February.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions from the
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. We do
appreciate your report.
MR. MENIA: Thank you very much, and good day.
Item #5C
PRESENTATION BY APAC ON STATUS OF 6-LANING OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD FROM COLLIER BOULEVARD TO 43RD
STREET - 6-LANING OF IMMOKALEE ROAD FROM COLLIER
BOULEVARD TO 43RD STREET - EARLIEST ESTIMATED
DATE OF COMPLETION IS DECEMBER 2007
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next
Page 36
January 9, 2007
presentation, which is 5C. It's a presentation by AP AC on the status
of the six-laning of Immokalee Road from Collier Boulevard to 43rd
Street.
MR. PENNING: I'm Andrew Penning, operations manager for
AP AC, and I have printed up a couple -- some schedules. I printed
one -- each one of you all one so you can follow if you want to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. If you would, please, sir, if
there's a map available that you're passing out that you're going to be
referring to, you might post it on the board behind you.
And Mr. Mudd, if you'd be so -- Mr. Mudd, if you'd be so kind as
to put this document we just received on the visualizer for our viewing
audience.
MR. MUDD: When I get it, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What am I going to do with that?
MR. PENNING: You can look at it later if you want to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's going to be a long meeting.
MR. PENNING: Okay. As you all currently know, the original
contract was bid in 2003. It was bid as a 1,490-day contract, which
the original completion date was October 14, 2007.
The six-lane change --change order added 180 days. We've got
six days for hurricanes, and the last change order has added 25, which
gives us a revised completion date of May 12th. The original budget
was 28,986,526. The current one is 35,041,648.
The project right now, without the last 25-day change order, is
currently 70 percent on the -- on the money and 72 percent on the
time. The -- that's with the December estimate.
The -- if you -- this is summarized into phases, the schedule.
You might want to look later on. But the north end -- we're trying to
get the north end completed by March 19th. The majority of our work
is already completed. Kent is currently waiting on materials to
complete the signals. As soon as they come in, they will start working
on all the signals from Wilson north, and we're anticipating trying to --
Page 37
January 9, 2007
that completion, March 19th.
MR. MUDD: Sir, if you'd just explain -- you just said the north
end, so you're talking about --
MR. PENNING: Right, from Wilson north to 34th (sic) Street.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MR. PENNING: Or 43rd, yeah, to 43rd, okay.
The -- all the underground -- people ride by and they see
underground crews, but they don't see the top -- the roadway going.
All the underground is done. It's completed now from 951 up to Twin
Eagles.
We will -- we will be designating additional crews in the next
couple of weeks. And the scheduled completion date for that roadway
is March 5th of this year, then we will be switching traffic from 951
all the way -- it's already up to Twin Eagles, but we'll be switching all
the traffic to the right roadway from Twin Eagles back to 951, then
we'll start on the left side.
That side should go a lot faster because all you -- 90 percent of
your utilities were all on the east side of the road. The only thing we
have on the right side of the road is a force main and a 36-inch water
line, which is all the way to Twin Eagles. They just have to carry it
on.
Let's see. The total-- the completion of the left roadway, once
we do that, schedule-wise, is, we're shooting -- we're trying to hit the
October -- going to meet the end of November, the November 30th
date. And at that time, when we switch traffic back to the left side,
then all -- we'll put all the friction force on the entire job at one time.
We're -- right now we're currently anticipating completion of
everything the end of February. The actual contract, as I said before,
goes to May 12th.
Now, that said, if you'll notice at the bottom, there's also -- with
this current schedule, there's 53 days of float. We're going to -- we're
attempting -- we're going to try to finish this year, but that is also
Page 38
January 9, 2007
contingent on the availability of fill.
When this job was bid, there was -- I'm sure you to all know,
there was numeral fill sources. They have dried up. And as long as
our current fill source holds out, we will match this schedule. Just like
you all to know, the availability of fill has really had an effect on all
sub -- all contractors in the county. And even at completion of this,
because of the availability of fill and having to go locate it, we're
looking at a $600,000 loss just on our part, but that's part of the
business.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir, could you be a little more clear
in regards to what your boundaries of responsibility are? And that
would be from 43rd Street, how far back, to 951?
MR. PENNING: To Wil-- no. To 951, all the way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that's your responsibility under
this particular contract; is that correct?
MR. PENNING: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you said that you had what,
1,400 days on this total contract?
MR. PENNING: Originally we had -- the jobs was bid at 1,490.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And your best --
MR. PENNING: Total to date with the change order is 1,701.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Seventeen oh one. What's your
best guess that we're going to get this thing accomplished from 951 to
43rd? What is your completion date; what's your thoughts?
MR. PENNING: Well, the -- we're shooting for the end of
February next year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: February of2008?
MR. PENNING: Well, we're going to -- we're doing our best to
complete it this year. We're going to allocate some additional sources.
But like I said, because all the underground is done now, now we can
actually go to work on the roadway.
Page 39
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're basically -- are you saying
to me then, and to the audience, that your best guess for the
completion date could be as early as December 2007?
MR. PENNING: Could very well be.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Again, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator, for the record.
Just very quickly to make sure that everybody understands
clearly, the original days, the 1,400 plus days, gone to 17-, also the
cost, 28- to roughly 35-, needs to be understood in the sense that that
original bid was on the four-lane, then we went to six-lane. So the
added days are predominantly going from four to six, and the added
dollars predominantly going four to six.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for the clarification.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. And one of the things that we
have directed staff to do -- and I understand it's in the works right
now, being done, is signs to be posted at all the construction sites
where the roads are being built, to let people know, let the motoring
public know that the -- how much the roads cost and when they're
projected to be completed. And the reason being for it is, there's a lot
of misconception out there that some of these roads are months, if not
a year, behind schedule. They're not. I agree with the public, they
should have been built 20 years ago; however, we're dealing with the
situation at hand.
When these signs go up, it may make it a little clearer. It's also
going to have all the commissioners' names on it so you'll know who
to blame on it. Plus, also too --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thanks a lot.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- it's going to have the contractor's
name, and you might want to stop and talk to him about it.
Thank you very much for your time, sir.
Page 40
January 9, 2007
MR. PENNING: You're very welcome.
Item #6A
PETITION TO DISCUSS A NEW ORDINANCE REGARDING
OFFENDER RESIDENCY BOUNDARIES - MOTION TO HAVE
LEGAL DEPARTMENT REVIEW AND BRING BACK
RECOMMENDATIONS AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM AT A
FUTURE MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the public petition
part of our agenda. The first public petition is 6A. It's a public
petition request by Lori Young to discuss a new ordinance regarding
offender residency boundaries.
Ms. Young, if you'd come to the podium, please.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I may, while Ms. Young's
coming up to the podium. This is a wonderful thing, public petition.
This gives the public the ability to come directly to their
commissioners with whatever situations they would like to bring to
them. The only requirements is you have to be able to file two weeks
in advance to be able to come before the commission.
The petitioner has 10 minutes to state their case. The
commissioners mayor may not ask questions of the petitioner or staff,
however, there is no provisions at this point in time for the public to
be able to speak on the public petitions that come before us.
If there's interest on the part of the commission, this could be
moved forward to a regular agenda item for a future meeting.
Thank you very much, Mrs. Young. Please proceed.
MS. YOUNG: Yes, sir. I'd like to waive a couple minutes of my
time for two other board members, if I may, at the end. I'm not going
to use all 10.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The intent of this is to have--
Page 41
January 9, 2007
MS. YOUNG: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- one presentation by one person.
And that only compounds it to have numerous people up there. Just
give the commission --
MS. YOUNG: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- guidance, and we'll take it from
there.
MS. YOUNG: Good morning, Commissioners, Commissioner
Coletta, Coyle, Fiala, Henning, Halas; Mr. Mudd, Mr. Ochs, staff, and
those in attendance.
My name is Lori Young. I'm a Naples native, retired navy chief,
and I'm president of the neighborhood homeowner association in
Poinciana Village.
I'm here to present the petition to you today. Thank you for
giving me the opportunity to petition the commission for a new Collier
County sexual offender residency ordinance.
I was asked by my association residents to research the
possibility of prohibiting sexual offenders from living in our
neighborhood altogether.
Upon investigation and simple Google searches, I noted several
cities in Florida that enacted to have ordinances increasing the current
1,000-foot buffer around schools, parks and day cares to 2,500 feet.
Those ordinances restrict sexual offenders and predators from
residing 2,500 feet from a school, park or day care, and in some cases
they've included churches.
It is about a little less than half a mile. Such a 2,500- foot buffer
would cover our entire Poinciana Village, as we have a community
park right in the middle of our community.
Further research has indicated that sexual offenses on children
usually occur within a half mile from the child's home. Coral Rose is
a perfect example of that.
Miami -Dade County, the City of Cape Coral, the City of Tampa,
Page 42
January 9, 2007
Jacksonville, and the home of the national champion Gators have
enacted tough residency requirements. So it is our belief that the
commission should consider enacting a tough ordinance sending the
message that we care about our children and do not accept sexual
deviants living near or associating with our innocent children.
Together we can send a message that we say it and we did it.
And in closing, things from my residents that I've -- that really
impacted me to come up and speak strongly is the fact that even in the
prison system, the sexual offenders are the most hated individuals.
Why should we have to accept having them live near us?
And that's -- I just would like you to please consider it. I know
there are some that are under the belief that it sends people
underground, but I don't think the other cities in Florida have not done
their research and, you know, they've done the right thing for their
citizens, and that's all I'm asking, that you consider it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, Ms. Young has
done a lot of work in providing us a draft ordinance which achieves
the goals that she has outlined here today, and I wonder if the fellow
commissioners would be amenable to having that ordinance reviewed
by our legal staff and coordinated with the sheriffs department and
then bring that back to us for a -- for a public hearing in the future, in
the near future hopefully. So that would be my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, before
we go to question -- count on the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some concerns, I believe
that Senator Saunders is moving forward in regards to a bill in the
senate addressing this particular issue. And I, myself, would like to
see what the state is going to do on behalf of this.
I have some concerns about, if a sexual predator and someone
that had a sexual offense is going to be in the same category. As you
Page 43
January 9, 2007
know, there's times in a person's life when they're young where they
may date a girl that is younger than they are by a couple of years, and
if there is some, how do I say it, hanky-panky that goes on, that person
can be charged with a sexual offense. So I hate to see that person --
and it may be the only time he's ever involved, and it's because of
dating a person, whether it's a male or female, that they have a --
cohabitate, let's say, that he's charged with a sexual offense or she is
charged with a sexual offense, and how does that weigh in?
So that's my concerns. And I think that myself, I'd like to see the
state address this issue, and I think that's in the upcoming legislation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Perhaps Commissioner Coyle may
want to include something in his motion, the fact that we get a report
back about where the state is on this at that time, and that might be
able to address your concerns.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you see, I don't have nearly
as much confidence that the state will move as quickly as we will
move, and I would hate to see an unfortunate incident occur because
we delayed action here in Collier County.
We know that these things can be debated for years in the state
legislature. No matter what the good intentions are of the people who
sponsor them, it doesn't guarantee that it's going to get implemented
anytime soon. It's a simple matter for us to make our decision. And
then if the state takes action, fine, then our ordinance is subordinate to
the state law.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then if I may -- I don't mean to
interrupt you, but I was addressing Commissioner Halas' concern.
There's nothing to prevent Commissioner Halas at the time that this
came before the commission --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: To discuss that, that's right, that's
right. The time for discussion is at the time when we get the report
back concerning the recommended ordinance, because there are
definitions of sexual predators here that I think will address
Page 44
January 9, 2007
Commissioner Halas' concern.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We don't need to go into that today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that's right. We can address
that. It's a valid concern and we can address it at the time when we
bring it back for debate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. The reason I seconded it is, I
totally agree that I think we should be acting upon something right
now. By the time we wait for it to get through the legislature and then
become law, it's going to be a long time.
And I know in our neighborhood we have an individual who
works for the court systems, and she believes that sexual predators
should -- because they -- when they get out of jail, they have no place
to go at that time, so she rents her rooms out, and it's right at the bus
stop area, and we're having a tremendous problem with that. And
we've had the neighborhood rise and try and fight that -- but anyway,
but that's a constant happening as well.
And so I just feel that if we have something that would protect
our children just a little bit more, and quickly, that it's important to do
that. So I agree, we should bring it back, and I won't say any more on
that now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if we -- I think we've got enough
agreement. Go ahead, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I guess I want -- this
question is directed to Commissioner Fiala. Has there been incidences
since this person has been released from j ail or --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If that's the case, then why--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, they did. They picked him up.
They picked him up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then he should be locked up again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, he was. And he's back out
Page 45
January 9, 2007
again. But he was, he was picked up, he was put back in jail, he got
out again. And that isn't the point, the point is -- the point is, we
should be enacting it now while we wait for the state to put their thing
into --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're not going to decide this
judgment --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we're not judge and jury by
anybody, right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- this agenda item at this time.
But we have a motion on the floor. If there's any new discussion
on this, I'll listen to it. If not, I'm calling the motion.
All those in favor of bringing this back for a future agenda,
please indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it unanimously. Thank
you very much.
MS. YOUNG: Thank you very much.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I want to make sure that, from the
outset, that we're clear on our direction, and that is, I believe the staff
has directed, county attorney staff particularly, to, of course, review
the information provided, to come back with a report --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Talk right into the mike, Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me -- to come back with a report to the
board. We can either report at a board meeting or provide you a
Page 46
January 9, 2007
memo report prior to setting an agenda item. But at this point in time
we are not going to advertise an ordinance but merely report back to
you as to, one, the kind of --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have to ask the motion maker to
clarify his motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It would be my expectation that what the county attorney would
do is to review the submitted -- the recommended ordinance and
advise us of any problems with it --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and -- but we schedule a public
hearing for consideration of this ordinance, and at that point in time,
we would take into consideration public comments as well as the
county attorney's concerns about the ordinance itself and make
necessary revisions to it if -- at that point in time and make a final
decision on the ordinance at that time. That way we get it all done in
one meeting rather than scheduling multiple meetings for it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you.
Commissioner Fiala, is that what you agree with?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I believe what I heard is
work with the sheriffs department--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- as far as enforcement. We
would like to know how it's going to affect that part of government.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. WEIGEL: Very good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we'll sort that out during the
public hearing. We'll probably have the sheriffs people here, too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You have enough guidance now, Mr.
Weigel?
Page 47
January 9, 2007
MR. WEIGEL: I do. And we'll make sure that our submittal is
broad enough to handle any nuances that the board may wish to
consider beyond what's been provided by Ms. Long (sic). And as Mr.
Henning indicated, we'll be looking and reporting to you in regard to
the enforcement aspects as well, so I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we're coming up on
10:30. Rather than go to the next petition and -- at this point we're
going to take a break so the court reporter can also have a break. Ten
minutes, then we'll be back.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats, ladies and
gentlemen.
We have three commissioners here, so we can proceed. Mr.
Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Sir, you -- you have a hot mike, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Mudd?
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION TO DISCUSS FIGHTING AGAINST
INSURANCE RATES - STAFF DIRECTED TO RETURN WITH A
CONTRACT AND BRING BACK TO A FUTURE BCC MEETING
- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next public
petition, and this is the public petition request by Bobbie Dusek to
discuss the fighting against insurance rates. Ms. Dusek? And I hope I
pronounced it right.
MS. DUSEK: Yes, you did.
Good morning -- it's still morning -- Commissioners, Mr. Weigel,
Mr. Mudd, staff, and audience. I'm Bobbie Dusek, president of FAIR.
So October 5, 2006, 14 people got together due to the
Page 48
January 9, 2007
catastrophic insurance rates that took place last year, and they decided
that they wanted to do something about it. So they organized a group
called FAIR which means, fighting against insurance rates.
Today our membership is at 700, and this box is part of our
membership form. The membership has three members on each page.
We expect by the end of this week that we'll probably have 1,000
members because we get new members every single day.
We have a mission, and our mission is to reduce insurance rates
in Collier County and ensure that we have insurance reform. I -- we
have meetings once a month, and at our meetings we bring in different
speakers from different businesses to tell us how insurance has
affected their live.
I also want you to know that FAIR did not organize just for this
year. We intend to be a watchdog group forever because we never
want to see what happened last year to happen again.
Now, we know that there is going to be a special session a week
from today in Tallahassee where all of the legislators will get together
and they will discuss for four days the insurance crisis. I intend to
attend part of that session. I want to make sure that they're all
speaking positively about it.
We, as a group, have spoken to Representative Garrett Richter,
we have spoken to Representative Mike Davis, we have spoken to
Representative David Rivera, and we have spoken to Senator Burt
Saunders. It has always been positive when we've met with them.
We know that the legislators -- I have my show and tell -- are
going to be discussing everything that you see in this. And it's both
sides of the paper. So they have a big agenda ahead of them.
We know that Governor Bush designated a reform coalition
group who came up with a 204-page document which the legislators
will also be discussing. We also know that Governor Crist is
adamantly in favor of getting the rates reduced.
We also are aware that legislators will make laws and they will
Page 49
January 9, 2007
repeal laws. We don't expect that this coming Tuesday that, perhaps,
some definite decisions will be made, and that's why we want to stay
on top of it completely.
Why I am here today is the bear -- FAIR has a budget, and our
budget is $250,000. That budget is from the latter part of 2006 into
2007 . FAIR, through their fundraising efforts, will try to raise
$100,000.
I want you also to know that we have a wonderful superior group
of volunteers. They are doing research for us, they are doing
fundraising for us, they are doing outreach, because we want to reach
everybody in Collier County . We know that both individuals and
businesses have been affected.
Weare working toward getting Immokalee and Everglades City
involved. Marco Island is already onboard. They have a faction
started there which is part of FAIR, and I have been called by several
people in Lee County who want to be a part of FAIR for Collier, but I
said, you're not in Collier County, so they want to take the lead in Lee
County, and they are now organizing FAIR for Lee.
In this budget we are going to ask the county commissioners to
help us fund an actuary and an insurance attorney. And we have
decided -- we didn't decide. We have done some research and we
found out that that would be about $150,000. The actuary will gather
relevant information, review insurance company ratings with
particular attention to Collier County, prepare a rate reduction for
Collier County homeowners and commercial insurance, evaluate
regulatory and legislative issues and proposals, provide assistance in
presenting information to the OIR, the Florida legislature, and any
other government entities.
The insurance attorney will take us through the legal process.
The actuary that we would like to hire is one that was successful in
both Monroe County and Pasco County. Last month I sent you a copy
of the actuary report that was done in Monroe County. I also sent you
Page 50
January 9, 2007
a preliminary proposal that this actuary proposes for Collier County.
We need to have a professional research person who will do the
research and substantiate the rates, the claims, the payout histories in
the last few years for Collier County. It will give all of us a baseline
in which to work and focus our efforts for property insurance rate
reductions.
We don't want to just see reform. We want these rates rolled
back. The actuary work -- the work person will work with our county
counsel, as well as risk management. I might also add that when I
spoke to Jeff Walker, this was the same actuary that he also
recommended.
We ask, again, that you stand behind us. Commissioner Coyle,
Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Fiala,
Commissioner Henning, will you stand behind us and the people of
Collier County and do the funding for the actuary? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I don't know how my light
got turned on. I think it was from the last time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I turned it on for you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, did you?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I figured you were ready to say
something.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In that case I'll take advantage of
the opportunity.
Bobbie, I think what you're doing is absolutely wonderful, and
please give me one of your membership forms. I'd like to become a
member. And I will personally contribute money to this process,
whether the commission does or not.
What the actuary did in Pasco, as I understand it, was it took a
look at Citizens' Insurance rates.
MS. DUSEK: Yes.
Page 51
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now Citizens Insurance doesn't
really cover all the property in Collier County. In fact, it only covers a
small portion of the property in Collier County.
The rates that people experience who are insured by other
carriers other than Citizens Insurance have gone up astronomically
too, as have their deductibles. Is it your intent to take a look at all
insurance rates in Collier County or concentrate only on Citizens?
MS. DUSEK: No. You are correct, in both Monroe and Pasco, it
was Citizens. I will tell you that every day there are more and more
people in Collier County going into Citizens, not by choice. But the
actuary would also do the major insurance companies as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's critical because the
concept that the legislature seems to be focusing on, which is
hardening properties and renovating them to code, is, in my opinion, a
very shortsighted and unproductive process. We have to have
fundamental changes in the way insurance rates are determined and
the way the policies and deductibles are administered throughout the
State of Florida, but I'll restrict my comments to Collier.
And I would hope that we would be able to begin to focus on
those fundamental changes rather than just dealing with the way
somebody calculated a rate last year, because the very major increases
in deductibles are, in fact, rate increases, and I don't think anybody has
been talking about those.
I know that my deductible increased 10 times. It's 10 times higher
now than it was in the year 2000. I know that my rates are at least
three times as high as they were in 2000. And finally I know that my
hurricane coverage costs represent 90 percent of my entire insurance
bill.
MS. DUSEK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if we can do something with the
hurricane portions of the bills, then we get a major, major reduction in
rates. And I'm talking about 50 percent or 75 percent reductions, and
Page 52
January 9, 2007
there's ways to do that without increasing the risks of the insurance
companIes.
So I would be happy to do whatever I can to help you get that
done. Getting money from the government to fund that might be
problematic, but I'll leave that up to --
MS. DUSEK: I might just make a remark. To your mitigation,
hardening of the property, that is going to be a very small portion. I've
read through the coalition report. I've just begun to read through what
the legislators are going to be reviewing, and mitigation is going to be
a small part.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good.
MS. DUSEK: I will also tell you that in speaking to a risk
manager just yesterday who handles a lot of properties the insurance
companies are now demanding that they do mitigation before they
write policies, so -- how you get your credits. So I think that's just
going to be a small portion.
Yes, you should mitigate your property, harden it, so that you
could get coverage. And the high deductibles is also an issue. It's a
very complex situation.
And we, as volunteers, we do have one committee member who
just joined us who is going to actually configure a hurricane model.
He has an extensive background in this kind of research and is in the
process of doing that for our committee.
But we can only go so far and the credibility of a volunteer
organization can only go so far to help the people in Collier County,
and that's why an actuary is just so very important. I can't emphasize
how important it will be.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I want the commission to
concentrate on why we're here. We're here not to get too deep detail
about insurance. As we all know, there's a serious problem, and I
think we're also agreeing that we do support FAIR. I heard that before
the last time they came before us.
Page 53
January 9, 2007
And by the way, I would like a membership, and 10 percent of
what Coyle's going to donate, count it towards me, because I'm the
one that set him up.
But a couple things. Grass-roots movements. Every one of these
commissioners are totally familiar with grass-roots movements.
We've been involved in them years before we became commissioners,
and that eventually led up to where we are today, so we're very
supportive of it.
Now, the thing is, is how the Collier County government comes
into playas far as helping out with the funding of it. I think that if we
earmark money directly for your organization, we may find that
there's other people out there that will say, well, why do we have to
give if the county government's going to reach the cost? And I know
you're doing some tremendous efforts out there to get donations.
But if this commission's interested in bringing it back, I'd like to
take a look at the idea that we recognize the efforts that are taking
place there to do some sort of match fund, like for every two dollars
you raise, we raise -- we put in one or something so that we have that
public involvement, because that's so important. This cannot become
a Collier County Commission effort. It's got to be a grass-roots effort
from the outside, and we can participate individually and we can help
you out a little bit with funding, but we want to make sure that the
public understands at all times, this is their effort to make it work.
MS. DUSEK: Let me address that also. The contract with the
actuary would be with the county. It would not be with FAIR. FAIR
is your backup. But the contract with the actuary and the insurance
attorney -- and I will tell you in both Monroe County and Pasco
County, the county commissioners, the City Council of Key West,
they all went together and hired the actuary and the insurance
attorney. So they were the ones. They were doing it for the citizens.
I mean, if you -- if you would say that it's because of FAIR that
you're doing it, it really isn't. It's -- you're doing it for the citizens.
Page 54
January 9, 2007
You represent everybody. And FAIR is just kind of nudging people to
do things. And we're going to do our best to do reserve as well. But
we need a professional person to help us get in and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's see if we can get direction
from the commission to where we can go with this.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I, just as of this morning,
was brought to my attention that one of the things the legislators in the
special session is going to consider is for Citizens Insurance to set the
stage for other insurance companies in the State of Florida.
I don't know what the outcome is going to be in this special
session, but if there's a way to serve the citizens of Collier County by
reducing their insurance costs by a substantial amount, we ought to
take the action and step up and do that.
So I'm going to make a motion that we direct staff, after the
special session, come back with recommendations to hire an actuary
and an attorney specialized in insurance to reduce the rates to the
citizens and businesses in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
I'm going to ask the commissioners to direct their comments to
the motion at this time, if they would, please.
Let's see. Commissioner Henning, you just went. Commissioner
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think I'm next.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're next?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I have some concerns in the
arena of just approaching Citizens Insurance only. A lot of these
companies that are Fortune 500 companies don't want to -- don't want
Page 55
January 9, 2007
to cover windstorm or homeowner insurance but yet they're here and
they want to cover boats, they want to cover cars, they want to cover
everything else except other items.
And these people have been extracting money out of the citizens
of all the State of Florida, and now they're in the process of saying,
well, we're not going to cover you anymore, so now you have to go
into the Citizens type of insurance, and I've got some real problems
with that.
I feel that this is a state problem, and I believe -- I hope that our
elected officials in Tallahassee will make sure that they direct their
efforts in regards to addressing all insurance and not just what -- the
state form of insurances of the Citizens type.
MS. DUSEK: They are --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's see. Commissioner Henning's
motion was to wait until after the special session --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- so that we would be able to address
some of that. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just wanted to ask a
question about that. Would there be anything wrong with us getting
the actuary now to begin compiling data? Because we'll need data no
matter what the special session determines, I think.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're going to have to --
somebody's going to have to pay him.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand. I understand
that. And I'll tell you, I've been trying to collect information on this
now for about the last two or three weeks. I can tell you it is very
difficult to get the kinds of information we need to make these
decisions.
So all I would suggest to you is we need information. Would you
be supportive of modifying your motion to just have us go ahead and
try to find someone who can get the necessary information for us, and
Page 56
January 9, 2007
then we can refine the information we need after the session? That
way we won't lose so much time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm all in favor -- and I'll
make it part of my motion -- to direct staff to have a -- an item on the
agenda after the special session to hire an actuary and an attorney in
litigation of insurance. That's -- that would be their specialty. So
we're ready to go once we understand what the state legislators send to
the governor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm just concerned about the time
delay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, if we wait until it goes to
the governor, our actuary will not have enough time to gather the
information to then advise us as to what we should do, and it would be
better, I think, if we got the actuary working early rather than later,
because the information's going to be useful no matter what happens
in the legislative session.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we don't know what the
legislators are going to enact. That's my concern.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I think that this process --
special session is supposed to take place in just a matter of days.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sixteenth.
MS. DUSEK: Sixteen, next week. A week from today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're going to know
something very shortly what they're going to do. Our next agenda item
-- or our next agenda day is, what, the 20 --
MR. MUDD: Third.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- 23rd, so it might happen then
or it might happen the week after.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. DUSEK: May I make a couple more comments? Am I
Page 57
January 9, 2007
allowed to or --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, be brief.
MS. DUSEK: Okay, all right. I just wanted you all to know that
there are other groups forming throughout the state, and one of the
groups is taking a different type of action, and that is to just get in
bus loads and go up to Tallahassee, get on the steps and just scream
and yell.
I want you to know that FAIR is not organizing that way. We
want to be educated. We want to do it correctly. We want to make
change. And as Commissioner Coyle said, no matter when you get
this information, it will be useful to you. It's information that we
should have had years ago.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that--
MS. DUSEK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- I'm going to call for the motion that
was made by Commissioner Henning and seconded by Commissioner
Fiala.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it. Bobbie, before you
go --
MS. DUSEK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- would you, over the air, give your
contact information for anyone that wants to get in touch with you to
join FAIR?
MS. DUSEK: Yes. We have a blog site. It is
Page 58
January 9, 2007
fairforcollier.wordpress.com, or you may call me at 659-6132.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Bobbie.
MS. DUSEK: Thank you all very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, you had a comment?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, just another question for clarification. The
board's motion relating to the timing of corning back before the board
and! or any fiscal aspect at this point in time regarding hiring an
actuary, could you help me with that a bit?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That will be after the special
seSSIon.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We want it on our agenda after
the special session -- I mean, I'm not talking about months. I'm talking
right after their action --
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- bring back with -- you know,
a contract with hiring an actuary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: First meeting in February maybe.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that would be very much
appropriate. No later than the first meeting in February.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, then again, from my understanding
in working with staff and purchasing, for instance, under their policy,
if we are to bring back a contract, we could work through the policy.
And, again, we don't -- we don't at this point have enunciated by the
board a fiscal parameter for the contract. So we may not have all the
flesh on the bone of the contract that we bring back, but we could have
selection and go forward at that point, or you may have an amount not
to exceed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I don't want that right now.
MR. WEIGEL: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We can make that decision later
on.
Page 59
January 9, 2007
MR. WEIGEL: And will you also be looking for the hiring of an
attorney specialized in this area as well, insurance?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That would come after
all the information is gathered.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, very good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you have enough direction now?
MR. WEIGEL: I think we do, and I appreciate that very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I also want you, while I'm -- and
I'm not picking on you, but to add some issues.
You have an actuary and you've had an attorney that have
worked for two counties already that have been successful in reducing
their rates. As part of direction to staff, we might come back to you
and recommend that we use those same actuary and attorney that were
successful already because they have -- they have experience with the
process. So we might be asking to waive the Collier County
purchasing policy in order to single source those particular folks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the previous action
that we've done as far as procurement of purchasing goods and
expertise, you have that ability --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- don't you?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I just want to make sure I put it to you,
because if you say, okay, we come back in January to go out with a
contract for an actuary, if we're going out to bid it, it takes 30, 45 days
to bid. And I don't believe that's where you want to go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. MUDD: I think you want to be ready to go the first meeting
in February; latest, last meeting in February, so that you have an
actuary on payroll.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'll just mention that I was note
Page 60
January 9, 2007
contemplating a bidding scenario whatsoever. We may go -- could
have gone with quotes, and certainly we can look at the people that
have been utilized before and determine their ability and make a
recommendation to the board on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's a wonderful start.
Mr. Mudd, before you begin, today we will be breaking for lunch
from 12 to one. Myself, I bring my own lunch, I don't care what time
I go. But I know a lot of members of the commission and staff do
have lunch plans at 12 o'clock. So just be forewarned that at 12 we'll
break until one o'clock.
Item #10B
STATUS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA EXPRESSWAY
AUTHORITY'S ACTIVITIES ON THE TOLL FEASIBILITY
STUDIES FOR 1-75 AND OPTIONS DISCUSSED WITH THE
BOARD - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have a time certain item at 11
today, and it is 11 :02 right now. And this is lOB, to provide on the
status of the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority activities and
the ongoing Toll Feasibility Studies for 1-75 and to discuss future
options with the board.
I believe Mr. Norman Feder, and I believe Mr. Don Scott, in this
particular case, your director for planning for transportation, will
introduce.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. Yes, I'd like
to introduce Adrien Share (phonetic) who is our -- with Wilbur Smith,
who is the consultant, and also Bill Barton, who is the chairman of the
Expressway Authority, who will make the presentation.
MR. BARTON: As soon as I get a tutorial on your equipment.
Page 61
January 9, 2007
MR. SCOTT: There you go.
MR. BARTON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Bill Barton. I'm here today in my capacity as chairman of
the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority.
First, let me express our appreciation for you giving us a time
concern in your busy agenda today, and we recognize how crowded
your agenda is, and we will do everything in our power to make our
presentation concise and informative.
The issues have been evolving rapidly in this process of how we
go about expanding and improving 1-75 at time frames earlier than
have been contemplated to date. In fact, some of the issues we'll
discuss with you today have evolved and -- important issues -- have
evolved within the last 10 to 15 days.
We just only discussed one of the major components of that with
FDOT on Thursday and Friday of last week. So you can see how fast
and rapidly things are going.
Before I go any further, I'd also like to make you aware that also
with us today is Bruce Anderson, who is also a member of the
Expressway Authority Board, and of course, your own Commissioner
Coletta is also a member.
Don Scott of your staff, and Mr. Weigel's office have given us
really, really good support, and I want to express our appreciation for
you loaning those efforts to us.
Additional resources. I'm going to go through these quickly.
You can read some of the things I skip over. Additional resources, we
have surrounded ourselves with truly talented people. Almost all of
them you know. And, in fact, we have piggybacked on some of
Collier County's contracts in some of these instances to speed up the
selection of consultants and to take advantage of the lower fees that
the county is able to get through its bargaining power.
We would also like to point out that we see the public outreach of
this effort as we go forward to be extremely important, and it's our
Page 62
January 9, 2007
intent to review the short-listed and recommended public relations
consultant at our January 18th board meeting, and hopefully that firm
will be onboard shortly thereafter.
Weare also well along the way in looking for an executive
director. We have advertised for resumes. We have received those.
They are in the process of being interviewed and short-listed as we
speak.
What I have before you now is the cross-section of the 1-75
improvements that are proposed by FDOT in their design build
finance project. As we are all aware, that project is moving forward.
FDOT is due to receive bids on that project the 23rd of February, and
from our point of view, it is still in place to move forward.
What I'm going to share with you now is what we're dealing with
and why it is so important that we as Southwest Florida find some
means of improving this highway more rapidly than one might expect
without some form of tolling.
If you look at the graph in front of you, you will see that these
are proj ections of levels of service in the year 2015 . You will see
levels of service in red are either F or E, both of which are considered
failing. Ifwe leave the four-lane in place, then obviously all segments
of that highway will be failing in 2015. And as we are all aware,
virtually all of them are failing today.
If we go with some form of six -lane configuration, that is adding
five and six, which FDOT is currently proposing, we find that also in
2015 nearly all of the segments will be failing.
And I want the commissioners to be aware that these levels of
service take into account all existing and proposed north/south
corridors. So all of the ones that are being built today and are on the
books to be built, they're factored into this, and these are the results
after the -- assuming that all of those corridors are in place.
To date, the conventional wisdom of, okay, how do we move this
along faster, was to think in terms of delaying or doing away with the
Page 63
January 9, 2007
addition of lane five and six and moving toward a, what we refer to as
a four-by-four, which is four general purpose lanes and four tolled
lanes.
If that were done, then we would find that in 2015 still three of
those segments of that highway would be at level of service failing.
So although it certainly would be a better solution than the six
lanes, it also carries with it some significant problems.
Ifwe went to the four-by-four section, the first problem it
presents is a significant delay in improvements. It would be a delay of
at least 18 months, probably closer to 24. So instead of having a
finished improved highway in late 2010, we wouldn't be able to expect
that probably until 2012.
Add to that, that changing that course of action would also
require a change in the federal enabling legislation on the earmark of
$81 million.
As we all know, anytime you begin to change legislative
language, you run great risk that it's not going to work. So to go from
the plan of adding five and six to a four-by-four would, indeed, put
that $81 million at risk, which we believe is an inappropriate thing to
do.
Next we currently have in that highway a 44- foot strip down the
middle which is designated and reserved as a multi-modal corridor.
The most cost effective means of building the four-by-four would be
to put the two new lanes on the inside of the existing lanes. If that is
done, that 44 foot virtually goes away in nearly two-thirds the length
of that 35-mile stretch.
That corridor may not seem important to us today, but at some
point in the future, we've got to find ways of moving Southwest
Floridians other than automobiles on pavement. And to -- and the
need to try to preserve that, in my mind, is critical when we get into
the decade of2030. If it goes away, then we've got to worry about,
how do you place it, and with the cost of right-of-way accelerating as
Page 64
January 9, 2007
it has been, that's going to be a chore. So that is also a negative from
our point of view.
And finally, in an I8-month to 24-month delay and the pressures
and the demands that are constantly put on FDOT, we have great
concern that a significant amount of the money that FDOT currently
has earmarked for this project would begin to erode and evaporate.
We see that as a serious negative.
So the change to the four-by-four is something that we are in
much less favor of now than we might have been several months ago.
What I'm looking at here is what we've just described as the
four-by-four, which I've outlined the -- what we view as the negatives
to that approach.
The -- next let us look at -- and I'm building here. This is the
FDOT proj ect. But what if, what if, we made a decision to place a toll
on those lanes five and six immediately as they were opened? This
would allow FDOT to move forward with their six-lane project, would
not -- we don't believe there would be any jeopardy to the earmark,
but we'd have to study that some more. It would keep in place all of
the FDOT funds that are currently earmarked for this proj ect. There
would be no delay, and it would begin revenues earlier in the project
which obviously then would allow us to move future improvements
forward in time, because as these revenues generate, they can be used
for the future improvements.
What we -- and I'm going to go back just a moment. Look at this
chart again and see what happens in 2015 with eight lanes, but look at
what happens in 2015 with 10 lanes, which is what this highway is
ultimately designed to utilize.
It then provides us with the level of service that our working men
and women and our business and our traveling public really need on
that 35-mile stretch of highway.
So what we are contemplating now is a two-step process. The
first of those would be to toll lane five and six, and I would emphasize
Page 65
January 9, 2007
that there would be no tollbooths. All of this would be electronic. And
I would also emphasize that this would not be a first. There are
already in the -- or in the United States, one in Minnesota, one in
Colorado, highways that are doing precisely what we're suggesting
there, and that is contiguous lanes, two general purpose, one toll.
And our next step, which we believe could be accomplished by,
as early as an opening in 2014, maybe 2015, is to build those last two
lanes. We would then have a 10-lane section.
And keep in mind, one of the beauties of this is it allows us to
phase this. So if you go back to the level of service chart that I
showed you, and it showed that we have segments that are much more
heavily traveled than others. So the Expressway Authority could look
at those, see which are financially feasible, and continue to improve
that highway as the demand required.
In the end product, what we would have is a total of six lanes
tolled and four lanes general purpose. So throughout the entire
process, we would have four lanes of general purpose roadway
consistently. In every instance, the traveling public would have the
ability to choose. Do I wish to use the expressway and pay a toll, or
do I prefer to use the general purpose lanes?
So we see this buildout as serving many purposes. It gets us
what we need when we need it. It allows us to phase the product as it
goes.
In introducing the toll on lane five and six, not only does it
generate capital which will allow this all to happen in this earlier time
frame, but -- forgive me if I dwell on the negative for a minute -- but
FDOT is receiving their bids on the 23rd of February. And as you
would expect, there's no small amount of concern that those bids will
be higher than estimates.
As a consequence, FDOT has built into that bid exclusions so
that if the bid amount exceeds the budget, they are able to take
elements out of it. The first one, if I'm not mistaken, is the elimination
Page 66
January 9, 2007
of improvements to Daniels interchange.
If we have lanes five and six tolled, there may be the opportunity
for us to use some of these toll revenues to put those items back in the
bid so that we do, in fact, get the improvement that we're expecting
out of this lanes five and six that FDOT is moving forward with. So
there's a lot of advantages to that process.
The other advantage it would give us is that it would -- tolling
lane five and six would give us a tolling history on this segment of
highway. And as each of you are well aware, tolling history is really
important when you deal with bond issuers. It takes an element of risk
out of the issue. It gives those that are issuing bonds the knowledge,
okay, this highway is already producing this, so I don't have to rely
totally on projections by consultants. Now I've got data.
That would do two things. It would enhance our ability to sell
those bonds and we believe it would reduce the interest rates on those
bonds significantly, which obviously would help us again.
The footprint is, as shown here, is consistent with FDOT's
ultimate 2030 plan, which we see as another advantage to this process.
What I have before you now is a comparative schedule. Based
on FDOT's current plans, they would see opening the lanes five and
six in late 2010. Ifwe were to try to approach a four-by-four
alternative, we know that the earliest we could expect that to open is
2012, probably late 2012.
However, if we follow the course of action that I've just outlined,
FDOT lane five and six goes forward. It still opens in late 2010;
however, now we have an advent, depending on financial feasibility --
and those numbers have not yet been crunched. We don't expect them
probably for a week after our meeting of the 18th this month.
But we're convinced -- the early indications are that we could
have 10 lanes in place in the most difficult segments of that highway
as early as 2013, but certainly we think it will happen by 2015.
So that's kind of where we're headed right now. I want to
Page 67
January 9, 2007
emphasize that there's still caveats here that have not yet been looked
at. We have not got the numbers crunched yet.
All of the preliminary indications I have shared with you today.
But until those numbers are crunched, I can't tell you for certain that
the plan I've outlined today would work.
If it is, what would be our implementation plan? First, as I
mentioned earlier, public outreach is critical to educate Southwest
Floridians on these various alternatives so that they understand them
and then can either show or not show support for what we're trying to
accomplish. But we want to make sure that they are well educated
before they make a decision which of the various alternatives they
might approach.
We will continue to work very, very closely with this
commission. We're here today knowing -- and I said earlier that you'll
probably have some good questions today that I can't answer yet, but
it's important for -- in our mind for us to be in this together. We're
partners in this. We need to share this process with you as it evolves.
We need your questions, your concerns, your comments.
As things are evolving, what we don't want to do is come to a
bunch of conclusions and then come share them with you. That's an
inappropriate way to do that. So we're looking forward to your input
into this.
Obviously we will need to work closely with FDOT and the
Federal Highway Administration. I will tell you that this morning we
are in the process of getting appointments with the Federal Highway
Administration to share some of these thoughts with them.
The construction can be phased, as I said earlier, which is an
extremely important element in this process.
I'll reiterate a couple of these. What are the benefits of the
four-by-six alternative, four general purpose lanes, six tolled lanes?
Number one, FDOT maintains its current project and schedule;
number two, the preserve median for the multi-modal corridor is
Page 68
January 9, 2007
preserved; number three, the 10-lane section can be open to traffic up
to 15 years earlier than it would be if we simply waited for
conventional funding; and number four, the permanent revenue stream
for future transportation funding from these tolls could very well help
us in the issue I spoke of earlier, and that is, what's the next step?
What's the step when the 10 lanes begin to fail? We've got to find
other modes of transportation, and the tolls that -- the toll revenue that
we see coming from this, we believe, could be a significant part of that
process.
What are the critical elements of the success of four-by-six if it is
feasible? Number one is that, financial feasibility, that allows the
improvements on the approximate schedule that I've outlined today.
Number two, that the federal earmark is not jeopardized. And we are
in the process of chasing that down as we speak.
Public outreach secures support of Collier Commissions,
congressional delegations and Southwest Floridians, and that we
receive cooperation from FDOT. And I will tell you that FDOT has
already indicated to us that if we do these things, if the federal
earmark is not jeopardized, if they get resolutions from the two county
commissions and if they feel comfortable that the majority of
Southwest Floridians will embrace this process, they will cooperate.
They have already told us that.
In conclusion, the -- to complete the pending FDOT project and
then do nothing more until conventional funding can improve that
highway, which is projected to be 2030, is simply not a solution. It's a
disaster.
For us to change to the four-by-four tolled section -- although it
probably would be a better solution than number one that I just
outlined -- we still see it as an alternative that is not desirable as -- for
the reasons I've stated earlier.
The third item -- the third plan of action that I've outlined for you
today, if it is financially feasible and community acceptable, we are,
Page 69
January 9, 2007
right now, leaning toward that direction, and we think that's the way
we would like to go.
In concluding, let me tell you I understand that I've given you a
lot of information in a really short period of time, and it's a
complicated subj ect. And I want to offer our willingness to meet with
any and all of you individually one on one, if you'd like to do that, so
that we can spend a little more time actually going back into the
thought processes that got us to where we are today, and we'll be
pleased to do that.
And I'll be happy to try to answer any questions today if you
have them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, you better believe they do, Bill.
They're all lined right up here.
Commissioner Coyle will go first, he'll be followed by Henning,
Fiala and Halas.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bill, when do you expect to
determine FDOT's position on your proposal?
MR. BARTON: Commissioner, the issue of the earmark, we
should be able to deal with pretty rapidly, and of course, that's one of
the main issues.
Once the financial feasibility is determined -- and let's assume for
a moment it's positive and it does, indeed, allow us to implement this
plan within the time frames we're thinking now -- we would then
come back to this commission and to the Lee County Commission and
ask you for a resolution of support.
With those two things in place, we think that their position would
be forthcoming within -- I'll grab a number -- within 90 days after that.
But the beauty of this is, we've got some time. Because what would
happen in this is that FDOT would introduce a change order to their
contractor to construct the tolling equipment in that lane five and six.
That would not take obviously as long to build as does the highway
Page 70
January 9, 2007
itself. So it's not a change order that has to happen in the next 90 days
or 120 days. It could happen as much as nine or 10 months from now
and probably still dovetail with the completion of construction in late
2010.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, it seems to me that
our earlier concern was that the tollway authority's proposal would
delay FDOT, and FDOT wasn't willing to be delayed. I think I'm
correct in summarizing your current proposal as saying that you can
work it out so that they don't have to be delayed. They can start and
they can have those lanes available when they said they would be
available, and you can still get the toll lanes later on?
MR. BARTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's a fair assessment, right?
MR. BARTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Bill.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Barton.
MR. BARTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The level of service chart that
you provided --
MR. BARTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- included the improvements
already projected. Did that include 951?
MR. BARTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It did?
MR. BARTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And my understanding is
everybody's pulling back on 951.
MR. BARTON: Which--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it makes it even worse, that
scenano.
MR. BARTON: Yes, sir.
Page 71
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I was thinking maybe that
we could have a limited north/south corridor on 951 tolled.
MR. BARTON: I'll say that. Adrien, am I correct in that?
MR. SHARE: I believe that these are turnpike numbers. We'll
need to verify with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. BARTON: Rather than recreate the wheel, our consultant
used FTE's -- Florida Turnpike Enterprises computations on the traffic
generation. My understanding from them is, yes, we have included all
corridors that are existing or proposed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Proposed?
MR. BARTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I don't believe that local
traffic should be using interstates to get to its destination. I think we
need to look at other opportunities. But if it included 951, the scenario
is just going to look worse.
MR. BARTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we need to do -- do
something. Thank you.
MR. BARTON: And Commissioner, you and I both understand
that interstates in their conceptual form are intended for through
traffic, to move traffic from one destination to another. But I will tell
you that the numbers on 1-75 between Naples and Fort Myers right
now is 85 percent local traffic, 15 percent through traffic.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's because they don't
have a choice. Everybody wants a traffic light, so U.S. 41 is bogged
down with traffic lights.
MR. BARTON: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, Livingston Road's
going to go further north, but not far enough.
MR. BARTON: And that's not unique. We're certainly not
unique. Most metropolitan areas are experiencing this same
Page 72
January 9, 2007
problematic use and turning interstates into local highways.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I think we need to
eventually bite the bullet and put in a new road, toll it, and make it
limited, and it's going to hurt some people. But for the greater good of
the community, we need to make that decision.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Madam, may I jump in front of you
for just a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
On the 951 issue, I'm glad you brought up the fact that that's
going to be an important part of our transportation agenda to be able to
go from Immokalee Road over to Bonita Beach and from there on up
to Alico.
The -- when we were enabled by the state, the statute to put it
together, the express authority, it specifically at that time -- because
951 was a bone of contention -- they put it in there that we could not
in any way include that as part of our authority.
Now, of course, rules changed by man can be changed back the
other way. There's nothing ever set to that point. And it may be a
direction we'll have to think in the future. Commissioner Henning
brought up a very good point. We can't rely on the 75 corridor alone
to be able to meet the needs of Collier and Lee County or Charlotte.
MR. BARTON: Absolutely, absolutely true. I will-- this is an
interesting point that you make, Commissioner, on the Expressway
Authority and its authority.
I just happened to have read the enabling legislation yesterday,
and I have been laboring under the misimpression that to change the
authority's ability to be involved in a project other than 1-75 would
require a legislative rewrite. And as I read the language, that's not true.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think there's an exception just
for 951. But in any case, we'll decide that later.
MR. BARTON: Well, what is required under the terms of the
Page 73
January 9, 2007
legislation is a resolution from both the county commissioners and any
other governmental agency that might have authority over a roadway
as a, for instance, if it were in a city. Those enabling legislations
would allow the Expressway Authority to take on other proj ects if the
two counties were desirous of that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. First of all, thank
you so much for all you're doing. I know he's doing this all on a
volunteer basis, and we really appreciate all your hard work, Bill, and
your knowledge and background.
One of the -- one of the first things I wanted to ask is, I
understand there are two different -- two tolling companies -- not that
you represent. You represent one, right, and that is the Expressway
Authority. There's also the Florida Turnpike, right? And they collect
tolls for things. That's what the state, I guess, works on.
And I asked the question yesterday, because I didn't realize there
were two different tolling authorities that could be used. I asked the
question yesterday and found out, yes, there are.
The one that you are working on here, the money stays within the
counties that are part of it, whereas, the Florida Turnpike Enterprise, it
goes to other counties all over the State of Florida; is that correct?
MR. BARTON: Yes, it is correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. I thought that was
interesting.
The tolls that -- oh, first of all, can you tell me, about how many
dollars do you think are collected in a year, or would be collected,
projected to be collected for the toll five and six?
MR. BARTON: That's one of those very good questions that I
cannot answer yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Yeah. It's an interesting
MR. BARTON: We expect to have those numbers crunched and
Page 74
January 9, 2007
hopefully have them back by the end of this month.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I asked that question because I
thought, I can understand -- first of all, I'm delighted with the way
you're moving forward on this, because we need those lanes right now.
I was wondering if they could be tolled for, say, a period of five
years to get the money to start you off but then eliminate the toll on
five and six so that we'll have the six lanes general purpose and then
four toll lanes? It would seem--
MR. BARTON: Commissioner, we can actually do any of those
things. What it will do is shove the ultimate improvements back in
time, because if -- it's logical for us to understand that if we have six
toll lanes and four general purpose lanes, then the amount of toll
revenue you're going to receive is higher. The higher the toll revenue,
the quicker and higher your bonding capacity.
So yes, we can look at all kinds of scenarios. All we have to do is
decide on tradeoffs. If we want six general purpose lanes and only
four toll lanes, that is absolutely possible, but what it will do is shove
the improvement further into the future, and those are the tradeoffs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me. Bill, I'm a bit
confused. We're talking about --
MR. BARTON: You're in good company. So am I.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We're talking about adding
two additional lanes, one each way, and then I believe the scenario is
to tax those lanes after we've already paid the taxes on that particular
money that we're finally getting down here to Southwest Florida; is
that correct?
MR. BARTON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we're bringing tax
money back down here, we're going to build these lanes, and then
we're going to turn around and tax or toll these particular two lanes for
Page 75
January 9, 2007
improvements.
Now, my concern is, is the toll money going to be used -- if we
decide to go this way, is the toll money going to be used for additional
lanes or is the toll money going to be used for putting in some type of
a light rail system in the center?
MR. BARTON: No. The toll revenue expected on lane five and
six would be used exclusively to accelerate the addition of four more
lanes on the interstate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So now we get to 10 lanes.
Now, if I think this out properly, it would seem that when we start to
move in the 10 lane area, that we not only have to put in 10 lanes, but
now we have to put in new overpasses and approaches and the whole
nine yards.
MR. BARTON: Yes, sir, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we have no idea what the
magnitude of that cost is going to be?
MR. BARTON: Well, we've run some general numbers on it,
and those general numbers are bouncing around the 1.2 to 1.4 billion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's today's figures?
MR. BARTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But that's not the figures that--
when the time comes to start expanding those overpasses?
MR. BARTON: I'll ask Adrien to help me with this. And the
answer to your question is, that's correct. But if we can do it in 2013,
that number's going to be a whole lot lower than if we can't do it until
2018.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please state your name for the record.
MR. SHARE: Adrien Share with Wilbur Smith & Associates,
consultants to the Expressway Authority.
Just a minor but important clarification on your question. In the
10-lane configuration, the current FDOT proj ect actually is building
the interchanges. If bids come in where they want them, the
Page 76
January 9, 2007
interchanges for the full -- accommodating the full future 10 lanes
would be in place as part of DOT's current project, ifbids come in the
way they want them to.
The chairman pointed out there were some exclusions, and those
would be the exclusions. Those interchanges will be backed off from
that 10-year configuration, so you may have that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So if we then put 10 lanes
down, then we lose the ability -- in the footprint that we presently
have, if we put 10 lanes down, then we lose the ability to have some
type of light rail?
MR. BARTON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where's that going to fit into this?
It seems to me you're going to have to add -- you're going to have to
go out and purchase some additional right-of-way.
MR. BARTON: No. That's the point I made earlier. Right now
there's a 44- foot corridor right down through the middle of the
right-of-way. The 10-lane section does not encroach on that 44-foot
median. So that section stays in place when the 10-lane is in place.
So the 44 foot that is aimed for modal corridor is not impacted by
what we are proposing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This -- you don't have to go out and
get any additional right-of-way?
MR. BARTON: Well, we'll have to go out and get the additional
right-of-way that has not yet been able to be purchased by FDOT,
which is in their plan to purchase, but it hasn't been purchased yet.
That would be the only additional right-of-way. We would not have
to go out and buy additional right-of-way for any kind of a light rail
system.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about taking care of
stormwater?
MR. BARTON: That also is being addressed by FDOT, and they
are in the process of acquiring property. And their intent is actually to
Page 77
January 9, 2007
build the stormwater retention systems for the entire 10-lane section
during the six-lane project. And the reason for that is pretty simple,
they need the fill.
So if you go out and dig your excavations for stormwater
management areas, you get the fill to build the highway with. So
there's a method to their madness. So the answer to your question is,
under the current plan, the storm water management areas will be in
place.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I guess, Bill, my final
question is, or my final analogy here would be that if we add the two
additional lanes and then start tolling them, then we have to go and get
involved in an educational process with the constituents and the
people using that because they're going to say, well, wait a minute, we
were promised these lanes, and now you're going to toll these lanes. I
can see that that may be going down a slippery slope.
MR. BARTON: You know, initially I would have thought that
same thing. But I will share with you the fact that between Wilbur
Smith & Associates and the Florida Turnpike Enterprise, there's been
a total of 13 -- is that the right number -- focus group held both in Lee
and Collier County, and I was amazed at the outcome of those focus
groups. There was virtually no resistance to tolling if it would speed
up the highways. I was -- I was taken aback.
Focus group after focus group after focus group indicated, we're
willing to pay a toll if you guys will go get this highway built the way
-- so that it will transport us from one place to another.
So the answer to your question is, is there a major public
outreach required? Absolutely, absolutely. Do I think it's doable?
Yes, sir, I do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Bill, thank you so much. We
appreciate your presentation. It's been absolutely wonderful, and I
know you're available if anyone has any questions?
MR. BARTON: At any time. Thank you, Commissioners.
Page 78
January 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Mr. Mudd, I think we can get Mr. Hamilton in. I really would
like to see the mayor finish up so he doesn't get hungry and start
taking it out on us.
Item #6D
REQUEST BY MAYOR SAMMY HAMILTON TO DISCUSS
WAIVER OF EMS FEES FOR THE ANNUAL EVERGLADES
CITY SEAFOOD FESTIVAL - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public petition
6D, public petition request by Mayor Sammy Hamilton to discuss
waiver of EMS fees for the annual Everglades City Seafood Festival.
MAYOR HAMIL TON: Thank you, thank you. For the record,
my name is Sammy Hamilton, Jr. I am the Mayor of Everglades City.
I'm here today on behalf of the Everglades Seafood Festival.
First I'd like to thank Chairman Jim Coletta, all the
commissioners, and also Jim Mudd, County Manager Jim Mudd.
And what I'm here for today, I'll make it short. Before I get into
that, I have to tell a little joke. It's not ajoke. It's a philosophy. We
could do the air taxing. Save a lot of these roads. No, I'm just joking.
But anyways, I'm here today on account of, the seafood festival
asked me to be here to waive the EMS, which we've never had to pay
before, for the two days on the seafood festival. That would be
Saturday and Sunday, first weekend in February.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Hamilton -- excuse me, Mayor
Hamilton, would you be so kind as to tell us what the money is used
for that you make in the seafood festival?
MAYOR HAMIL TON: I'm glad you asked that, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm reading from the script.
MAYOR HAMILTON: That's all right. Actually, it's non-profit.
Page 79
January 9,2007
And what we do with the money is to help the kids in our area, our
surrounding area, aside the city, Chokoloskee and all the areas, give a
scholarship for the people in schools, get them into college if they
can't afford it. Also the kids that graduates out of high school at
Everglades City, girls and boys, young men and women, that wants to
be a fireman or EMS, which we've done in the past, we give them
money for that. That's what the money is used for.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Hamil -- Mayor Hamilton, didn't
this also help to -- with the fire department there in Everglades City? I
remember funds were directed there before, and that's a county
facility.
MAYOR HAMILTON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Parks and recs within Everglades City
that benefit everyone in the surrounding area, money has been used
for that, for the beautification. It's a wonderful effort that takes place.
It's a community effort, unlike anything else quite in Collier County
where the community's totally behind it in making it happen.
I would like to see these funds waived at least for another year so
that we can enable Everglades City to keep their mission going
forward. There's nothing better than having the citizens raising money
to be able to support their infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that a motion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion's being made to that effect.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by myself, a
second by Commissioner Fiala, and I see Commissioner Henning's
light is on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is part of your motion that we're
not setting -- we're not to set a precedent, we're going to do what we
have done in the past for any other organizations?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. We're recognizing the fact that
this is not setting a precedence. It's been taking place for a number of
Page 80
January 9, 2007
years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm talking--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm talking about what we have
done for other organizations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And special requests that we've
received in the past that we've honored in similar situations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's -- I mean, I thought
Everglades Seafood Festival was a one-day event.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, it's a weekend.
MAYOR HAMILTON: Two.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Always been two?
MAYOR HAMILTON: First weekend in February every year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course, the commissioners are all
invited to come to it.
MAYOR HAMILTON: Always.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Tell them about the opening, the
grand opening. Get them up on stage and introduce them.
MAYOR HAMILTON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not that you're trying to sway their
votes in any way, I understand that.
MAYOR HAMILTON: Never.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments? We have a
motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta and a second by
Commissioner Fiala to waive the fees.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 81
January 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The ayes have it, 4-0, and
Commissioner Halas voting in the negative.
Thank you very much, Mayor.
MAYOR HAMILTON: Thank you gentlemen, thank you,
counsel.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want to try one more? What's the
next one?
Item #6E
PUBLIC PETITION REQUESTED BY CHUCK MOHLKE
REGARDING THE COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT
BOUNDRIES - DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is a public petition request--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's Chuck Mohlke.
MR. MUDD: -- by Chuck Mohlke to discuss the county
commissioners' district boundaries. Mr. Mohlke has asked me to pass
out a particular letter from the League of Women Voters. I believe
he's going to read that into the record.
MR. MOHLKE: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Chuck Mohlke. I'm a resident of the City of Naples, and I appear on
this item after having been contacted by the County Manager's Office.
And I have enjoyed support on this issue from the League of
Women Voters, the executive committee of the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People, my political party and others.
And my purpose in appearing here today is really very
straightforward. Only in odd numbered years can the Board of
County Commissioners and its counterpart, meaning the School
District Board of Collier County, adjust district boundaries.
This matter was discussed in a very forthcoming manner at the
initiative of Commissioner Tom Henning back in September 13th of
Page 82
January 9, 2007
2005. After a very fairly debated discussion, the board decided not to
proceed with directing county staff to make recommendations to the
board in regard to the adjustment of commission boundaries.
If the board will recall at that time there was a difference of
19,478 persons between the most populated district and the least
populated district.
If the arithmetic were done today and you could presume, I think,
fairly that the county population is now approximately 360,000
persons, that would mean equitably divided, 72,000 persons -- because
that's what our law provides for is population, not registered voters --
living in each county commission district. So that discrepancy in the
least fastest growing county commission district and the fastest
growing county commission district could approximate probably
30,000 persons in population.
The League of Women V oters has, from the letter that you've
seen, made the essential point that this really is an issue of fairness in
equity.
The law provides in Florida, as you well know from the last
discussion here, that in an odd numbered year in mid decade, the
Board of County Commissioners shall have the privilege of adjusting
its county commission boundaries to reflect population growth.
The fairness and equity part of it essentially comes down to one
very simple issue. If you live in a very populated district, your vote
counts less than if you live in a less populated district.
And because we elect a single member, these circumstances are
somewhat exaggerated. If you elected at large, they would be less
exaggerated because everybody would vote in these particular races.
That is not true thanks to the voters of Collier County in their
enactment of single member districts in March of 1988.
It seemed appropriate to bring this issue to the board's attention
so that it might review, using professional staff reports, as it did in
2005, to see whether or not this growth in population has, in fact,
Page 83
January 9, 2007
exaggerated these differences, and then upon hearing that report, make
a decision as to whether or not it wanted to make further
recommendations regarding the adjustment of county commission
district boundaries.
To do this at the first commission meeting in an odd numbered
year seemed entirely appropriate because so much will depend upon
some things that will happen inevitably in 2008.
It appears -- this is open to conjecture, I imagine. But it appears
that there may be a legislative initiative to move up the date of the
presidential primary. That will place a special burden on this
commission, on the Supervisor of Elections and others to make what
adjustments they need to make in precinct boundaries that would take
into account other considerations that are inevitable before an
important presidential election year.
The request here is really very simple. It is simply to request of
the Board of County Commissioners to agenda this item at a time
appropriate to their needs so that it can learn what effect population
growth has had on commission districts and prepare recommendations
for the board's further consideration as to whether or not it wishes,
based upon professional recommendations, to adjust county
commission boundaries.
I don't know that I have much more to contribute by way of
comments to this discussion but simply to request to the board its
consideration of this request, and it will come as no news to this board
that depending upon its actions today, this matter will be pursued. It
will be pursued.
And I give, as an estimate of the interest on the part of the United
States Justice Department Civil Rights Division, voting rights section,
its recent activities in respect to Osceola County, and I recommend
that to the board for its consideration.
I thank the board very much for the opportunity to make these
comments on behalf of myself, my party, the NAACP, and the League
Page 84
January 9, 2007
of Women Voters, and I stand available for any questions the board
has. Thank you again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Appreciate your
time. I tell you, I don't see any questions on the part of the board.
Thank you very much for coming before us today.
MR. MOHLKE: Thank you, Commissioners. And any action
that you intend to have on this at some future board meeting, we
would appreciate being timely advised.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll keep that in mind for sure.
Thank you.
I think we have -- yes?
MR. DURHAM: Yes, Commissioners. Tim Durham, Deputy
Supervisor of Elections for Collier County. If I may just have a
moment or two.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Durham, during --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Durham, during a public petition, the
petitioner makes a request to the Board of County Commissioners.
There are no public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. Unless somebody
would call you forth to ask questions of you --
MR. DURHAM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- I can't permit it for this.
MR. DURHAM: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: However, with that said, at the end of
this meeting, we do have a public comment section which we'd be
more than happy to hear what you have to say.
MR. DURHAM: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Mr. Mudd, I don't think in eight minutes we're going to be able to
accomplish anything of significance, so why don't we break early and
reconvene a little bit early.
Page 85
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I thought we were going to get
the extra seven minutes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll tell what you, I'm going to
-- I'm going to try to live up to Commissioner Halas' good example,
and I'm going to grant this group seven more minutes. We're not due
back until one o'clock. That's one o'clock today, and that's this
afternoon, p.m., not a.m.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, please proceed.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This brings us to our advertised public
hearings that start at one o'clock. And we have -- and we have two
such items on our agenda.
The first is 8A, and that's an advertised public hearing. It's a
recommendation to consider adopting an ordinance amending Collier
County ordinance --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Mr. Mudd. I don't mean to
interrupt, but I want to poll my commissioners here. I know we're
supposed to get right into the advertised public hearings, but we have
a number of people here to deal with about maybe a half an hour
worth of public petitions.
How do my fellow commissioners feel about getting the public
petitions out of the way so that the numerous people that are here can
be excused to go about with their lives?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, just let them wait.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's fine with me. Do we have to
start it? It just says after one, right? No sooner than one. Do we have
to?
MR. MUDD: No, you don't have to, ma'am. You do whatever
you want. I'm just going by the agenda that's published, and at one
o'clock, this board has been hearing advertised public hearings.
Page 86
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's let the public get their
business done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, let's do that, and then we'll go
on with the other part of the agenda.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do appreciate that.
Item #6F
PUBLIC PETITION BY CONNIE STEGALL-FULLMER
DISCUSSING GOODLAND ZONING OVERLAY - BRING BACK
TO FUTURE BCC MEETING WITH STIPULATIONS AND
CLARIFICATION - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next public
petitioner, and that's 6F, and it's a public petition request by Connie
Stegall-Fullmer to discuss the Goodland zoning overlay. Ms. Fullmer?
MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: Good afternoon. Again, my name
is Connie Stegall-Fullmer. I'm representing today as president of the
Goodland Preservation Coalition.
And first of all, I would like to take a moment to thank you very
much for the passing of our golf cart ordinance and for putting up
signs in our community for the golf carts, and we're back to normal.
Thank you so much for that.
We do have a number of Goodlanders in the audience today, and
did lose a few during the lunch hour, but if they would like to stand,
that would be really nice, as I go ahead and get into my petition, or
raise your hands.
Chairman, Commissioners, thank you very much for your time
and attention to a matter of the gravest importance to the residents and
property owners of Goodland. I am going to read -- I've got about two
and a half pages -- very quickly. I'll read it so I make sure I get my
Page 87
January 9, 2007
points in.
The gravest importance for Goodland is regarding a
development, planned development in Goodland. I offer special
thanks right now to our Commissioner Fiala for her continued support
and affection for the Village of Goodland, and also to Jim Mudd for
your patience and professionalism that you have also shown toward
Goodland for me and our community.
Very recently we learned in Goodland that two families had
obtained a building permit to construct what we call a megahouse on
East Coconut Avenue. This megahouse is to be built on two adjoined
lots and will become the largest home and possibly the largest
building in Goodland.
The megahouse will have 14,333 total square feet of which 6,836
square feet is under air. The average home size on that same street is
approximately 800 square feet. In all of Goodland, the largest home is
believed to be approximately 3,200 square feet with only a handful of
remaining homes in Goodland more than 2,000 square feet; 6,836 for
this planned home.
For the record, the Goodland preservation coalition objects to the
interpretation of the code by staff and we object to the approval of the
permit on the basis that it is inconsistent with the LDC, paragraphs
1.06.01, 2.03.01-H, 2.03.07-J, and Florida Statute 163.3202 and
Florida Statute 163.31775G.
We have been in to meetings with you this past week and also
with various staff members. You know many of the details of the
permit and some of the ambiguities surrounding approval process,
such as, what is it? Is it a duplex or a single-family home? And
accordingly, what are the setbacks which determine the building
envelope?
You know that the zoning is VR, and the Land Development
Code states that in VR, quote, uses are located and designed to
maintain the village residential character, which is generally low
Page 88
January 9, 2007
profile with relatively small building footprints, as is the current
appearance of Goodland and Copeland, end quote.
Part of that language and the purpose -- the description of VR, is
language that was specifically put in the zoning in 1999, and that's on
the overhead projection. And you see that language underlined. This
was language that was specifically voted and directed by the
commissioners sitting at that time to add to the purpose and intent of
VR zoning to further protect the Village of Goodland.
At that time in history there were plans to build a multi floor
condominium complex in Goodland that was deemed to be
uncharacteristic for Goodland, and that language was specifically put
in the VR for further protection of Goodland; however, over the last
few weeks, we have been instructed by staff that this is just colorful
language, that is doesn't really mean anything.
The megahouse has been permitted in the Goodland Zoning
Overlay, or the GZO, as we'll call it. The language in the GZO from
the Land Development Code states in paragraph 2.03.07-J, quote, the
Goodland Zoning Overlay district is intended to provide regulation
and direction under which the growth and development of Goodland
can occur with assurance that the tropical fishing village and small
town environment is protected and preserved and that the development
and/or redevelopment reflect their unique residential and commercial
characteristics of the community, end quote.
However, we have been instructed that this language provides no
assurance whatsoever that our tropical fishing village and small town
environment will be protected or preserved.
We're not so sophisticated in the matters of the interpretation of
the LDC, but we don't appreciate the explanations of why the
language doesn't protect us. We don't understand how a 14,000 square
foot megahome can be permitted when the LDC says, quote, relatively
small building footprint, and we don't understand exactly how the
LDC is protecting and preserving our tropical fishing village and smallS
Page 89
January 9, 2007
town environment. That's language in our LDC.
Further, the purpose and intent of the county LDC is illustrated in
the Land Development Code, paragraph 1.05.01-F, and that states,
quote, all development within each zoning district shall be consistent
with the purposes. That's the issue here, that is -- your Land
Development Code directs that the -- that the zoning be consistent
with the purposes and regulations stated for that zoning district in
chapter 2.
2.03.0 1-J states, quote, the purpose and intent of the Village
Residential District, VR, is, quote, to maintain a village residential
character which is generally low profile with relatively small building
footprints, as is the current appearance of Goodland and Copeland.
If the purpose of the LDC is to be consistent with the purposes of
the zoning district as defined, why doesn't the purpose and intent of
the VR protect our, quote, residential character, which is generally low
profile and relatively small building footprint?
There is a -- recent case law from the U.S. District Court that was
upheld, and it was the finding against the South Florida Water
Management District and the EP A in favor of the Clean Water Act,
and it was based upon the intent of the language of the act. Intent and
purpose is not colorful language. It has meaning. It has purpose.
Goodlanders can't instruct you how to interpret the LDC. We
can submit amendments to the GZO, however, which is what we're
interested in doing, amendments that will directly impact Goodland.
The LDC doesn't, for all its volume, address the needs of
Goodland. The language is said to be colorful, but otherwise has no
power to direct much, and language that is -- we need to replace it
with language that is objective and subject to common interpretation,
and that's understandable to the common person.
So with this objective in mind, our request before you today, my
request, as representative of the Goodland Preservation Coalition, in
cooperation with the Goodland Civic Association, whose
Page 90
January 9, 2007
vice-president, treasurer and secretary are also here today, is to request
that you work with our community in the preparation of an
amendment to our overlay that will be completed and ready to be
voted upon by October of 2007 . We ask your support in this effort.
Secondly, while that process is going on, we, first of all, ask that
you request staff to work with -- jointly with Goodlanders to
accomplish the further amendment to establish more detailed
guidelines for development and redevelopment in Goodland, and
secondly, the most critical aspect to help protect us while the
amendment is being worked upon is our request for you to approve a
narrowly defined -- narrowly defined moratorium to be imposed in
Goodland. The moratorium that we're requesting is that it be -- to
postpone the combining of two or more lots and to postpone the
issuance of any building permits that are based on two or more lots.
This will give us the opportunity, between now, to work with
staff through March with the language and go through the planning
process and have language that comes back to you in October of this
year, and it will help protect us from a run on the bank, so to speak,
for people who are wanting to come in and establish larger homes
between now and when our overlay is amended.
It will give us an opportunity to do some -- have quiet time for
tranquil evaluation with our community, the residents, for discussion
about what it is we really want to see in our community, what we don't
want to see, and we'll come back to you with that amendment. But in
the meantime, we need your protection so that two lots cannot be
combined and an additional megahome cannot be approved through
the planning process.
In addition, at this time we'd also request that you direct staff to
go back to the review process to make sure that the permit that was
issued is specifically in compliance with all of the codes of the Land
Development Code, with all of the statutes, not just the setback
standards and, of course, defining exactly what that building is. Is it a
Page 91
January 9, 2007
duplex, which it was originally submitted as, or is it a home? These
are the things we ask of you today to consider.
And we have additional time at -- on the agenda today at 91, and
additional people from the community will present a photo gallery of
what is actually the character of Goodland, many of the homes, the
homes next door to -- on either side in the same block that represent
the average square foot of 800 square feet, and the larger homes. It
has been said that we have 15 large homes on that same street, but
those large homes are 1,200 square feet and 1,400 square feet, and
those are large homes for -- relative to the size of most of the homes in
Goodland.
I thank you for your consideration. We will be back at 9J, or 91,
to discuss a little bit more with you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Let's go with Commissioner
Halas first, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand your dilemma because
in my neighborhood we've got a lot of megahomes, and it brings about
-- with it a lot of problems.
My biggest concern is that I think in order to have some type of a
moratorium, we need to have something of the nature of 50 plus one
of the residents that own property there to maybe sign a petition.
We -- a couple years ago this Board of County Commissioners,
we got put in a trap where we had that group of citizens that came
before us and asked them to help us -- or help them with an issue in
another location. And we put forth a lot of time and effort, and it
ended up blowing up on us.
And my biggest concern is to make sure that everybody
understands if you have a moratorium, what that means, that
somebody wants to sell their property and can't because somebody
wants to -- they own two lots and want to buy the two lots, and to use
that as a way of building a home, I'm not sure what ramifications we,
the county commission, will get ourselves into.
Page 92
January 9, 2007
So I think first of all, you have to make sure that you have the
will of all the people, or 50 percent plus one of the people, that are
willing to -- want to go through this process, because obviously there's
going to be somebody that's not going to be too happy if we go
through a moratorium point in time.
And the other thing is, I understand who you are and what you're
representing, but I want to make sure that we don't get ourselves in a
situation where we feel that it's the voices of the people that you're
here to represent, but in reality it's only a small group and, therefore,
then we end up with a big problem on our hands.
And we learned a hard lesson over the last three years, but I
know exactly what you're dealing with here because in my particular
district we have an awful lot of big megahomes that are put on smaller
lots, and we've been trying to work with the staff to try to figure out a
way that we can address that issue.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Commissioner Halas raises
a very, very valid point. He's absolutely right. Perhaps this situation
is slightly different, however.
I don't understand why the purpose and intent of the Village
Residential District has no governing value. That makes no sense to
me.
We regularly go to legislative intent as a way of trying to
determine what laws really mean. Supreme Court justices have even
researched the private writings of the drafters of our constitution to try
to discern what their purpose was in putting certain provisions in our
construction.
It is incomprehensible to me that a purpose and intent which is so
clear will not have any governing value. I don't understand that, and I
don't know that anybody's going to be able to convince me that that's
true.
Page 93
January 9, 2007
I think it does have governing value. In fact, I think it has
overwhelming governing value, and if there is a conflict between the
purpose and intent of our regulations and the specific development
standards, then it is the development standards that are wrong, not the
purpose and intent.
So it would appear to me that we have failed to develop the
appropriate objective development standards which would carry out
the purpose and intent of the Village Residential District. That, to me,
sounds very clear.
And so what I would say is, because we apparently have a
conflict internally between our development objective, development
standards, and the purpose and intent of the legislation, we should
declare a timeout until we sort it out.
It's -- in this case it's different than the very, very serious problem
Commissioner Halas talked about, and I do not want to get caught in
that kind of trap again. He's very right about that.
But in this case, even if you were not here, I would want to get
this resolved. And I don't think it has anything to do with how many
of you are concerned about it.
MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If staff is saying to anybody that
the purpose and intent of a Village Residential District has no
objective -- has no governing value, I want to get that sorted out
because I don't believe it. I believe it does have governing value.
And I would suggest that, on one condition, that we don't come
back under 9J and talk about this all afternoon. I would suggest that
what we do -- the commission do is to say, yes, we've got a conflict in
interpretations here concerning the purpose and intent of this Village
Residential District, and we need to sort it out and we need to solve it
now.
Let's stop this particular building permit, put it on hold, go back
and review the purpose and intent of our zoning regulations, make
Page 94
January 9, 2007
sure that the developmental standards reflect the purpose and intent,
and then proceed. And it seems to me that will solve most of the
problems we're talking about here.
And by the way, just as a caveat, I would say to you that based
upon what I've seen of this plan, this is one of the most outrageous
manipulations of permitting processes that I think I've ever seen. It just
is outrageous.
And maybe there's someone here who can speak in defense of it
and convince me otherwise. But anyway, that's where I am.
I would make a motion -- so that we can take the corrective
action -- make a motion that we suspend the approval of this particular
building permit, that we direct staff to resolve the conflicts between
the purposes and intent of the Village Residential District and the
specific development standards and come back to us at the earliest
possibly opportunity for us to ratify those changes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, I second that. Thank you.
Excellent, excellent speech.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
by Commissioner Coyle and second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Henning? I'm sorry. Did I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if I could--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me. Mr. Weigel, did you
want to comment on where we're going with this? I was going to ask
you a number of questions when it came my turn, but go ahead.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'm happy to either wait for questions or
get --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, go ahead and strike while the
iron's hot.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you. Well, 91 is a vehicle that
Commissioner Fiala was working towards so that there might be a
possibility to go beyond the, call it, the restriction -- the typical
restriction of public petition in case the board wished to take more
Page 95
January 9,2007
formal action rather than, typically under public petition, asking for
something to come back.
A couple comments I would make, and that is that it's very clear
what the policy intent language is of the Goodland VR overlay
language there. We do note, however, that if the board wishes to take
timeout, which is the equivalent of moratorium, one way of
accomplishing it without even using the moratorium word -- I just
provide this as a little additional thought for you, is that you could, in
fact, give the staff, including the attorney office, direction to come
back with an amendment to the Land Development Code pursuant to
the overlay, for the overlay here, to achieve some specific results,
which is result of implementing, with far more exactitude, the
language of the policy and objective of the overlay.
And I would suggest, among other things, that you would use the
words such as setbacks, floor area ratio, review of room and bedroom
requirements and bathroom requirements within a -- within a
single- family residence, multiple kitchens in single-family residence,
and that staff potentially be directed to come back with amendments
reflecting some or all of those issues relative to the policy and
objective of the Village Residential Overlay, in case you wish to have
your motion go that way.
Secondly, in regard to -- I would like a clarification in regard to
the house that's under construction at the present time. If there is -- if
there is a request for a -- either a -- if not a revoking, a pulling or
stopping of the permit allowing for construction at the present time,
obviously that has an effect on the owner, on the contractors,
subcontractors, et cetera, that are working on the premises, and our
research has shown Commissioner Coyle -- not that it makes sense,
and courts don't always make sense -- but there is, in fact, an appellate
decision in the fifth district, which is not second district, which is our
appellate district, which does seem to indicate that where there is a
conflict of general policy language and specific standard, that the
Page 96
January 9, 2007
specific will control.
Now, that's not absolutely the law in this district, but I would--
and I feel constrained to advise you there is that potential risk in
regard to actions that we may take with the house that's under
construction at the present time. That's not to say that I'm predicting
outcome, but I would be remiss if I didn't advise you of that
knowledge that we have therein.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Weigel.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it wasn't asked of us to
stop the process of this mistake -- or stop the building permit. That
wasn't asked of us.
MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You did. Well, under public
petition, we don't give the opportunity for the general public to weigh
in or we don't have the opportunity for the affected party to weigh in,
and I think it's wrong.
If that's what the majority of the board wants to do, I think it
ought to be on the agenda item, and I think the community staff needs
to try to defend their actions. Not that I agree with it, but we all -- if
we were going to make an informed decision, we should have the
opportunity for all to weigh in.
Because of that, I'm not going to support the motion. I do agree
with putting a stop to splitting lots in the village of Goodland until a
clarification by the community can come forward on the building
envelope size of a house and all the other ancillary uses. I do support
the purpose and intent and what it's there for, but I can't support the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, I
agree with you right down the line. I'd like to see very much a
Page 97
January 9, 2007
moratorium put into place. I'd like to see a change made to the
overlay; however, trying to deal with this permit that's already been
issued in good faith by staff -- and I'm sure if we brought staff up here
and went through it, we'd hear a lot of reasons why they did it. But
why do that now? I'd like to see this come back.
I could support a motion to bring this back as an agenda item to
discuss all the possibilities, including revoking the permit, although I
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which is on 9, you mean?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that -- number 9 does not cover
revoking the permit. It has to deal with identifying the character of
Goodland. That's a whole different issue when you get into that.
We're getting into a real serious legal issue.
I'd love to -- like Commissioner Henning said, we should have
due process on it. The public petition, you come before us and we
move it forward to a future agenda so we can get an assessment from
staff and all our other legal aides out there, whatever resources are
there.
Plus, the petition -- the people that are on opposite views of the
whole thing have a chance to be able to weigh in on it.
So I have a hard time supporting the motion as it is. If the
motion fails, I will agree to bring it back. I'd be very supportive of
that. I think that we're just -- we're shooting a little bit too fast here.
Commissioner Coyle? Or I didn't take your light off?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no. I do want to make a --
make a comment.
I will be happy to revise my motion. I think Commissioner
Henning's suggestion is a good one, it's fair. It doesn't move as
quickly as, perhaps, we would like, but we need to put the owner on
notice that we're bringing this thing back for consideration.
And what I would ask that we do is that we instruct staff to come
back to us with two things. Number one, a complete and detailed
Page 98
January 9, 2007
justification as to why this project, this permit, was issued and
approved, and secondly, come back with a detailed development
standards that are necessary to ensure that the purpose and intent of
the Village Residential District is upheld, and to do that as quickly as
possible so that we minimize the impact on the people of Goodland
and for the person who is building this house because they need to
understand early on that there is the possibility that staff will be
unable to adequately defend their issuance of this permit. And if so, it
will be withdrawn -- could be withdrawn by the Board of County
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So then we have number 9 yet
that we were going to discuss, and this was -- this was, I felt,
extremely important to discuss right now, the stopping any -- any --
placing a hold on any permits that might be going through for
buildings that are very large or where they want to adjoin lots.
Are you saying that we should withhold that for two weeks?
How -- I know that there are couple others lining up to do that right
now and watching this to set the standard for Goodland.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you've got the same problem.
If you do it without a public hearing, you give anybody a fair chance
to argue it, and I think that's Commissioner Henning's and
Commissioner Coletta's position. I think they're right.
I think -- I think we need to do it the right way no matter how
strongly we feel about it, and I think the right way is to instruct staff to
come back with detailed justifications for how they issued this permit,
why they approved it, secondly, to give us detailed development
standards that will implement the purpose and intent of the Village
Residential District.
And at that point in time the people of Goodland and any other
members of the public who wish to address the Goodland overlay or
any other subject will be here at that public hearing. They can talk to
Page 99
January 9, 2007
us then, then we don't have to go through 91 this afternoon because it
serves no purpose because we can't make a decision because it's not a
public hearing, you see?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, in your
revised motion, can you also include to direct staff to not allow lots to
be joined together?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have a problem with that. I
could say that we just not -- we can't stop the lots from being joined
together. What we can only do is stop the building on lots that are
joined together because the property appraiser is the one who joins
those lots. I think they can just petition that two parcels be combined
in a single parcel, and it's done. Where we get into a problem is when
we accept a plan, a Site Development Plan, for building a home on
those two parcels. We can control that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So your motion includes to stop
that practice, to build megahomes on Goodland right now?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: To suspend it until we can properly
implement the purpose and intent of the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your revised motion I can
support.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Would you repeat your
revised motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I am suggesting that we
instruct staff to bring us the detailed development provisions and
codes which will implement the purpose and intent of the Village
Residential District as stated in section 2.2.9.1, and, secondly, that we
not issue any permits for the building of homes on combined lots,
Page 100
January 9, 2007
which will -- which will conflict with the purpose and intent, until
such time as we make a decision on this issue following our next
meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question, if I may.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In your motion, does it deal in any
way, shape or form with the permit that's already been issued?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. I failed to
specify that we want staff to give us a detailed justification as to how
this permit was approved under the current regulations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With the permission of the
commission, I'm going to ask Mr. Schmitt to come up, or any of his
staff members that might want to make sure that this motion's within
the bounds of what they can do, or can't do, or maybe further
clarification might be needed for it.
MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, Joe
Schmitt, community development/environmental services division
administrator.
F or clarification, the VR covers zoning districts in Goodland,
Copeland, Chokoloskee and Immokalee, and I'm -- one clarification.
I'm assuming this is only for Goodland that you're trying to look at.
We can cover all of them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it covers all of them. We're
talking about that particular zoning overlay category, the intent and
purpose in my mind is very clear.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if we don't have implementing
development standards, then we have to at least have a hearing on
what those implementing development standards should be. And if at
that hearing, after hearing from the public and both sides on this issue,
we elect to adopt those development standards, then it will apply to
everywhere that particular Village Residential Overlay applies to.
Page 101
January 9, 2007
MR. SCHMITT: The village residential provides setback
criteria.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. SCHMITT: Goodland had then a village overlay, which
defined in more detail some of the restrictive development standards
so they were never codified as far as specific standards on size of
home and whatever. So we'll come back and we'll explain all that, so
we can -- you'll have a clear understanding of the VR zoning and then
the overlay.
My other question is, I did hear that -- and I thought we discussed
it but I never heard a motion. Do you want something to come back as
an interim measure, a moratorium, a recommendation for a
moratorium? Because that would have to be advertised --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we decided against that
because we have to have a public hearing to do that.
MR. SCHMITT: We would have to come back as an advertised
public hearing, and you would have to vote on that, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what we needed to do is to
resolve the discrepancy between the purpose and intent --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- of this zoning district and our
implementing development code, and at that point in time, we can also
consider if we want to have some sort of moratorium. But if we can
solve the conflict and verify whether this particular plan, this permit,
was properly issued, then we won't need the moratorium.
MR. SCHMITT: Understand, Commissioner. Most likely
though, any type of development standards to define restrictive criteria
in the Goodland overlay will require some kind of an amendment to
the LDC. You would then have to come back through the public
hearing process in the amendment cycle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. SCHMITT: So there would be an interim period between --
Page 102
January 9, 2007
unless through the county attorney at zoning and progress we
somehow implement a de facto moratorium, that is, we would
announce that there's pending legislation and we would -- but we
could deal with that when we come back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. When we come back,
the commission, once they get all of the information and facts, they
can decide whether or not we want to consider a moratorium.
MR. SCHMITT: And I would consider then today's action, what
I just heard, based on your motion, I will advise the property owner
and the developer of this property, until there's a decision whether it's
revoked, it's -- through the building director we'll determine -- advise
that, based on this board's action, there's a question on the issuing of
this permit and suspend all action on that permit.
We did issue the permit. Fees have been collected. We'll have to
advise the property owner basically that there's a question about the
validity of the permit through this board, and in doing so, put them on
notice.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be good.
MR. HAMMOND: Yes, Commissioners. For the record, Bill
Hammond, the director of building review and permitting.
As the building official, I can -- I can revoke a permit of --
fundamentally off of two causes, the facts allowing the issuance of the
permit had to be misrepresented by the applicant or the permit would
have been issued in error.
By the action of the board, I will interpret that the permit was
issued in error in that the intent and the purpose of the village -- of the
Village Residential Zoning Overlay was -- you know, is not
adequately represented by the prescriptive standards. I would have to
do it along those lines only.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, forgive me. You're talking
about bringing this back to be able to make a determination at another
meeting. You're not saying about issuing -- going back to them and
Page 103
January 9, 2007
telling them it was issued in error now?
MR. HAMMOND: Those are the only two ways that I can --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I know that, but I don't think
we've given you direction to do that either.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That will come at the next meeting.
MR. HAMMOND: Okay, all right.
MR. SCHMITT: We'll just give them notice.
MR. HAMMOND: I can do an inspection hold on the permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear where you're going.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know where we're
confused here, so maybe the county manager can talk to his employee
to tell him what the action of the board was. We don't need to discuss
this. We've got more business to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, do you have a clear
feeling for the way we're going?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The motion is, you come back with
complete details for justification of the action of issuing the permit to
the Ingles for this particular home. You come back to the board.
You wanted specific developments. We're going to give you a
menu, so to speak, of those things that you can do to -- in details that
you can put into the Land Development Code so that you've got the
details to back up the intent. That's the second piece.
And the third piece is for staff to suspend -- to suspend any action
on future projects that come for permits where lots have been merged
in order to do construction until that particular time.
And Mr. Schmitt is going to let the permit holder, the Ingles,
know that this particular item is controversial and that issue will come
in front of the board to talk about at the next board meeting, and that's
it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd?
Page 104
January 9,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right on the head. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I can go back now. I've got to
clarify one thing. I'm concerned about Goodland. I have no idea how
this is going to have an impact on Immokalee, Copeland, or any of the
other communities you're talking about that have similar zoning
descriptions.
They're being brought into something they might want no part of.
I'm just forewarning you, an overlay's one thing. Changing the whole
determination of the whole outlook of the whole county is something
that just scares the daylights out of me. I mean, it gets a lot more
involved at that point in time.
We're talking about other people that aren't here today, and they
may not even know enough to come to the next meeting to be able to
put their two cents into it. Overlay's one thing, but the changing of
something globally is not what I envisioned at all by -- when we
started this.
MR. MUDD: That wasn't in the motion. I understand Mr.
Schmitt's going to have to come forward to the board next meeting
and let you know what the VR zoning looks like in Collier County to
get your specific direction if you -- if you want to be more specific
and only do it for Goodland versus --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand.
MR. MUDD: -- Copeland and Immokalee and whatever.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I just jump in here for just a
minute?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that Commissioner Halas is
supposed to be first. But the people in Goodland, were not talking
about -- we're not talking about anything but revising their overlay.
That's what they wanted to do. They wanted to -- they did not want to
tell anyplace else in the county how to run their show. They were just
concerned about Goodland, and that's what they wanted to do was
Page 105
January 9, 2007
have the time to put this overlay in place and to make sure that our
Land Development Code agreed with their overlay for this particular
area called Goodland.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Halas,
you've been very patient. I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, I still have some
real serious thoughts on this --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and that is, there's people there
that want to combine lots or there's people there that want to sell two
adjoining lots, and if we put a halt to this, what kind of problems does
this present to the county?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't think it presents too much, and
there is a distinction to be made. The combining of lots is -- appears to
be the issue that we're talking about right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: But the sale of lots whereas one owner or
multiple owners could own several lots is not the concern of the
county. Ownership is not the concern; it's the construction on the
properties, and in this case, conjoining lots, that is the issue.
So I don't have a problem, and I don't think we would have --
anyone would have a problem with the fact that ownership through the
purchase and sale of property can occur in any way that it wishes to.
But it's bringing the -- bringing an application forward for
construction that appears to be at odds with policy and objectives of
the Goodland VR overlay, is the issue that the board is looking to
work through, you know, rather quickly here.
And when and if the board should give some specific instruction
for any amendment to our code or the overlay relating to Goodland, at
that point we would have -- we would have what I would call a
recognizable judicial concept of zoning in progress, which in and of
itself would act as a moratorium, if one must use that word, in regard
Page 106
January 9, 2007
to particular construction or type of construction that we believe is
going to be amended with the code.
And that will occur when the board gives the specific directive to
staff to come back with amendments with some specificity, such as
what I mentioned before as just ones to consider, floor area ratio and
setbacks and things of that nature.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I --
MR. WEIGEL: And that's what you're apparently going to look
at at the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My understanding of was -- or the
way I understood that an overlay went is where the citizens got
together, a group of them, and basically the majority of them put
together an overlay and then they themselves obtained a lawyer to go
through the process of getting the LDC amendments that were
required to address an overlay. That's how -- my understanding is that
the citizens up in Vanderbilt Beach got an overlay, and that's -- is that
-- am I correct on what they did?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's certainly not required. You are the
legislators, and you may listen to whom you wish to, whether it's
attorneys representing other people or just the other people or
associations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm saying they put their own
money --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- into the program, okay. The
citizens up there, when they come up with an overlay, they put
together their own money. It costs them a lot of money to come up
with an overlay. They worked with the county, but the overall intent
of the overlay was where the citizens worked together and they had
legal representation on that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas, the citizens
have put together an overlay, and I have to tell you that probably 90
Page 107
January 9, 2007
percent of everyone on Goodland already did that, working with our
staff. The guy's standing right there nodding his head yes. That's what
happened. They all participated. And what they found is they never
thought of putting square footage in. They never thought of
megahomes. Just like you're trying to stop them on Vanderbilt Beach
and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, we can't stop it anymore.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you had a moratorium --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One at a time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, this is what they're
trying to do. They're trying to preserve their character. They've got
an overlay in place; they just want to amend it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I'm going to stop the
discussion just for a moment. The only thing I'm looking for is
instructions for staff. We're not going to dissect this anymore.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call a motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to move this forward to a
point we've got -- call the motion.
With that, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have four in favor and one
opposed to bring this back for further discussion and direction.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Next one, Mr. Mudd?
Item #6G
Page 108
January 9, 2007
PUBLIC PETITION BY JOHN SULLIVAN DISCUSSING A BERM
OR SOUND WALL ADJACENT TO NORTHEAST WATER AND
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - BRING BACK TO
FUTURE BCC MEETING FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 6G, which is a
public petition request by John Sullivan to discuss a berm or sound
wall adjacent to the proposed Northeast Water/Wastewater treatment
facility .
MR. SULLIVAN: Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, Mr. Mudd, and staff, my name is John Sullivan.
Most of you know me as Jake. I am the president of the Waterways of
Naples Homeowners' Association, and I'm also the chairperson of the
Northeast Utility Facility Community Advisory Panel.
I've got some of the members of the panel and some of the board
of directors with me today. They're sitting in the audience behind me
just as a little bit of moral support, see if we can get some negotiations
jump started on our stalemate here with staff over the construction
plans of this facility.
Several years ago Collier County purchased 216 acres in eastern
Collier County for the purpose of constructing water and wastewater
facilities to deal with the tremendous amount of growth occurring in
that location, as well as to satisfy the terms of an agreement when the
Orangetree PUD was accepted.
In addition to the aforementioned facilities, the county also plans
to construct a regional park and a recycling drop-off point to be
utilized by residents in eastern Collier County.
Several public meetings were held enabling the county to reveal
their plans for this property purchase, at which time residents were
assured that they would not be dramatically affected by the
construction of these facilities.
Page 109
January 9, 2007
These assurances made by several county government officials
present here today were along the lines of, we've purchased 216 acres.
This project will be a small part of that purchase and we'll hide it so
that you won't be terrible affected by it.
To support their claims, county staff provided the public with
drawings that depicted a berm supporting plantings and trees
surrounding the property that would supposedly prevent many of us
from seeing the majority of the facilities.
In light of the many concerns still shared by neighboring
residents, a group of folks residing in the immediate vicinity was
impaneled to meet with county staff on a monthly basis to discuss
plans regarding the construction of the facility and address concerns
spawned by neighboring residents.
This group of residents and county staff is known as the
community advisory panel, or more commonly, the CAP. Many of
the resident members serving on the CAP, as well as residents in the
area, recognize the need for this proposed facility and welcome it as a
means to escape the present utility provider, foster commercial
development to our area, which we desperately need, and to support
future residential growth.
That recognition drew residents of the community to volunteer to
be service members of the CAP, and to that end, members serve to
ensure the utility needs of our community are going to be met without
compromising the integrity of our property values and the lifestyle
that we have all become accustomed to.
Our first item of business was to adopt a charter to govern our
meetings and guide us during our deliberations. Upon adopting the
charter, the resident members of the CAP requested all the county
staff and contractors to view this proj ect through the eyes of the
homeowners that were going to live adjacent to it and had been living
there for numerous years.
We asked them to seize upon this opportunity to build a
Page 110
January 9, 2007
much-needed utility in the middle of existing homes in such a manner
that would not detract from our present quality of life. In other words,
yeah, we want it, build it, but build it in such a manner that we're not
going to see it, we're not going to hear it, and most importantly, we're
not going to smell it, to which we received assurances, through videos
and such provided by staff, that this was possible, that we were going
to be able to do this.
The CAP continued to meet and has shared in what we consider
to be minimalized stones, a few of which were the decisions to name
the facility and choose the type of architecture that we were going to
utilize in its construction.
At one such meeting, while discussing the landscape buffering to
surround the facility, we were disheartened to learn that the promises
we had heard at public meetings of a berm surrounding the facility to
assist in preventing residents from seeing or hearing most of the daily
operations of the facility were not as we had envisioned them, and
that, in fact, the berm depicted in the drawings was only a two-foot
high berm to prevent stormwater runoff from the facility to adjoining
lands.
The landscape buffer proposed by the contractor, WilsonMiller,
contained no substantial berm and consisted of native trees, hedges
and scrubs, planted at ground level, which county staff adds, supports
the requirements for a landscape buffer, as outlined in the Collier
County Land Development Code.
In light of this revelation and the fact that the county staff had
represented to us that they had every intention of being a good
neighbor, as purported in the document entitled Guiding Principles for
Development of the Northeast Utility Facility, which I believe was
approved by this board, the CAP requested the county staff to consider
-- to reconsider their decision.
At our next meeting, we were informed that the idea of a berm
had been reconsidered, but due to the cost associated with its
Page 111
i<
January 9, 2007
construction, a berm would not be constructed, and we were provided
with a memo outlining that decision from county staff to the public
utilities administrator and the county manager.
The resident members of the CAP feel that the cost numbers
provided by county staff associated with the construction of a berm
that would aid in restricting the sights and sounds of the daily facility
operations is minimal in relation to the overall budget for this proj ect.
Adding to our concern is the county plan to drill deep injection
wells on the property 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for up to 16
months or longer with nothing more than verbal assurances that we
will not hear the constant noise associated with such drilling, hence
our appeal to you to postpone the approval of the easements on the
county fairgrounds where the construction of the proposed wells is
planned, and I understand that's been put on the agenda again for
today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: On the consent agenda, Mr. Sullivan.
It's already been approved.
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. While county staff has represented to
members of the CAP that all noise levels would be acceptable under
Collier County ordinances, the CAP and neighboring residents would
hope that the county would exceed the expectations of the ordinance
and reduce noise levels further, if possible, to ensure the tranquility of
rural life that the current residents now enj oy.
In an effort to offer suggestions on how that might be
accomplished, the CAP has requested county staff on more than one
occasion to provide it with information pertaining to noise levels that
was to be provided by an expert contracted by the county.
At our November meeting, county staff reported to the CAP that
the contractor's only made a verbal report of its findings and that a
written report to be shared with the CAP at a later date is pending.
However, in our December meeting, we were informed by
county staff that the report in question only covers noise emitted by
Page 112
January 9, 2007
equipment located within the confines of the walls of the plan and that
it does not address the issue of noise outside the building, such as
truck traffic, well drilling and general construction, which we believe
would be dramatically reduced with the construction of a berm.
In light of the fact that it's taken quite some time for the
consultant and county staff to provide members of the CAP with the
report, we would hope that upon receiving it, we would receive some
time to review it and have our consultant review it in order that we
could make some recommendations to develop a landscape buffer that
would aid in the reduction of sites and of the daily operation of the
facility.
The downside of all of this is that resident members of the CAP
and residents that live in the vicinity of this facility regrettably now
have become convinced that while the needs of the community at
large are being met by Collier County through the construction of
these facilities, the integrity and interests of those that currently reside
in the vicinity of these plant facilities are being sacrificed at a cost far
greater to bear.
Our desires not to see, hear or smell these facilities as outlined in
our first meeting with county staff and contractors have been brushed
aside to the tune of, we will be within what the code allows, which we
all believe may not be sufficient in this case.
Even though there seems to be some disagreement on whether
county staff represented that a berm would be provided or whether
they simply told us from the start that we would not get one, it is now
clear that either a berm or some type of sound wall is warranted, as a
landscape buffer alone will not ensure the tranquility of all those that
will neighbor this facility.
In light of this disagreement and the stalemate that we seem to
have reached with county staff in resolving this issue, as well as our
concerns surrounding the noise emitted by the drilling, construction,
and so forth, we are coming to you today in an effort to assist us in
Page 113
January 9, 2007
jump starting a reconsideration of this important facet of construction,
this facility, which in our opinion will assist those of us that have lived
here prior to your decision to build this facility, to maintain a quality
of life that we've come to expect out there.
So on behalf of the members of the CAP, some of whom I said
have joined me here today, and the residents of Waterways, as
represented by the board, and neighboring residents of the proposed
facility, we'd like to thank you for your time and hope that you will
direct staff to reconsider and maybe take some action on your behalf
to get things jump started so that we can get this place up and running.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Commissioner Henning, would
you mind if I went first?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, please.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What we have here is the fact that
staff has been authorized to go to a certain level of performance on
this. That level of performance is what's provided for by the LDC.
Requiring a wall, for sure, to separate Orange Blossom (sic), because
of the residential neighborhood that it is, we're required to build it.
There's other parts of it that are going to receive this minimal berm,
problem being is, that a berm of the size that would get you to the
elevation you need to go would encroach upon the footprint of the
land that they'd be using to such an extent that it wouldn't be practical,
and I'm sure Mr. DeLony would explain it.
A wall is very much needed in some of the places of this
construction. I've got to remind you that this particular facility is over
a mile long; is that correct, Mr. DeLony? Is it over a mile?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, for the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities
administrator. Sir, with regard to the perimeter of the entire site,
which is about 216 acres in total, it was about 20- -- 21,000 linear feet
of perimeter, which is, what, over four miles.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. Now, of course, I don't think
there's any need at all for a wall that goes four miles around the
Page 114
January 9, 2007
perimeter of this thing. I do think that there's some needs for some
additional types of buffers plus some walls in some locations.
And it's something of quite a bit of detail that needs to be
discussed, and I'd very much appreciate if this commission would
allow this to come back as a regular agenda item where we could see
all the different options that are available.
Mr. DeLony, would you like to add anything to this --
MR. DeLONY: No, sir. I'll respond to questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning--
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll be in favor of bringing
it back, but only if we direct staff to bring it back to create a district,
northeast water/sewer district separate from all the other districts.
Because if I take a look at -- and I just did -- the plant in Lely,
that's 42 acres. This -- your project, what you're going to be building
on, is 100 acres, correct?
MR. DeLONY: It's -- 216 acres is the entire site. We've got park
allocated -- so with the park allocation backed out of that, the actual
utility site, it's 174 acres.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hundred and seventy-four acres
is yours?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's about four times
of any other facility in Collier County servicing our residents. So
you've got four times the amount to do what you've got to do
buffering, where the other -- you know, the southern waste plant and
northern waste plant has about 40 -- 42 acres.
So if you want to do anything -- I don't care if they gold plate the
sewer pipes out there, it doesn't matter to me. If that's what the
residents want, that's what we ought to do, but let's separate it out from
all the other residents.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning--
Page 115
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's the only way that I'll
support bringing this back is if we -- if we have that service district,
that northeast service district for those residents to pay for whatever
costs they want.
MR. DeLONY: Commissioner, may I make a correction? It's
147, not -- I transposed my numbers. But, again, it's 147 will be the
actual plant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A hundred acres more than the
-- any other --
MR. DeLONY: I'm sorry to interrupt, but I wanted to correct it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, yeah, I'm all in favor, just
make your own district, do whatever you want as far as buffering or
any other extra activities that other service areas don't enjoy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'm not going to make that part
of my motion because the assumption is you're going to box in or put
up fence that would be equal to it. It might not even equal what's
there down to Lely or one of the other treatment plants.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It would far exceed it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You don't know that. You don't
know that you have to fence in that much of an area. A lot of it faces
other areas. A lot of it, like where the Orange Blossom's (sic) going to
go, they might build their own wall. There's a lot of questions that
haven't been answered yet to be able to make the assumption that --
these people here have accepted this burden upon them, not only for
their own benefit, but for the benefit of everybody to that part of
Collier County.
And I want us to be able to look at this thing objectively from all
different angles to be able to see what we're talking about.
You have no idea what the cost is. I don't think Mr. DeLony has
at this point in time.
We already know there's some money that's dedicated for this.
How much would the additional cost be to be able to buffer those
Page 116
January 9, 2007
particular areas that would be most impacted? And that's what I'd like
to bring back, but I don't want to be specific saying that whatever
improvements are made are going to be the total responsibility of that
particular area, stand alone by themselves.
They're going to be taking care of quite a bit of this cost in their
own impact fees that are going to be assessed to them in the very near
future, which is going to be another issue that will be coming forth in
about another two years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have maintenance on those
different kind of operations, whether it be a wall -- you said fence.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wall.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's going to be fenced in
anyways. So if the residents want a wall, we ought to do that. But all
I'm saying is, just create its own water and sewer district out there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's put it this way,
Commissioner Henning. My motion's going to stand to bring it back
so we can look at the parameters of it. If the cost of it is such that
that's the only way it could be done, we could also look at that. But I
don't want to make that as the sole requirement for -- to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. I think that that's what we
should be doing is discussing it when we bring it back. This isn't the
time to make any of those decisions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what we usually do anyway.
So yes, I make a motion that we bring it back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, and I'll second your motion.
And with that, any other discussion?
MR. MUDD: Could I just have --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To hear everything.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chair?
Page 11 7
January 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, one more second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That wasn't part of the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, let me make it a part of my
motion to hear all aspects of this, including how to pay for it.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, the -- including how to pay for it.
Whatever you do to that particular site at that plant, okay, will go
against the capital cost of the plant, and will -- and will end up an
adjusted impact fee for Collier County. That's how we -- that's how
we keep the impact fees.
And all new customers, and Mr. -- and while Mr. Sullivan will be
a new customer, all new customers will pay that impact fee for water
and sewer service.
So, in essence, some of the things they're asking for will increase
their impact fee, and they will ultimately have to pay that particular
bill when they hook onto the plant.
Now, Commissioner Coyle, you're shaking your head, but that's
how the Florida Statutes read. It's new customers hooking to the plant.
So I'm going to say that in and of itself -- I didn't hear that in the
public petition. And for some strange reason, the cost and impact
fees, it's somehow left out of this particular discussion, but rest
assured that's how the law reads.
And we have seen when that happens -- in Marco Island, for
instance, in the sewer service that's there, and some of the turmoil
that's happened in that particular issue. But that's how the plant gets
paid for, ma'am. It's probably how the wall will get paid for, too, will
be an impact fee based on the water/sewer capital program.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in essence, it would exactly do
what Commissioner Henning was saying?
MR. DeLONY: Well, it would -- it you don't mind, sir, just to
kick in to what the manager is saying. For the record, Jim DeLony.
The impact fees that we have for the water/sewer district is one
fee. There's not an impact fee for the people that live in Orangetree or
Page 118
January 9, 2007
an impact fee for the people that may be building a new home in
Fiddler's Creek.
Within the footprint of the district, which this will be a footprint
area in 2012, whatever the impact fees are in force at that time, that's
what the new customers will pay.
Now, in this specific case, because they have -- they're a part of
-- you're assuming an existing utility -- and we've discussed this will
Commissioner Coletta -- if there is any way we can apply any of that
capital that you -- investment or capital infrastructure we receive as a
part of that transfer from Orangetree utilities to the public to Collier
County Public Utilities, then obviously there will be some offsets for
those affected customers who had previously been Orangetree
customers.
But just to make sure we're clear, there's only one impact packet
fee for the district, just one, and everyone pays it. It's a blended
impact fee. It puts capital cost to all of our plant expansions
throughout the district over the period of consideration, and through
that methodology we have determined our impact fees. And that's the
nexus of those impact fees.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But isn't it also -- we're getting into--
deeper into this than we should be till it comes back.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But isn't it also true that the majority
of all growth and impact fees is going to be taken in that -- taking
place in that particular area in the future?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir. I have -- and per the approved master
plan that this board approved in 6 of June of this year, this past year,
we're going to have new plant expansions both in the southeast along
the Manatee area, we're going to have a new water plant -- new
wastewater plant somewhere out along the East Trail moving out in
that area. We have an expansion to our north plant up in
Commissioner Halas', district, planning to come online here in the
Page 119
January 9, 2007
next four to five years. All those capital investments which are
growth and growth related will be paid for through impact fees. So
this represents one of the capital investments which support the
projected growth within the utility districts.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand. But then again, the cost
of the improvements to those plants will also be shared --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- by the new residents coming on--
MR. DeLONY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- out there at the Orangetree utility?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. It's a blended --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is something we can get into in
much more detail --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- if we bring it back. And I hope I get
enough support from my commissioners to be able to give these
residents their day.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm fine. That was from a
previous time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, okay.
Is there any other comments?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor of
Commissioner Fiala's motion and my second to allow this to come
back. Is there anything we're missing here or --
MR. MUDD: I'm just trying to pin down a time when we can
bring it back.
MR. DeLONY: I'd like to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We haven't gotten to the point we
agreed to bring it back.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Page 120
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So it's 3-2, so we bring it back.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I'd like to, if I could, answer Manager
Mudd's question. Sir, I'd like to target either the first or second
meeting in February, because what I'd like to do -- we have got some
pretty detailed numbers that we've worked on this past month. And,
again, I'd like to sit down and look at those carefully and weigh them
carefully.
I believe that we have a CAP meeting planned for Thursday of
this next week; is that correct? The Friday after the CAP meeting we
can talk to some -- to the CAP members, not about the numbers, but at
least see what -- their options that they may have and look -- and have
that package for you.
So it will take me a couple weeks to do that and make sure it's
sufficient. But I'd like either the first or second meeting in February to
bring that back, if that's okay with the board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I may point out to the
members of CAP, I appreciate your time and effort you spend with
this. You can see by the vote that we took to bring this back for just
discussion, it was very close, 3-2. It will take three to pass it. So
when you start to dissect this and look at what can be done and can't
be done, keep in mind that in order to be able to make this happen, it
has to come in economically enough to convince three commissioners
up here to make it happen. I appreciate your time here today.
Thank you very much, Mr. DeLony.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
Page 121
January 9, 2007
Item #8A
ORDINANCE2007-02: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER
COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 75-16 WHICH ESTABLISHES TIME,
PLACE, AND CONDUCT OF MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, TO CLARIFY AND PROVIDE FOR
SUPERMAJORITY VOTING AS PERMITTED BY GERERAL
LAW, SPECIAL LAW, ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION -
ADOPTED; RESOLUTION 2007-09: TO SETTLE CERTAIN
TYPES OF LAND USE DISPUTES AND LAND USE LITIGATION
B SUPERMAJOURITY VOTE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, now we go to 8A. I think we've
done all the public petitions. 8A is a recommendation to consider
adopting an ordinance amending Collier County ordinance number
75-16, as amended, which establishes the time, place and conduct of
the meetings of the Board of County Commissioners, to clarify and
provide supermajority voting as permitted by general law, special law,
ordinance or resolution, and to consider adopting a resolution to settle
certain types of land use disputes and land use litigation by
supermajority vote.
Mr. Michael Pettit, from the County Attorney's Office, will
present.
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Very briefly, we
discussed this item once before. We've brought it -- we've had the
ordinance advertised with the amendment included.
What it will allow you to do -- and I've decided rather than trying
to make two items, I've made it one. First you could look at this
ordinance, make a decision whether you want to approve it or not. It
will give you the flexibility to impose supermajority voting on certain
types of items by way of resolution, and second, if you then proceed
down that road, there is a resolution which was inadvertently omitted
Page 122
January 9, 2007
from the agenda package, but I think you've got it in front of you now,
which would allow you to address the issue -- specific issue that I
think Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas had had concern
about previously that has led to this being brought back, which is
imposing supermajority voting requirement on settlements of certain
types of land use disputes when the relief we are going to grant the
plaintiff would have had to be acquired by a supermajority vote in the
first instance.
So I'm free to entertain any questions or any comments at this
point. I really don't have anything to add.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
MR. PETTIT: That's for the ordinance, and then I think Mr.
Weigel is probably going to tell you he'd like a separate vote for the
resolution.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion, we have
a second. Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Coyle made the motion,
Commissioner Halas seconded, and Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It says it right there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's only 2:11 and we're already
getting silly.
MR. MUDD: Ms. Filson, how many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: We have one speaker.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
MS. FILSON: Bruce Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: I represent only myself, and I don't come
here to oppose the proposal, but I do have a couple of tweaks to
suggest. One is that you should require advertised public notice so
that everybody knows about it. If you're going to change something
Page 123
January 9, 2007
from a majority vote to a four-fifths vote requirement, I just think
that's basically fair that there should be some advanced notice about it,
an opportunity to be heard. Because the way this is written, you
wouldn't -- you could impose it at any time. Like I'm before you on
some other matter, and you could just decide in the middle of that
hearing, well, let's increase the vote requirement from a majority to
four- fifths, and that ordinance would enable you to do that, but there
would have been no prior warning, no notice beforehand to be heard.
That's my first point.
My second point is, the ordinance itself, it seems to me that if
you are going to adopt a four-fifths vote requirement for anything, that
the four-fifths vote requirement itself should receive a four-fifths vote
and not just a majority. It seems somewhat inconsistent to be able to
change it with only a majority vote, and those are my only two
comments. Thank you.
MR. PETTIT: Just a comment. I think Mr. Anderson's
suggestion about the advertisement is probably not a bad one for
public notice because it is extraordinary to go from a majority to
supermajority.
The second point I think we addressed when I was here before.
Ms. Belpedio and I did a fair amount of research on this, and we
cannot find anything that says that a majority of a board or a
commission or a council is prevented from imposing a supermajority
requirement on itself. So there's no legal constraint there. So those
are my two responses.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you telling me that this isn't
considered public notice?
MR. PETTIT: I think -- correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Anderson.
I don't think he's complaining about this. I think he's saying that in the
future, let's suppose -- we came across this issue with the Bert Harris
case. Some other issue like that arises, I think what he's suggesting is
Page 124
January 9, 2007
that before you would vote on a resolution to change the vote from
majority to supermajority, you would give some sort of advertisement
to the public or special notice to the public so they could come in and
comment.
I don't think he's complaining about what's before you today; am
I correct?
MR. ANDERSON: You are correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Give me a break.
MR. PETTIT: We did have advertised --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Give me a break. It's advertised.
My motion stands.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My second stands.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that it? No one else? No other
comments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I -- so this is only going
to be imposed upon items that are -- require a supermajority anyways,
correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
MR. PETTIT: As we drafted this, what we tried to do was make
the point that there are items under general law and ordinance, and
even resolution, that already exist that require a supermajority vote by
this board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. PETTIT: What we've done here is added a provision in
your procedures ordinance to allow you to adopt additional resolutions
in the future to impose supermajority.
If you approve this ordinance, then you can consider whether you
want to adopt a draft resolution that we passed out which would have
the effect of requiring you to have a four-fifths vote to settle a land use
dispute where the relief being granted to the plaintiff or the claimant
Page 125
January 9, 2007
would have typically required a four-fifths vote, for example, a
rezoning that had gone through the normal land use process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- and the resolutions, we're
only talking about land use?
MR. PETTIT: In this instance we are only talking about land
use. It might be that there may be other situations that arise in the
future where you want to do the same thing. But the only resolution --
if you adopt this ordinance, the only resolution for you to consider
today is the resolution regarding land use settlements.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I'm not going to
support that because I think that anything that requires a majority (sic)
to adopt, any subsequent action after that should take a supermajority
to adopt, like the tourist development ordinance. If you amend it, it
still takes a supermajority to adopt, but their budget takes a
supermajority to adopt; am I correct?
So if you amend the budget of the tourist development, it only
takes a simple majority. And all I'm saying is, anything that takes a
supermajority that any after-the-fact amendments should take a
supermajority too, and that isn't what we have before us today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I agree with
you, but also I'll tell you, if it wasn't for Sandalwood, I might still have
supported it, which would have given it a supermajority approving it.
This has happened because of what happened with Sandalwood. It's
for Sandalwood that I've seen the dangers of what could happened. I
know we would have lost that lawsuit and we would have been in a lot
of serious -- a very serious situation. If it wasn't for that, I probably
could support it, but I'm not going to be able to support it either.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what we're saying here is, we
can take away property rights that requires a supermajority, but when
it comes to fiscal actions, it only takes a simple majority?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In any case, we still have a motion
before us and second, and I don't want to drag this out any longer.
Page 126
January 9, 2007
No other comments, with hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And it passes 3-2.
MR. PETTIT: And the second issue then that would be before
you would be the question of the resolution.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask in that resolution, will it
also say about making sure that there's -- if it changes to a four vote,
that it must be advertised and give people adequate notice that the
voting requirement has changed?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the motion does not reflect that at this
point, Ms. Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, can it?
MR. PETTIT: Are you talking about the resolution now?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: She is, yes.
MR. PETTIT: At this point the motion doesn't reflect that.
Among yourselves, you could make a decision to amend the motion.
The resolution, as drafted, relates to settlements of land use disputes
only.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's only four votes anyway,
right?
MR. PETTIT: It would require -- if this board approves this
resolution today, then it would require you to have a four-fifths vote in
the future on the settlements of land use disputes.
Page 127
January 9,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they're always advertised
four-fifths anyway?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just want to make sure that
whatever -- you know, according to what Bruce said, if it changed
while we're sitting up here, that then we would give people adequate
notice.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's the point. Any decision
that we're going to vote on, whether it's three-fifths or -- three-fifths or
four- fifths, has to be advertised. We can't take a vote otherwise, so
that's -- it's a moot point. Of course people are going to know that
we're voting on it.
Now, the -- we do not always advertise -- I don't know that we
advertise in any of these -- how many votes it takes for approval.
That's specified by our ordinance, or our resolution, which we're about
to pass. I hope we're about to pass it.
MR. PETTIT: Yeah, typically, I mean in -- typically the
advertisement is one thing, notice is another. Our agenda's published,
and the items on the agenda are published usually Thursday, I think,
before the meeting on Tuesday. And then in some instances -- for
example, this ordinance had to be advertised 10 days before this
meeting. But in any case, there would be public notice of some type
typically
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Of course.
MR. PETTIT: I think what Mr. Anderson's concern was is that
somehow, maybe on the floor or something, there would be a decision
to make something four-fifths vote.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not what we're doing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But all land uses are really four
anyway, right? And this pertains to land uses.
I just wanted to make sure that nothing would come back to bite
Page 128
January 9, 2007
us somehow because then they'd say, oh, well, we weren't informed
and so now we're going to impose a Bert Harris Act on you or
something. Okay, fine. As long as we're clear on that.
MR. PETTIT: This resolution simply provides that if we have a
settlement -- and usually it would be in the Bert Harris Act context.
F or example, we come before you and the petitioner -- or complainant
comes before you and says, we want to settle on these grounds, and
one of the things that they're asking for would be in the nature of a
conditional use or an amendment of a PUD, something that typically
requires, as I understand it, four votes, that to approve that settlement,
this board would, if you approve this resolution today, have to have
four or five members voting to approve it.
MR. WEIGEL: But Mr. Chairman and Ms. Fiala, if I may add to
that for Ms. Fiala's question area, is that a four-fifths vote would be
required where it's previously not been required, but it is not
necessarily advertised as a paid advertisement in the Naples Daily
News, this particular kind of agenda item.
All we were addressing at this point was increasing the voting
requirement of a mere majority to four-fifths, and yet the settlement of
the lawsuit may involve land use matters such as a rezone or a PUD
amendment, conditional use, which in the normal administrative
legislative review would have taken four-fifths vote in the normal
context of that -- of a developer application.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: So this resolution will not require that the
agenda item be advertised as a paid advertisement in the Naples Daily
News. But Mr. Pettit has indicated that the matter will always be part
of the notice that's provided through the agenda. But the board will
know, and everyone's on public notice upon the adoption of this
resolution -- should be on notice legally -- that a four-fifths vote will
be required for any future approvals that the board may do on this -- in
this area.
Page 129
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Is that the end of discussion?
No other comments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope. We've got a motion on the
table.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a motion on the table. I
believe you made the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Halas seconded
the motion. The motion was made by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the motion passes 3-2, with
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coletta in the negative.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we start the next item, why
don't we take a break about seven minutes early, rather than just get
started, and then we could get right into it and we can stay with the
item; 10 minutes. Be back here at 2:35, give you an extra minute.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Item #8B
Page 130
January 9, 2007
ORDINANCE 2007-03: RZ-2006-AR-10150 BUSKSTONE
ESTATES, LLC, REPRESENTED BY WILLIAM L. HOOVER,
AICP OF HOOVER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC.
AND RICHARD YOV ANOVICH, OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN
& JOHNSON, P.A., REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM THE
RURAL AGRICLUTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMIL Y-6 ZONING DISTRICT KNOWN
AS SCENIC WOODS - ADOPTED
Commissioner, this brings us to item 8B. It used to be 17B. It
was asked to be moved from the summary agenda to the regular
agenda. It's an advertised--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did we do 8A?
MR. MUDD: -- item. This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
It's RZ-2006-AR-I0150, Buckstone Estates, LLC, represented by
William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development Inc.,
and Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson P.A.,
requests a rezone from the rural agricultural zoning district to the
residential multifamily-6 zoning district with a limit of four homes per
acre for a 4.61-acre project known as Scenic Woods.
The property is located on the south side of Wolfe Road
approximately one half mile west of Collier Boulevard, County Road
951, in Section 34, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County,
Florida.
This item was asked to go from the summary to the regular
agenda by Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Coyle isn't here
just yet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you want me to give ex parte?
Page 131
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just go --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Ex parte on the part of the
commissioners. Let's start off with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nada, nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nothing.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nada, except I spoke to Rich
Y ovanovich in the hall for about a minute.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That counts.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I received emails and
three phone calls from Mr. Y ovanovich.
Do you, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. And I have no ex parte on
this item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I talked with Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm going to ask you to lead
off since you pulled this item, and we'll take it from there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. As you might recall, during
our last meeting we discussed what the Growth Management Plan
provides, and we had asked staff to provide us with a clear assessment
of the assumptions they were making concerning concurrency at any
time we were considering a rezoning, and I'll -- I will quote from the
attorney's letter who was advising the staff about concurrency issues.
It says, the Growth Management Plan Transportation Element,
policy 5.1, prohibits the county from approving a rezone request that
significantly impacts a roadway segment already operating or
proj ected to operate at unacceptable level of service within the
five-year planning period unless specific mitigation factors are
identified.
So I asked the staff -- it was not included in our executive
Page 132
January 9, 2007
summary, so I asked the staff to tell us what the level of service is on
the two roads that are primarily impacted, and they have informed me
that Collier Boulevard is currently failing with a negative capacity of
minus 738, but it is under construction with an anticipated substantial
completion date of the first quarter of '09 -- that's over two years from
now -- and that Vanderbilt Beach Road is also failing with a negative
capacity of minus 690 and the construction started in the first quarter
of'05.
And the contractor's now asking for an extension for completion
to the third quarter of '08, so we're looking at almost two years on that
one for completion.
My concern is that we clearly have two failing road segments. It
is a small project. There's no question about it. It's not a major
project. But as I have informed Mr. Y ovanovich, I think the principles
apply whether it's a small project or a big project, and the principle I'm
concerned about is that Growth Management Plan prohibits the county
from approving a rezone request that significantly impacts a roadway
segment already operating or projected to operate at an unacceptable
level of service.
It is currently operating at unacceptable level of service, and
that's why I wanted to have this pulled. I am not inclined to vote for it
until such time as this capacity exists. I could very comfortably vote
for it in two years whenever the capacity exists.
I cannot comfortably vote for it now when the capacity doesn't
exist for a couple of reasons, number one is, that in one case the
contractor is already asking for a substantial increase in completion
date, or delay completion date. We don't know when it's going to be
completed.
So I have no interest in putting more rezoned property in the
backlog when we have failing roads there right now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ifwe can, I'd like to go to Mr.
Y ovanovich.
Page 133
January 9, 2007
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, point of order, please. If you
would please ask the court reporter to swear in everybody that's about
ready to speak, that would be very helpful.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I'm new at this.
MR. MUDD: That's okay, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's why I got Commissioner Halas
sitting here to my right to advise me.
Where were you?
Would you please swear the -- those people in that wish to speak
on this item.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I appreciate you pointing
that out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I may, I'm Rich Yovanovich on behalf
of the petitioner. If I could just give a brief overview of the project
then respond specifically to some of Commissioner Coyle's comments,
I would appreciate that.
First, keep in mind, this is a 4.6-acre rezone, straight rezone, for
RMF-6 with a density cap of four. Where in -- under the
comprehensive plan, we cannot have more than four units per acre,
therefore the project at its maximum could be 18 units.
From a transportation standpoint, this is not a significant impact
on either one of those roads. This is one-tenth of 1 percent of the
adopted level of service. The level of service significance test is a 3
percent impact. It is also 100 percent consistent with the existing
concurrency system Collier County has in place.
The concurrency management system in place today says you
count the road as improved if it's in the first two years of your
five-year plan. This is even better than that. This is actually under
construction.
So if you were to apply concurrency at the time of rezone, which
you all have discussed doing, we are concurrent at the time of rezone.
Page 134
January 9, 2007
So I believe we are 100 percent consistent with the
comprehensive plan as well as 100 percent consistent with your
concurrency management system.
So I would say there is a dist -- there is a difference,
Commissioner Coyle. We're not -- we're not a significant impact.
We're -- de minimis is less than 1 percent. We're even -- we're
one-tenth of 1 percent. So there's really -- we don't meet that first test
of analyzing the significance in policy 5.1. Even if you did, you do
have to include the improvements that are already under construction.
We have received unanimous recommendation of approval from
your Planning Commission, and you have seen from your Planning
Commission specifically in this area of the county, when they have a
concern about a project that's going to negatively impact either Collier
Boulevard or Vanderbilt Beach Road, they will -- there is a -- there's a
portion of the Planning Commission that will vote against any proj ect.
They did not feel that this proj ect, because it was only 18 units,
rose to the level that even those individuals who are vigilant in
defending Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road, if you will,
felt that there was any reason to not support this particular proj ect.
So what we're requesting is that you follow your Planning
Commission's recommendation, that you approve the rezone. It is
only 18 units. It's an insignificant impact to the roads. The roads are
under construction.
Realistically, if we got approval today, we wouldn't probably get
our first CO until April 1 of'08 anyway, and that's when Vanderbilt
Beach Road is scheduled to be completed. Whether you give the
contractor an extension, I don't know. My conversations with
transportation staff is, they don't see a reason to give your contractor
an extension out there.
But be that as it may, our COs will be coming onboard when that
road is -- Vanderbilt Beach Road is scheduled to be improved anyway.
Access will be via Pristine Drive, which is the north/south connector.
Page 135
January 9, 2007
I've got -- I would like to put another map up on -- this is actually
from our transportation study, which I believe you have in your
agenda, but it shows you the trip distribution of what we're going to
have.
In the peak hour, which is -- the worst peak hour is the afternoon
peak hour. We will have nine peak hour trips, nine. In the morning
peak hour we'll have eight.
So we only have nine trips in the peak hour added to your
transportation system, and you will see, they basically all use Pristine
Drive coming down to Vanderbilt Beach Road, and that will be the
road that will be completed first. Collier Boulevard will be completed
second.
So it's really -- this is -- I don't believe this is the project that you
would say needs to be stopped. It's a de minimis impact. The roads
are under construction. Your Planning Commission didn't see any
issues with the project, and we would hope that the Board of County
Commissioners will move forward with and follow the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
I also -- since there was a straight rezone, we didn't deal with
something we usually deal with in a PUD, which is the commitment
for a donation of $1,000 per unit for affordable housing. That -- we
always understood that that was an obligation to do that.
Since it's not a PUD, I wasn't aware that you can actually include
that in the zoning resolution. Apparently at your last Planning
Commission -- I mean last board meeting you had, you had a straight
rezone where you did impose that condition as a condition of
rezonIng.
We're comfortable adding that to our rezone resolution, that we
would contribute $1,000 per unit, or whatever the fee ultimately is, for
a linkage fee for each unit as a CO is issued for that, so we want to add
that to the record because that was a commitment that all of my clients
have made, and that was a commitment this client was willing to make
Page 136
January 9, 2007
as well.
So I think I've -- again, it's -- we're requesting your approval.
And I'll answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you're referring to 6.02
of the Land Development Code on the concurrency --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- adequate public facilities.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think what that does is
follows the Growth Management Plan, 5.1, 5.4; am I correct, County
Attorney, on how we correct -- how we count concurrency?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It would be in the transportation,
and I see that Mr. Scott is here, but it would be under, I believe it's 5.1
or 5.2 of the transportation element where you look and see if there is
a significant impact, and that's the consistency determination. And in
the way the system is currently set up, you do that first. And then
later when they come in to get site plan approval or other permitting,
then you look at the checkbook concurrency management system to
see if they're concurrent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I would ask Mr. Scott if I have
summarized that correctly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's shaking his head yes. So
what you're saying is, the Growth Management Plan transportation
element dictates that -- what our transportation concurrency --
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, at the -- at the rezone level.
And since Mr. Scott is the expert, I would like him to maybe give a
little more detail, because when you're making a record, attorney
argument is one thing, but having the expert testimony is what -- the
factual testimony is something else. So I would like Mr. Scott to
elaborate further on the legal parameters that I stated.
Page 137
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. SCOTT: Donald Scott, transportation planning.
The first part of what was read for the -- for 5.1 and 5.2, it
specifically follows at the end of -- unless there's mitigation, we
assume the widening of those roadways as mitigation towards what
they're talking about for the failing roadway segments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Assuming the widening of
Vanderbilt Beach --
MR. SCOTT: Vanderbilt and Collier, which are both under
construction. Now, to this date -- I know Rich has said within two
years. Even what we're trying to do right now is -- what the board's
trying to do with the EAR, is that it's under construction, and both of
those are under construction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It's not with -- within
your capital improvement. What it says in, I think, 5.1, if it's in your
capital improvement plan to be constructed within those two years, it
can be considered as consistent with our Growth Management Plan?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But this one, like it was stated,
it's actually under construction?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. SCOTT: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this might be the test of all
tests for property rights. That's my final question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. This again brings up the fact
about de minimis traffic on a failing road system, and I feel as
strongly about it as Commissioner Coyle does.
My concern is, the petitioner has already spoken that their COs
possibly won't take place until pretty close to the completion of the
roads. How about accepting the fact that there would be no COs until
the road is -- both roads completed?
Page 138
January 9, 2007
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Commissioner Halas, if I can, since
we really don't have any impact on Collier Boulevard, we can agree to
the condition on Vanderbilt Beach Road, which I think is fair and we
can agree to that condition. I don't think Collier Boulevard should
become a requirement for that particular project because there's really
no impact to Collier Boulevard, so if that's a reasonable compromise
to you.
We're hoping that you're going to not give the extension to the
contractor, but it should be about the same time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Well, whether we give an
extension to the contractor or he runs --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, I understand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- into unforeseen problems, I still
would like to make sure that we don't impact that particular road
segment until such time as it's adequately widened enough to accept
any traffic, whether it's de minimis or whether it's 3 percent.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're talking about Vanderbilt
Beach Road in front of our project, correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Vanderbilt Beach Road in front of
your project. I believe that hopefully that will be all done by
sometime early part of 2008.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And there'd be CO -- we'd be limited to
no COs until that portion of the proj ect in front of our -- that portion of
Vanderbilt Beach Road in front of our project is completed, or
substantially completed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How 'bout Vanderbilt being done
from 951 west to Airport? That's it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would be your motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second it.
Commissioner Coyle?
Page 139
January 9,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to make the
observation that I do not accept any traffic on a failing road to be de
minimis under any circumstances, and that's pretty much what Growth
Management Plan says.
If you follow that logic, that de minimis traffic is okay, then we
can approve 15, 20 or 30 de minimis developments in the same area,
and we'll all be saying, well, okay, it's de minimis. It really doesn't
have any impact. That's really not the case.
And -- but my concern is that traffic -- the traffic impact for this
proj ect or any other proj ect does not start at CO. The traffic impact
starts the minute you start clearing the lot, okay? You start having
trucks there, you have workers there. You have all sorts of traffic on
roads.
So when you say that you can't have a CO until the road capacity
exists, we're not really considering the traffic that occurs before CO is
ready.
So I have a problem with all these things. We've let these things
slide in the past. And if we keep doing it, things are just going to keep
getting worse. And as I said, I know this is a relatively small project,
but principle is principle. If we're going to adhere to principle, we
ought to do it for one project and all projects.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I may, I'm going to close the
public portion of this meeting. You're right, Commissioner Coyle, to
a point. The problem is is that we've got rules and regulations, and we
can't readdress them on the fly. We can only deal with what's before
us, and we can change them as we get into it. So I, for one, can see a
reason why this project has validity.
So with that, is there any other comments?
Mr. Y ovanovich, I hope it's a short comment.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is. I just want to make sure that the
two stipulations are in the motion. One, no COs until the traffic is
open, and also the affordable housing stipulation is part of Mr. Halas'
Page 140
January 9, 2007
motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I believe that was correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And my second.
What about you, Mr. Weigel, anything else?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Y ovanovich just covered what I was raising.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, no other comments, all
those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So it's 4-1. It passed. Thank
you.
Item #9 A
RESOLUTION 2007-10: APPOINTMENT OF ANNETTE M.
ALVAREZ TO THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 9 A. Appointment of a member to the Pelican Bay Services
Division Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve
the nomination of Annette M. Alvarez.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Henning for
Page 141
January 9, 2007
approval.
All -- any other comments?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2007-11: RE-APPOINTMENT OF LORETTA
MURRAY AND APPOINTMENT OF CONSTANCE L.
BETTINGER TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item, 9B,
appointment of members to the Library Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
that we approve Loretta Murray and Connie Hennink.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
Page 142
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2007-12: RE-APPOINTING LAWRENCE BAYTOS,
JOHN BARLOW, ROBERT BENNETT, SYDNEY BLUM
(W /W AIVER OF TERM PROVISIONS), AND JAMES VAN FLEET
TO THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item, 9C,
appointment of members to the County Government Productivity
Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
that we accept the committee's recommendations to reappoint the
following, what is it, four or five members.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Accepting the committee's
recommendation will cover it very well, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any comments?
(No response.)
Page 143
January 9,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have to waive ordinance
2000-55.
MS. FILSON: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Section D.
MS. FILSON: That was on the second page, and I didn't catch
that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would make a motion that we
waive that provision.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion to waive
that provision by Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner
Halas.
And seeing no discussion, all those in favor indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They ayes have it, 5-0.
Page 144
January 9, 2007
MR. MUDD: And that waiver was on item 9C, the County
Government Productivity Committee appointee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct, yes.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2007-13: APPOINTMENT OF KATHLEEN K.
DAMMERT TO THE LELY GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to our next item, which is 9D,
appointment of a member to the Lely Golf Estates Beautification
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Recommendation -- or rather I
motion that we accept the recommendation from the committee of
Kathleen Dammert.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #9E
Page 145
January 9, 2007
RESOLUTION 2007-14: APPOINTMENT OF ROGER JACOBSON
TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9E, appointment of
a member to the Environmental Advisory Council.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion of Robert
Jacobsen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I second that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have a motion by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All those -- any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2007-15: APPOINTMENT OF JEFFREY CARTER
TO THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AD HOC
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 9F, appointment of a member to
the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad Hoc Committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The commissioner from that
district.
Page 146
January 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, motion to approve the
committee's recommendations of Jeffrey Carter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #9G
RESOLUTION 2007-16: APPOINTMENT OF MARIA C.
MITCHELL TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9G, appointment of a member to the
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion we appoint
Maria Mitchell.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
Page 147
January 9, 2007
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #9H
RESOLUTION 2007-17: APPOINTMENT OF GLENN HERRIMAN
TO THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9H, appointment of a member to the
Contractors' Licensing Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion we appoint
Glenn Herriman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #91
Page 148
January 9, 2007
DET AILS OF GOODLAND OVERLAY TO BE CONTINUED TO
A FUTURE MEETING - CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: The next item is 91. It's a discussion on details of
the Goodland Overlay. I believe that Ms. Fullmer was -- and group
have left. There was some confusion whether we're going to do this or
we're going to continue this to the 23rd with the public petition. I said
it's probably going to be continued based on the board's stipulations to
the 23rd of January. I hope I didn't overstep my bounds.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I think that's the way we all
understood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's what we understood.
MR. MUDD: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make -- ask the
county attorney one more time, that the motion that we made, we're
not putting the county in any kind of jeopardy, are we, in regards to
property rights?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not yet.
MR. WEIGEL: No, you've not at this point. And Mr. Schmitt is
going to put the property owners of the property at issue on notice, but
he is not taking any action preventing them from continuing to the
next time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to explain, that was my
nay vote, because I was concerned that deep down there might be
some problems in regards to property rights in regards to people that
have lots on the area of Goodland. So that's --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine, Commissioner Halas.
Appreciate you sharing that with us.
MS. FILSON: And I do have three speakers, and you say they're
gone, correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I believe so.
Page 149
January 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can call them off just to make
sure.
MS. FILSON: Connie Fullmer, Bob Bromley, and Debby Pappy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Gone.
Item #9J
RECONSIDERATION OF PETITION A VROW-2006-AR-9918-
DENIED
MR. MUDD: Next item, Commissioners, is 9J, it's a request to
reconsider petition A VROW-2006-AR-9918. And this request for
reconsideration was asked for by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you want me to just say?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I was called by the petitioner,
and they said they had some new information that they would like to
present that they weren't able to present the last time because the
meeting had been kind of broken up, and I said, well, we're glad to
hear what else -- whatever else they have to say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you'd like to call them up, please
do.
MR. WEIGEL: No.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, on this particular--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Are we out of line?
MR. MUDD: Well, we are a little bit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not a hearing.
MR. MUDD: Normally when you do a request for
reconsideration, you vote to reconsider the item, and then you specify
within the next two meetings which meeting you would like it to come
to so that it can be advertised and go through that process.
Now, if there's a specific item that you want some clarification on
Page 150
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's fine. I just want to follow
protocol. Okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is that I think we're --
we, as the Board of County Commissioners, are being put in a
situation where we're trying to make a determination about two
property owners, and to try to come up being -- using us as the
litigators in regards to whether we should close roads because we have
a business that wants to remain open.
And I feel that -- and I'm only putting this out as information --
that I believe that those two parties need to come together and come
up with a consensus so, therefore, then it gives us a clearer picture of
what direction we need to go as Board of County Commissioners and
possibly vacating some roads.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Henning. Did I get
that sequence right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. No other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This has to do with the
reconsideration. All those in favor of a reconsideration at a future date
that will be set, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 151
January 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
And so reconsideration was refused.
Okay. Next item?
MS. FILSON: Was that 2-3?
MR. MUDD: There was two people that voted for it, and there
were three people that voted against it. The people that voted against
it were Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Halas and Commissioner
Coletta. Did I miss -- I think I heard that right.
Item #9K
CHANGE THE NAMES OF COLLIER REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER TO PHYSICIANS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER-
COLLIER BOULEVARD AND PHYSICIANS REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER-PINE RIDGE - APPROVED
Next item is item 9K. It's a Physicians Regional -- excuse me.
Let me read it. 9K. It's a name change of the Collier Regional
Medical Center to the Physicians Regional Medical Center, Collier
Boulevard, and a name change of the Physicians Regional Medical
Center to the Physician's Medical Center, Pine Ridge.
The item was asked to be added based on a letter that
Commissioner Coletta received from the petitioner, and staff couldn't
approve the name changes because they all start with Physicians
Regional Medical Center, and you have two items that are the same,
even though they have street differences. If the streets were in the
front of the name instead of the name of the physician thing, then staff
could have done it because you didn't have the same names on the
particular title, and that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know, and I appreciate that. I'd like
to call Mr. Schmitt up for just a minute.
And I understand that staff has a certain protocol that they have
Page 152
January 9, 2007
to go through to be able to make these decisions, but the commission
can step in at any point in time and override that protocol if they think
that it isn't justified.
Do you see any serious item here that would be detrimental to the
health, safety and welfare of Collier County with these name changes?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, your community
development/environmental services division administrator.
To answer your question, from my point of view, no. I think
they're, frankly -- logically they're pretty distinguishable locations.
I do have emails we sent off to the two fire districts and to the
911. All three of them are relatively soft denials saying, the county
ought to stick with its protocols, but there's nothing specifically stating
directly that the board should not approve this. So I leave it to your
discretion.
And it is prohibited by code, section 13 under ordinance 2003-14,
no street development, building or subdivision shall bear the same
name or similar sounding names as another development, building,
subdivision or street in the incorporated or unincorporated area of
Collier County.
Your discretion, if you want to approve it from my perspective, I
see no reason --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate that, Mr. Schmitt.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Shouldn't this be on a different
format? Shouldn't this be -- since our staff is recommending denial,
there's -- this is just an add-on with a request to change a name. But
shouldn't we have our staffs input?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with getting staff input, and
that's why I asked Mr. Schmitt to come up front. I have no opposition.
I just didn't see this as any earth shaking item that required a
tremendous amount of commission's time; however, if my fellow
commissioners would like to see this brought back as an agenda item,
Page 153
January 9, 2007
I'd be more than happy to support that particular motion.
But I don't think it's of any real serious consequence, this
particular name change. That was my own particular outlook on it.
Now, if somebody else has a different opinion, that's fine, I'm willing
to listen to it.
Commissioner -- I'm sorry. Somebody's got a comment.
MS. FILSON: No, sir. I wanted to let you know I have two
speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll come to that.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Joe, when you say you have a soft
denial, can you be more specific?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. I could read those, Commissioners. This
is from Nick Biondo, deputy chief, East Naples Fire District. This is
-- basically this was to Peggy Gerald. Thank you for the FYI on the
name change. I think this would create problems for the emergency
services department. Most local residents will know the different
locations, but there are -- a large number of seasonal residents may
not. Maybe try adding north and south to the title. That was from the
East Naples Fire District.
From the -- this is the public affairs communications service,
which is the sheriff. And it says -- and this was from -- whenever two
or more facilities, roadways, et cetera, share a common name, it can
lead to confusion and possibly -- or possible delay in responding of
safety services.
And then the third one is from Dave Robb; that's the North
Naples, Naples fire district fire marshal. I've reviewed your request
for input regarding duplicate names, Collier Regional Medical Center
for two hospitals at different locations within Collier County. I could
not possibly guarantee that this would not lead to confusion for the
Collier County dispatch and emergency vehicles or create life safety
issues, despite the fact that they are located in different fire districts.m
Page 154
January 9, 2007
I support the Collier County's decision and Collier County
addressing the ordinance to reject the request for the 8300-8340
Collier Boulevard to change the name to Collier Regional Medical
Center. So those were the three responses we received.
In reading those, I didn't see anything that was tremendously
earth shattering, but they were sticking with the code, and the code is
clear that -- but it's your discretion.
I have no authority to allow it addressing the section it came in.
It comes in under a permit request. You already approved a -- for that
site, you already approved a deviation to the sign ordinance to allow
for the signage on that site.
This came in basically because of the opening date to allow for
the sign to be placed in front of the facility. And I think that's the only
time -- time constraint, but I think your speakers may be able to
address that. But that's basically what I got from this.
Does that answer your question, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Chair, is the petitioner in the
audience that I could ask my questions?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, he's one of the speakers. Would
you like me to call him up at this time?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you could.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd be happy to. Would you please
come up, Mr. Mastey.
MS. FILSON: Do you want me to call the speakers then?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, would you?
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Mike Mastey.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the right order.
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Bruce Anderson.
MR. MASTEY: Good afternoon. Mike Mastey, CEO of
Physicians Regional Medical Center, Collier Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'm sorry. I thought maybe
Page 155
January 9, 2007
you were going to make a small presentation.
MR. MASTEY: I could if you'd like me to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. My question to you is, as you
heard the soft denials and to make sure that our seasonal residents
don't get confused, is there any way that this could be an interim name
change, and then at some time, later date, get it -- the change -- the
name changed in such a manner as it's called the Collier Regional --
Collier Road Regional Hospital, and then at some time it becomes the
Pine Ridge Regional Hospital?
MR. MASTEY: That would really be very difficult right now.
Weare having a licenser survey next week, and the Agency for
Healthcare Administration, they're coming Tuesday and Wednesday.
One of the things in their regulations, when they do the review is the
name of the hospital, which has to be on all of our protocols, policies,
procedures, and they're pretty sticklish about having that done right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But my question was, can this be
an interim, and then later to address this so that we make sure we take
care of any particular problems that may arise?
MR. MASTEY: Sure. You're saying change the name now and
then we can address it later if we need to get a better clarification for
location?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's exactly right.
MR. MASTEY: Absolutely, we can talk about it later, be happy
to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Don't go too far.
Commissioner Fiala, did you have a question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. Let the speakers go
first, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I didn't know if you had any
questions of Mr. Mastey or not. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MASTEY: Would you like me to--
Page 156
January 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's okay. Don't go too far
though. We may have some more questions for you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I have one other question that I
can ask him. Can you give us a timeline approximately of when you
could go through the change of the name so that we don't run into a
possibility of having a confusion of names?
MR. MASTEY: You're talking about if we change it to
something other than Physicians Regional, three or four months,
sometime summer. We could discuss it then, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That would be wonderful. What
we'll do is -- I make a motion that we approve it at this point in time
with this item to come back at a later date -- or in fact, it doesn't even
have to come back to us. All you have to do is just change it. I
believe you would have the okay from staff to --
MR. MASTEY : Well, I would like to examine it, not necessarily
to say that we're going to change it in six months, but to come back
with you, if there was away, and work with the emergency services
system so that they can be shown that this name is not going to create
any confusion whatsoever.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll second your motion. We
have one more speaker before we --
MS. FILSON: The next speaker--
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Coletta, can I point out for the
record though that NCH does the same thing. Of course, I have no --
the county has no control over the city. But I think, for the record,
there are two NCH. NCH in Naples and, of course, NCH on
Immokalee. So it appears that that confusion is --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate that.
MR. SCHMITT: -- encountered every day, and people seem to
be able to find the difference between those two, so --
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Bruce Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll waive.
Page 157
January 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's it?
MS. FILSON: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I understand soft denial
means, well, you kind of have to because the rules go along that line,
but you're not necessarily really wanting to deny. Is that what that
really means?
MR. SCHMITT: Oh, Commissioner, I really don't want to
interpret what they wrote. I read what they wrote, and I didn't see
anything in there that was what I would call earth shattering as far as
overwhelming denial, but they're just pointing out exactly what you
said. If you want to interpret that, that they are interpreting that this is
the code and this is what you need to amend -- or apply.
I'll also point out for the record, I've already directed my staff, I
want to come back and amend this entire ordinance. I think things in
here that we tend to control we probably ought not control. Street
names are important, those type of things that deal directly with 911
and emergency services, but some other proj ect names and some of
those kind of things, I just don't -- it's becoming very difficult in the
Collier -- or county of this size to try and control at that level the use
of names. But we're going to bring this entire ordinance back to
amend it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Yeah, you're right.
Sometimes government gets just a little bit carried away with some of
those things, I agree.
But I just wanted to mention that there's only four hospitals in
Collier County, or there will be only four hospitals in Collier County,
and you're absolutely right, we have never had a problem
differentiating between the North Naples hospital and the downtown
Naples hospital.
Page 158
January 9, 2007
And so I would guess the same thing is going to be holding true
if it says Physicians Regional, Pine Ridge Road, and Physicians
Regional, Collier Boulevard, it's pretty easy to differentiate between
those as well. So I don't really have a problem with this name change
at all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I'm going to close the
public meeting at this time. Is there any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas made the
motion, I second it, to agree to the name change to be able to take
place and to be able to direct staff to allow permitting to make it --
help it take place.
Any -- no other discussion, all those in favor indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But also my -- and I'm not sure if
we clarified it -- in the motion should have been that they'll come back
in four or five months and let us know what's happening.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. That's understood to be in the
motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
Item #10A
PURCHASE OF 1.14 ACRE PARCEL UNDER CONTRACT WITH
Page 159
January 9, 2007
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 53 UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
POSSIBLY FOR AN ADDITIONAL COST OF $50,000 - OPTION
#1 APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is lOA. It's to request direction from the board regarding the
purchase of a 1. 14-acre parcel currently under contract within the
Golden Gate Estates, Unit 53, under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program, possibly at an additional cost of $50,000.
Ms. Alexandra Sulecki, the senior environmental specialist with
community development's in charge of your Conservation Collier
Program, will present.
MS. SULECK1: Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman
and Commissioners. Best wishes in the new year to you.
The executive summary here kind of speaks for itself. I'd be
happy to go through the item briefly, or if you have questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, may I?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we
accept one of the alternatives the staff has proposed, and that is the
alternative which says either the seller sells at the current price or we
abandon the purchase opportunity. We should not be led -- strung out
on purchases like this by someone who is looking to get more money
after we have sat down and negotiated a price.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion. Is that -- you
made a motion, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I think you hear is, you
don't want to set precedence to where you're giving opportunities to
somebody else to say, no, I want more money.
Page 160
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want more money.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that what you're saying? I do
want to point out, I feel that this is a good price for this.
A couple months ago, a month ago, passed down some
information to the county manager on another piece of -- parcel that's
far below what was recommended by our staff to go out and seek
properties in Unit 53.
But I do agree with the motion maker that an agreement is an
agreement. And I believe that, you know, on contractors building
EMS stations, we ought to hold to the contract.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
and we have a second. And the motion was made by Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got some public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You're correct, we do. No
public speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have no public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Close the public hearing.
And we have a motion by Commissioner Coyle, a second by
Commissioner Fiala, correct?
And no other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, those in favor, indicate
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Page 161
January 9, 2007
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- and I'm -- and I
want to make sure I've got it. That was option one from --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Option one.
MR. MUDD: -- that particular item.
Item #10C
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN
THE CATALYST PROJECT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-
FLORIDA'S RURAL AREAS OF CRITICAL CONCERN -
APPROVED
Next item is 10C. It's a recommendation to approve the
Memorandum of Agreement to participate in the catalyst project for
economic development, Florida's rural areas of critical concern, which
is RACEC -- RACEC?
MS. NEMECEK: RACEC.
MR. MUDD: RACEC, okay. And Ms. Tammie Nemecek, your
Economic Development Council director, will present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to approve by Commissioner
Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala. And we do have a question
from Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Henning.
You want to hold on a second, Tammie, and we'll see if maybe
those questions might be where you need to be.
We'll start with you, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does this -- if we -- under this
motion, if we approve this, is there going to be any financial
responsibilities placed on the county on the approval of this at this
time?
Page 162
January 9, 2007
MS. NEMECEK: No. The only thing this memorandum of
agreement allows us to do is to be able to submit a site and then
participate in the site selection process. There's no further financial
obligation on the part of the county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Will we need to amend our
Growth Management Plan?
MS. NEMECEK: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We don't?
MS. NEMECEK: Not in participation with this Memorandum of
Agreement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I mean at the time that you
purchase some property or whatever?
MS. NEMECEK: It is a voluntary basis of submittal of a site,
and depending on what that site needs at that point in time, the county
-- it would have to come before -- back before the county
commissioners of whether or not that site would actually go forward
in the process.
So all this does at this point in time is allow us to submit a site,
and then everything else is contingent upon board approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much, Tammie.
MS. NEMECEK: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what you're saying is, you're
not going to come back for any funds for this program?
MS. NEMECEK: To participate in this program at this point in
time, what we would be submitting are sites that would be available
on a voluntary basis from the landowners, and we would submit also
the current incentive program that is currently in place as part of the
requirements in the program of things that are available within this
community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one more question. Will
you be coming back to us in the future for any financial support for
Page 163
January 9,2007
this program?
MS. NEMECEK: I cannot say that that's a yes or no at this point
in time. This memorandum of agreement does not require --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I know that.
MS. NEMECEK: -- that the county participate financially in
anything. But there may be a company that is cited as a part of this
and there may be incentives that we discuss at that point in time, so I
can't -- I can't definitively say yes that -- or no, that we won't come
back to say that there might be some financial contribution requested
as part of recruitment of the company, but that's only if the site is
actually chosen in Immokalee as part of the RACEC project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would this be above and
beyond our existing incentive program?
MS. NEMECEK: We're only putting in our request what we
currently have available as part of the ordinances that are in place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. NEMECEK: So it's not over and above.
MR. MUDD: I'd like to -- just want to put one thing on the
record just to make sure we've got it all out there.
In no way, shape or form participation in this program does -- is
there any commitment that's made to any new company or whatever
that we entice to come into the county that this Board of County
Commissioners won't approve in the future. So there's nothing that
would happen staff-wise or through the EDC that would commit this
board to anything unless you get a shot at it again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I agree, but most of the
time I just don't support anything if it's a hidden expense, so that's the
only --
MS. NEMECEK: At this point in time, it's -- what -- we're only
putting in there as far as, there's a huge matrix that we're having to fill
out to be part of this, and what we're including in there is the current
programs as they're currently stated.
Page 164
January 9,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No change?
MS. NEMECEK: No change, correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Hearing none, we do have a--
well, are you waiving, Mr. Thomas, or did you want to speak?
MR. THOMAS: You keep going like this, I'll be quiet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's keep going like this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Close the public hearing.
Okay. Seeing no other questions, all those in favor, indicate by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Thank you, Tammie.
MS. NEMECEK: Thank you very much.
MR. THOMAS: For the record, thank you, on the part of the
Immokalee community, thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Item #10D
BID #07-4077, ASPHALT AND RELATED ITEMS TO BETTER
ROADS, BONNESS, QUALITY ENTERPRISES AND FTA
HOLDINGS, LLC FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL
EXPENDITURE FOR $2,650,000.00 - APPROVED
Page 165
January 9, 2007
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10D. It's a
recommendation to approve award of bid number 07-4077, asphalt
and related items to Better Roads, Bonness, Quality Enterprises and
FT A Holdings, LLC, for an estimated annual expenditure of
$2,650,000. And John --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excellent presentation, by the way.
MR. VLIET: Great, wasn't it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It was. All those in favor, indicate by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #10E
A REQUESTED AFTER- THE-FACT APPROVAL OF AN
ALTERNATIVE ROAD IMPCT FEE CALCULATION FOR DRY
STORAGE UNITS AT THE CALUSA ISLAND YACHT CLUB
AND MARINA AND STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING AN
APPLICANT'S AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL FOR A
PREVIOUS INDIVIDUAL CALCULATION OF ROAD IMPACT
Page 166
January 9, 2007
FEES FOR THE SAME WET SLIPS MARINA - STAFF TO
DETERMINE IMPACT FEES FROM PROPOSED STUDIES AND
TRAFFIC COUNTS; TO BE COMPLETED BY JUNE -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to our next item, which is 10E, and
that's a recommendation to provide direction to staff regarding an
applicant's request for after-the- fact approval of an alternative road
impact fee calculation for dry storage units at the Calusa Island Yacht
and Marina, and to provide direction to staff regarding an applicant's
request for after-the- fact approval of a previous individual calculation
of road impact fees for wet slips at the same marina. And Mr. Phil
Tindale, your impact fee coordinator for transportation -- am I close?
MR. TINDALE: Planner, principal planner.
MR. MUDD: Principal planner for transportation, will present.
MR. TINDALE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Phil Tindale, transportation planning department.
This is -- what we're here to present today is a perfect example of
why it's important for staff to follow the regulations to the letter with
regard to impact fee assessments and also to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's an awful idea.
MR. TINDALE: -- fairly research impact fee assessments on any
existing property, particularly when there's a history behind it. It's a
very complex issue. There are a lot of twists and turns in the story.
We tried to lay it out as best as we could in the executive summary.
We'll try to make everything as clear as we can.
The main crux of the issue pertains to a 1995 alternative impact
fee study that was done for dry storage units at the facility.
And should I go on with a background, or would you like to ask
some questions? Or how would you like to proceed as far as that
goes, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't see anyone interrupting you,
Page 167
January 9, 2007
so I would proceed.
MR. TINDALE: Okay. I'll keep going. No problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Obviously this thing's a little deeper
than most of us --
MR. TINDALE: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- expected it to be.
MR. TINDALE: I just didn't want to keep on if --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you sound great. Keep going.
MR. TINDALE: -- you just wanted to come into questions.
Okay, no problem.
I would like to -- just a couple things in the executive summary
just to point out for clarification purposes, if I could. Starting with the
third page towards the top where we have a time line having to do with
events that pertain to a 1993 individual calculation for wet slips where
it says, 1998 towards the top, board directs staff to submit all future
individual calculations for a board approval though not specifically
required by impact fee regulations. That direction actually occurred
on November 25 1997, just for clarification. So it was actually '97.
Also in the legal considerations, the last sentence, it says that the
study represents a more current locally sensitive and accurate estimate
of the marina's impact on the county's road network than does the fee
based on the parameters set forth in the fee schedule.
I don't want that to be confused as an unconditional
recommendation for approval. That's kind of some boilerplate
language. The condition is that if staff is able to subsequently look at
raw data that supports the findings of that 1995 study and we can
determine that we can agree with those findings based upon looking at
that data, or if there's a new study submitted that meets all the
guidelines in our impact fee regulations, then we could support that.
But that was just some boilerplate language.
Also, for clarification, on page 4 of the executive summary in a
subsection under the fiscal impact where we say, amounts due prior to
Page 168
January 9, 2007
board action and lists them, these all pertain to wet slips that were
permitted following the individual calculation that was done in 1993.
The applicant had previously agreed to -- none of those impact
fees had been paid for those 84 wet slips, and the applicant had
previously agreed to pay those prior to any board action and then
possibly get a refund for part of it afterwards based upon that study.
The applicant indicated during a meeting yesterday that he felt
that the staffs position had subsequently change, and he opted not to
make that payment prior to any board action today, which does affect
the recommendation on page 5 where it says there would be a
resulting refund on the last line of $2,592. Obviously since no
payment regarding the wet slips has been made, there will be no
related refund.
So that's where we are on that. If I can just get back to the story.
I'd like to start with the 1995 alternative fee calculation for dry
storage units.
The time line for that is -- starts on page 1. As far as the events
that took place, there was a study in 1995 by Barr, Dunlop and
Associates, an engineering firm, currently not in business anymore,
Collier County, but they certainly were and fully qualified back in
1995.
It appears that they followed all the guidelines as far as how to
conduct an alternative fee calculation; however, we don't have the raw
data and we don't have the same staff who was working on the issue
back in 1995 either, so we cannot independently tell you today that it
would be -- that everything was done correctly.
It appears it may have been, most likely was, but we can't tell
you with absolute certainty that that was the case either for use of the
study back in 1995 and the years that followed, or for the applicant's
request to update that study and reuse it for a permit currently under
review with the City of Marco Island for an additional 152 dry storage
units.
Page 169
January 9, 2007
Subsequently, during the case -- during the course of staff
processing multiple permits that came through for the dry storage
units, there were some that were paid at the lower rate, about half of
the ones of the 268 units that are currently in place, and about half the
impact fees were not assessed, and that's related to a misunderstanding
about what the definition is of the term berth, because the impact fee
rate schedule says it's assessed per berth.
I was the impact fee coordinator at the time, and I incorrectly
determined that being that these were dry storage units, there were no
berths, per se, and that they were -- the buildings were thus exempt.
Unfortunately, there was no real effective communication
between the applicant and myself either. I'm not casting aspersions,
I'm just stating a fact. And I was not aware at the time of the 1995
study. Had I been, I probably would have researched the matter a
little further.
So there is a matter of the applicant is asking for after-the- fact
approval for a number of dry storage units that were permitted in 2000
and 2001, as well as asking for the board to approve the use of the
same study just updated to reflect current cost figures based upon our
latest impact fee study, which -- the rate that was in effect in the fee
schedule back in '95 was $457 per unit or per berth.
Based upon that study, the rate they came up with was $61.28 per
unit, which was a reduction of about 86, 87 percent, which is pretty
significant, which is another reason we're -- we feel a strong need to
be able to thoroughly review all the raw data associated with that
before we're to recommend any approval to the board either for past
use or present use.
And also, that the study, if updated to reflect current capital
constructions costs, would result in a rate of $441 per unit, quite a bit
higher than what was calculated back in 1995, but about 87 percent
lower than the rate in effect right now, which is $3,580 per unit. So
we're talking about what's being requested now is a pretty significant
Page 170
January 9, 2007
reduction, which is why we're bringing it to you.
That's about the gist of it as far as the dry storage units. Now,
back in 1993 there was an individual calculation of impact fees for
wet slips, the 84 wet slips. That was basically prepared by staff. It's
not the same as an alternative fee calculation. The provisions in the
ordinance are a little less stringent, little less detailed.
And at the time board approval was not even required; however,
in follow-up, due to reasons I really could not tell you why, that
calculation, which reduced the rate to be assessed from $457 per unit,
which was in a fee schedule, to $385 per unit, a $72 per unit reduction,
not nearly as significant as the impact alternative study that was done
later in 1995.
That study, that calculation was never actually used, and we don't
have any record of there being any road impact fees ever paid on the
84 existing wet slips.
So the applicant has also, in addition to the use of the alternative
calculation from '95, is also asking for after-the-fact approval for the
individual calculation from 1993 at a reduction of $72 per unit for
their existing 84 wet slips.
Now, that's pretty much the whole story in a nutshell. We've laid
out some -- we're asking for direction from the board, obviously, for
this. We've laid out some possible -- some possible choices for the
board to consider in terms of the actual motions and direction, one of
which could be where the board approves everything, meaning
after-the-fact approval for the use of these calculations for the -- all the
prior permits and approval of the applicant's request to reuse the 1995
alternative study for their current permit under review for 152
additional dry storage units. That in and of itself would result in a
reduction of -- let me find the dollar amount -- $477,128, which is
about an 87 percent reduction.
Partial approval, the second option on page 5 under the possible
choices to consider, would be providing approval after the fact of the
Page 171
January 9, 2007
1993/'95 calculations for all the past permits and the existing
structures, or -- and in addition to approving everything that's after the
fact but requiring the consultant to either provide, if they're able to get
ahold of it, the raw data from the 1995 study for staff to determine
whether everything was done correctly in accordance with the
ordinance or present a new study.
The consultant would then have the option of either paying all of
the impact fees for the new project in full under protest, a total of
$544,160 with hopes of being able to get a significant refund in the
future. They have up to a year to be able to come back to the board
with a presentation of an alternative study in that option, or they could
wait to pull their permit until the study was approved.
If the board, in the third option, determines to approve nothing,
basically deny all after-the-fact approvals and deny approval of the
reuse of the study from 1995, then obviously there would be a
significant dollar amount that would have to be remitted by the
applicant.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wow.
MR. TINDALL: Is there anything I can clarify with that? I
know it's a very complex issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you covered enough now. We
do have three lights on, so we're getting some interest here.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, developing a business
plan or charging your customers whatever service that you're
providing, and then government comes back a few years, a decade
later, and said, well, you know, we made a mistake -- and I don't know
if these dry slips or wet slips or anything is for rent, if they have leases
on them, long-term lease, short-term lease, or whether they're sold and
it's a condominium type, you know, I don't know that.
But I think that we share a responsibility, what's happened here,
and I hear that from you and I respect that. Thank you.
Page 172
January 9, 2007
Could you support the board approving the alternative for what
has happened in the past, and if the landowner would support that?
And then whatever -- any other building activities, if they -- if they
want to use an alternative calculation, to have that done and revised
for the board to consider at a later time. Could you support that?
MR. TINDALE: Ifwe're either talking about a new study for
new proposed units or if possible, giving us enough backup data to
support the reuse of the old study updated to reflect current costs, then
the staff would be willing to support that, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I think that's fair
and reasonable myself. That's all-- the question I had.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. If I may, I'm
going to go ahead of you for just a moment.
Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's a whole bunch of things, and
they're probably nothing more than just circumstantial, but records
being lost, an item that was supposed to come before the commission
back a number of years ago for approval never made it there.
Numerous little things that just keep happening one right after the
other.
What is your take on this whole thing? I mean, sitting there as
our county manager and looking at this historically. I mean, I know
you weren't the county manager when this took place. But what do
you get from what you see in front of you?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I'm going to be -- and I'm going to be blunt,
Phil, and don't get mad, okay? Phil made a mistake. He was the
impact fee coordinator at the time that the particular applicant came
forward for wet slips and dry slips, and he read what was in front of
him the wrong way, and he told the applicant that he didn't owe an
impact fee. And they signed off on that permit, and he built -- he built
his dry slips and put in the 40 or so wet slips that were there.
Page 173
January 9, 2007
So the petitioner's come forward now, and he has a new part of
that project that he would like to develop, and he's come in and asked
that he be given the opportunity to use the old alternative impact fee
calculation that was done in '93. And I'm not reading it. I'm just
going by rote memory at this particular juncture. And he wanted to --
and he wants to use that instead.
Now, I believe when you come in front for an impact fee and you
know you have an alternative study that was done in '93 on a
particular dry storage, that when you come in with that -- with that
particular issue as the applicant, that you also express that with the
staff.
It's a two-way street as far as fees are concerned. You want an
exception to it. You need to talk through that particular issue.
I don't know what happened in '96 or whatever when those dry
slips and those 40 or so wet slips were developed and what the
discussion was. Staff should have caught the fact that they owed an
impact fee and we didn't.
Now there's a new application that's in there, and it's the board's
decision right now. You've got some choices. You can say, okay, I
want to use the alternative impact fee of '93 and go straight up without
-- without it being brought up to speed. I would recommend that you
don't do that, because the costs of everything have gone up.
I would -- I would tell you that I believe there's probably an
amiable solution that could be -- that could be resolved between the
person -- the petitioner on this particular case for the slips that
represent the marina and the Board of County Commissioners as far as
impact fees that weren't paid that should have been paid and/or an
alternative way to compute the new impact fee.
You've got another alternative. You can say, staff screwed up,
therefore, there's not an impact fee owed on that particular item. We
understand that they screwed up. You can direct staff not to do it
again, and I'll make sure that gets done, and you can say, I don't want
Page 174
January 9, 2007
to do an alternative impact fee, and I want to go straight up with the
impact fee that exists today.
In that particular case, the petitioner is going to be significantly
out of money because that's over a half a million dollars at the last
time that I looked at this executive summary.
So I believe you have some room to negotiate, everywhere from
a very lesser amount of around $50,000 all the way up to over a half a
million.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And how can we determine what this
study was when there's nobody that's got a copy of it? They just have
the final results.
MR. MUDD: Well, I believe that's where Mr. Tindale has
basically said it would be good if there was additional information that
was provided so that staff could make a determination if the '93 study
was based on good science at the time, and we can actually
extrapolate that information and move it to the present day, or if a new
study needs to be done completely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, do you have something to
contribute to this?
MR. FEDER: Only to add that obviously we have to offer as
part of our impact fee, in the beginning and today, the alternative of an
alternative fee calculation, an independent study, and we're more than
willing to offer that.
The concern is that the alternative fee calculation or the study
was considered that, an individual study that was done in the past.
One was basically a summary of findings, conclusions without the
supporting raw data. It's questionable whether or not a lot of data was
done at that time, even going back to the consultant. I understand they
don't have that data in their files either.
So at that time that was the process we followed. That's why I
think that Commissioner Henning asked, could we support utilizing
that study in the past as a basis for the fees. And I think there's some
Page 175
January 9, 2007
reliance on staffs item. There was a mistake made in saying that
impact fees weren't due and owing. Even though that was done
shortly after, there's an alternative fee study, and we used the
application when it was -- when I first came onboard, even after this
issue when we had the issue on the golf courses, that we had informed
consumers and they should have known, and therefore, the fees should
have been paid. But nonetheless, get that issue resolved. But we do
not have enough data and analysis in what we have today available to
recommend to you that it constitutes an alternative fee study as we
know it today and as we apply it today for any new application.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'm somewhat confused here,
obviously, as probably some of my other commissioners are.
You're saying no one has access to the '95 data, raw data; is that
correct?
MR. FEDER: What we have is, first of all, a number of letters,
as does the applicant, as does our file show, where they agreed to do
an independent -- was the terminology -- study because they didn't
feel that the marina effectively represented the impact fee impacts or
the traffic impacts that they would have.
Based on that, they did agree with staff at that time. They did
have a study done. There is a summary of that study. It's a small
report that basically shows three sites. It comes to the final
conclusions of what the percentage were and averages it out.
And as I said, I assume other data was done, but there was no
supporting data provided with that report, nor does anyone seem to
have it.
So in answer to your question, there was a study done,
information provided. We have that. If you look at what we brought
to you, an alternative fee calculation study, you have a bit of an
executive summary that shows you the conclusions, the analysis of all
the data, and then behind that, a rather thick packet of the actual raw
Page 176
January 9, 2007
data.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But -- okay. My next question is,
when there's 87.7 percent adjustment, don't you think that would be a
bit much in today's terminology?
MR. FEDER: I would say not only that, but obviously policy is
that that be brought to the board for their approval, and it was not done
by the staff at that time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess where I'm going with this --
MR. FEDER: That's why Phil didn't even know what that it
existed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned about even using the
impact fees of 1993 on a new project. So I believe that what needs to
really be done is a new study needs to come forth in regards to a
traffic impact.
MR. FEDER: Again, ifit had been--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In today's --
MR. FEDER: Ifit had been a study where the raw data was
there, done fully by our provision, we could have accepted that today.
Obviously it gets updated to today's costs, but nonetheless, the study
and trip generation and those issues, if we had the raw data and could
prove that the analysis was such that we agreed from the raw data to
the conclusions, we could have used that study. It's not the data of the
study. It's the lack of the availability of the raw data.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But there would be some type of
data out there today that would conform to marinas that we could use
on the add -- on the issue of the other 152 new slips that he wants to
build; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: If that raw data was there and we could analyze it,
we would say to you that we had information.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no. I'm talking about marinas
in general. This is a marina.
MR. FEDER: Marinas in general, you use the ITE trip
Page 1 77
January 9, 2007
generation. That's why we provide for alternative fee calculations
because they don't always work site specific.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But what I'm saying is, you
use the particular data today, and then you get a traffic expert, and
then you come forward and say, I think that the amount of traffic
generated by this particular business is not what is really stated, but
this is what the traffic has generated at this particular site based on
other marinas in the area, just like when the car dealers come before
us.
MR. FEDER: Exactly, and that is an alternative fee calculation,
which they did with staff at that time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I'm getting -- I'm getting to the
point today of the 152 additional slips this person wants to build.
MR. FEDER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We don't have the data for
the -- '95, which is outdated anyway, so we need to have a new traffic
study done for the 152 units.
MR. FEDER: And that's our recommendation to you, yes,
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And, therefore, then they
can get a traffic expert come in and tell us -- obviously it's not going to
be 87.7 percent less traffic generated than what they came up with.
MR. FEDER: I wouldn't profess to tell you what the results of
that would be --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand.
MR. FEDER: -- but I would tell you that that study, one, we'd
have the raw data to evaluate it, and two, would be brought to this
board as is required and was required then for your concurrence before
we applied it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we not only have to
figure out what we're going to do on the -- excuse me -- on the 152
new slips that are proposed to be built, but we also have to figure out
what we need to do here in regards to addressing the impact fees that
Page 178
January 9, 2007
haven't been paid.
MR. FEDER: And the impact fees at that time are fairly small.
The different, obviously, a lot.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand.
MR. FEDER: And this is some reason to believe that they, one,
relied on staff and that they did do a study . We have a copy of at least
a summary of that study. And so that's why we recommended to you
the second alternative allowing the older ones. But, of course, the
board sets this policy. It was not us. It was never brought to you for
approval, but it was done, it appears, from the summary report we
have.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But what I'm getting at is, even -- I
think there's an obligation on both sides here. Both parties have an
obligation once somebody figures out that there is an impact fee. It's
like paying income tax. You know, you can get along -- you can get
so far without paying income taxes, but eventually you're going to get
caught. So you've got to, sometime or another -- there's no such thing
as a free lunch. You've got to pay.
MR. FEDER: There is no free lunch. And in fairness though, I
must say that the applicant in this case did have a letter from the
county that went through Marco Island but said that there are no
impact fees due. Phil is the one that sent that.
And the basis of that was, the impact fee alternative calculation
had never been brought to the board. He wasn't aware of its existence.
When he was asked -- and he asked them, okay, a marina, when you
look at it in our impact fee, there were no new berths added. And not
knowing that they were dry slips and marked as storage --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Stop right there. You said that he
received a letter saying that --
MR. FEDER: He had received a request -- or I'll let Phil speak
for himself to make sure I'm accurate about it. But the bottom line is
there was information given to the applicant --
Page 179
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That there was no impact fees that
were --
MR. FEDER: In fact, because there were no new berths, and that
was interpreted as being no new impacts, which is incorrect. Phil?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Phil, was there impact fees paid at
all, or was there a letter stating that they didn't have to pay any impact
fees?
MR. TINDALE: Okay. For about 152, I think the number is, of
the dry storage units, impact fees were paid at the alternative fee
amount. I'm sorry. I'm using the wrong number. There are -- there
were 120 of those units for which the impact fees were paid. The
remaining 148 were the ones that they were given an exemption for,
for the dry storage units. So 120 units, impact fees were paid; 148
units --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Those were dry slips or wet slips?
MR. TINDALE: Dry slips. For the 84 wet slips, no impact fees
were paid.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why not?
MR. MUDD: Let's just go back for a second. Just go to your
executive summary for a bit. Let's just make sure we understand the
dates and times so everybody's on the same sheet of music, okay?
Because, Commissioner, you're right, this is not -- this is not
easy. Okay. I'm on page 1 of your executive summary. I'm looking
at February 29, 1996. Sixty slips were permitted, 60 slips impact fees
paid for. These are dry slips.
The next -- the next date is September 10, 1997. Sixty slips were
permitted, 60 slips paid impact fees.
On March 20,2000, there was a permit number, 000160, okay,
76 slips were permitted. No impact fees were collected for those dry
slips.
April 6, 2001, under permit number 010389, 76 slips were
permitted. No impact fees were paid on those dry slips.
Page 180
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why weren't those impact fees
paid?
MR. MUDD: So at this particular --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Were they not assessed impact
fees? That's what I want -- that's what I'm trying to get. Were they
not assessed the impact fees, or were they just not paid?
MR. TINDALE: They were not assessed on that example.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why?
MR. TINDALE: It's one of two permits processed through the
City of Marco Island in which there was coordination between the city
and the county for which I incorrectly made a determination that they
were exempt because there were no new berths.
I took that to mean that what was being constructed were
accessory structures which, by definition, are exempt from impact fee
assessments; however, as it turns out, they're not accessory because
they do create an impact. These are dry storage units that are used on
a daily recurring basis, and it was just a misinterpretation of what was
actually being constructed.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, let me just finish --let me
just finish this analogy and let's get back to make sure that we're all --
of those 152 slips in 2000 and 2001 together, only 148 of those dry
slips were built. That's what I've been told by staff, and the petition
can tell me that or not. That's why you heard the term 148. When you
say, how'd I get 148, my numbers add up to 152. The -- what I've
been told is they only built 148, and staff still has to go down and
verify that.
Now, on November 2006, there is a new building permit, and it's
066017 where they want to build another 152 dry service issues, okay.
And that -- no impact fee has been paid to date, and that's the issue
that brought all this to bear.
Now, if I can get you now to turn to page 3 of 4, okay. October
25,1993, permit number 9313195 issued by the county for four
Page 181
January 9, 2007
floating docks, 50 wet slips. Impact fees not assessed or paid, okay.
Now, there is, in September 28, 1999, Marco Island issued a
building permit for 18 floating docks, okay, containing a total of 36
wet slips, and assessed road impact fees based on the above; however,
between the city -- and the county staff did not seek the board, and I
don't believe staff has received that impact fee as of yet.
So we have a total of 76 -- the ones in 1993 and the ones that
were issued in 1999 -- a total of76 wet slips that have impact fees that
haven't been paid. Now, that gives you the total piece of it.
Did I miss anything?
MR. TINDALE: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the way I look at this thing,
we just forego all of the impact fees up to this point in time, and then
have a new study made for the new 152, figure out what the cost is,
and go from there.
MR. TINDALE: We still would like to -- there are some of these
permits for which impact fees have not yet been paid, the existing
ones that we do need to collect money for, but we would recommend
that the board would allow the use of the alternate rates for payment of
those, not require a new study for those for the existing structures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think you've covered all my
issues. There are really only two questions to be addressed. One is,
have all the impact fees been paid in the past units? The answer is no.
MR. TINDALE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you've got to collect impact fees
on past units.
MR. TINDALE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, what is the fair impact fee?
The fair impact fee is whatever the impact fee would have been had
we collected them at the time based on the study.
MR. TINDALE: Yes, sir.
Page 182
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so it seems to me you decide
upon the closest figure at that time for an impact fee assessment and
then you charge those units for impact fees. Now, for the new units,
you've got to have a new study.
MR. TINDALE: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, that shouldn't be hard
to do. We've had dry storage facilities built in this area in recent
years. They had to have impact fee studies too. We have ways of
verifying these numbers. We need to collect that data and see what
we think about it. It should be relatively simple.
But it comes as no surprise to me to find out that a special study
will produce a rate that's far below what is contained in the tables we
normally use.
And in talking with operators of other marinas in that area, the
rate of traffic generated per slip is very, very small. Those places are
mostly storage places for boats. Not many of them get out on the
water that much. And I don't know, maybe this marina is different,
but the marinas I've been in contact with and the people I've talked
with assure me that there just isn't that much traffic generated on a per
slip basis. So it doesn't surprise me that the rates are discounted
tremendously.
But you've got to have the data to support that. We just can't go
around doing this by the seat of our pants. So I would suggest --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let's -- the motion is
essentially this: Charge all of the back impact fees based on the slips
that were built on the basis of the closest unit impact fee you can
determine from the studies or charges that existed at that point in time,
and then for those that are proposed to be developed, proposed to be
built, we get a new study, or we solicit studies that have already been
conducted from somebody else to determine what an appropriate rate
would be, and then we've solved the problem.
Page 183
January 9, 2007
But you can't go back and charge the people an exorbitantly high
impact fee after they've been operating their business under an
assumption which they made in coordination with us years ago. You
just can't do that.
MR. TINDALE: I agree. We agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And by the way, thank you
very much for your forthrightness and honesty in talking about this
issue. You didn't try to cover up anything. You make a mistake, you
make a mistake. There's nothing anybody can do about that. We just
need to go about correcting it. But thank you.
MR. TINDALE: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion to deal with the
situation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not quite sure what he said. I
think I'm going to second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't ask me again, because I'm
not sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I've been waiting to say for a
very long time --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Possibly get a second for discussion
purposes and then go ahead --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm going to second this motion if
this is what he said. So we're going to be paying for the wet slips that
should have been paid for, $33,560, right? And then the amount due
from the 48 -- 148 existing dry storage units, nine thousand -- that
would -- sixty-nine dollars and forty-four, and that would catch him
up with things that have already been approved and actually been
used.
And these were -- these were amounts that have not been
collected before, not because the owner of this place ever tried to do
anything illegal or anything, just because they weren't assessed and he
didn't know to pay them.
Page 184
January 9, 2007
And the amount due, the 441, according to what I read in here, is
the amount -- the proposed rate which should remain the same at $441
per unit berth, according to the calculations, the adjusted calculations.
I guess that falls in the same line as the Porsche dealer and the
furniture stores that we've had to see the adjusted rates. And so to me,
number one is the way we should go. And is that what you about
said?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, except that I don't know about
the 441. You see, nobody's presented any evidence to support the
441, and we have to make the decision based upon evidence. We just
can't pull a figure out of the hat.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So yours --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Otherwise we're just going to be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- is to pay the other two and have
the new study for --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- for the new --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or alternatively, I would be happy
to use a recent study that was conducted in a similar area for the
purpose of doing this. I see no reason in causing anyone, us or the
petitioner, to go through an expensive exercise if it is not necessary. If
we can get some evidence on which to base our assessment of the
impact fees --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- then I'd be willing to go with
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It could be 441, it could be less
than that, it could be more than that, I don't know. But we can't make
our decisions based on just pulling something out of the air. We've
got to have something to justify our decision-making process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've seconded your motion.
Page 185
January 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we do have some
speakers, but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- it's my understanding that this
all came about because there is an application to add more dry slips.
Is it a part of your motion to direct staff not to hinder the
development of that, just don't give CO to half of that until it's
determined of that alternative impact fee?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I don't see a need to be
vindictive or try to retaliate or to delay somebody or extract
something. Let's be fair about it. We're the ones at fault here. It's not
the petitioner. Let's not punish the petitioner. Let's move ahead as
quickly as possible and be as helpful to them as we possibly can.
MR. TINDALE: Now, if we do take that route, there would be
possibly a requirement to waive a portion of the ordinance provisions
and -- for the alternative fee calculation process, that being that if the
applicant desires to get their permit prior to approval of the alternative
calculation, the ordinance requires that they pay the impact fees in full
at the current rate and then they would be subj ect to a refund
thereafter, after board approval.
Now, if what we're asking for is -- and that's a lot of money. It's
544 thousand-plus dollars. If the board would like for us to -- for that
requirement to be waived, then we'd have -- obviously have to get an
opinion from the attorneys as to whether that's something that's legal
to do. But staff is not against that, but we just need to point out what
the ordinance says.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me -- we have control
here no matter what. We don't have to grant a certificate of occupancy
in this process if we don't get the impact fees paid; is that true?
MR. TINDALE: Except for it's the City of Marco Island that
grants the certificate of occupancy, so there would be some
Page 186
January 9, 2007
coordination involved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's dangerous. But I can't see
charging somebody half a million dollars up front and then say, I'm
going to give you $500,000 of it back a little bit later. There must be a
way to deal with this that keeps everyone safe.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, you could do it by letter of credit or a
bond, this way they're not out the half a million dollars out of pocket,
but we do have some security there. But the problem is, what do you
do -- collection is the problem at end of the day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go to the speakers?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I think I have a partial
solution. Why don't you determine to the best ability of the staff what
the rate should be based upon any similar studies you can get your
hands on, and then that will be the amount that the petitioner would
pay in advance until they get their alternative study results to us. Does
that make sense to you or not?
MR. TINDALE: Well, we would have to go and see if
something like that exists first, so I can't guarantee today that's the
case. If so, I'm sure we could do that. Just barring no objection from
the county attorney's office, I'm sure we could pursue that direction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if all else fails, use the
Porsche dealership.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or use the 441 until such time as it
might change.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, hopefully you can wind
this up.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, if I could, a thought. If this board
was so inclined, you could recommend that we utilize the study that
was done previously, those dollar figures, charge that for the 152, but
require that a full study be done. Should it support a reduction and we
owe back, if it supports additional fees, then they'd be paid?
Page 187
January 9,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sound right? Was that your amended
motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay with me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to hear from the
speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We will, they're coming up right now.
Would you call the speakers, please?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I have two speakers.
Don Pickworth. He'll be followed by Kris Dane.
MR. PICKWORTH: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. I'm Don Pickworth representing Don Pickworth
Maritime Venture, the marina operator.
We think this solution that's being proposed is the best way to go.
I mean, we do have some numbers which are a good starting point,
the 441.
And as Commissioner Coyle notes, and certainly the data which
we already have, that you already have, shows that, yes, the actual
marina usage is far, far less. But we'll then, over the course of time,
work on even more definitive figures.
There are -- there is a good bit of data out there. There's even at
least one county traffic count study that was done about this time. It
was used to verify the figures that were brought in in '95.
And, you know, the county's files don't apparently have those
printouts of that, but the results of it.
They only other thing I wanted to just correct for the record and
just -- and that is that probably the biggest point of disagreement
between us and staff has simply been the staff has taken the position
that what was done back in '95 was a, quote, alternative impact fee
study and required board approval, all right.
The ordinance has, in another section, a thing called an individual
Page 188
January 9, 2007
impact fee calculation. We believe that that is precisely what was
being done at the time. So I just want you to understand that the
people who did it at the time were operating in good faith and thought
that they were, in fact, operating consistent with the ordinance. So I
just want to put that correction on.
As a practical matter, we end up at the same place. We're going
to pay the back fees that are due, and we're going to pay on the basis
of the 441, which would seem to be the most sensible thing for going
forward, and then we're going to begin immediately to do a more
definitive study and validate the 441 or end up with something higher
or maybe end up with something lower. And whatever it is is what it
IS, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Kris Dane.
MR. DANE: For the record, I'm Kris Dane, the operator and the
managing partner of the Calusa Island Yacht and Marina. Things
seem to be going so well here, I'm almost afraid to speak.
Commissioner Coy Ie was right, the -- on the busiest day, any dry
storage operator will tell you, he might have 20 percent of his fleet get
put into the water. And when you have a strictly dry storage
operation, you don't have restaurants and you don't have bars and you
don't have mixed commercial uses like the ITE figures account for.
That's why there's such a big discrepancy.
We talk about a rate of 0 -- we came up with that $440 figure. In
fact, Mr. Tindale calculated it using a rate of 0.4 trips per day, which
is twice what we see on our highest day of the year.
And I understand there's some -- you know, there's some other
trips that come besides people just coming to use their boat. Maybe a
mechanic comes, but still, the 0.4 is a very reasonable and
conservative number.
And most of our people are from Marco Island, so they just don't
have to travel that far. That's why the numbers were low in '95, and
Page 189
January 9, 2007
that's why we'll be able to show that they should still be low.
It's unfortunate that mistakes have been made, and we don't think
-- we don't think we've made any, and we appreciate the board's
willingness to help us out of this situation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You think the motion meets --the
motion that was made by Commissioner Coyle meets your needs?
MR. DANE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. We appreciate that.
Any other discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I heard a motion. Could I just get
the petitioner or the marina operator to tell us -- and I'd rather have
Don do it because he's more savvy on transportation studies. But it
would be good if we had a close date on when that study would be
performed so it isn't hanging. I mean, this thing's been hanging around
since '93. Let's get it all cleared up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Would 15 June be a good date where the study
would be complete so the traffic counts could get done so we could
get this thing finally done so if there's any rebates owed or money due,
that it all could be finished at that time?
MR. DANE: Sure.
MR. PICKWORTH: Okay. I guess I'd want to defer to the
engineers more on that because I don't know how long these things
take. But it certainly sounds reasonable to me that it could be done.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning.
We were just talking about, obviously this is peak season
sometime in the next couple of months, but he did talk about the
highest date. What -- do you have a date that you say is the highest
date?
MR. DANE: What I have is -- what I have is a lift log that
Page 190
January 9, 2007
records every movement of every boat in my marina, and that is data
that would say, somebody drove there to either put a boat on a work
rack or to take it out and go boating. So I know how many times those
boats are used, and I have a year's worth of data that I can show you
on that.
MR. SCOTT: And what is the high --
MR. DANE: And I can show you the zip codes of all the people
that live there and how far they have to come to make that trip.
MR. SCOTT: For them to determine, what is the highest time of
the year then from what you see from the data you have?
MR. DANE: It's like holidays, like 4th of July, you know, a nice
-- just a nice day this time of year with low wind and a sunny day and
people want to go out and use their boat.
But my point was -- and any operator will confirm that you never
get more than 20 percent of your boats in the water on a single day.
And, of course, the average is much less than that. Any boaters in
here? How many times do you go boating? I mean, we'd all like to
say we use our boats a lot, but the truth is, we don't use them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Want me to answer that
question? Twice a year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Once a year.
MR. SCOTT: We'd be pointing for the next two to three months
from what we know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, how about if we allow you four
months just to play it safe?
MR. MUDD: June.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that sound realistic?
MR. SCOTT: We'll take that as direction.
MR. DANE: We'll be pushing. I mean, we want to get this
resolved more than anybody.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But four months maximum
this has to be resolved.
Page 191
January 9, 2007
MR. DANE: That's Fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that agree with you,
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That suits me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Anything else that we haven't
covered? Everybody fine?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing nothing else, we have a
motion by Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you
very much for your time. We're going to take a 10-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
(Commissioner Coyle is not in attendance for the remainder of
the hearing)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'll please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Item #10F
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITION TO CONBERT
FIELDS AT VETERANS COMMUNITY PARK TO (2) LIGHTED
Page 192
January 9, 2007
LITTLE LEAGUE, (1) LIGHTED GIRLS SOFTBALL, AND (1)
LIGHTED BASEBALL FIELD - ITEM WILL BE BROUGHT
BACK DURING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT
AND ALSO TO THE JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE BCC
AND THE SCHOOL BOARD ON MARCH 20,2007 WITH STAFF
TO DRAFT A MOU AND SHOW WHAT NEED TO BE DONE TO
ACCOMPLISH THIS PROJECT - APPROVED
Commissioner, the next item on the agenda is -- was continued
from the November 28,2006, BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to
deny a petition to convert fields at Veterans Community Park to two
lighted Little League fields, one lighted girls softball field, and one
lighted baseball field.
Mr. Barry Williams, your director of parks and recreation, will
present.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good
afternoon. For the record, Barry Williams, parks and rec. director.
And Commissioners, if I may, I just had a short presentation I'd
like to go through with you in response to the petition from the North
Naples Little League.
And just to start, and just refresh your memory on the petition
itself, the petitioner's approached staff and the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board were approached with this proposal to convert
Veterans Community Park which -- and the petitioner asked that
Veterans Community Park be dedicated to youth sports.
And in that they asked for some specific things. They asked for
two lighted Little League fields, one lighted girls softball field, and
one lighted regulation baseball field.
And just in comparison, Commissioners, currently the park
elements that we have now today, we have three lighted softball fields
and one lighted baseball field.
And just to give you a bit more of a visual of that, some of you
Page 193
January 9, 2007
can see with this picture -- and I'll try to use the pointer -- these are the
three softball fields currently that we have at Veterans Park. And this
is a baseball field.
And the difference -- and just to give you some understanding of
this, the softball fields typically, from home base to the fence line
here, is approximately 325 square feet. So we have three softball
fields configured in this way.
Also with the softball fields, you can see in this area here, this
area's skinned. There's no grass. And typically Little League fields
require grassed infields. And you can see with the baseball field here
how the infield has been grassed.
This is -- this baseball field currently is being used by North
Naples Little League for the 13- and 14-year-olds for baseball. And
baseball is a little different than Little League play. Little League play
-- and if can you see with where the arrow is, typically the fence line
is 200 feet from the home base.
So in converting fields, what staff looked at was what it would
take to take the fields -- the fence line from here to that point there,
200 feet.
Just a couple other things about Veterans Park, if I may. This is
the soccer field that we have at Veterans. We also have basketball
courts, racquetball courts, we have bocce courts, we have tennis courts
here. This is our roller rink, very popular with youth hockey, our
community center here, and many -- much of the programming that
we have at the community center, we have afterschool programming,
we have summer programming, and many of the programs that are
conducted for the youth in this area, we use these fields in support of
outdoor play.
Just while I have you here, I just want to show you, too, this is
Rover Run. This is our dog park within Veterans Park. So this area
here is what Veterans Park looks like today.
Just in talking to you about what's available now for North
Page 194
January 9, 2007
Naples Little League, I wanted to share with you currently what fields
that we have available for them.
And I have an aerial. This is Starcher- Pettay Park, and it adjoins
North Naples Elementary. This is the elementary school here. And as
you're aware, many of the parks that we've built over the years, we've
done it in conjunction with the school board. That's partly out of our
ability to save money, but also to get the best use out of the park
elements where you can have the school use the parks in the daytime
and then you can have the public use the parks in the evening, and this
is an example of one of those.
Starcher-Pettay -- and I just wanted to point out some of the
issues that North Naples Little League has brought to our attention, the
concerns that they have. One concern that they've had is about
parking. And you can see, this is St. John's the Evangelist Church
here, and this is their parking here.
And typically what happens with North Naples Little League
participants is they will park along this grassy strip here. They do
have the ability to park in the school parking lot here. There has been
some concern about whether the gates would be locked. Jessica
Lundsford Act has caused the school to look at security issues.
School officials have told us though that after hours, that after
3:30 those gates should be open. So we're working closely with North
Naples Little League. Ifwe hear that the gates are not open, we
certainly would address that with the school board.
But just to give you some more pictures ofStarcher-Pettay, if I
may. This, of course, is the scoreboard. This is a picture of the
concession area that is at Starcher-Pettay. North Naples Little League
has a long history of playing here.
In fact, they have taken ownership of Starcher-Pettay in a lot of
different ways. Historically they've helped in maintaining the upkeep,
the concession -- as you can see some of the signs. They've been
successful in their Little League play, which we're very proud of.
Page 195
January 9, 2007
But some of the other shots of the park itself, you can see the
bathrooms in the back here. In the last year or so, we've been working
with North Naples Little League to make improvements upon the
park. It is an older park, and we're still working with them in looking
at improvements.
Again, some other shots of the park. That's down the third
baseline.
So that's one of four parks that we currently maintain and that is
used for Little League. This field is 200 feet. It is a Little League
field, and for the most part, not a lot of play is conducted on this field.
This is the other two fields that we have available for North
Naples Little League. These two fields are at Osceola. They adjoin
Osceola Elementary School, and you can see the two fields. Again, to
note, the fence line is 200 feet. The grass infield per Little League
specifications.
And just to share with you some of the concerns that North
Naples Little League have about this location, and we are in
discussions with the school board to help rectify. A couple of
concerns that they've expressed; one is the ability to have a
concession, and we've talked to them about the possibility of having a
concession come in, a mobile concession. Been talking to the school
board about getting permission for that to occur.
But if you get fans and parents out in this area, you know, and
they're watching their children play, you know, having a hot dog or a
soda and also having the ability to raise money for their league is a
concern, so that's certainly one of the deficits that they see here.
The other is in relation -- as it relates to bathrooms, and
bathrooms are an issue with this particular site. When the school
closes down at night, North Naples Little League is granted a key that
they have available to get into one bathroom, and that can cause some
issues for them, as they are working with a lot -- a large number of
folks on the fields.
Page 196
January 9, 2007
Just to show you, though, these two fields. This is the first field
to the left, as you saw in the last picture. Pretty standard shot. You
can see the school board building in the back, administration. This is
the second field, and so these are -- these are the three fields,
Starcher-Pettay, two at Osceola, one at Veterans that are currently
available to North Naples Little League.
Now, to talk to you about the discussion and staffs discussion
about the recommendation, I just wanted to share with you, we
brought these issues to Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and we
looked at the advantages of converting the fields at Veterans Park.
And just to highlight those, certainly we could see the benefit of
having one location for North Naples Little League, and that was --
when they first approached us, we actually traveled to Estero with
some of their membership and looked at a field in Estero that had a
Little League complex there. And having one location for all the
Little League play certainly would be a benefit. We can understand
that.
They also -- what was described to us is North Naples Little
League has the ability to accommodate tournament play if they had a
complex. So they're suggesting that if they had Veterans, they would
have that ability.
And finally, probably the more practical, is just having rest
rooms, concession and parking more accessible. You know, we do
have them in four locations. There are limitations to those locations,
but they are adequate for what they receive.
The disadvantages, in our opinion, and in Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board, outweigh the advantages. So it's -- in those -- in
identifying those -- just to note, we work with seven Little League
associations in Collier County, and our challenge is that we have
community parks that we have to use for multi-generational,
multi-purpose use. And to convert it to one particular sport limits us
in the play that might be conducted on those fields.
Page 197
January 9, 2007
We also, you know, couldn't get beyond the fact that North
Naples Little League currently has four fields. And we do have in our
inventory eight Little League fields. So they have -- they appear to
have a large number of the current fields we have available.
And I'm not sure that this is -- I'm going to say that this is not the
most important, but I did want to bring it to your attention. Veterans,
and with North Collier Regional Park, with the five softball fields and
the three softball fields at Veterans, give us the opportunity to attract
tournaments.
And part of what we've been doing with the new park, we have,
just throughout the spring and summer, identified a large number of
softball tournaments that will come to town. If I may just share this
with you. These are just some of the ones. And you can see in blew,
these are some of the tournaments that are currently booking at North
Collier Regional Park, and there is economic impact in these parks --
in these softball tournaments in what they bring.
Our issue is having eight fields for softball and having them
configured to accommodate the tournament play that we're
scheduling.
So I just wanted to bring those issues in terms of the
disadvantages of making this happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's the difference between the
red and the blue, please?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
MR. MUDD: One's soccer, one's softball.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
MR. MUDD: The red is soccer, ma'am, and the blue is softball.
And the list goes down through August 24th, 25th.
MR. WILLIAMS: Finally, I just wanted to end with
recommendations that -- bringing forward from the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board. Our -- or the recommendation was to not
convert existing fields at Veterans to accommodate only Little
Page 198
January 9,2007
League.
We would ask staff continue to develop an action plan to work
with North Naples Little League to deal with some of the issues that
they've expressed. In fact, we have been talking with the school board
about those issues and talking about, in particular, Osceola in trying to
make some changes for access to the rest rooms and availability for
conceSSIon.
Finally, the recommendation from PARAB was to look at the
feasibility, long-term planning options, for a Little League complex. I
think -- and what we hear from the petitioners is what they're really
looking for is a spot devoted just for Little League play. Frankly, the
feasibility is not an issue that staff have looked at, but -- and so with --
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, they wish to offer that as a
recommendation and direct staff to look at that feasibility.
At this point I'll end and entertain any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think Commissioner Henning's got
some questions, or was that from before?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you. Eight Little
League fields, most of those -- a majority of those are located on
school property?
MR. WILLIAMS: The Eagle Lake fields are located on park
property .
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Eight Little League fields,
eight?
MR. WILLIAMS : We have eight Little League fields, that's
correct.
MR. MUDD: How many are on school property; how many are
on park property?
MR. WILLIAMS: I'd have to go through them real quickly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think, through your
presentation, it's pretty much you showed that those are on school
property .
Page 199
January 9, 2007
MR. WILLIAMS: I can tell you that we have one Little League
field at Golden Gate Community Park, two Little League fields at
Gulf Coast in East Naples, a park -- it's a park just for Little League
Warren Street. That's not school property, neither is Golden Gate.
We have two Little League fields in Immokalee, Tony Rossberg Park,
that's not school property. We have two at Osceola--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Osceola school.
MR. WILLIAMS: And one at North Naples Elementary. Three
at the school sites.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three at -- three fields at the
school sites?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And they probably are
not going to fit the needs, at least the long-term needs, of the Little
League organization?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, as far as capacity for North Naples
Little League, we're hearing that they're not looking for additional
fields so much as different fields, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. How many -- there's
North Naples, there's probably East Naples Little League park.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's on Warren Street, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Orangetree?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Orange Street.
MR. WILLIAMS: Warren.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean Warren Street.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, that's a Little League
organization of East Naples?
MR. WILLIAMS: It is two Little League fields that parks and
recreation maintains.
MR. MUDD: Right next to the south sewer plant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hang on. We have a North
Naples Little League Association.
Page 200
January 9, 2007
MR. WILLIAMS: North Naples, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not a park or a field. Do you
have an East Naples Little League Association?
MR. WILLIAMS: We do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there a Golden Gate Little
League Association?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So there's --
MR. WILLIAMS: Seven total.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- seven different organizations,
and they probably play each other.
Well, I'm in favor of creating a Little League park personally,
and here's the reason why. You have other parks that their emphasis is
on soccer, such as the Vineyards Park, and other parks. That's one
activity that the kids can enjoy, okay. And I'm sure it's multi-faceted,
correct?
MR. WILLIAMS: It is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But -- and baseball, softball,
Little League, men's league, they're different, correct?
MR. WILLIAMS: They are. They're played on different fields,
and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But soccer is either easy to
convert or it's the same feet or yards that is utilized --
MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- as far as goals.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think families are still having
babies in Collier County, and I don't think that's going to change. I
would like to see a Little League park along -- within that, an area
where younger kids or brothers and sisters can play in a playground
and allow them to have concessions, concession stands. That's what I
would hope that the board would consider to give you direction.
Page 201
January 9, 2007
I don't think it's feasible to say to other people who are already
playing to use other facilities, in this case, the Veterans Park, and say,
well, we're changing -- or the Board of Commissioners has changed
their mind and is going to make this a Little League park. Is that an
option that parks and rec. staff would consider?
MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely, with your direction, and Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board has also made that recommendation to
you for us to look at the feasibility.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. They said feasibility.
I'm hoping the board would say, this is what we want you to do.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And just give you that task to
make it happen. And I don't know the inventory out there. That's
something you'll have to come back to us with.
MR. WILLIAMS: We can do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I like the direction we're
going, but I think what we have to do -- if we're going to task you with
the idea of looking for additional fields, then we're going to have to
make sure that we fund them accordingly, or maybe we can have
someone in the community that would be kind enough to donate the
land for Little League play, and it would be a cost share. To me, that
sounds like that might be a more viable combination.
If we're tasked -- or we're going to task you with going out and
finding land that's going to be available to address the Little League, if
it's growing at this rapid rate -- because we also have other fields that
-- for men's -- or mens soccer or mens softball, baseball and so on, I'm
concerned that we don't want to deprive them of what's happening.
All we're going to do is just compound the problem here.
So as Commissioner Henning said, maybe we need to go out and
find out if there's some areas of -- that are available for that recreation,
Page 202
January 9, 2007
such as a baseball field or whatever.
So if we task you with that, I guess we're going to have to make
sure that we have the necessary resources to accommodate the needs
of building a new baseball field.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course, something of this
magnitude wouldn't be for this season. We're talking about sometime
in the future; is that correct?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. And another consideration just in
the feasibility is, you do have seven associations, you do have a large
county. You know, siting (sic) such a place and how to make those
decisions, there would be some study that we'd need to do to
understand what would be a best site for something like that, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And, of course, the location's
going to be important. It's not something you would be able to place
out there around Ave Maria. It would have to be someplace that's
located so that the children can access it, you know, from a reasonable
distance. I know their parents drive them, but -- you know, it's an
interesting concept.
I think we ought to hear from the speakers, but first,
Commissioner Henning, I see your light is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I just want to respond to
some comments that were said. Any capital improvement that we do
in parks and rec., we have impact fees, correct? And that could be
used to develop -- purchase land, if we need, and develop a park.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not sure that we need any
outside sources. The -- and I'm understanding, and correct me if I'm
wrong -- in this coming AUIR, you have quite a substantial reserves in
impact fees; is that right?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's my understanding, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the funds are there. It's just,
you know, finding the facility to do it. So anyways --
Page 203
January 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I'm ready for the speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Fiala would like
to respond.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast question, and it won't take
long at all, and that is, to build a -- to build a Little League complex,
as we're talking about, with all of the things that Little League teams
would really need, concessions and bathrooms and so forth, how many
acres do you need for something like that?
MR. WILLIAMS: I would say five -- or 10 to 12. It would be a
guess, Commissioner. But we've had some staff discussion about that,
and if you were to devise -- and with North Collier Regional you see a
star configuration of five softball fields. If you're to do something like
that, we're talking probably 10 to 12 acres.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One other question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's doable.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One other question. Why did
P ARAB say that they wanted to not pass this proposal?
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, the chairman of the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board is here and is signed up to speak. I don't
know if you'd want to wait and hear his comments and--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's a good question. Why don't we
wait, if he cares to come up to speak. I wouldn't want to call him up
without his permission.
With that, I'm going to go to the speakers. Now, I don't know
who signed up to speak, but I hope some of the young people that are
here today have put their names down. This county government
represents you as much as it does your parents.
And we're prepared to make provisions so you'll be able to get up
Page 204
January 9, 2007
to the mike to speak. I have a stool here I'm going to bring down there
for you to stand on. I'm going to have the county attorney stand
behind you when you get up there so if suddenly you decide to drop
off the back end, he can grab you. And so I'm looking forward to this
very much.
Would you call the speakers, please.
MS. FILSON: Yes. The first speaker is David Colandra. I can't
read the --
MR. COLANDRA: You got it right. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Oh, good. And he'll be followed by Pete Denove.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He does not need the stool.
MR. COLANDRA: How about if I kneel on it.
Chairman, Commissioners, thank you for having us back today.
First, just for clarification, I would like to -- I would like to note that
when I had said in the first hearing that there was one Little League
field, what I was using was actually their recreation guide for the fall
of 2006, which in all of the parks lists one Little League field.
Also, within the same guide it lists 18 softball fields. So there --
right now there is quite a few softball fields also within the county.
At any rate, let me go on. There are no -- as I say, there are no
fields for Little League at Veterans, Vineyards or North Collier.
Additionally, and when reading the comments and -- comments
for their recommendation to deny, I noticed that the player numbers
utilized by parks and recreation is a bit misleading. For one thing,
with Little League, they only use North Naples Little League and
ignore play use from all travel team leagues, other leagues, Collier
County and generally -- and general pickup games.
F or softball they use teams with players from every area of the
county, even outside the county. And in going through the registrants,
I found people who were actually living in the Tampa area, the Fort
Lauderdale area, Miami, even players who registered who are from --
who are living in Ohio and Minnesota.
Page 205
January 9, 2007
True, the majority of out-of-county participants are from Fort
Myers, Bonita and Estero, but this hardly makes for an apples to
apples comparison when you're talking about Little League within a
four or five range, and then you're talking about softball players across
the country (sic).
Also, in reviewing their implications for conversion, I find their
alliance with the Tourist Development Council a little bit troubling.
As they state, they're marketing softball tournaments that would
require eight fields with the idea that these tournaments would have a
ripple effect on Collier County travel.
This requires treating Veterans Park not as its own park, but as a
satellite branch of North Collier Regional Park. I took the time to
review some case law in the Southern Reporter, and there is
significant case law for using public money for proj ects of this nature;
however, the type of public money that is utilized to fund such
proj ects more often comes in the form of a resort tax, not in the form
of an impact fee, which is essentially a fee on a specific group of
homeowners.
The conversion of fields for the purpose of Little League play
directly serves a group that have contributed to these impact fee
payments funding the parks in question. Needless to say, I could find
nothing to support a regional park essentially annexing land, which is
what we're talking about.
With the usage of the three softball fields for major softball
tournaments, essentially what's happening is they want to annex
Veterans Park for the usage of North Collier Regional.
I believe that if the commissioners follow the recommendation of
parks and recreation that is necessary to withdraw the -- it is necessary
to withdraw the impact fee funding and replace it with resort tax
funding.
Without a conversion that directly benefits those involved, a
rebate or a redirection of impact fee payments, I think -- I believe this
Page 206
January 9, 2007
is some of what you were going about -- talk about before, that the
impact fee payments that are there could be used for a conversion of
the fields or maybe fields somewhere else, and maybe we can replace
the impact fee payments that are now being used over at North Collier
with the resort tax, which is generally how such a park is done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to have to ask you to wind
it up, sir.
MR. COLANDRA: Well, I guess to wind it up, the involved --
what I'd just like to say, the involvement or alliance with the Tourist
Development Council makes this a tourist project. The park should be
funded with a resort tax, not an impact fee payment. North Collier
Regional should have a market -- should not have a marketing or
annexing relationship with Veterans.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MR. COLANDRA: Thank you. Thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Pete Denove.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Bart Zino.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can tell you that I'm not going
to vote in favor of conversion of --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- North Naples, but I just want
to ask the public when you come up there, can you support a Little
League park with all the accessory ancillary uses? So that's my
question of the public.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue.
MR. DENOVE: Thanks. My name is Pete Denove. First of all,
thanks -- thank you all for the opportunity to speak today. No
heckling from these youngsters hopefully.
I am manager and a coach for my son's North Naples Little
League and AAU, which is the Athletic Amateur Union travel teams.
Page 207
January 9, 2007
North Naples Little League has asked me to speak to you today about
the potential financial impact that youth baseball can have on our
community.
A lot of our kids, as you see here, play both AAU travel ball and
what you know as standard Little League.
Our family has travelled throughout the western and central
corridor for the various tournaments this past season, and it's always
amazing to see the youth baseball facilities that we've played at.
Communities that are much less fortunate than Naples and North
Naples dedicated the limited funds that they had to their youths
through youth supporting facilities.
Beautiful fields, spaded areas for spectators, clean,
well-maintained bathroom facilities, a place to buy a bottle of
Gatorade or water has always been fun for family oriented weekend.
Now, after spending the late summer and fall coaching an AA U
team, I realize that travel baseball leagues account for a large number
of kids, that in some cases mayor may not be included in the Little
League figures that you all have seen.
The Sunshine Athletic League alone accounts for over 13,000
youth baseball players and coaches in the State of Florida. The league
is just one of many, many travel baseball leagues throughout the state.
Most, if not all, of these players play year-round and travel to
tournaments all over the state. Some of the larger tournaments can
host over 220 teams in one weekend, accounting for a financial impact
of more than $3 million in one weekend.
A tournament that could be hosted between Starcher-Pettay and
the Veterans fields could include -- and I only included the two
Veterans fields and the Starcher- Pettay facility -- at least 25 teams of
at least 12 players, plus coaches, parents and families, and the
financial impact per weekend in Naples would be significant. We
figured it well over $300,000.
Earlier this week I spoke with -- directly with Chad Lemon,e
Page 208
January 9, 2007
who's a 16-year major league ballplayer for the Detroit Tigers, who is
now the national director for AAU and president of the Sunshine AAU
league.
He said that at most times adult events -- and this is nothing
against adults, but adult events often get bumped from the schedule to
accommodate youth baseball tournaments due to the significant
financial impact.
So I know we're concerned about softball, and that's
understandable, but the real dollars are here with the youth.
Our North Naples Little League president, Rob DiLella, can
attest to the fact that we have been asked many times to host a
tournament but have had to deny the opportunity due to the lack of
facilities.
So as important -- and as stated recently in a Naples Daily News
article, it would be really great for the youth in our community to
actually play their games, travel games and Little League, in this area
instead of having to travel elsewhere.
If the financial impact of mens softball is considered so
important, the county really needs, in our opinion, needs to invest and
consider youth baseball as well.
There is an obvious advantage of attracting more families with
youth baseball tournaments than through the individuals associated
primarily with mens softball. Converting Veterans Park is an easy and
inexpensive way to start that will not only help North Naples Little
League, but also have a positive financial impact on the community.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. DENOVE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bart Zino. He'll be followed
by Lisa Denove.
MR. ZINO: Good afternoon. Bart Zino. I'm on the board of
directors of North Naples Little League as well. Thanks for giving us
the time today.
Page 209
January 9, 2007
Actually, the direction that the -- that you commissioners have
kind of taken here has allowed me to cut off about half of what I
wanted to say, and I'm sure you're grateful for that.
The only issue really that comes to mind with the possibility of a
Little League complex is that it's going to take -- even if you had the
property today, it's going to take two years to even get the permits
through, or more, and it's going to take a while to build the facility.
These kids have one year to be 10 years old, one year to be 11,
one year to be 12. And while a facility would be awesome, centrally
locating it, putting it somewhere in the county where all the leagues
could share and use it, and we could use that as a tournament base,
that's a lot more to think about than we came, frankly, prepared to talk
about.
It blends to what we -- the point we want to make though, and the
point is that this is not really a North Naples issue, but North Naples
will share in the issue. Tournament baseball is a present-day situation.
It's not a future thing. It's right now. Tournament play is where things
are at.
So this isn't a local North Naples issue. This is a Collier County
issue. And it goes back to the fact that there is not one single current
facility capable of hosting a Little League youth baseball tournament
in any way, shape or form. There's not one qualified facility.
By converting two of the fields at Veterans Park, even as a
stopgap measure, while we go through the development process so
that kids this age can play, will serve a purpose, and I don't think it
will be a debilitating purpose.
And Commissioner, I heard what you're saying, and I'm not
going to -- I'm not going to say, no, we don't want a facility, but I want
you to -- I want you all to please realize that one year is all they've got
to be 10, 11 or 12 years old.
If the cost of conversion is an issue -- and I understand that in a
previous report, parks and rec. presented $58,000 cost to convert the
Page 210
January 9, 2007
fields at Veterans Park for baseball, for Little League baseball. It
sounds like a huge number, and it is a huge number. If it's another
reason why the staff shouldn't be inconvenienced by the issue, the kids
aren't worth it, that's certainly big enough and good enough. We can
-- we can understand that.
I would love to -- I'm looking forward to hearing the chairman of
the P ARAB come upon here to talk about their issues. It's interesting
we were never invited to that meeting where they discussed us. We
were never told that that hearing was occurring, and it would have
been nice to present our point of view. In fact, at one point when I
had asked about a P ARAB meeting, I was discouraged by staff that it
wasn't an issue that concerned P ARAB and was told not to go.
Let's get rid of the issue of money, and I didn't mean to bounce
around. Let's get rid of the issue of money. My employer, Russell
Budd, and the company that I work for, which is PBS, feel this is an
important enough issue that we're willing to donate material --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap
it up.
MR. ZINO: I will. I'm very short.
We'll donate the money -- we'll -- not the money. We'll donate
the facilities. We are a Collier County approved contractor on your
list of approved contractors. You've approved my -- our stuff before.
We'll donate the work for the sod, for the dirt, for the mounds and for
the irrigation. So if cost is an issue, please take that off the table.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Generous.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Lisa Denove.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just one second, please.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you. I do have a
question. Well, we do have enough money, but I appreciate the offer,
Page 211
January 9, 2007
and maybe you'll get the bid, your company. But who told you that
it's not an issue with P ARAB?
MR. ZINO: I believe at the time it was Mary Ellen Donner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Lisa Denove. She'll be
followed by Pete Denove.
MS. DENOVE: Pete just went. That was my husband, but thank
you.
MS. FILSON: Oh. Then he must have registered twice.
MS. DENOVE: Thank you very much for speaking with me
today. There's been a lot of talk about financial impact and how much
it costs and what we can generate.
I am up here today just to talk to you as a mom. I have two Little
Leaguers, and I'm a resident of North Naples. Throughout this
process, sometimes I get the feeling that we're being greedy in asking
for two more fields, and we're really not being greedy. I kind of find
it offensive. And I think serving our youth, we shouldn't feel that
way.
My boys play Little League, AAU ball, hurricane football, they
shoot baskets in our driveway, they play roller hockey with the kids. I
do everything to keep them away from the TV, the computer, the
Internet, Game Cube, all that kind of stuff.
Little League has provided them a way to increase their
physician skills, their social skills, have fun with their friends and be
in a safe environment. Starcher- Pettay is great for that.
During season we go a couple times a week. We watch their
friends play, they play pick up tennis, baseball. They have fun. We're
not in front of the TV. We're out as a family.
And what we're hoping to do is expand that feeling that you get
at Starcher over with Veterans. They're really close by to each other.
So if my six-year-old is playing a game and it's season, it doesn't take
Page 212
January 9, 2007
me 45 minutes to get from Osceola to Starcher to hope that I can see
my nine-year-old play. If they're right down the street from each
other, gosh, I might get to see both their games or make both their
practices.
So what we're looking to do is kind of combine and consolidate
our fields. I would love to have a whole stadium, you know, and
we've been to great ones. To Bart's point, it probably will take too
long. My kids will probably be grown before they could play in it, but
I think as a stopgap measure, having Veterans and Starcher together
would really help us.
I talked to a couple of parents at the Golden Gate American
League. We went to a camp over Christmas, and they play at Max
Hasse, and Max Hasse has two fields. One's for girls softball and
one's for boys Little League.
And when girls softball isn't using it, the boys Little League
plays on their field and vice versa, and they share the field. What's
great about it is it's all for youth. It's dedicated just for the kids. The
moms go, their kids go, they play, there's a park in there, just like you
were talking about, and it's a great event, and it keeps them out and it
keeps them safe.
If there are strange adults there, we know about it. You know
they don't belong and we address it. So there aren't that many places
to go nowadays to have that, and that's kind of what we're looking for.
Osceola is a nice field, but when I take my 84-year-old
mother-in-law there, she's there for four hours, she can't go to the
bathroom, she can't get a drink of water. I have to bring a chair,
because since the hurricanes, there are no stands to sit in. She's not in
the shade. It's just not a great place to be. If we can somehow fix that,
that's great.
My kids also go to Vineyards. And I know when you mix adult
and kid play together -- there's my buzzer. I'll be quick -- you end up
with the janitors having to go in early Monday mornings to clean up
Page 213
January 9,2007
the field -- because they find beer bottles and paraphernalia and all
kinds of things -- before the kids get back to school.
So, you know, we're trying to get something youth organized that
we don't have to worry about those issues.
And that's all I have to say, thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Rob DiLella. He'll be
followed by Kevin Heald.
MR. DiLELLA: Hello. My name is Rob DiLella. I'm the
president of North Naples Little League. I've been the president for
three years. I'm also on the board of the Naples Hurricanes Pop
Warner football league, and I've been on that board for five years.
Thank you for the opportunity today to listen to our concerns and
to hear our request. This issue is not exclusively about North Naples
Little League. This is Little League throughout Collier County. It's the
needs of all the community.
There are -- the other seven -- six other leagues in the county.
All of those programs have endorsed what we're asking for here, along
with girls softball, who we would share those fields with at Veterans
Park. We've also merged our five- and six-year-old program with
girls softball so that we will have girls at our five- and six-year-old
level as well.
If, as Pete mentioned, revenue generated is an important issue via
hotel rooms and meals, we can do tournament play if we have those
fields.
San Carlos Park hosted this past year the state Little League
12-year-old baseball tournament, the one you see on ESPN. San
Carlos Park was able to host that with a facility like that.
Veterans Park used to be where North Naples Little League
played. We used to play there. We had those fields taken away from
us, and then we were moved further south to Osceola. We now play at
three separate fields.
Page 214
January 9,2007
We're saying that now with five brand new world-class softball
fields at the new park -- we don't want anything to do with that -- that
that facility opened up enough for the people who play there now,
which is the mens softball league, which is one field and one league,
could move over to there. We'll still share it with the girls and
participate at Veterans Community Park and have our fields back.
This is a perfect opportunity for that.
One of the things it says in the parks and recreation website is
that parks and recreation of Collier County is dedicated to bringing the
community together in a fun atmosphere. And as president of -- as
president of North Naples Little League, one of the things critical to
bringing the community together in a fun atmosphere is the park
experience, and, Commissioner Henning, you pointed to that.
In my capacity as president of the Little League, it's not just what
goes on between the diamonds of the baseball fields, it's what goes on
around it. A six-year-old on a Saturday morning who plays his T ball
game at nine o'clock, after his game is over at 10 and his bigger
brother's playing on the field right next to him runs over and maybe
watches that game for a few minutes, then gets five bucks from dad
and goes to the concession stand, gets his hot dog, gets a cotton candy,
then goes over and plays on the swing set, it's an experience for the
family. Dad seeing his kids throw their first pitch. Mom being there
with the kids. It's a family experience on a Saturday that we're talking
about.
Please support us in bringing the community together in a fun
atmosphere through Little League. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Kevin Heald. He'll be followed by Henry Hank
Caballery.
MR. HEALD: My name's Kevin Heald. I'm a coach in the
league and the treasurer for North Naples Little League. I find it very
disheartening that parks and rec. has chosen to paint us in the light
they have. They would have you believe that of the eight existing
Page 215
January 9, 2007
Little League fields in the county, three of them are all ours, and what
in the world is greedy North Naples Little League wanting two more
fields for. Let's look at that a little closer.
Every Little League in Collier County plays at a two-field facility
at a park with a concession stand. Golden Gate American plays at
Max Hasse Park. Golden Gate National plays at Golden Gate Park.
Greater Naples plays at Fleischmann Park. Their whole league is
conducted at one facility where they can generate much needed
revenue through the concession stand, and families can come and take
advantage of a park atmosphere, watch their younger child play on
one field and their older child play on the field next to it.
You know where we play? Well, we have one field at
Starcher- Pettay on 111 th Avenue. The church lets us use the parking
lot, and the county has an interlocal agreement with neighboring
Naples Park Elementary.
The rest of the kids, the younger ones, play on two fields at
Osceola Elementary School. No concession stand, intermittent access
to the bathroom facilities, not to mention the fact that this facility is
not even within our league zone.
Parents with multiple children in our leagues have to choose
which game they'll watch or whose game they'll watch. We don't play
at parks. Our league families come to watch the game, then, with
nothing to do or eat or drink at Osceola, they leave.
And ask the county where the interlocal facilities are in the
pecking order when it comes to maintenance and repairs. They're last.
When Wilma came through, we waited and waited for the crews
to come and check our field. In truth, there was nothing to prevent us
from playing, but because all the parks were to be checked first, we
waited. The maintenance on interlocal fields is not up to the standards
of the park fields.
When I think of parks, I think of families. Apparently what parks
and rec. thinks of parks, they think of mens softball. They list the
Page 216
January 9, 2007
number of Little League fields in the county, but why not the number
of softball fields? Because that doesn't fit this argument.
And when you add five new state-of-the-art softball fields to the
region park number, it's even more attractive. And yet, they put a
Little League baseball player on the cover of their brochures, but not a
softball player.
Let me get to the real point of league's desires, and I will finish.
N orth Naples Little League is here because the regional park is North
Naples Regional Park. If it had been built in the Estates, Golden Gate
American would be up here, and we'd be sitting right there.
If it had been built in Golden Gate, Golden Gate National would
be up here, and we'd still be sitting right there. In East Naples, Gulf
Coast Little League.
Our request is for one baseball facility in all of Collier County.
Parks and rec. denies us because they need these fields for overflow
use for softball tournaments at the regional park. Are you serious?
Every travel baseball team in this town never has a home game
because there is not one single place to host a tournament. The
residents of this county built all the parks. Now we come second to
out-of-town teams coming in for tournaments on fields we can't use
year-round because they're left for overflow use for softball
tournaments.
And please don't condemn these kids because they play baseball.
Parks and rec. touts the multi use nature of a softball field and decries
the requirements for a baseball field. You know what multi use is?
Different types of softball. That's it.
I'm sorry they put a mound on the field when they invented
baseball. I'm sorry the game is played on grass. Don't punish these
kids for these reasons. We're asking for one facility in the whole
county .
I've heard the county say they'll consider our request in the
future. Why? When will there possibly be a better time? It won't
Page 217
January 9,2007
come any cheaper or any easier than right now. Convert these two
baseball fields at Veterans Park --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I need you to wrap up.
MR. HEALD: One sentence. Leave the third field for girls
softball and the big field for the little kids playing baseball. Come
down there one night when every field is full of kids, the park is full of
families, and pat yourselves on the back.
Please, now is the time. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Henry Hank Caballero. He'll
be followed by Kimberly Valdivia.
MR. CABALLERO: Mr. Chairman, Jim, and Commissioners.
Thank you very much for the invite. I'm a little optimistic with
everything that I've heard here today.
Mr. Henning, I salute you, sir, for leading the way. I've been in
this community since 1963. I played pro ball in Tampa where it's my
home town. I love baseball with a passion. Love, and it's part of my
life, and has always been part of our lives. When I say our lives, I'm
talking about my family's.
I've had one young man play Little League here in town. As a
matter of fact, some years ago I coached, of all people, Brian Shimer.
I think we're -- we know who Brian Shimer is. He was in five
Olympics. His dad and I coached the Naples Jaycees, and he was one
of my first players, and I'm so proud of that. Look what he's turned
out to be.
Also, another young man who's the athletic director at Tulsa
University. I had the opportunity to coach him for eight years. And I
could go on with people that have been successful, not because I've
coached them, but I've had the opportunity to be involved with them
only because the facilities were here to take advantage of.
I've been coaching, as I said, since 1963, and I still coach. I'll be
73 years of age next month. Don't cut my wheels off. I want to keep
the tank full and just keep firing me up, because I'm going to keep
Page 218
January 9,2007
.
gOIng.
I have right now -- it's a long story -- two young boys, 11 and 9,
that are involved in the Naples Little League -- Little League, period,
and they're looking forward to playing this year. As a matter of fact,
registration was done this week, and I still have some time.
So please do what you can for us. The boys are here. Someone
says, we're not going to stop motherhood. Hopefully not. And let's
keep going, keep the wheels rolling, keep my fuel tank full. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Kimberly Valdivia. She'll be
followed by Taylor Steppling.
MS. VALDIVIA: Hello. I'm Kimberly Valdivia. I have two
children; a son, he's nine, and a daughter, eight.
What everybody has been saying pretty much covered what I
needed to say. I will add one thing that is important to me is
homework. And one thing about having fields all over and travel time
is it's harder to get homework finished in less amount of time, and we
need to remember that that's first, even before baseball.
But by putting everybody in one area, it does help save time.
And another point is, my daughter is very bored when she's at the
games, and a park for her to play with (sic) and being in a safe area
where I'm not worried and my husband's not worried, where is she,
that also would just create a great deal of peace in our hearts. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Taylor Steppling.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, great, at last.
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Dee Dottore.
MR. STEPPLING: Hello. My name is Taylor Steppling. I'm a
sixth-grader at North Naples Middle School, a player in North Naples
Little League, and as you can see from the uniform I'm wearing, a boy
Page 219
January 9, 2007
scout too.
As an ll-year-old boy, I always want to be active. Even though I
signed up for PE, I'm sad to say that schools only allow us to do it for
half the year. When a scout repeats the scout law, the first law is to be
trustworthy. That means a scout is honest and keeps his promises.
People can depend on him.
The county parks advertise that this is what you are going to do.
In the center you can see plans for a Little League baseball field. I
was excited because kids like me need baseball fields to play on.
One of my favorite movies is Field of Dreams. In the movie the
Iowa farmer was told, if you build it, they will come. Well, Little
Leaguers in North Naples Little League, like me, have come to play,
but you haven't built the field.
I ask that you provide a field where we can play, just like we
thought we'd be allowed to use. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Dee Dottore. She'll be followed
by John Ribes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've got to warn you, that's a hard act
to follow.
MS. DOTTORE: They're black and white. When you deal with
Little League, it's cheap. You can't do the expensive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I'll pass it down.
MS. DOTTORE: My name is Dee Dottore. My son played at
Naples Park Elementary School in 1976. He played for 20 -- till he
was 24. He had a full tuition scholarship to college, played baseball
all the way. I've been at thousands of baseball games.
It was me and some of the other moms that built that concession
stand up there that sits proudly behind home plate.
I think the restrictions might have been a little easier then. We
sold pop out of trunks of our car, we had bake sales, we had portable
Page 220
January 9, 2007
grills with hot dogs, whatever, all we could do to think of to raise
money.
One thing I'm not hearing here --it sounds like the cart's before
the horse a little -- I don't hear anyone say that they've been in contact
with Little League International. They are the governing body for
Little League baseball, the organizations, the sanctions, the fields, the
locations, the sizes, the number of games that can be played, the
number of teams. It's -- with all due respect to the commissioners, I
don't know that you -- from your comments, I don't know that you
know these things, okay.
You can't just put a Little League baseball field wherever you
want, okay. Locations of fields are based on population, and they're
placed in certain sections of a county or a town based on need by
population, and it has to be approved by Little League International,
okay.
And you need to play in the league where you live so that
everything's on an equal level. You can't take five good players from
North Naples, draft them, put them in the car, take them over to East
Naples and stack a team, okay. That's not what Little League is all
about.
What Little League is about is you can strike out, but it's a great
swing, okay. Whatever you do is a good effort.
And as you can see by what -- for those of you who want to see
what parents and community have done, Tallmadge Little League dot
com, okay. Any of you who have been -- who know anything about
baseball in Naples have heard about Tallmadge because the girls have
played each other many times in the World Series, their softball teams,
okay.
They started out with a dried up lake is what their park started
out like. Now it's fit for tournaments. They have a concession stand.
They have a sprinkling system that was put in not too long ago.
When my son played up in Naples Parks Elementary, there was a
Page 221
January 9, 2007
bench on either side. There was a -- you sat in the rain, you sat in the
sun. You did, you know, whatever it took to go -- I had three kids.
My daughter played softball, my son played Little League ball, my
other daughter ran track, and I raised them alone. So it was, whose
game do I go to tonight?
Besides that, I ran the concession stand five nights a week and for
four games on Saturday.
The main point I'm trying to make here is you need to get in
touch with Little League International. They're the main person you
need to talk with, everybody, and get them involved. They'll help you
get it done. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Ribes.
MR. RIBES: Commissioner Coletta, Commissioners, I'm John
Ribes, chairman of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and I'm
here to discuss a very important issue that all -- everyone has
discussed so far. And although I heard a couple of troubling things to
me that maybe can be addressed at the end, I would like to say that
we, as the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board are proponents for
and are strong supporters of Little League.
I have personally coached Little League for many years, although
quite a few years ago and in another city, and I must say that we have
to find a way to meet their needs. These young people are our future,
and it is wonderful to see them here. I think it's great that they're
interacting with government.
And I also must say, as a personal opinion, it appears to me,
based on all of our new facilities in recent years, that they have drawn
the short straw and, perhaps, in the past we might even have been
remiss in providing enough fields for them; however, as the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board, it is our responsibility, and we think it's
imperative, that we find ways to accommodate all of our citizens and
all of their recreational needs.
And to this end, I want to be clear that the parks and recreation
Page 222
January 9, 2007
passed two motions. The first motion was not to recommend the two
fields at Veterans Park exclusively for the Little League at this time
but directed the staff to work closely with the Little League to find an
interim solution.
And our second motion, which I think we placed more emphasize
on, was to initiate a major effort to begin the groundwork to create a
Little League complex that will make Collier County a major
destination Little League facility for tournament and family-related
play.
In that second motion, I don't recall there being the word
feasibility in it. But if it was, it was strictly because we don't control
the dollars. You control the dollars. But that would be the only reason
why we, as the Parks and Recreation Board, would think that it would
not be possible.
So that's what I'm here to tell you today. Weare an advisory
board, as you know, and I heard that we did not hear or make it public.
We don't, as an advisory board, set the agenda, but I believe it's our
main responsibility to act in your behalf to hear from the public what
they have and want as needs of recreational needs.
And to that end, it's disappointing to me if the public was turned
away from my meeting, and I don't think that was the case. But if it
was, my apologies to the public.
I'd answer any questions. I believe Commissioner Halas had a
question earlier.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It was so long ago I forgot what it
was. Hopefully I can figure it out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He was wondering, what was the
basis for the decision that you made, and I think you explained it
pretty well.
MR. RIBES: I think that the main reason was the exclusivity of
the two facilities or the two fields that would then deny other citizens
the use of those facilities. That was the only reason.
Page 223
January 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I don't know if there's any other
questions here, but I want to personally thank you for the time that
you've put in on this advisory board.
MR. RIBES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And thank you for being here today.
MR. RIBES: Yeah.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just ask one simple question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was glad to hear that you said you
don't remember discussing feasibility. I just wanted to make sure that
you -- that you said that. Even though it might have been said
someplace, but you really feel that we should be moving forward in
the direction we are?
MR. RIBES: Commissioner Fiala, I believe the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board, at least my interpretation at that time, was
that we felt very strongly that Collier County needed a Little League
complex.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. RIBES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, thank you. The
-- you know, I believe Parks and Rec. Advisory Board and our staff
wants to provide the vehicle for recreation in our facilities. And what
I'm hearing is, we might have missed a target or missed a sector of our
community that we need to address, but there is activities set.
But I do want to give -- and a part of my motion is that we direct
staff to bring back in our upcoming capital improvement element a
Little League field park strategically located in Collier County with all
the ancillary activities that go along with that for family uses.
Also in my motion I want to direct staff -- on March 27th, school
board/Board of Commissioners joint meeting to draft an MOU on
Page 224
January 9, 2007
what you feel that needs to be taking place to accommodate the users
of the Little League fields within the school system and see if we can
come to a resolution there so possibly we have more than one
bathroom used in this one school and other needs and other school
facilities. It's mind boggling why we just have one bathroom. That
means you need a guard at that bathroom.
That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's a wonderful motion. I
appreciate it also.
Anyone have any comments on that motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one little one, and I'd love to --
as we're talking about this, I heard them mention today that we need
like a shelter or pavilion or something for people to get out of the sun.
And as you talk with the P ARAB, maybe you might mention that as
-- and a playground and concession stand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. This is a Little League
park. I can guarantee you that our staff is going to touch each of the
different organizations in Collier County to get their input.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good, that's all we need.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can guarantee you that,
because it's going to be your park, and if you choose to have more
kids, it will be your park for even longer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Or it will be the park your kids will
also -- their kids will enjoy. But one of the things I picked up today is
that there's a willingness within the community to be able to work
with this.
I've heard about efforts where they developed -- the lady was
telling about how she and a number of women built the concession
stand at one park. We had an offer from Russell Budd's employees to
be able to provide labor to make things happen.
I think what we need to do when we get this thing underway --
Page 225
January 9, 2007
Commissioner Henning's suggestion about community outreach to try
to find out what the wish of the community is -- is to also try to find
out what resources are there, because whenever we find the resources
and the commitment, we can make things happen even that much
faster.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The one thing that's sad is the fact
that this does not happen overnight. This is a time effort. It's going to
take time to bring it around, but it doesn't mean that we won't continue
to work on the immediate problems that you have about having to
disburse all over the countryside to be able to meet the needs of your
children's recreational pursuits.
Anything else you want to add on that, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I think it's a
misunderstanding about the joint meeting with the school board. It is
March 20th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for clarifying that.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, we can work with the school
board prior to that time though and seek out some of these issues and
try to resolve them prior to that meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. You're talking about Osceola?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if they're not resolved,
bring them back anyway. Bring it to us so the two governing bodies
can discuss those issues.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I think the message is very
plain. Your voice does count. And we might not give you exactly
what you were looking for, but by gosh, we can move heaven and
earth to make a lot of things happen.
And with that, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor of
-- the motion was made by Commissioner Henning and seconded by
Commissioner Fiala -- indicate by saying aye.
Page 226
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0.
Thank you very much for being here. It's been a pleasure
working with you today.
(Applause.)
Item #10G
PURCHASE THE GROUP INSURANCE COVERAGE AND
VENDOR SERVICES TO MANAGE THE GROUP INSURANCE
PROGRAM - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10G, it's to receive
approval to purchase the group insurance coverage and vendor
services necessary to manage the group insurance program, which
equates to $4,137,435. And Mr. Jeff Walker, your director of risk,
will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do have a question though.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead with your question,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Am I going to get new
insurance cards?
MR. WALKER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When?
MR. WALKER: Just as soon as I can get them to you. The next
day or so I'll have them to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Page 227
January 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion for
approval by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any questions, comments?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0. Thank you
very much.
MR. WALKER: Thank you.
Item #10H
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO
CREATE AN ADDITIONAL (13) THIRTEEN PERMANENT FULL
TIME POSITIONS IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION -APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10H. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the county manager or his designees to create an additional 13
permanent full time equivalent, FTE, positions, within the community
development/environmental services division to address critical
immediate department land use approval, permitting, and inspection
needs, and to give approval for any subsequent budget amendments
required to fund such positions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion -- okay. Second.
We have a motion by Commissioner Halas for approval, a second
Page 228
January 9, 2007
by Commissioner Coletta.
Question, discussion?
Hearing none -- oh, sorry, Commissioner Henning. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Kim Grant did a study --
Mr. Anderson, can you step outside, please?
Mr. -- Kim Grant did a study, and she made certain
recommendations for improvements.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have they been met?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. All these -- this study, Commissioner, has
been in -- was done, as you note on the cover sheet, March 31 st.
These recommendations -- part of the people or personnel that are
being asked for are in concert with this recommendation. All or most
of the other actions are in place.
In my weekly report, you hopefully do notice, the reviews for the
environmental section have almost -- almost 14 months now, well
within the time periods for reviews.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you're still asking for more
MR. SCHMITT: Well, Commissioner, a lot of that was with
overtime.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see.
MR. SCHMITT: Some of this will eliminate the need for
overtime. Mr. Lorenz is here if you would like to ask anything
specific.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you've answered that
question. I do have some other questions, if you don't mind.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've asked for two
environmental personnels for the PUD IUD -- IOU, correct?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, one is to assist the
Page 229
January 9, 2007
homeowners' association to maintain and manage their preserves.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't that what code enforcement
does?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, this was a little bit different.
This is what -- when we briefed at the PUD workshop, I had a temp
working in that position by the name of Melissa Dougherty, and it was
more of an assistance type of -- to help the community come into
compliance. Rather than code enforcement that just goes out and
issues a notice of violation, then the burden is on then the
homeowners' association to hire someone to assist them, they then
have to -- they're responsible then for -- basically for resolving the
issue. This person is to assist the homeowner association to help them
through the process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that under the present code, or
is the code as those communities were approved or built?
MR. SCHMITT: It would depend on what the PUD stated. If
the PUD stated that specific development criteria, then that's the
development criteria that we would utilize. Most PUDs were silent.
Most often we have to go -- if there is a change, we would use the
current and existing criteria, but most often --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a community that has
carrotwood trees, and you're well aware of it.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And at that time those
carrotwood trees were not an exotic.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That change did not take place
until 1995.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. Whenever. I'm not sure when --
the date, but I'll agree with you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, good. I'm glad you are
Page 230
January 9, 2007
finally.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not going to be an issue,
just like an Acacia tree; is that correct? There's going to be some
research done.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. That's what this position is for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: This position is to meet with the homeowners
and to assist the homeowners in helping to resolve the issues that are
identified during the PUD monitoring process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other position is for -- is to
help get that community certified as a closure for their final CO of the
community, for lack of better words. The -- let me give you an
example. There's a community in North Naples that was brought up
in the last PUD monitoring, and I'm trying to think of the name. It's
village of --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Emerald Village -- Emerald Lakes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Commissioner. I
did a little research on that. That was approved by the Board of
Commissioners in 1989 -- '82. In '89, I believe it was, they had a--
their condo dock association was approved. And subsequently during
that workshop that we had, they definitely did demonstrate that they
had a certificate of occupancy for that.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what's the status on that?
The reason I'm asking, I do have a follow-up on that.
MR. SCHMITT: We have done nothing with that. The temp
position that I had -- she left, and that was the position we had in PUD
monitoring -- who was the temp that was doing that work, and
nothing's been done on that because of the position that we're asking
for here.
We're looking for whoever -- or whomever we hire for this
Page 23 1
January 9, 2007
position will assist that community. And they've done a lot of
research. We have all the records. Maryann has been in touch with
that -- I can't recall their name -- wrote the letter. But our attempt,
Commissioner, it to help -- to meet with that community and decide
and basically discern what has to be done in order -- if anything has to
be done in order for them to come into compliance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you know when the Board
of Commissioners adopted the requirement to have littorals in water
management areas?
MR. SCHMITT: I do not. I would have to defer to Bill. He was
behind me here. He could answer that question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think -- I'm concerned
on how we proceed on trying to have closure for our public and the
anxiety that I've seen in faces and conversations when years have gone
past, new laws have been instituted, and now they have to come up to
somebody's interpretation of new law. That's my concern. And I
think that we need to address that through legislation and with the help
of the County Attorney's Office.
Going back on communities that have carrotwoods -- and this has
happened, because of a lack of education -- is not the responsibility of
our community, and somehow we need to fix that, and I don't know --
MR. SCHMITT: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I don't think throwing more
employees at the problem is going to fix that.
MR. SCHMITT: This was the community also where we
identified the shed and some other issues that need to be resolved, and
we understand that they have all the records. All I need is -- what I
need is somebody devoted to assist.
This is not meant to be a code enforcement. This is not meant to
be punitive. I don't want to go through the NOV process. What I'm
trying to do here through PUD monitoring at the board's direction
through that program is to come into -- if there's compliance -- just as
Page 232
January 9, 2007
we did with the carrotwood trees, we met with the homeowners'
association, and we -- if there was an agreement that had to come to
the board or whatever action needed to take place so it would at least
be a matter of record, and for never -- you know, no more in the future
would they ever be accused of not being in compliance with the code.
That's what we're trying to do here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you made
the motion for approval, didn't you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I did.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I did. Okay. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not opposed to it, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I made the motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've just seen this -- certain
aspects of our government is growing and growing and growing, and I
just want accountability instead of throwing more resources at the
problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that this commission's
discussed this a number of times during the budget process and
afterwards, and we came under the united direction that we were short
on help, and we directed him to go forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Ms. Grant --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me for making a mistake on
who made the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Ms. Grant has
recommended some of these positions, and knowing just a little bit in
a few of her presentations, the lady's awesome.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We appreciate--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But she didn't recommend all
these positions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's -- we do have a speaker.
Page 233
January 9,2007
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have one speaker. Brenda Talbert.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: She's gone.
MR. SCHMITT: I think Brenda's departed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Is -- any other discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Henning--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- Halas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Halas, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whatever your name is over there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, a second by
Commissioner Fiala (sic), and I apologize for mistaking you for the
motion maker.
MS. FILSON: My records indicate the motion was made by
Commissioner Halas and seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then that stands as corrected.
Obviously it's getting towards the magic hour.
And with that, any other discussion? And I didn't mean to cut
you short, Commissioner Henning. If you've got any other comments
you'd like to make, please do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I think I addressed all my
questions, but I do think that we need to address some kind of
legislation to not exacerbate the problem that we have out there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good. Anytime you want to put
something together and bring it forward, I'm sure you'll find us willing
to listen.
And with that, we've covered the whole thing. Those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 234
January 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And the ayes have it, 3-1.
Thank you.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Public comments on general topics. Do we have anyone?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I have two speakers. Russell Smith.
MR. SMITH: And actually I'll let Mr. Anderson speak on my
behalf. He's available.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's permissible.
MS. FILSON: And then I have Bruce Anderson after that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll let Bruce Anderson speak on
his own behalf.
MR. ANDERSON: No.
MS. FILSON: So Russell's not going to speak?
MR. ANDERSON: He's available to answer questions.
My name is Bruce Anderson. I represent Lennar Communities,
and I appreciate the opportunity to address you.
You may have received a letter from me yesterday on behalf of
Lennar Communities. Weare asking for a four-week extension of a
temporary use permit that is set to expire on January 16th. The
purpose of the temporary use permit is to operate a golf pro shop for
the Heritage Bay Golf Course. That temporary pro shop would be in a
tent while permitting is still going on for a trailer --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Anderson --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
Page 235
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. There's a lot of
background noise in the back. I can't hear what's going on.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll try to speak louder.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: They do have a permit in for a trailer for a
more permanent temporary golf pro shop while the permanent one is
being built.
Also, this request for temporary use permit would apply to a tent
that they want to use for a special groundbreaking ceremony for the
Vistas of Heritage Bay, which is the 190-unit affordable housing
component of the Heritage Bay DRI. That groundbreaking ceremony
would be held on January 19th.
I don't believe that staffhas any objections, they just are not
authorized to grant this extension. Only the county commission can
do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
MR. ANDERSON. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, discussion?
Commissioner Henning, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion is to give -- direct
staff to issue the temporary use?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Another month extended.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Four weeks, till they get the trailer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Page 236
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll tell you what. I know we're
almost to the end, but we're going to take a short break because we
have made an agreement before with the reception, the lady that's
doing the dictation here, that we would provide a break every hour and
a half and we're about 10 minutes past that.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Commissioner, the next item on the agenda -- and there's no more
public speakers; is that correct, Ms. Filson?
Item #12A
AUTHORIZE THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD TO
PRESENT A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THE
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE HAAB - APPROVED
MS. FILSON: That's correct, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Okay. We are now on 12, which is county
attorney report, 12A. It's a recommendation to authorize the Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Board to present a proposed amendment to the
HAAB ordinance number 91-37, as amended, and codified as Chapter
2, Article VIII, Division 7 in the Codes of Laws and Ordinances,
amending Section 7, Functions, Powers and Duties, to clarify the
HAAB's goals and objectives, and providing an effective date.
Page 237
January 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you start, could you turn on
the sound again for the speakers up here? Thank you.
MS. GREEN: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Colleen Green, assistant county attorney.
The County Attorney's Office is acting as the staff liaison for the
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board. I am here today on behalf of the
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board to request authorization for the
Hispanic board to present proposed changes to the HAAB ordinance
for your consideration.
The purpose of the proposed ordinance amendment is to more
clearly reflect the HAAB's goals and objectives. A copy of the
ordinance and proposed changes are attached to the executive
summary.
If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala for approval.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
MS. GREEN: Thank you.
Item #12B
Page 238
January 9, 2007
BCC TO REVIEW THE COLLIER COUNTY ETHICS
ORDINANCE NO. 04-05 AS AMENDED AND DISCUSS THE
STATUS OF THE ORDINANCE AND POSSIBLE REVISIONS
AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO RETURN WITH
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT - APPROVED W /CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 12B. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners review the
Collier County ethics ordinance, number 04-05, as amended, discuss
the status of the ordinance and possible revisions, and direct the
County Attorney's Office to return with a proposed amendment if
desired.
Mr. Michael Pettit, County Attorney's Office, will present.
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, again, Commissioners. Mike
Pettit from the County Attorney's Office.
I believe the discussion that led us to go out and do this research
and come back focused on whether this board could, through its
ordinance, require that lobbyists, including attorneys when they are
engaging in lobbying activities, not otherwise exempted by our
ordinance, be required to disclose the identity of whom they represent.
The short answer is yes, you can do that, and we can amend the
ordinance to make that express in the ordinance.
The second item that was discussed, as I recall, is adding or
discussing the disclosure of the clients over the course of a year so that
at the annual registration time they would show -- any lobbyist,
attorneys or not -- would identify whom they have lobbied for over the
course of that year.
Right now, the way the registration form works and is set up --
and I understand the clerk's office may speak tonight because they
may be working on some amendments to that process -- but the way
it's set up and the way our ordinance reads really, as a lobbyist, I only
Page 239
January 9, 2007
need to come in one time and say, I represent XYZ company, that's
my client.
When I go to pay my annual fee the next year, I don't need to
update that list of clients. That's how we interpret the ordinance, and I
think that's how it's been administered. We can change that and
require that the client lists be updated. So that's really all I have.
As far as attorney lobbyist goes, the Florida Bar has indicated
that under the new ethic rules at the state level, the attorney has a
choice. If a client says, well, I really don't want anybody to know
you're representing me and does not give the attorney what's called
informed consent to disclose the identity, then the attorney must
withdraw in order to comply with the law, and that would be the same
here, as far as I can tell. So we can require that identity be disclosed.
Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Yeah, I -- correct me if
I'm wrong. Was there any discussion about any more duties that we
have to do with the clerk? I just thought it was when a -- somebody
who's a registered lobbyist comes to the Board of Commissioners,
stands at that podium and says, my name is and I represent so and so.
I think that's what was intended.
MR. PETTIT: We can keep any proposed amendment at that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. PETTIT: Now, I would say that the need to -- if we went
into the updating of the registration form by adding all the clients that
somebody might represent during the course of the year, it increases
the administrative burden on the clerk, I suspect, and it also increases
the administrative burden on the lobbyist.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope nobody really makes that
an issue because that's really not what was being asked.
MR. PETTIT: No. We can add a provision to simply require
that anybody engaging in lobbying activities, as defined by our
ordinance, must disclose who they represent at the time they stand up
Page 240
January 9, 2007
to make a presentation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If they're paid.
MR. PETTIT: Well, by definition, a lobbyist is compensated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to the speakers now, and then
we'll--
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have three speakers. The
first one is Chris Straton. She'll be followed by Nancy Payton.
MS. STRATON: Good evening. My name is Chris Straton. I'm
the president of the League of Women Voters of Collier County. And
I have copies of a letter here for you, but I would like to quickly read
it into the record.
The League of Women Voters of Collier County ask the Board of
County Commissioners to direct the county attorney to pursue
amending the Collier County ethics ordinance, number 04-05 to
require that all speakers identify themselves and who they represent as
appropriate.
The League of Women Voters of Collier County believes that
democratic government depends upon the informed and active
participation of its citizens and requires that governmental bodies
protect the citizens' right to know by giving adequate notice of
proposed actions, holding open meetings and making public records
accessible. In other words, citizens have the right to know, and
government should be conducted in the sunshine.
The public is entitled to know who is addressing you and who is
actually asking for the county commissioners to take specific actions.
Please amend the Collier County ethics ordinance accordingly.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Payton. She'll be
followed by Gina Edwards.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is what we call the Nancy
Page 241
January 9, 2007
Payton ordinance?
MS. PAYTON: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Name something after you, another
something.
MS. PAYTON: Good evening. Nancy Payton representing the
Florida Wildlife Federation, and I'm the person that petitioned the
county commissioners to revisit the ethics ordinance as it relates to
paid lobbyists in the -- in legislative matters, primarily Growth
Management Plan LDC issues.
And my petition was twofold. One, it was that the lobbyists must
disclose on their registration form who they represent, the name and
the address of their clients, so that was part of my request back in
October, Commissioner Henning, and also whenever they appear
before you, the Planning Commission, Environmental Advisory
Council, any advisory committee, and before staff, that they reveal
who -- and they disclose who their clients are that they're representing
as they make their pitch.
The county attorney's executive summary implied that this was
going to be difficult for attorneys that are lobbyists, but the testimony
I heard today is that they realize and they agree with the same research
that I have found by just a few key strokes on Google.
I found a jackpot in terms of lobby registration for all lobbyists,
including attorneys, and that is the state lobby law which requires all
lobbyists, lawyers included, to list all their clients and the addresses of
those clients. That has to be updated within 15 days if they add a
client. It has to be updated if they drop a client. And this is something
that can be relatively easily done, because most things now are
electronic, and hopefully the clerk's office can address that.
And also, it provides the public the ability to know who that
person is representing. And it -- I think it is an appropriate
requirement of lobbyists to maintain an accurate list of who their
clients are.
Page 242
January 9, 2007
State law requires them also to list compensation. I haven't
brought that issue up, but that shows the extent that the state has gone
to to have accountability from lobbyists. There's also an audit
provision, and there are fines and penalties for lobbyists that don't
adhere it.
Lawyer lobbyists challenged this law saying that it infringed
upon their right to practice law. And a judge recently ruled that that
was poppycock, that the state had the compelling interest in imposing
regulations on paid lobbyists. And there wasn't a get out of jail free
pass for lawyer lobbyists. And I have handed out to you a news clip
that talks about that.
And also, Mr. Pettit mentioned the Florida Bar's opinion about
lobby registration and accountability. I'll be very quick. And I have
included that opinion in the handout and brought to your attention one
very important point in there about, if your client doesn't want you as
a lawyer to disclose who you are, you lawyer lobbyists, you don't
lobby . Very important point.
Lastly, you did receive an email from Georgia Hiller, an attorney
who agrees that lawyers can be held accountable this way.
So my request is this: That the County Attorney's Office be
directed to amend the ethics ordinance for lobby regulations that are
similar to the state's, that they have to list -- all lobbyists have to list
their clients. They have to update that on a regular basis, and I leave it
to you to determine how often you want to do that.
But there could be a problem, if it's only once a year, if you pick
up a client in January and you get the work done in July, you're not--
that name's not going to appear on the lobbyist list.
You have to state, as I talked about earlier, that you must list who
you're working for. I think we ought to look at an audit mechanism
and penalties for people that don't adhere to the law.
And lastly, to explore the online registration with the clerk's
office. And lastly, one point, and it's a procedural one, and that has to
Page 243
January 9, 2007
do with lobbyists, because I've seen this abused, is that some lobbyists
have submitted more than one request-to-speak slip, in other words,
for each one of their clients, they've asked three minutes, and I think
that's inappropriate. If you have 10 clients, you don't have the
opportunity to speak for 30 minutes. You get three minutes, just like
everybody else gets.
And that's -- concludes my comments, and thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, I agree with just about
everything you say.
MS. PAYTON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was very interesting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I make a motion?
MS. FILSON: Your final--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can make a motion, but--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we have one more speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have one more speaker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had my light on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning. I
thought maybe it was on from this morning. Go ahead, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm going to make a
motion that we direct the County Attorney's Office to change the
ethics ordinance to have any lobbyist coming before the Board of
Commissioners tell the board who they represent. I don't think that we
need to make a big issue of this with a lot of changing of time and
blah-blah-blah, just who -- when you lobby, you're lobbying your
elected officials. Just tell us who it is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we ought to put a time line
in there, too, that they have to update it every 60 days at least.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's just more
government.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No problem, but I think if the state's
already got something together and it meets all the requirements, that
Page 244
January 9, 2007
might be the way to go. But let's go ahead and hear the other speaker,
then hear from the clerk, then we'll give direction. Please.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Gina Edwards from the
Clerk of Courts.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hi, how are you?
MS. EDWARDS: Hi. Good evening. Thank you. For the
record, Gina Edwards, director of community outreach for the Collier
Clerk of Courts.
We just wanted to inform you that the clerk's office is working on
already developing a searchable online database for lobbyists so that
the public can search the information that's already required by the
existing ordinance by lobbyist or by client.
Currently we put out the information about the lobbyists that are
registered. By registered we don't have enforcement power over
determining whether someone is registered or not. That's a legal
determination that we don't make.
Our role is material ministerial, so we collect the forms and we,
you know, present them and put them out there in a list as to who's
given us a form and who's paid their fee.
Weare working to develop an online registration process to make
this more convenient for the lobbyists to register online, and
eventually we're -- hope to get to the point where they can pay online,
too. There's some more issues with getting to that place.
But we just want to let you know that by putting this online,
including the registration, if the board does want to make the policy
decision to require lobbyists to update more frequently, we're prepared
to handle that and make it more convenient.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And may I make a suggestion? I
think you're going in a wonderful direction, and obviously you've got
a lot of time into this. And the clerk's office in the end is going to be
the one that's going to be handling the lobbyist registration. They
have in the past and they will in the future.
Page 245
January 9, 2007
We may want to consider continuing this issue to come forward
with your final draft of what you're going to do and how it's going to
be able to work so we can fit something, hand in glove, with what
we're doing.
And maybe Ms. Payton could go over to the clerk's office and see
how it's going to -- how it fits in with what the state's doing now. And
I'm just -- I'm just looking for a way to make this flawless. I hate to
put something together then find out it doesn't agree with what the
clerk's office has already put the time in and effort in.
MS. EDWARDS: We're prepared to go with whatever
requirements you want to deem necessary. We have already been
building this data base with the idea that we can add functionality to it.
So we're prepared to just go with whatever the board requires as part
of the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm going to take a minute.
Ms. Payton, you've been the one that's been working the hardest at
this. What's your thoughts?
MS. PAYTON: Yes. If I could just quickly comment. It's going
to take a while to draft the ordinance, and maybe we simultaneously
could work with Gina on the registration aspects of it while the
County Attorney's Office drafts the ordinance, and then it could come
back at the same time, a month, six weeks, something of that nature.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we should give guidance today to
the county attorney --
MS. PAYTON: Yes, please do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to be able to go forward with the
ordinance?
MS. PAYTON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What is wrong with the state
ordinance the way it exists? I mean, why can't we just take that and --
MS. PAYTON: I like that idea. I like it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can you give me some idea, the
Page 246
January 9, 2007
County Attorney's Office, why we just can't use what the state is
doing?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I can comment a little bit here, and that is,
it's rather rigorous in regard to the information that goes, you might
say, into the file or at the place where the application and recordation
is done. Is it the interest of this board to know what the remuneration
is? What the payment arrangements are--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I don't want to know.
MR. WEIGEL: -- between the lobbyists and the -- and the
clients? And that's not just the attorneys, but it's all lobbyists because
it applies to everyone.
So the state law goes into a lot of detail at the legislative level. If
you want that detail, it could be done. But once again, the violation of
a county ordinance is to be treated as a second degree misdemeanor
which is up to 60 days in jailor $500 fine.
Those are the kind of things that if you go run into technical
violations, enforcement will be an issue, and it will come to the State
Attorney Office or code enforcement, as far as that goes. So I want
you to look at the big picture of what you might be putting in place
with some of the detail that the state model might show for you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I, for one, do not want to know
what the client is paying the attorney. I don't think it's any of my
business. I do want to know who they represent.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's why I made the
motion the way I did. What's out there and what the state does, it has
an enforcement. More and more government. Is it really necessary?
The bottom line is, when you come to the Board of
Commissioners, who do you represent? Does that take more
government? No. That should just be a requirement within the ethics
law under --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When we come before any county
Page 247
January 9, 2007
board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the state, how they have it
is, it's an elected official. It's not -- you don't have to do that with our
state staff.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner, I just -- that's what I wanted to
make sure we had clarification on, because lobbying activities occur
not just before this board --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There should be laws against
cell phones --
MR. PETTIT: -- before staff and before advisory boards.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- cell phones in boards of
commissioners'meetings. That's what we need to regulate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Let's stay where we are
rather than go on to cell phones.
MR. PETTIT: I think as a -- my understanding of your motion
right now is, any provision to require disclosure of who you represent
would only be triggered by coming before this board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. PETTIT: But lobbying activities, as our ordinance defines
them, can be going to see Jim Mudd, it can be going before the CCPC,
as long as you're being compensated to do that and it can apply. It's
not just attorneys we're talking about here. We're talking about
engineers and planners and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, truth in government. I mean, I
would -- think it should be at all levels myself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's fine. That's a part of
my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Part of the motion that it
be at all levels ?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. So your motion, again,
one more time is that they have to make a disclosure when they come
Page 248
January 9, 2007
before any government body or anybody that's in the county. In other
words, they come to see Mr. Mudd, they want to have a meeting,
they've got to identify who they are. It's plain and simple.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And register with the clerk's office.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just like they do now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, does that give
you enough guidance?
MR. PETTIT: The only other question I would have a question
about, are you directing us to change the way we do the registration in
the sense that lobbyists, instead of simply registering one time, they
register, they happen to represent two clients, they put them down on
the clerk's sheet, then they come back the next year to reregister,
which is an annual requirement, and they don't add anybody, they just
pay the 25 bucks and reup?
If you want us -- if you want to have a periodic reregistration so
that you can see the client list as it grows over time, we'd need to have
direction to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's talk about that. What is going to
be the benefit to know what the client list is? I don't know what it is.
I know when they come here, I'd like to know who they represent.
Who they represent as far as the client list, it might look like the
yellow pages. It's not of any -- I don't know what the consequence is
of why we're asking for that.
If they have to make a declaration whenever they come before
any group or any government entity, who they represent, if they don't
represent themselves, then why would you need a client list?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's -- I didn't put that in my
motion. Is that in your second?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's in my second. Pretty good, Mr.
Henning, you're learning.
Page 249
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you give us some input here,
County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I was just going to say that clients come
and go during the course of the year, and so even if you had a
quarterly updating of the client list working with Gina and the clerk's
office, would that person, that lobbyist, whether it's an attorney or
someone else, be indicating the clients they have at that point in time,
that calendar point in time, or would they be showing -- listing past
clients that have already gone by the wayside that mayor may not
have come -- the lobbyist mayor may not have come before the board
to represent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just too complicated.
MR. WEIGEL: So there is some complication there, but it can
be done. And as Mr. Pettit indicated, if you had a desire for an
updating beyond the way it's done right now, it can be done fairly
simply. But, again, clients come and clients go. And if the desire of
the board is to know the client that's represented at the time of --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's it.
MR. WEIGEL: -- coming before the board --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's none of my business.
MR. WEIGEL: -- perhaps it's not so important at the registration
part.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. And, in fact, it's a deterrent.
We're going in there, we're asking them for an update of their client
list. It may be a detriment to this attorney to be putting out a client list
to anybody who can go to public records and get it. It could be a -- so
I just want to know who it is that comes through the door.
MR. WEIGEL: And it's not just attorneys, as Mike indicated.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: It's engineers and planners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's engineers and anyone -- any
professional person out there that's going to be doing the work. I
Page 250
January 9, 2007
agree with Commissioner Henning on that part, keep it simple.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we've got a motion and we've
got a second. Discussion? Yes, Commissioner Fiala. Sorry, I didn't
see your light.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just wanted to know, the
list that is on file with the clerk's office, doesn't that need to be
updated just so that -- Nancy, what did you want to say? I mean, just
so that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why? Why?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well--
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton. Right now you register but you
don't have to list your clients. We're not required. There is a line item
in the registration that asked for it, but we're not required -- no
lobbyist is required currently to, on their registration, list their clients.
I think it's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we don't want to know all of
their clients. We would -- you know, I don't really care.
MS. PAYTON: I think it's important for the public to know and
the public to have a resource that they can go to to find out who the
heck is so and so representing and not have to wait to hear at a public
meeting who they represent. And if it's going to be on line and they
can register on line, what is the big deal?
Most of the lobbyists have a secretary that does that work for
them now. If you go look at the reports, most of them are filed by
their secretaries. And if it's just a matter of doing it on line, I don't see
the burden, and I think it's important to the public to know who these
lobbyists are, who they represent. And if it's a burden on the
lobbyists, so be it. That's the price of doing their business of
influencing public policy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we have found possibly and
what you're probably trying to say is that sometimes there are -- there
Page 251
January 9, 2007
are deeper roots than the one who's coming before us at that time with
that particular group. There are -- there are other groups that are like
hidden behind the scenes that need to be brought to the forefront
through this list. Is that what you're saying?
MS. PAYTON: There needs to be a list that is -- that
accompanies the lobbyist registration that lets us know who all their
clients are, and that needs to be updated on a regular basis, not on a
yearly basis, and that can be done with ease now, or will be, when the
on-line registration is available through the clerk's office.
I don't see the big burden. I don't see the problem, and I see lots
of ups for government in the sunshine and knowing who's getting paid
to influence you and the Planning Commission and the EAC.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The list might be 250 names
long. That--
MS. PAYTON: So what do you care?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I care a lot.
MS. PAYTON: That's their burden.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I want to know who he represents
now when he's before me. I don't -- you know, the 250 people on the
list, it might even be my next-door neighbor that went to him for some
minor little thing.
MS. PAYTON: No, it's not their client list. It's who's paying
them --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: To lobby.
MS. PAYTON: -- who has contracted with them to lobby. It's
not their whole client list.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. PAYTON: It's just only who has--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: To lobby.
MS. PAYTON: -- paid them or hired them to influence public
policy, to stand before you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Land development codes and
Page 252
January 9, 2007
changes to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But still, they'd be required to come
before us and state who the ones that they're representing have been.
MS. PAYTON: At a particular time, but I think it's very good for
the public to have a resource where they can go and see the list of
who's paying that lobbyist to be here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That doesn't hit Commissioner
Henning's motion or my second, unless you wanted to try to amend
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're going to be going
through a -- an advisory board, county employees, and the Board of
Commissioners and disclose who your client is. What's the big deal?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The deal is that citizens that are
doing the research want to know who -- who the particular individual
IS --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas, when they
come to that board, they're going to know, okay?
MS. PAYTON: Why do we have to wait?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought the public part was
this was all over with. Are we discussing amongst each other or
what?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I asked -- we asked Nancy
Payton to come in. Thank you very much, Ms. Payton.
MS. PAYTON: I'll sit down.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I really do appreciate your input.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's, you know, it's just going to
-- it's creating more work. And the bottom line is, if you want to know
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's creating work for the lobbyists.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I finish, please? It's
creating more work, okay, and it's going to cost somebody some more
money.
Page 253
January 9, 2007
Now, you can't convince me of coming to a public body or an
advisory board and letting that body know at that time is not
sufficient. Now, I know some people out there just don't trust, you
know, have a negative aspect about their life and they want to bring up
everybody's dirty laundry or something. I don't know. But I think we
hit the target and kept it simple, and just say, tell me who it is. My
motion stands.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'll tell you what we're going to
do. We're going to take a vote on your motion, I'm going to remain
with my second. If it fails, then we'll have to fall back on the next
way.
So we have a motion on the floor to limit this identification of
who the lobbyist represents when they come before the county --
county staff for review or they come before the different Planning
Commission or any other oversight agency or the county commission
itself. That's the way I understand it to be. And they have to disclose
at that point in time who they represent at that particular point in time.
I still think that's a valid way to do it. And so, I'm going to call
the question on that and we'll see where it is so we can get on with the
evenIng.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now we need a second
motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I make a motion that lobbyists
have to report to the Clerk of Courts on a sheet of paper who they
represent, and the lobbyists --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Kill paper. They might do it by
Page 254
January 9, 2007
computer.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Computer. In other words, it has to
be available --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Registered.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- so that the general public -- they
register so that the general public can determine who is lobbying for
who in regards to items that come before the Board of County
Commissioners, before the planning board or before any other boards
or even that -- matter of fact, if that individuals lobby the county
attorney or -- excuse me -- the county manager, and I feel that that's
the way that needs to go.
And there should be some point in time when we have to
recommend that there is an update of the records. And I leave that one
open. It could be on a semiannual basis. At least it's a start.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or quarterly.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, if I may. I would -- whatever
period you take -- right now it's annual; there's an annual registration
period.
What I maybe didn't make clear was what you could do is you
could require that anybody who's engaged in lobbying activities for
any entity during that preceding year, they have to list those people at
the annual time. Now, that would give you a snapshot of what they
did over the year, if that's what's important.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Let's do it that way.
MR. PETTIT: That's one way to do it. It can be done annually,
it can be done quarterly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what, I don't only
want to know who they represented last year. I'd like to know who
they're representing now, who is just hiring them. I think it should be
updated quarterly. You don't think so?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, no. I'm just -- the thing is
that I'm most aiming for is when they come before this body and
Page 255
January 9, 2007
they've got to list the 40 people, it means nothing to me. I want to
know who now in time that person is that they're representing. It
might be two or three clients, it might just be one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right, but what the -- I
believe what we're trying to get at here is it's open government so that
the citizens, whoever they may be in the county, can go to that website
and make a determination who that engineering group is lobbying for
in the county.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But how about the element when they
come before us?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They still have to tell us who
they're lobbying for at that point that they're here, okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But this is just for the media or the
people out there to have an understanding of who is representing who,
who is being paid by who, okay.
And as Commissioner Fiala brought up, sometimes there's some
underlying -- underlying deals that go on that we don't realize that
there's a tieback all the way through the system.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're all saying the same thing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So what -- and you second it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'll second that as long as we
have an ongoing registration going on, right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And identification when they come
before us.
Now, I know this is a whole bunch of talk taking place. What
have you got from this?
MR. PETTIT: I can tell what you I've got.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Give this a try.
Page 256
January 9, 2007
MR. PETTIT: I've got that I could, in about 20 minutes, with
Ms. Green's help -- because I'd have her check my work -- amend this
ordinance to require disclosure of your client whenever you're
engaging in lobbying activities, and a little bit more difficult piece is
where we are on registration, whether done electronically or in
writing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Electronic.
MR. PETTIT: The electronic issue's got an issue with me
because I'm not sure how you'd give an oath, and you do sign an oath
when you register.
MS. EDWARDS: Yeah. I'd like to address that if I may.
MR. PETTIT: Okay. I mean, if you have an answer for that, I
don't know.
MS. EDWARDS: Yes, I do. Right now the plan is that they will
be able to register on line and there'll be a print form feature. Until we
get the payment facilitated on line, that will just -- they will have to
print it and mail us the check. Most lobbyists right now end up
mailing us a check anyway as it stands.
We are designing this so the updating will be easy if the board
chooses to go that route. It could be a simple add/drop form on line.
So we want to make it as convenient as possible for the lobbyists and
for our staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, Mrs. Fiala had indicated that she wants an
updated registration of who is lobbying for whom, and I think we'll
need to have a criterion in there of either quarterly, monthly.
And here's another thing that you may note is, that
notwithstanding that a lobbyist, whether it's an attorney, engineer,
planner or whomever, will be explaining to whatever audience he or
she is talking to, whom they represent.
The fact is, that even with biweekly reregistration to add to the
list, there is the possibility that someone will come on between that
Page 257
January 9, 2007
period and be a client coming before a board or a client that's at
interest to the lobbyist, is bringing to Jim Mudd or to some staff
person. So it's very difficult to have absolute current registration.
But to assist the people that wish to review these things at least
periodically, perhaps a quarterly or monthly. And, again, it will take a
good information program to make sure that the lobbyists, and
potential lobbyists, citizens, lawyers, et cetera, know how to comply
within the new requirement that we have.
And, of course, the violation of the ordinance, as I told you,
could have some penalties. So we want to make sure that they have
every opportunity to comply with the standard that we set.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Must they be registered to lobby --
say, for instance, they got the job a week after they updated their list
and they have now a new client. Do they have to register for that
client before they come before us?
MR. WEIGEL: No, only if you made that the imperative, which
would be, you know, quite a burden, I think, to have to register every
client that comes on when they come on, or words to that effect.
But you may want to just have a quarterly or a monthly. Again, I
would choose the time carefully if you're going to go that route so that
it provides some order for the people that are lobbyists and provides
an order for the clerk's office that's to be administrating the
registration arm of things as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what's the motion as far as
direction to bring back? It is to update a lobbyist list hourly or is it
weekly or monthly or --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're going to work on quarterly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Agree.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
Page 258
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- and again, I don't -- I think
that's way too much overkill.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Now, we're talking calendar quarterly as
opposed to three months from the time of registration?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Calendar quarterly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think the most important
part in what we're trying to -- what the goal is, is to let everybody
know who you're lobbying for.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly, that's the goal.
MS. KINZEL: And, Commissioners, for the record, Crystal
Kinzel with the clerk's office. Also, would you have an anticipation --
or there should be some addressing of the fee. Would the fee still be
the one-time annual with these quarterly updates, or would you expect
a fee with each update? I think we need that kind of direction for
collection of the fee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's the fee, 25?
MS. KINZEL: It's 25 annually at present.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know. What does it cost to
handle this? What's the -- I guess that will be the thing. I expect it to
pay for its own -- for the work it generates. I have no idea. I'd say
keep it at 25, and we can come back and address that as time goes
along. Wouldn't be anything to raise a fee.
Commissioner Henning, you got something else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah. I mean, see, this
thing is growing legs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, it hasn't. It's still the same fee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know, but you want to -- I
think you're right on target, you want to cover the cost of it. So if the
Clerk of Court has to hire somebody, half a person, you want to cover
that cost, and $25 might not, because instead of an annual event,
you're making it a quarter event -- quarterly event.
Page 259
January 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have anybody here that's an
expert on fees and costs? I know I'm not in this particular case.
What's going to be realistic to be able to make sure that we're serving
the public by charging an appropriate fee for the service you're
providing?
MS. EDWARD: To build the database, it's as easy to -- you
know, the person who's working on building it, it won't be that much
extra time if it's annual or updated more frequently. That's all a
function of how the database is designed.
And this populates -- when they fill out the form on line, so you
understand, it will populate to this, you know, ongoing database,
which could be updated in, you know -- I don't want to promise real
time, but within a day. That's what we're designing it to do so that it's
accessible, transparent and on line.
And we are planning right now to go ahead and do this with the
information that's -- that we collect under the current ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, okay. So I think we got the
motion squared away. We're not going to amend the fees that are
there at this time. We're going to do this quarterly.
Is there any other questions from the County Attorney's Office
regarding this?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any other comments?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I just want to make sure, you didn't say,
and they're going to identify themselves and say who they represent
when they address the board and other advisory boards.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, we did.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, we did.
MR. MUDD: Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, I'm going to call the
Page 260
January 9,2007
question.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And the ayes have it, 3-1.
Thank you very much.
Great. N ow we get to the best part of the agenda.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to staff and
commission general communication.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's start off with the County
Attorney's Office. Is there anything that you have?
MR. WEIGEL: No. Just to say thank you to Mr. Halas for his
chairmanship, and we look forward to working with the new
chairman. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Let's see if you can
match that one, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Oh, sir, forget it. This has got a couple things
we've got to talk about.
First of all, I just want to make sure the board is aware that Mr.
John Cassio, who is the Glades Country Club property manager and a
member of your EMS Advisory Board, passed away on the 12th of
December. That was very unexpected. He was only 55 years old.
And he was a fair and decent man in every dealing that I ever had with
him. It will be a loss to the community. I'd ask that you keep him in
Page 261
January 9, 2007
your -- his family in your thoughts and prayers.
Next item has to do with a trip that Commissioner Halas and I
took with project manager for our beach renourishment, Mr. Gary
McAlpin, and my assistant Deb Wight.
We went to go see the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, in particular the deputy secretary, whose name is Michael
Sole. He is now the secretary of the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. We saw him the day before the
governor-elect made that announcement.
The reason we made the trip was because the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection was of the opinion that our beach parking
did not -- and I quote out of their policy -- parking is clearly assigned
or otherwise clearly designated as parking for the general public on an
equal basis.
And they were of the opinion that the permitted parking spaces
that we have in Collier County that we use, they use to determine what
their cost share is going to be for a major beach renourishment was not
designated on an equal basis, and the reason for that is they -- they
determined as they followed a car into the Vanderbilt Beach parking
garage who had a sticker on it and didn't pay a fee because if you have
a sticker you get to park in that garage for free, and when they got to
the cashier, they had to pay five bucks.
They said, how come the sticker gets free and I have to pay five?
If this is a metered -- if this is a metered spot, everybody should feed
the meter no matter if they have a sticker or not. That's an equal basis.
They said, you have violated that policy, therefore, we are going
to reduce the number of parking spaces that are eligible for your cost
share, and therefore, the major beach renourishment project that you
just completed, we are going to give you $1.7 million less.
So we had fought that battle for four months and lost it as staff,
and I thought it was time that I got the chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners and the manager to go up and get this sorted
Page 262
January 9, 2007
out.
We had the meeting. We heard what -- how they read that
particular policy, and what I described to you is exactly how they read
that policy.
So we had a couple of -- we had a couple of things that we could
do, one of which was to leave it alone the way it is now and receive
$1.7 million less where we were counting on the contract that they had
signed where they were going to give us more, $1.7 million more to be
exact.
We could get the cities and the county commissions and city
councils to agree that if you have a sticker, you couldn't park in a
metered space unless you fed the meter. That was another way out.
We still have problems with that particular alternative because you
have parking garages, and how do you determine that?
So the board could not realize the fact that if you had a sticker
you could park in the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage and/or any
other day-use facility like Wiggins Pass Park, Barefoot Beach, where
you could use those parks on a daily basis and use your sticker, and so
we have problems there.
So we couldn't totally recover the $1.7 million in that regard.
We'd still be short about a half a million. Or there's another
alternative; give the people the opportunity that are eligible for the
county pass now the opportunity to buy the pass at a fair market rate.
I had staff do a preliminary analysis of what that fair market rate
would be, and it turns out that it's about 30 bucks a year. That's what a
beach parking pass is worth for a county resident. It's about 30 bucks a
year.
We would let those visitors be able to purchase a pass if they so
want to for $30 a year. We'd stick it on their car, and they'd be able to
do the same things with their pass as we do with our passes. We could
park in a metered space or a permitted space.
Now, that alternative lets all the permitted spaces that aren't
Page 263
January 9, 2007
eligible right now, because we don't have a visitors pass, that lets them
now come into the count, and now we have more parking spaces that
are eligible for the cost share, and we could increase our cost share to
the tune of about $1.2 million. So we went from losing 1.7 to getting
1.7 back, plus --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Plus money.
MR. MUDD: -- an additional 1.2.
Now, the reason I mention this to you is, you are going to discuss
this as a board during your TDC joint workshop. It is an agenda item.
I bring it to your attention because the CAC is going to hear about
this on the 11 tho
I'm going to talk about -- and I already have talked about this
with the city managers of Marco and the City of Naples. They are
going to discuss -- and I'm going to discuss it again with Dr. Lee on
Friday when we have our meeting about annexation, and you're going
to have your TDC workshop.
Depending on your guidance at the TDC workshop, we will bring
this back as an action item on the 23rd of January.
Why the push? And oh, by the way, P ARAB will also hear this
particular issue during that time period. Because I promised Secretary
Sole that by the last day of January we would have a process in place
for Collier County one way or the other in a letter from me to him
telling him what was going to happen so that we could bring this
particular issue to rest, okay, and we could end it one way or the other.
And those are the options that you pretty much had that you can deal
with.
And we'll work out the details with the City of Naples and
whatever, but I just want to make sure you know, we went and had
that meeting. I believe we came to some resolution one way to make
us more whole than we are right now, and we'll work through that
process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that we found
Page 264
January 9, 2007
that we weren't sure what type of ground we were going to find
ourselves on, but I think when they realized that we were serious
about addressing this problem, that Mr. Mike Sole wanted to work
with us and wanted us to rectify this problem.
He also realized that if we change the options that we have
available today and made it available so that we could even get more
cost share, he was -- he says, so be it. That's what I'm here for.
So I think it could be a win-win for everyone.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item has to address a letter
that I received, and this is just a confirmation letter because it verbally
had already been communicated to me, and that's by Chief Robert
Schank, and the East Naples Fire District, and he's basically asking for
a joint meeting between the East Naples Commission and/or their--
the -- there's also an advisory committee, with Board of County
Commissioners, to address basically fire permitting, fire review, and
to get some things resolved in that particular regard, and I just want to
know what your direction is. Do you want me to schedule that
particular joint workshop?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have an advisory board on
fire code issues?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. They have the advisory board, their
steering committee, where all the different --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh.
MR. MUDD: -- fire districts get together.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm happy to meet with
the East Naples Fire District.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've got four nods.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Thank you.
Last, but not least, to bring you up to speed, the last time we met
we were dealing with a letter that we received from Bill Moss, and
this is the letter which you've already seen before. I showed that to
Page 265
January 9, 2007
you in December, and they basically wanted to talk about merging
their fire process with Collier County's dependent districts.
Mr. Leo Ochs had that meeting at that same day that
Commissioner Halas and I were in Tallahassee having that meeting
with Secretary Sole. And I'm just going to go over the things that
were discussed at that particular meeting and figure out what the board
wants us to do next, if we do anything next.
No decisions were made at that meeting, but the general
understandings were reached, and they include: A recognition that
discussions and future discussions should not interfere with ongoing
countywide consolidation discussions with the fire districts in which
chief -- and which Commissioner Cannon is basically leading.
Any future discussion will focus only on Marco Island and
Collier County, not the independent fire directs.
If conceptual agreement is reached, the additional analysis would
follow to determine whether consolidation would improve delivery of
service, be cost effective, be advantageous to our citizens, and be
beneficial to city and county fire rescue and EMS personnel that may
be impacted by the consolidation.
Four, if conceptual agreement is reached as to the potential
benefit of consolidation, that analysis and decision-making would be
made expeditiously, perhaps within 90 days following completion of
analytical studies. No desire to extend discussions for months or
years.
Number five, desire to maintain a sense of community and
involvement of departments within their respective communities in
each of the geographic areas.
A desire to discuss consolidation of both fire rescue and EMS
servIces.
Seven, general agreement that operating protocol between
jurisdictions is very similar, and that each have provided mutual
assistance to each other for years.
Page 266
January 9, 2007
General agreement that a consolidated service makes sense
because of the very similar missions, the same required skills of
employees, the high cost of specialized fire fighting and EMS
equipment, and the very competitive recruitment environment.
We made no commitments at that particular meeting. We
listened. That's what I asked the board if I could have your permission
to do.
At this particular juncture, knowing what I just laid out -- Leo, if
I missed anything -- and these were the words that Bill Moss used to
report it to the press. And I believe I sent that to you, Commissioner
Fiala, just so that you knew.
What would you -- what's the board's desire? Do you want us to
continue in that particular discussion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I speak as an individual
commissioner. I like the idea of a consolidation. If it starts --
wherever it starts, it starts. Eventually I see us out of the business
when they go countywide, and I don't know when that's going to
happen. There will just be one fire district to cover the whole of the
county. And if we can bring some elements together now -- I'm sure
that if we do this, we'd structure it in a way that it wouldn't be a
burden to any of our present taxpayers.
It's a natural. I don't have any problems with it. We've got three
nods, four nods.
MR. MUDD: Discussion--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: We'll continue discussion with the--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: -- City of Marco Island in that regard. That's all I
have. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I appreciate your
feedback.
Let's start with Commissioner Halas. And once again, sir, thank
Page 267
January 9, 2007
you very much for your year of service.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
As you -- I sent a letter out back in November in regards to where
I thought that it was very important that we start looking at
environmentally friendly fertilizers because we are running into a
number of problems with our estuary system with the runoff, and I just
wanted to know where my commissioners felt on this whereby we
could address this is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think Mr. DeLony's got any
opinions on it. What do you think?
Mr. DeLony, do you have anything to offer us on this subject?
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities
administrator.
Sir, you sent that over to my shop, and we took a look at that.
Since -- just this week I returned a memo back to Mr. Mudd--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: -- with regard to what we found. There's a lot of
work being done on the specific subj ect by the state, and I've given
Mr. Mudd some options and am waiting on his further direction. So
that has not set languishing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: And so if you could give Mr. Mudd a little time
to give me a little bit more direction. Of course, we can work with
you based on that direction, and I think we can address that and come
back to the board accordingly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fantastic.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else, sir?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's it. I just want to thank all of
the commissioners for the past year and also staff that's still present for
your support, and thank you very much. You made the year very easy
for me, and it was a pleasure to work with each and every one of you
commissioners here up on the dais.
Page 268
January 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll go next, if you don't mind.
A couple of things.
One, this Saturday at 10 o'clock at the courthouse steps, I won't
be getting up there and making an announcement; however, our
Congressman Mario Diaz Balart, will be there and he'll be taking his
oath of office. And if you care to attend, and I kind of would like to
encourage you to do that if you could, 10 o'clock on Saturday.
The other thing is, is that -- and I hate to break any traditions, but
the Productivity Committee that I've been working with for this past
year, I've had some very good input with them, I'm very, very proud
of what they've been doing and accomplishing, and I would very much
like to be able to remain with the Productivity Committee for the
coming year even though I'm the chair and it's generally the
vice-chair's position to do that.
I don't know how the vice-chair feels about that, but there's been
several issues that we've been putting a lot of time in, and I'd like to
continue to work it. I wouldn't -- I can't go to the meeting with
another commissioner there because then the input becomes extremely
limited.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you talking about the whole
year?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow. I wouldn't mind
relinquishing what has historically happened, for the time period that
you finish up your work, but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- if it's going to take a whole
year, I don't know about that, buddy boy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think the Productivity Committee's
probably very happy to know that there's a very outgoing demand for
their services.
Well, what's the pleasure of the group?
Page 269
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think that -- I understand
where you're coming from, Commissioner, because when
Commissioner Coyle took over as the chair, he had aspirations of
staying aboard the Productivity Committee, and the discussions that
Commissioner Coyle and I had was that I felt that that was a learning
curve for the vice-chair, and I feel that the vice-chair, that's his
responsibility, but that's just my input.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I hear you. And there is one
thing. I'll tell you what I'm working on that I'm really quite excited
about and I'd like to follow it through. It won't take a whole year, but
it's the possibilities of charter government. That's what we directed
them to look into, and they're going to be -- we're going to be -- or I
will be making a report to the commission at the next meeting as the --
what the Productivity Committee has come up with at this point in
time and be looking for further direction from this commission.
It would be very difficult for someone to step in there now and
make that report without having to go through everything that took
place over the past eight month or so.
I assume that they're going to reach -- we're going to reach a
direction where we can direct them which way to go probably in about
a four- to five-month span. I would assume. You know, because if
anything's going to happen, it's going to be tied around the year '08. It
will become a ballot issue, either where we make a study committee or
we tell them -- or we tell them to put it on the ballot to go forward
with charter government as is.
And -- well, whatever. I serve the commission in this position as
the chair, I serve you, and so I'm waiting for direction.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it's a determination that you
and Commissioner Henning have to work out together.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, not really, because then it could
become a sunshine issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, right. And maybe if you want
Page 270
January 9, 2007
to make your report, if you want to stay on for another month till you
make your report, but then I think it would be a good idea to have
another commissioner sitting on there anyway just to have him
familiar with the issue as well, I would think.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Two commissioners can't be on the
same board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you can't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, just one, till Commissioner
Coletta can finish up his report.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got another resolution. Why
don't you step down as chair?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not too sure. Who's the
vice-chair? No, I'll tell you what, grant me just two more months.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You got it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, great. That was -- I can't
believe I begged for work.
MS. FILSON: And what about the TDC, Commissioner Coletta?
You'll -- because as chairman --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I thought Commissioner Henning
wanted that, but I'll take that on, too. I'm not going to get into that
discussion. I'll take the TDC. I'll stick with traditions the way they
are.
The other thing -- and I just got to mention it before we move on,
is 10E, where we dealt with the alternative fee.
MR. MUDD: The impact fees for boat slips.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The impact fee. My concern is, what
else is out there that we don't know about? And I don't think we need
to get into a ton of discussion, and I brought this up several times with
Mr. Mudd and the petitioner, and I wanted to mention it to you, too.
This just surfaced out of the blue. If it wasn't for a certain set of
circumstances, we never would have found out these fees weren't paid.
Page 271
January 9, 2007
Obviously there's checks and balances not in place that should be,
maybe they are now. I don't know how we go back and do an audit.
There must be some way that someone could take a look and be able
to find out like circumstances, if the impact fees were, through pure
ignorance, waived and the person never paid. Just had to share that. I
don't know where to go with it from there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, Commissioner, it's like
walking through a freshly plowed field and you kick a rock and you
find something underneath all the rocks you kick. So God only knows
how long we'll continue to find these problems that crop up. So I think
what we'll have to do is address them as we did today and hope that
we come up with the right answer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The word's crop up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to know -- about a
month ago we discussed reorganization over -- down at CD ES and
code enforcement. It was suggested code enforcement might be going
to the sheriffs office if the sheriffs office wanted to accept them. We
never heard anything more.
MR. MUDD: I haven't heard anything more from the sheriffs
office, and I briefed that on the 12th of December, and there -- besides
getting the work done and staff taking a little bit of Christmas leave,
we haven't got back on that particular issue yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. Thank you.
And then I wanted to say, too, Commissioner Halas, great
working with you.
Commissioner Coletta, welcome back. You added a lot of humor
to today's meeting, and it was a lot of fun.
And welcome as vice-chairman, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Transportation
Page 272
January 9, 2007
administrator pointed out a letter from the school board staff giving a
number of days to vacate the vocational center for using it for a CAT
facility transfer station, which poses a problem to our -- or alternative
transportation scrambling to try to find another site.
I don't think it's been applied for a conditional use for the
Morandi site, but that's still going to take a while. And what I would
like to ask the board, if we could direct the chairman to write a letter
to the chairman of the school board to hold off on that direction from
staff until we find a facility.
Also, I would like to put on the school board agenda about the
two boards entering into a memorandum of understanding or
agreement instead of the different staffs doing that so that stuff like
this doesn't crop up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your first part was to direct the chair
to write a letter. Did you want to motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. Make a motion that we
direct our chairman to write a letter to the school board chairman
asking him to hold off any -- or asking the transportation staff to
vacate the facility until we find --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That motion -- we got a
motion from Commissioner Henning, second from Commissioner
Halas.
Got any discussion on it?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The rest of it?
Page 273
January 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The second thing is, and I see
this also in parks and rec. too, we need a clear understanding for the
two staffs to -- they have our marching orders. We don't want to get
cut short. So I want to put it on the workshop, an agenda, that item
that the two boards comes into an MOU or some sort of agreement
like shared facilities or stuff of that nature.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, what staff is now
handling, you're suggesting that we give direction as a joint board
between the school board and our board?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that would be an item for
discussion for the future agenda when we have the joint meeting to see
where it goes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I think you've got agreement.
That will probably just give direction to staff. I don't know that we
need to make a motion.
MR. MUDD: Yeah. We'll get it on the agenda item, make sure
when we have the j oint meeting --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good idea.
MR. MUDD: -- that that's an item that sits there.
And Commissioner Henning has a good point, sometimes it's
easy for staff to say no to something and the commission might not
know that that particular item was said no to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And other things that
we're seeing in the media I'm not sure that the school board staff is --
I'm not sure that the school board totally agrees to. So we just want to
nail it down.
And with that, I make a motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're adjourned.
Page 274
January 9, 2007
***** Commissioner Coyle moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2007-01: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT FOR DELASOL PHASE THREE. THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV A TEL Y MAINT AINED- W / RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR FOREST GLEN~ PARCEL 5 - W /RELEASE OF UPS
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR FOREST GLEN~ PARCEL 6 - W /RELEASE OF UPS
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2007-02: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF FOREST GLEN OF NAPLES. THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED- W/RELEASE OF THE UPS
Page 275
January 9, 2007
Item #16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR FLORIDA CLUB OF NAPLES - W/RELEASE
OF THE UPS
Item #16A6
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MARCO ISLAND CABLE
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT THAT EXTENDS THE CABLE
OPERATOR'S FRANCHISED AREA TO ALL OF
UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY AND WHEREBY THE
CABLE OPERATOR COMMITS TO INSTALL FIBER CABLE
FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF COLLIER COUNTY - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A7
AWARD CONTRACT NO. 07-4039 FOR $49,716.65 TO FRASER
AND MOHLKE AND ASSOCIATES, INC., A CONSULTANT
FIRM, TO TAKE THE PRIMARY LEAD WITHIN THE PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION PHASE OF THE EAST OF CR951
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES HORIZON STUDY AND
COLLECT AND TABULATE THE RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC
POLLING
Item #16A8
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF CAROLINA VILLAGE,
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/
Page 276
January 9,2007
STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1
AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BETTER ROADS,
INC. FOR IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS AT SANCTUARY ROAD, BID NO. 07-4090,
PROJECT NO. 66065 IN THE AMOUNT OF $826~725.20
Item #16B2
AWARD OF BID # 07-3986R, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR
CONCRETE SIDEWALK AND CURB MAINTENANCE TO N.R.
CONTRACTORS, INC. FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL
EXPENDITURE OF $250~000
Item #16B3
AWARD OF BID # 07-4043, MILLING OF EXISTING ASPHALT
ROADWAYS TO FTA HOLDINGS, LLC, BETTER ROADS, INC.
AND BONNESS FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL
EXPENDITURE OF $100,000 - TO REMOVE/REPLACE
EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES
Item #16B4
AWARD OF BID # 07-4057, PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF
METAL AND POLYETHYLENE PIPE TO CONTECH
CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS, INC., FERGUSON
WATERWORKS AND HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD FOR
AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURE OF $50,000 - TO
FURNISH & DELIVER METAL AND POLYETHYLENE PIPE
Page 277
January 9, 2007
AND MISCELLANEOUS RELATED SUPPLIES
Item #16B5
RESOLUTION 2007-03: ESTABLISHING A NO PARKING ZONE
ON THE SOUTH SHOULDER OF RADIO LANE BEGINNING
AT THE POINT OF TANGENT FOR THE EASTERN
DRIVEWAY LEADING TO THE CIRCLE K STORE AND
EXTENDING 600 FEET EASTWARD AT THE COST OF $1900
Item #16B6
DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
DRAFT A COUNTY ORDINANCE GOVERNING THE
THRESHOLD AMOUNT OF LAND OR EASEMENT
PURCHASES REQUIRING ONE OR TWO REAL ESTATE
APPRAISALS (ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT $0.00)
Item #16B7
AN INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT OF COLLIER COUNTY, COLLECTIVELY
REFERRED TO AS "DISTRICT, AND COLLIER COUNTY,
HEREIN REFERRED TO AS COUNTY, FOR POSSIBLE
FUTURE OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS AS IT PERTAINS
TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 'M' TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Item #16B8
RESOLUTION 2007-04: AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO EXCUTE A
LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH THE
Page 278
January 9, 2007
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN WHICH
COLLIER COUNTY WOULD BE REIMBURSED UP TO $200,000
FOR SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION ON FLORIDAN AVENUE
FROM BROW ARD STREET TO CONFEDERATE DRIVE
(PROJECT #601201)
Item #16B9
A WARD CONTRACT #06-3975 ANNUAL FIXED TERM
PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
CONSULTANT SERVICES TO ONE (1) ADDITIONAL FIRM
(ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT $300,000) - W/URS
CORPORATION SOUTHERN INC.
Item #16BI0
RESOLUTION 2007-05: AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DISIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5310
GRANT APPLICATION AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENT, AND
TO ACCEPT THE GRANT IF AWARDED ($317,000) - TO MEET
THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED
POPULATION
Item #16Bll
RESOLUTION 2007-06: AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DISIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311
GRANT APPLICATION AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENT, AND
TO ACCEPT THE GRANT IF AWARDED ($837,244.80) - TO
PROVIDE RURAL TRANSIT SERVICES
Page 279
January 9, 2007
Item #16C1
CONVEY A UTILITY EASEMENT TO THE WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT FOR FIVE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELL SITES,
ASSOCIATED PIPELINES, AND ACCESS ON THE COLLIER
COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS PROPERTY AT AN ESTIMATED
COST NOT TO EXCEED $61.00, FOR THE NORTH EAST
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT WELLFIELD,
PROJECT NUMBER 70899 - TO MEET DEMAND IN
NORTHEASTERN COLLIER COUNTY
Item # 16C2
WORK ORDER #CT-FT-3971-07-05 UNDER CONTRACT # 06-
3971 ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR GENERAL CONTRACTORS
SERVICE, TO CHRIS-TEL COMPANY OF S.W. FLORIDA. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $168,878.00 FOR INTERIOR RENOVATIONS
AT THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT
PLANT (NCRWTP) PROJECT NUMBER 700953 - TO ENHANCE
WORKING CONDITION AND DAILY OPERATIONS BY
MAKING INTERIOR RENOVATIONS
Item #16C3
A DEDUCT CHANGE ORDER TO CONTRACT 04-3535, WORK
ORDER UC-235, WITH CYL Y CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR
$50,597.00 FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS
AT LEL Y HIGH SCHOOL FORCE MAIN, PROJECT 72508 - FOR
THE EXCLUSION OF THE INSTALLATION OF A 4"
WASTEWATER FORCE MAIN
Page 280
January 9, 2007
Item #16C4
CONTRACT(S) #06-4015 SOLID WASTE PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING, TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL CONSULTING
SERVICES TO THE FOLLOWING FIRMS: MALCOLM PIRNIE,
INC.; CH2M HILL, INC.; POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH &
JERNIGAN, INC.; BROWN AND CALDWELL; AND R.W.
BECK, INC. NOT TO EXCEED $750,000 PER CONTRACT PER
YEAR - FOR A 2 YEAR CONTRACT
Item #16C5
TRANSFER FUNDS AND THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET
AMENDMENTS FOR AGREEMENT ML070554 AND ML040284
WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT (SFWMD) FROM MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND
(116) TO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FUND (114) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $244~414
Item #16C6
AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO MONITOR GROUND WATER
IN COLLIER COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $337,601 AND
THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT - FOR
MONITORING SEVENTY THREE (73) GROUND WATER SITES
SEMIANNUALL Y FOR THREE YEARS
Item #16C7
EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH WCI COMMUNITIES,
Page 281
January 9,2007
INCORPORATED FOR COST SHARING FOR REPLACEMENT
OF THE 6" W A TERMAIN ON TOWER ROAD FOR A FISCAL
IMPACT OF A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $11 0~600
Item #16Dl
A SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
COLLIER MODEL AERONAUTIC CLUB, INC., FOR THE
CONTINUED USE OF VACANT COUNTY-OWNED LAND AT
AN ANNUAL INCOME OF $10 - ADJACENT TO MANATEE
ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL FOR OPERATING A
MODEL AIRPLANE FLYING CLUB
Item #16D2
TO APPROPRIATE RESERVES IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,930
TO REPLACE THE FIRE SUPPRESSION HOOD AT GOLDEN
GA TE COMMUNITY CENTER
Item #16El
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND 516, PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $533,500 TO
EFFICIENTLY MANAGE THE PAYMENT OF BUILDERS RISK
INSURANCE PREMIUMS ON VARIOUS CAPITAL
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN FY07
Item #16E2
RESOLUTION 2007-07: REPEAL COLLIER COUNTY
RESOLUTION NO. 95-474 AND DISCONTINUE THE
COLLECTION OF FEES FOR THE PROVISION OF A VENDOR
Page 282
January 9, 2007
SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE - NEW ONLINE BID
NOTIFICATION AND RECEIPT SYSTEM TO BE IN
APERATION BY APRIL~ 2007
Item # 16E3
ADDITION OF THE CLASSIFICATION DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR - CDES TO THE 2007 FISCAL YEAR PAY
AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
Item #16E4
A SIGN EASEMENT WITH W AL-MART STORES INC.,
ALLOWING COLLIER COUNTY TO INSTALL A PERMANANT
SIGN ON VACANT LAND TO ADVERTISE THE COUNTY'S
MUSEUM WITH NO ANNUAL RENT
Item # 16E5
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS FOR PERIOD NOVEMBER 17, 2006 - DECEMBER
18~2006
Item #16E6
RATIFY ADDITIONS TO AND A MODIFICATION TO THE 2007
FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE
FROM OCTOBER 1~ 2006 THROUGH DECEMBER 15~ 2006
Item #16E7
Page 283
January 9, 2007
AWARD BID 07-4083 "ON CALL ELECTRICIAN REPAIRS AND
NEW INSTALLATION - COUNTY WIDE" TO MULTIPLE
VENDORS ($164,000 ANNUALLY): AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E8
AWARD BID #07-4097 "ON CALL PLUMBING CONTRACTOR
SERVICES" TO SHAMROCK PLUMBING & MECHANICAL,
INC. AS PRIMARY, FIRST CLASS PLUMBING AS
SECONDARY AND EDDIE BOCK'S PLUMBING AS THE
THIRD VENDOR FOR PLUMBING SERVICES ($190,000
ANNUALLY)
Item #16Fl
RESOLUTION 2007-08: PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND THE FLORIDA BUREAU OF PUBLIC LANDS AND
AUTHORIZING CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN THE PUBLIC USE
AGREEMENT AFTER APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (WIGGINS PASS DREDGING - STATE
PARK BEACH RENOURISHMENT) - TO BE COMPLETED BY
APRIL 30~ 2007
Item #16Gl
SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT(S) BETWEEN
THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND A GRANT APPLICANT(S) WITHIN THE
BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
Page 284
January 9, 2007
REDEVELOPMENT AREA - 2732 WEEKS AVE., NAPLES, FL
34112
Item #16G2
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $112,000 TO
FUND THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT/FLORIDA TRADEPORT
Item #16G3
ONE-TIME MONETARY SPONSORSHIP OF $5,000.00 BY THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO BA YSHORE
CULTURAL ARTS, INC. FOR HEARTS IN THE GARDEN
EVENT FROM THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
TRUST FUND (FUND 187) FY07 MARKETING &
PROMOTIONS BUDGET FOR EVENT SET-UP COSTS,
RENTALS, SECURITY, PRINTING AND ADVERTISING
EXPENSES ONLY, AND DECLARE THE SPONSORSHIP
SERVES A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - HELD AT THE NAPLES
BOTANICAL GARDENS ON FEBRUARY 2 AND FEBRUARY 9,
2007
Item #16H1
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
FIALA TO ATTEND THE LEADERSHIP MARCO
GOVERNMENT LUNCHEON ON NOVEMBER 29,2006 AT THE
MARCO ISLAND YACHT CLUB; $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC SERVICE
Page 285
January 9, 2007
Item #16H2
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
FIALA TO ATTEND THE 22nd ANNUAL SCHOLARSHIP
FASHION SHOW ON DECEMBER 6, 2006; $60.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET -
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC SERVICE - HILTON NAPLES
AND TOWERS
Item #16H3 - WITHDRAWN
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
HALAS TO ATTEND THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE EXECUTIVE SESSION ON DECEMBER 19,2006
AT THE CHAMBER BUILDING; $10.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC SERVICE - RECOGINIZING SENATOR MEL
MARTINEZ
Item #16H4 - WITHDRAWN
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
FIALA TO ATTEND THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE EXECUTIVE SESSION ON DECEMBER 19,2006
AT THE CHAMBER BUILDING; $10.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC SERVICE - RECOGNIZING SENATOR MEL
MARTINEZ
Item #16H5
PAYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER
Page 286
January 9, 2007
HALAS TO ATTEND THE 50th YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF
FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY ON JANUARY 12, 2007 AT THE
COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY HEADQUARTERS; $20.00 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET-
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC SERVICE - 2385 ORANGE
BLOSSOM DRIVE
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED:
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 287
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
January 9, 2007
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
(1) Heritaae Greens Community Development District: Minutes of
September 11, 2006; Agenda for September 11, 2006; Meeting
Schedule of FY 2007.
(2) Collier Mosquito Control District: Meeting Schedule for 2007.
(3) Quarry Community Development District: Minutes of December
12, 2005; Agenda for December 12, 2005; Minutes of January 9,
2006; Agenda for January 9, 2006; Minutes of April 10, 2006;
Agenda for April 10, 2006; Minutes of May 8, 2006; Agenda for
May 8, 2006; Minutes of July 10, 2006; Agenda for July 10, 2006;
Minutes of May 26, 2006; Agenda for May 26, 2006; Minutes of
May 16, 2006; Agenda of May 16, 2006.
(4) Quarry Audit Committee: Minutes of December 28,2005; Agenda
for December 28, 2005.
B. Minutes:
(1) Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Minutes of
November 1, 2006 (cancelled due to lack of quorum); Agenda for
December 6,2006; Minutes of November 1,2006 Conference;
Agenda for January 3, 2006; Minutes of December 6, 2006.
(a) Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee/CRA:
Minutes of December 6, 2006 for Joint Workshop.
(2) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee: Agenda for
September 25, 2006; Minutes of September 25, 2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondence\010907 _misc_corr.doc
(3) Environmental Advisory Council: Agenda for December 6,2006;
Minutes of November 1, 2006; Agenda for November 1, 2006;
Agenda for January 11, 2007; Minutes for December 6, 2006.
(4) Immokalee Master Plan & Visioning Committee/Community
Redevelopment Aaency (CRA) Advisory Board/Enterprise Zone
Development Aaency (EZDA):
(a) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board and
Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee: Agenda for
October 18, 2006 Joint Meeting; Minutes of October 18, 2006
Joint Meeting; Minutes of November 15, 2006; Agenda for
November 15, 2006.
(b) Enterprise Zone Development Aaency (EZDA): Agenda for
October 18, 2006; Minutes of October 18, 2006; Minutes of
November 15, 2006; Agenda for November 15, 2006.
(c) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board/ Community
Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board (CRA): Agenda for
October 18, 2006; Minutes of October 18, 2006; Agenda for
November 15, 2006; Minutes of November 15, 2006.
(5) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Agenda for
November 6, 2006; Minutes of November 6, 2006; Agenda for
December 4, 2006; Minutes of December 4, 2006.
(6) Collier County Citizens Corps Advisory Committee: Minutes of
November 15, 2006; Agenda for November 15, 2006.
(7) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. Advisory
Committee: Agenda for December 13, 2006; Minutes of
November 8, 2006.
(8) Lely Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee:
Minutes of November 16, 2006; Agenda for December 21,2006.
(9) Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Minutes
of November 15, 2006; Agenda for January 27,2007.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondence\010907_misc_corr.doc
(10) Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Agenda for December 11, 2006.
(11) Golden Gate M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda for
December 12, 2006; Minutes of November 14, 2006; Agenda for
January 9, 2006; Minutes of December 12, 2006.
(12) Collier County Public Vehicle Advisory Committee: Agenda for
December 4, 2006.
(13) Collier County Plannina Commission: Agenda for December 7,
2006; Agenda for December 21 , 2006; Minutes of November 2,
2006; Agenda for January 4, 2007; Minutes of November 20, 2006
for a Joint Meeting with Collier County Productivity Committee.
(14) Pelican Bay Services Division: Agenda for December 6,2006;
Minutes of November 1, 2006; Agenda for January 4, 2007
Workshop; Agenda for January 3,2007 Regular Meeting; Minutes
of December 6, 2006.
(a) Clam Bay Committee: Agenda for December 6, 2006;
Minutes of November 1, 2006; Minutes of December 6, 2006.
(b) Budget Committee: Minutes of November 15, 2006.
(15) Collier County Historic and Archaeological Preservation Board:
Agenda for December 20, 2006; Minutes of November 15, 2006.
(16) Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue Advisory Board: Minutes of December
7, 2006; Agenda for December 7, 2006.
(17) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Minutes of November 15,
2006.
(18) Collier County Productivity Committee: Agenda for September 20,
2006; Minutes of September 20, 2006; Agenda for October 18,
2006; Minutes of October 18, 2006; Minutes of October 11, 2006
for the Proportionate Fair Share Ordinance Review Meeting.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondence\010907 _misc_corr.doc
(19) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board: Minutes of October
9,2006; Minutes of June 12,2006.
(20) Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of November 13, 2006.
(21) Collier County Library Advisory Board: Agenda for December 13,
2006; Minutes of October 18, 2006.
(22) Collier County Waste and Wastewater Authority: Minutes of July
25, 2005; Minutes of January 23, 2006; Minutes of April 24, 2006;
Minutes of August 28, 2006.
(23) Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda
for January 16, 2007; Minutes of November 21, 2006.
(24) Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda for
January 4, 2006; Agenda for December 7, 2006; Minutes of
December 7,2006.
(25) Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Agenda for
November 30, 2006; Minutes of October 26, 2006.
C. Other:
(1) Fowler. White. Boggs. Banker. P.A.: Letter from E. Zachary
Rans of Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A., to Marjorie M.
Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney regarding R&S
Development Company, LLC (UR&S")/Sandalwood RPUD
PUDZ-2004-AR-6932 ("Sandalwood Rezone").
(2) Public Safety Coordinating Council: Minutes of September 18,
2006.
(a) Crises Intervention Team: Minutes of November 13,
2006; Minutes of October 3,2006.
(b) Work Restitution Release Subcommittee: Minutes of
November 7, 2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondence\010907 misc corr.doc
- -
January 9, 2007
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 2, 2006
THROUGH DECEMBER 8, 2006 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARDS
Item #16J2
CLOSE OUT GREY OAKS FIRE STATION NUMBER 20
CAPITAL PROJECT FUND AND REMIT UNSPENT EXCESS TO
NORTH NAPLES AND EAST NAPLES FIRE DISTRICTS -
$31,038.15 TO BE EQUALLY SPLIT BETWEEN THE TWO FIRE
DISTRICTS
Item #16J3
THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO ACCEPT VOTER POLL
WORKER RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING FUND WITH A
15% MATCHING CONTRIBUTION - ACCORDING TO
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Item #16J4
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO ACCEPT VOTER
EDUCATION FUNDS WITH A 15% MATCHING
CONTRIBUTION - ACCORDING TO MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT
Item #16J5
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 25, 2006
THROUGH DECEMBER 2, 2006 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
Page 288
January 9, 2007
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J6
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 9, 2006
THROUGH DECEMBER 15,2006 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J7
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 16,2006
THROUGH DECEMBER 22, 2006 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16Kl
FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO PARCELS 140 AND 141 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. REGENT PARK
CLUSTER HOMES ASSOCIATION, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-3452-CA
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 66042). (FISCAL IMPACT:
$13J50) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K2
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $125,000.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
PARCELS 720, 820A, 820B AND 920 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ELHANON COMBS, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 03-2352-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT
Page 289
January 9,2007
NO. 60027). (FISCAL IMPACT: $74,897.80) - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K3
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$39,000.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 136,836 AND
936 IN A LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. DA VID J.
FREY, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2353-CA (GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY PROJECT #60027). (FISCAL IMPACT: $29~ 157.00)
Item #16K4
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL 139 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. EDWARD STANLEY SANDITEN,
ET AL., CASE NO. 02-5165-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT
NO. 60018). (FISCAL IMPACT $77,732) - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K5
AGREED ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES AND
COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH PARCELS 128 AND 728 IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. TERRY L.
LICHLITER, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2273-CA (GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY PROJECT NO. 60027). FISCAL IMPACT: $1 ~946.80
Item #16K6
AGREED ORDER AWARDING SUPPLEMENT AL ATTORNEY
FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PARCELS 117 AND 717 IN THE
Page 290
January 9, 2007
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JACK E. GREEN, ET
AL., CASE NO. 03-2227-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
PROJECT #60027) FISCAL IMPACT: $1,245.00
Item #16K7
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO RESPONDENT,
EXXON MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, FOR PARCEL NO. 133 IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. FIRST
NATIONAL BANK OF NAPLES, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-3587-CA
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 66042) FISCAL IMPACT:
$2~300.00
Item #16K8
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO RESPONDENT,
EXXON MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, FOR PARCELS 131A
131B IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUTY V.
STONEBRIDGE COUNTRY CLUB COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,
INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 04-3588-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD
PROJECT NO. 66042) FISCAL IMPACT: $3~750.00
Item #16K9
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL 805 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JAMES M BROWN, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 06-0525-CA (SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD
PROJECT NO. 62081). (FISCAL IMPACT $130~580)
Item #16KI0
Page 291
January 9, 2007
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$158,675.00 FOR PARCEL 145 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. REGENT PARK CLUSTER HOMES
ASSOCIATION, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-3452-CA (IMMOKALEE
ROAD PROJECT NO. 66042). FISCAL IMPACT: $36~347.75
Item #16Kll
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCELS 718A & 718B
IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. BEREAN
BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 06-
1254-CA (COUNTY BARN ROAD PROJECT NO. 60101).
(FISCAL IMPACT $1,396.50)
Item #16K12
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE WITH
SCHENKEL & SHULTZ, INC., RELATING TO THE PROJECT
KNOWN AS THE DESIGN AND EXPANSION OF THE SOUTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
SECOND FLOOR PROCESS CONTROL BUILDING,
CONTRACT NO. 01-3235 AND WORK ORDER/PROJECT
#725091, AS AMENDED, AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN
TO EXECUTE ANY NECESSARY SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS
FOLLOWING FINAL REVIEW BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY -
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 1 7 A
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO SET A
PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF APRIL 24,2007 FOR
CONSIDERATION OF A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
Page 292
January 9, 2007
IMP ACT DEVELOPMENT ORDER AMENDMENT FOR
PETITION DOA-2005-AR-7136, GREY OAKS DR! LOCATED IN
THE NORTHEAST, SOUTHEAST, AND NORTHWEST
QUADRANTS OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND GOLDEN
GATE PARKWAY, IN SECTIONS 24, 25 AND 26, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(COMPANION TO PUDA-2005-AR-I0157)
Item #17B - MOVED TO 8B
Item #17C
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 12,
2006 MEETING AND IS FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE
JANUARY 23, 2007 BCC MEETING. PETITION A VESMT -2006-
AR-9775, HANSON TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE
THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE
SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17D
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 12,
2006 BCC MEETING, THE JANUARY 9, 2007 BCC MEETING
AND HAS BEEN CONTINUED INDEFINITELY. PETITION
A VROW-2006-AR-9477, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 95 TO
DISCLAM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
PUBLIC'S INTREST IN A 60 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY
EASEMENT KNOWN AS 7TH AVENUE NW (CHERRYWOOD
DRIVE) OVER PORTIONS OF TRACTS 15 &16, GOLDEN GATE
Page 293
January 9, 2007
ESTATES UNIT 95, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 45, OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND MORE
SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, AND TO ACCEPT
A 20 FOOT WIDE ALTERNATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND
TWO 10 FOOT BY 10 FOOT ALTERNATE DRAINAGE
EASEMENTS OVER PORTIONS OF TRACT 15, AS MORE
SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS.
Item #17E
ORDINANCE 2007-01: AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 99-85, AS AMENDED, THE SENIORS
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ORDINANCE, TO INCREASE THE
ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR QUALIFYING
PERSONS AGE 65 AND OLDER FROM $25,000 TO $50,000
PURSUANT TO THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT APPROVED BY REFERENDUM ON
NOVEMBER 7,2006
Page 294
January 9, 2007
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:05 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~
JIM CO ETTA, Chairman
ATTEST!,:r:
. \. . . ....
. -" -. ~
DWIGHT,E. -BROCK, CLERK
~,- , ., i .-:,..
.........i......~...
'. '-.' " . .....~
- "---- . .... ~
.' ~ ' .;
'. '.. .,'. (.4. ',,' -5 ..J~;,. " j ~ ':~"
.\I!"Ia't'. ..~. ".'~' {".r ;. ,'...' (....... ','.
o ." , ' . -.,' """f '.. "". '~""] -'. ~ .
. . 'llJl;.if"',~~ . if.' !: t,,~ ,: .
These minutes approved by the Board on ...,2/13/C 7 , as
presented / or as corrected ' ,
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 295