BCC Minutes 02/13/2007 R
February 13, 2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida,
February 13, 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: Jim Coletta
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
fI~^.~
>-
-^~
.,
'-'.. \
· -1_
..,-^....~,.."'~
AGENDA
February 13, 2007
9:00 AM
Jim Coletta, Chairman, District 5
Tom Henning, Vice- Chairman, District 3
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2
Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
Page 1
February 13, 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. Senior Minister Debra C. Williams, Unity of Naples Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. November 21, 2006 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate
C. January 9,2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting
D. January 16,2007 - BCC/Tourist Development Council Workshop
E. January 18,2007 - District 3 Town Hall Meeting
F. January 23,2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting
G. January 24,2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting-Continuation of January 23,2007
BCC Meeting
Page 2
February 13, 2007
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards
5-vear recipient
1) Carol Wright - Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee
10-vear recipient
2) Kent Orner - Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee
20-vear recipient
3) George Ponte - Collier County Code Enforcement Board
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating the month of February as Scouting Anniversary
Month, to encourage citizens of Collier County to express their appreciation
to the Southwest Florida Council and the Boy Scouts of America for their
interest in and dedication to Americas youth. Proclamation to be accepted by
Mel Moore, Senior District Executive, Boy Scouts of America; Barbara
Coen, District Vice Chairman, Boy Scouts of America; and William H.
Poteet, Jr., Alligator District Chairman, Boy Scouts of America.
B. Proclamation designating March 10,2007 through March 17,2007 as Save
the Florida Panther Week to encourage citizens of Collier County to join in
the celebration of the Florida Panther. To be accepted by Tom Murray,
President, Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge.
C. Proclamation designating January, February and March 2007 as Naples
Patriotic Moment Months. Proclamation will be accepted by Sharon Kurgis,
Merrill Lynch, and Phil Lewis, Naples Daily News.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. The Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department adopted the
Phoenix Award to recognize local first responders, who through their skills
Page 3
February 13, 2007
and knowledge, have successfully brought back to life individuals who have
died. The Phoenix is a mythological bird that died and rose renewed from its
ashes.
B. Recommendation to recognize Christopher Atchley, Craftsman, Facilities
Management, as Employee of the Month for January, 2007.
C. Recommendation to recognize Mike Ossorio, Contract Licensing Officer,
Community Development and Environmental Services, as Employee of the
Year for 2006.
D. Presentation to the Board of County Commissioners for the Waste
Reduction A wards Program (WRAP) to recognize businesses and
institutions for enhanced and innovative recycling programs.
E. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation to hear a
presentation from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the use of
the Panther Consultation Area in reviewing land development activities in
Collier County.
F. Project presentation; Immokalee Road Expansion from U.S. 41 to 1-75
Ramps. A 3.5 mile project presented by John Carlo, Inc.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SV-2006-AR-9962:
Wal-Mart Stores East L.P., represented by Boice-Raidl-Rhea Architects,
requesting variances to Section 5.06.04.C.a. to allow 13 additional wall signs
in the Wal-Mart Super-center. The subject property is located at 5420
Cormorant Avenue, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 4
February 13, 2007
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDZ-2004-AR-68 10:
Livingston Greens, LLC, represented by George L. Varnadoe of Cheffy,
Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP, requesting approval of a rezone from
the Agriculture (A) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as Hamilton
Greens RPUD. The subject property, consisting of 29.68 acres, is located on
the east side of Livingston Road, approximately 3/4 of a mile north of
Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
B. This item was continued from the Januarv 23~ 2007 BCC meetine;. This
item is a companion to Items lOA and lOB which will be heard at 1:05
p.m. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Petition PUDZ-A-2004-
AR-64l7 Ronald Benderson et ai, Trustee, represented by Robert L. Duane,
AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting to rezone from Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD)
known as the 1-75/Alligator Alley Commercial PUD. The proposed PUD
amendment requests the following: to reduce the size of the Preserve/Water
Management Area from 15 acres currently required by the PUD to 10.58
acres; to delete residential uses as a permitted use; to provide a new list of
commercial uses comparable to those allowed in the C-l through C-4
Commercial Districts, with SIC codes; modify the PUD Master Plan to
depict the footprints of existing land uses and conceptual footprints for
undeveloped tracts; to modify the circulation system; to establish a
maximum square footage of265,000 square feet of retail and office area; to
relocate the existing western entrance 50 feet to the east; and to delete the 50
foot perimeter setback. The property consisting of 40.8 acres is located on
the north side of Davis Boulevard in proximity to the intersection of Collier
Boulevard (CR - 951) and 1- 75. The subj ect property is located in Section 34,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion
Item with Developers Contribution Agreements)
C. Repeal of Collier County Ordinance 2002-49, as amended by Ordinance
2005-32, titled: an ordinance readopting the Collier County Fire Prevention
and Protection Code by amending the Code of Laws and Ordinances of
Collier County, Florida, amending Chapter 58, Fire Prevention and
Protection, Article II, Fire Safety Standards for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, by replacing Section 58-26, pertaining to adopted standards
Page 5
February 13, 2007
and codes of the National Fire Code published by the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA), replacing Section 58-27 pertaining to
amendments to adopted fire codes, specifically NFP AI, 2002 Edition
replacing Section 58-28, pertaining to amendments to the adopted Life
Safety Code, specifically NFP A 10 I, 2002 Edition.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Affordable Housing Commission.
B. Appointment of member to the Radio Road Beautification Advisory
Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force.
D. A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, establishing support for the State Legislators' efforts regarding state
insurance reform. (Commissioner Coyle)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 1 :05 p.m. This item was continued from the
Januarv 23~ 2007 BCC Meetine;. Recommendation to approve a
Developers Contribution Agreement (DCA) between Benderson, Westport
and Davis Crossing (The Developers) and Collier County to obtain right-of-
way, easements drainage commitments and advanced funding for the future
expansion of Davis Boulevard. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services) (Companion item to 8B and lOB)
B. This item to be heard at 1 :05 p.m. This item was continued from the
January 23~ 2007 BCC Meetine;. Recommendation to approve a
Developers Contribution Agreement (DCA) between Waterways Joint
Venture VII (The Developer) and Collier County to obtain property for
roadway water management, drainage and access easements for the future
expansion of Davis Boulevard. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services) (Companion item to 8B and lOA)
C. Recommendation to accept Fiscal Year 2006 Grant Report providing an
annual update of grant activity. (Len Price, Administrator, Administrative
Page 6
February 13, 2007
Services)
D. Report to the Board of County Commissioners from the Collier County
Health and Code Enforcement Departments regarding the continued
initiatives to eliminate unsafe and unsound housing in the Immokalee
Community.(Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development
and Environmental Services)
E. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Recommendation to approve Collier
County's Fiscal Year 2008 Federal Legislative Agenda. (Debbie Wight,
Assistant to the County Manager)
F. Staff Report for the Northeast Regional Utility Facility Community
Advisory Panel request for consideration of an alternative buffer
consideration, Project No 70902 and 73156. (Jim DeLony, Administrator,
Public Utilities)
G. Recommendation to approve budget amendments for $38,198,334.09 to
transfer projects from various Water and Wastewater capital projects funds
to a 2006 Revenue Bond Proceeds Fund. (Jim DeLony, Administrator,
Public Utilities)
H. This item to be heard at 11 :45 a.m. Recommendation to approve spending
up to $35,000 for appraisals, pre-contract expenses, to authorize a non-
binding Letter of Intent, commence negotiations for the purchase of Gawn
Fishin, LLC property located in Everglades City and approve the attached
Budget Amendment. (Marla Ramsey, Administrator, Public Services)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. TIME CERTAIN: 12:00 Noon. The Board in executive session will
discuss settlement and strategy relating to litigation expenses in the pending
litigation case of Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Courts v. Collier County,
Florida, Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, as Ex-
Officio Governing Board of The Ochopee Area Fire Control & Emergency
Medical Care Special Taxing District, A/K/ A The Ochopee Fire District;
Linda T. Swisher and Paul W. Wilson, Case No. 04-94l-CA consolidated
with Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida vs. Dwight
Page 7
February 13, 2007
E. Brock, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, Florida Case Number
05-953-CA consolidated with Case No. 05-l506-CA.
B. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Board direction to the County Attorney
relating to litigation in in Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Courts v. Collier
County, Florida, Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, as Ex-Officio Governing Board of The Ochopee Area Fire Control
& Emergency Medical Care Special Taxing District, A/K/ A The Ochopee
Fire District; Linda T. Swisher and Paul W. Wilson Case No. 04-941-CA,
consolidated with Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida vs. Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County,
Florida Case Number 05-953-CA consolidated with Case No. 05-l506-CA,
now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County,
Florida.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve an Interim Management Plan for the
Brochu property under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program.
2) 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 grant
final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements
for the final plat of Verona walk Phase lB. The roadway and drainage
Page 8
February 13, 2007
improvements will be privately maintained.
3) Recommendation to approve an application by Naples Urgent Care, P.
L. for participation in the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure
Investment Program
4) 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 Chatham Woods, approval of the
standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval
of the amount of the performance security.
5) 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 Caldecott Replat.
6) To seek approval from the Board of County Commissioners of the
Building Directors issuance of building permits for the replacement of
previously existing pool screen enclosures damaged by Hurricane
Wilma, with the understanding the respective applicants recognize
and agree to filing the required requests for dimensional variances
associated with the respective side yard and/or rear yard
encroachmen ts
7) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to transfer funds
from Fund 339 Reserves (Road Impact Fee District 5 - Immokalee) to
Fund 339 Reimbursements (prior year) in the amount of $100,000.
8) Recommendation of the Immokalee Redevelopment Area Advisory
Board and Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency to the
Board of County Commissioners to elect a chairman and vice
chairman for the Immokalee Redevelopment Area Advisory Board
and the Enterprise Zone Development Agency for 2007 (a companion
item to item 16Gl)(Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development and Environmental Services)
Page 9
February 13, 2007
9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Veronawalk, Phase lB.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Approve the purchase of 2.52 acres of unimproved property (Parcel
No. 216) which is required for the construction of a stormwater
retention and treatment pond for the Oil Well Road widening project.
Project No. 60044 (Fiscal Impact: $278,910.00)
2) Recommendation to award a construction contract to Bonness, Inc. for
Livingston Road (C.R. 881) Intersection Improvements at Pine Ridge
Road, Bid No. 07-4096, Project No. 60016, in the amount of
$420,587.37.
3) Recommendation to approve a South Florida Water Management
District Local Governmental Grant Agreement No. 4600000608 in the
amount of $250,000 for partial funding of the 2007 Australian Pine
Tree Removal Program.
4) Recommendation to award Bid #07-4086 Supply & Install Traffic
Signs and Markings to Trutwin Industries, Inc. for the approximate
amount of $90,500.
5) Recommendation to approve Change Order #5 to add $298,485.00 for
continuing Inspection Services for KCCS, Inc. under ITQ 04-3583
CEI Services for Collier County Road Projects for Project No. 60006
Grade Separated Overpass Road Project on Golden Gate Parkway and
over Airport-Pulling Road.
6) Recommendation to approve the use of the rate of $3,850 per 1,000
square feet based on an alternative road impact fee calculation for a
proposed American Signature Furniture store to be located at the
Triangle Parcel north of the intersection of U.S. 41 Tamiami Trail
North and Old U.S. 41
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve an agreement with FEBCO Inc a
Division of Watts Water Technologies Inc. that allows FEBCO to
Page 10
February 13, 2007
seek certification of their Backflow Prevention Devices (BPDs)
otherwise known as Reduced Pressure Detector Assemblies (RPDAs),
which were installed during the inception of the fire and irrigation
water system improvements in Pelican Bay. Project Number 74023.
2) Recommendation to award Contract #06-4056 Disaster Recovery
Services to James Lee Witt Associates, a part of Global Options
Group, Inc., for consulting services required by the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners as a result of a declared disaster in
Collier County and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract.
3) Recommendation to execute an agreement between the Collier County
Water-Sewer District, the Florida Governmental Utility Authority,
and the Sembler Family Partnership Ltd., allowing the Florida
Governmental Utility Authority to provide temporary wastewater
service to the proposed Brooks Village commercial development.
4) Recommendation to accept four South Florida Water Management
District Alternative Water Supply Grants in the total amount of
$3,009,200 for the partial funding for the construction of
improvements to the County's public water supply system.
5) Recommendation to authorize sole source purchase and certified
installation of replacement parts for the Oxidation Ditched and
Clarifiers to Siemens Water Technologies, in the estimated annual
amount of $500,000.
6) Recommendation to approve, and authorize the Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners to sign, letters to the City of Naples,
the City of Marco Island and the City of Everglades City requesting
them to adopt the mandatory Non-Residential Recycling Ordinance
No. 2004-50 or similar ordinance.
7) Approve a budget amendment to recognize funds provided by South
Florida Water Management District Grants in the amount of $
425,847.00 and approve the necessary budget amendment for the
Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project 74030.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 11
February 13, 2007
1) Recommendation to rescind approval of the Interlocal Agreement for
Fund Sharing of the Pulling Property Project as approved by the
Board of County Commissioners on June 14, 2005 and to approve a
new agreement with the City of Naples for the Pulling property boat
ramp facility in an amount not to exceed $700,000.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
request from I HOPE, Inc. of Collier County to fund the $10,000
payment of permitting fees related to the installation of thirty (30)
FEMA trailers in the Immokalee area.
3) Recommendation to approve the purchase to retrofit sports field
lighting from Musco Lighting for Eagle Lakes Community Park in the
amount of $261,543 and approve necessary budget amendments
4) Recommend approval of a resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, reestablishing the Collier
County Parks and Recreation Department Facilities and Outdoor
Areas License and Fee Policy, and Superseding Resolution 2006-296
and all other Resolutions establishing license and fee policy
5) Recommendation to grant a loan to the Collier County Housing
Development Corporation (CCHDC) of $200,000 for the construction
of an affordable housing unit in Copeland using State Housing
Initiative Partnership (SHIP) funds.
6) Recomn1endation to name the skate park at East Naples Community
Park Velocity Skate Park.
7) Recommend approval of resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, establishing and
implementing revised beach parking fees and rules in compliance with
an agreement with Florida Department of Environmental Protection;
repealing Resolution No. 2002-430.
8) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment appropriating
$40,000 from Reserves to fund the Remedial Action Plan Assessment
in response to the fuel spill at Caxambas Park.
Page 12
February 13, 2007
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the use of $144,305 from the Housing and Human Services
Department to be used as a part of a local match requirement to obtain
State and Federal funding to continue operation of the Horizons
Primary Care Clinic in the Golden Gate area.
10) Recommendation to Award bid number 07-4084 for Pool Chemicals
and Supplies to various vendors. These chemicals and supplies will be
used in County Park and Recreation Department aquatic facilities.
11) Recommendation to approve application and Memorandum of
Understanding for a Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe
Exchange Grant in the amount of $200,000 from the United States
Department of Justice and, if awarded, to serve as the Fiscal Agent
and to authorize staff to negotiate a subrecipient agreement with Child
Advocacy Council (d.b.a. Child Protection Team)
12) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign the amendment
between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the
Area Agency on Aging of Southwest Florida and approve budget
amendments to reflect an overall decrease of $21,000 in the Older
Americans Act programs.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the
Commission Chairman to execute Deed Certificates for the sale of
burial plots at Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery during the
2007 calendar year.
2) Recommendation to approve the addition of the classification Director
Operations Support PUD to the 2007 Fiscal Year Pay Plan & the
removal of the classification Director Utilities Finance Operations
from the 2007 Fiscal Year Pay Plan.
3) Recommendation to approve amendments to the County's current
agreement with ICMA-Retirement Corporation (ICMA-RC) that
provides a deferred compensation plan to County employees.
Page 13
February 13, 2007
4) Recommendation to approve a Fourth Amendment to Lease
Agreement with Arnold Properties, Inc., for the continued use of
garage/warehouse space by the Sheriffs Office at a total cost of
$29,192.40.
5) Recommendation to approve a Lease Agreement with Domenico and
Maria LaGrasta for temporary warehouse/ office space to be used by
the Sheriffs Office at a first years cost of $84,000.
6) Recommendation to approve Boyd Brothers Service,Inc. as the sole
source provider for the installation, repair and replacement of
Automated Logic Systems and Controls.
7) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approve Budget Amendments
2) Recommendation to approve the submittal of the attached Emergency
Management, Preparedness and Assistance (EMP A) Trust Fund
Project Application to the Florida Department of Community Affairs
in the amount of $68,440.
3) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a Florida Emergency
Medical Services Matching Grant Application and Grant Distribution
Form for the Stair Chair Program in the amount of $69,850.24.
4) Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $40,000 for the
purchase of equipment and supplies required for the production of
sandbags which will be utilized by Emergency Management and the
Road and Bridge Department during flood events.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation of the Immokalee Redevelopment Area Advisory
Board and Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency to the
Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Collier County
Page 14
February 13, 2007
Redevelopment Agency to elect a chairman and vice chairman for the
Immokalee Redevelopment Area Advisory Board and the Enterprise
Zone Development Agency for 2007 (a companion item to item
16A8).
2) To approve and execute Site Improvement Grant Agreement between
the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and a grant
applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment area.
3) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
approve CRA staff attendance at 2007 Redevelopment Conference,
ICSC North Florida Seminar and 17th Annual Growth Management
Summit; authorize payment of attendees registration, lodging, travel
and per diem from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Trust Fund (Fund
187) travel budget; and declare the training received as serving a valid
public purpose.
4) Approve a budget amendment for $91,400 to increase budgeted
revenues and budgeted expenses for the sale and purchase of aviation
fuel at Immokalee Regional Airport.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending the Gulf Citrus Country Gala on Saturday, March 24, 2007
at the LaBelle Civic Center in LaBelle, Florida. $60.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
2) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended the Economic Development Council VIP Breakfast Meeting
on Thursday, February 8, 2007, at the Doubletree Guest Suites, 12200
Tamiami Trail in Naples, Florida. $16.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Will attend the
Naples Press Club Annual Special Author Luncheon on Saturday,
Page 15
February 13, 2007
February 24, 2007 at the Cypress Woods Golf and Country Club;
$35.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Will attend the
2007 Women of Style 10th Annual Awards on Thursday, March 1,
2007 at the Naples Grand Resort; $100.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Will attend the
Marco Island Historical Society Spring Appraisal Faire Gala Live and
Silent Auction on Saturday, March 3,2007 at the Hammock Bay Golf
and Country Club, Naples; $75.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
6) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
Physicians Regional Medical Center Good News Gala on Saturday,
January 27, 2007 at the Physicians Regional Medical Center, Naples;
$35.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
7) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Will attend the
Marine Corps League Honor the Free Press Luncheon on Wednesday,
March 14,2007 at the Hilton Hotel, Naples; $25.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
8) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
prepaying for a function serving a valid public purpose.
Commissioner paid in advance to register to attend the Urban Land
Institute (ULI) Southwest Florida District Council Meeting -Winter
Institute on February 22, 2007 and is requesting reimbursement in the
amount of $75.00, to be paid from his travel budget.
9) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the Everglades City Hall Restoration
Celebration as a Keynote Speaker on January 27,2007 and is
requesting reimbursement in the amount of $20.00, to be paid from
Page 16
February 13, 2007
his travel budget.
10) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend Southwest Florida Transportation Initiative
Pre-Session Legislation Event on January 29,2007 and is requesting
reimbursement in the amount of $35.00, to be paid from his travel
budget.
11) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
prepaying to attend a function serving a valid public purpose.
Commissioner paid in advance to attend the Naples Chamber of
Commerce Board Meeting on January 25,2007 and is requesting
reimbursement in the amount of $3.00, to be paid from his travel
budget.
12) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the the Heritage Bay Affordable Housing
Ground Breaking Ceremony and Luncheon on January 19,2007 and
is requesting reimbursement in the amount of $16.00, to be paid from
his travel budget.
13) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the Breakfast meeting of the Boy Scouts of
America - Alligator (Collier County) District Committee and is
requesting reimbursement in the amount of$7.95, to be paid from his
travel budget.
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 January
06,2007 through January 12,2007 and for submission into the official
records of the board.
Page 17
February 13, 2007
2) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of January
13,2007 through January 19,2007 and for submission into the official
records of the board.
3) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of January
20, 2007 through January 26, 2007 and for submission into the official
records of the board.
4) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of January
27,2007 through February 02,2007 and for submission into the
official records of the board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
budget amendment in the amount of $150,000 for Outside Counsel
fees and $40,000 for Other Contractual Services (used for experts and
consultants).
2) Recommendation to approve settlement at mediation and prior to trial
in the lawsuit entitled John S. Segro, James W. Antoniou and James
A. Antoniou, Jr., a minor v. P&K Pole Products, et aI., filed in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, Case
No. 02-2096-CA, for a total amount of$125,000.00.
3) Recommendation to Approve an Agreed Order for Payment of Expert
Fees in Connection with Parcel 140 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier
County v. Rosa A. Hernandez, et aI., Case No. 05-1033-CA (CR 951,
Project No. 65061) Fiscal Impact: $56,000.00.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
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 18
February 13, 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. Recommendation to Approve an Ordinance Amending Collier County
Ordinance No. 93-56, as amended, the Animal Control Ordinance;
Amending Section One, Definitions; Amending Section Four to Provide a
Fee for Micro-Chipping; Amending Section Five to Revise Fees by
Resolution and to Establish Procedures for Micro-Chipping; Amending
Section Six, Prohibitions; Adding a New Section Nineteen Entitled
Dangerous Dogs; Providing for Conflict and Severability; Providing for
Inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances; and Providing for an
Effective Date
B. Recommendation to adopt a County Ordinance governing the threshold
amount of land or easement purchases requiring one or two real estate
appraisals (Estimated fiscal impact: not to exceed $300.00)
C. Recommendation to approve Petition A VESMT-2006-AR-10036, Aqua,
Pelican Isle Yacht Club to disclaim, renounce and vacate the Countys and
the Publics interest in a certain irregular width Utility Easement located in
the southeast of the southeast of the northeast in Section 17, Township 48
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and being further described
in Exhibit A.
D. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution designating 789.4 acres in the Rural
Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) as (BCI/BCP SSA 9),
approving a credit agreement for BCI/BCP SSA 9, approving an easement
agreement for BCI/BCP SSA 9, and establishing the number of Stewardship
Credits generated by the designation of said Stewardship Sending Area in
response to an application by Barron Collier Investments, Ltd. and Barron
Collier Partnership.
E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve an
amendment to Collier County Ordinance No. 03-53, as amended (also
known as the Collier County Ethics Ordinance), amending Section Seven to
require lobbyists to register quarterly and update the names of those entities
by whom they have been employed to lobby and also requiring disclosure of
the name or identity of those employing a lobbyist whenever a lobbyist
Page 19
February 13, 2007
engages in lobbying activities.
F. Recommendation to approve the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board's
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
HAAB's goals and objectives, and providing an effective date.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 20
February 13, 2007
February 13, 2007
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Good morning. Welcome one
and all. We'll start the meeting off like we start all our meetings, with
the invocation by Senior Minister Debra Williams, the Unity Naples
Church. Please stand.
MS. WILLIAMS: Divine Creator, we call forth your blessings
on this place and this gathering. Let all who speak here speak with
love and clarity. Let all who listen do so with an open mind and heart.
Let all deliberations be guided by your wisdom. Let all here today be
mindful of your call to be compassionate in action.
Thank you, God, for your infinite grace and for your many
blessings of peace, comfort, abundance and well-being that fall afresh
on every member of our community, and so it is. Amen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Amen.
Commissioner Coyle, would you lead us in the Pledge.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' meeting, February 13,2007.
First item I'd like to make sure that everybody has correct, and it's not
on your list -- and I was just made -- it was just brought to my
attention. George Ponte is a 10-year recipient, not a 20-year recipient,
okay. So we'll try to make that correction. And Sue, if you don't have
a 10-year pin up there, we need to get one.
Item 9C, the committee recommendations should be Bishof
Page 2
February 13, 2007
rather than Bishop, and that error was caught by Commissioner Fiala.
Thank you.
Next item is to withdraw item 12A, that the board, in executive
session, will discuss the settlement strategy relating to litigation
expenses in the pending litigation case of Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of
Courts, versus Collier County, Florida, Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, as ex-officio governing
board of the Ochopee Area Fire Control & Emergency Medical Care
Special Taxing District, a/kia, the Ochopee Fire District; Linda T.
Swisher and Paul W. Wilson, case number 04-941-CA.
That item will still have -- in the sunshine, so 12B is still on the
agenda, but the closed session in the shade has been withdrawn.
Next item is to continue item 16A2 to February 27, 2007 BCC
meeting. It's a recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway
(private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Veronawalk
phase lB. The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained. That item is being asked to continue at staffs request.
The next item is to move item 16C1 to 10J. It's a
recommendation to approve an agreement for FEBCO, Inc., a division
of Watts Water Technologies, Inc., that allows FEBCO to seek
certification of their backflow prevention devices, BPDs, otherwise
known as reduced pressures detection assemblies, RPDAs, which were
installed during the inception of the fire and irrigation water system
improvements in Pelican Bay. Project number 74023. That item is
being moved at Commissioner Coyle's request.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: County Manager, can I add
something to that? This morning Mr. DeLony came into my office to
assure me that the successor agreement has been negotiated and will
be signed with respect to that company, and that will remove my
concern. If I could just have that read into the record, I would be real
happy to have that stay on the consent agenda.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 3
February 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. PETTIT: I have the language that they have agreed to.
Would you like me to read that language into the record?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Please, yes.
MR. PETTIT: FEBCO has agreed to add the following language
to the agreement. And once we have that, we would simply, if it stays
on the consent and is approved, we'll bring it back and have it signed
in the ordinary course.
This is the language. Neither party may assign this agreement
without the prior written consent of the other party except that either
party may, without the consent of the other, assign the agreement to a
controlled subsidiary of that party or a purchaser of all or substantially
all of the party's assets used in connection with performing this
agreement.
And I -- this, Commissioner Coyle, is I think what you're looking
for -- provided the assigning party guarantees the performance of and
causes the assignee to assume in writing all obligations of the assignor
under this agreement.
The rights and obligations of this agreement shall bind and
benefit any successors or assigns of the parties. And we believe this
should close that loop that you had concern about.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. Just so the
other commissioners understand why I raised the issue. The company
has been purchased several times and that has delayed the patent and
final approval of the most recent -- or this device that we are
procunng.
MR. MUDD: Certification.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Certified. And if that's the case,
we want to make sure that if they're acquired again, that acquiring
organization will assume the responsibilities for performance under
this contract. Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you want it to stay on the consent
Page 4
February 13,2007
agenda?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, correct.
MR. MUDD: Okay. The next item is to move item 16D2 to 101.
It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve a request from I HOPE, Inc., of Collier County, to fund the
$10,000 payment of permitting fees related to the installation of 30
FEMA trailers in the Immokalee area. That item is asked to be moved
at Commissioner Fiala's request.
Next item is to withdraw item 16D5. It's a recommendation to
grant a loan to the Collier County Housing Development Corporation
C, which is CCHDC, is their acronym, of $200,000 for the
construction of an affordable housing unit in Copeland using State
Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) funds. That item is being
withdrawn at staffs request.
Next item is item 16D7. Under considerations, first bullet item,
text has been deleted and will now read as follows: Annual beach
parking permits would be obtained by residents in a similar fashion to
the current program and procedure. Residency will be the only
requirement to obtain a beach parking permit. Permits will be required
on an annual basis. Beach parking permits for residents will appear to
be free.
And then there's a section that's deleted, and you can see that on
your change sheet. And the new word -- and the new verbiage is, the
parks and recreation department's class database will be used to track
various statistics regarding parking permit issuance. Among these
statistics will be resident versus non-resident. The resultant data can
then be used in developing cost and revenue allocation.
Parking will be available to all Collier County beach parking facilities
without charge with a permit. And that clarification's at staffs request.
And I believe, Crystal, that's also been coordinated with the
clerk's office.
Next item is to withdraw item 16H 1, which is, Commissioneri
Page 5
February 13,2007
Halas requests the board approval for reimbursement regarding
attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose, and he was
planning on attending the Gulf Citrus County Gala on Saturday,
March 24th, but he has had a change in calendar and cannot attend, so
he's asking that item be withdrawn.
The next item is a withdraw, item 16H5. Commissioner Fiala
requests board approval for reimbursement for attending a function
also serving a valid public purpose. Will attend the Marco Island
Historical Society Spring Appraisal Fair Gala Live and Silent Auction
on Saturday, March 3rd. She has also had a change of calendar and
cannot attend; therefore, she's asking this item to be withdrawn.
Next item is to move item 17B to 8D. It's a recommendation to
adopt a county ordinance governing the threshold amount of land or
easement purchases requiring one or two real estate appraisals.
Estimated fiscal impact not to exceed $300. Item is being asked to be
moved by Commissioner Coyle.
Next item is a correction to item 17E. In the fifth sentence under
section 7 A, insert after the word oath the following phrase: Or by
written declaration in accordance with section 92.525 of the Florida
Statutes. This change is requested by the clerk for purpose of
administration of the ordinance procedure. Also in section 7, under B,
in line 4, it should read, regardless of whether there is any change in
employers of. And those corrections are made at staffs request.
You have a series of time certain items today. The first is at
10:00 a.m., that's 5E; followed at 11 :00 by item 10E; at 10:45 a.m. by
item 10H; and at 1 :00 p.m. by item 12B; and then at 1 :05, you -- you
get to hear 8B, lOA and lOB, and that all has to do with the Davis
Boulevard widening from Collier Boulevard to Radio Road.
The 10 o'clock time certain, 5E, is a presentation by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service regarding the Panther Consultation Area.
The 11 o'clock time certain is item 10E, and that's basically a
recommendation to approve Collier County's fiscal year 2008 federal
Page 6
February 13, 2007
legislative agenda.
The item at 10:45 is item 10H, and that's a recommendation to
approve spending up to $35,000 for appraisals and precontract
expenses, to authorize a non-binding letter of intent, commence
negotiations for the purchases of Gawn Fishin, a property located in
Everglades City adjacent to the Everglades Airport.
Next item with a time certain at one o'clock is the 12B item, and
that has to do with the standing court case between the clerk and the
Board of County Commissioners, and I've mentioned before on -- with
the withdrawal of 12B (sic), which is -- was going to be your shade
session. This is the sunshine piece, and it will be presented by the
county attorney.
The next item is item -- for 1 :05, and that is item 8B, lOA and
lOB, all -- all deal with the six-laning of Davis Boulevard between
Collier Boulevard and Radio Road and developer's contribution
agreements and a change in the PUD. You heard that at the last
meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. You asked it to
come back because you had some questions. Again, that will be at
1:05.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Now we'll go for
commissioners' -- there's nothing on the summary agenda that requires
disclosure that I can see; is that correct, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct in regard to, if you have -- if you
had no contact on any ex parte issues, then you have nothing to
disclose.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So then still we require
disclosure if you have any.
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I understand, Mr. Weigel.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. There are some 16A items that have
disclosure.
Page 7
February 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well-- yes. If it passes unanimously
and at that point in time we -- you know, as far as they're not pulled.
We don't have to make personal disclosures on them; is that correct,
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No. I don't follow that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, the items that are in the
consent agenda --
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- that require disclosures --
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, any of those --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- they be made at this time, too?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. They're -- although properly placed in the
consent agenda because they are not advertised items to appear under
8 or 17, they would still have the same requirement for disclosure if
there is disclosure to be made. You could indicated either no
disclosures necessary on a particular item or go on the record before
the approval of the consent agenda and you'll have it taken care of.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, we'll start with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No disclosures, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. No changes to the agenda?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And no changes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No disclosures, no changes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the same here, no disclosures, no
changes.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On the consent agenda, on item
16A4, I have no disclosure; on item 16A5, no disclosure; and on the
summary agenda, item 17, under -- I have no items of disclosure there
ei ther.
Page 8
February 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No disclosure and no additional
changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I hear an approval--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F and #2G
NOVEMBER 21, 2006 - VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE; JANUARY 9, 2007 - BCC/REGULAR
MEETING; JANUARY 16,2007 - BCC/TDC WORKSHOP;
JANUARY 18,2007 - DISTRICT 3 TOWNHALL; JANUARY 23,
2007 - BCC/REGULAR MEETING; JANUARY 24, 2007 -
BCC/REGULAR MEETING CONTINUATION OF JANUARY 23,
2007 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. And the
November 21st value adjustment board special magistrate?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the -- okay. Why don't we take
them --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Included in my motion is the
January 9, 2007 BCC regular meeting; January 16, BCC tourist
workshop; January 18, town hall meeting, District 3; and January
23rd, BCC regular meeting; and January 24, BCC regular meeting,
and continuing on to the -- should be the 25th, shouldn't it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Continuation of the 23rd, I guess.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Continuation of the 23rd, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my motion.
Page 9
February 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- second that motion,
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. We have a
motion by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion? Seeing none? Oh, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are we going to vote just on
today's agenda separately or are you going to put all this together
under one motion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's put -- what do you -- your
pleasure, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Everything's in one
motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you have any comments?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I just -- because we had a
motion and then we added to that motion, I guess.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
All those in favor of the motion, 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.
Page 10
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
February 13, 2007
Item 9C: The Committee Recommendation should be Bishof rather than Bishop. (Commissioner
Fiala's request.)
Withdraw Item 12A: The Board in executive session will discuss settlement and strategy relating
to litigation expenses in the pending litigation case of Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Courts v. Collier
County, Florida, Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, as Ex-Officio
Governing Board of The Ochopee Area Fire Control & Emergency Medical Care Special Taxing
District, a/k/a The Ochopee Fire District; Linda T. Swisher and Paul W. Wilson, Case No. 04-941-
CA consolidated with Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida vs. Dwight E.
Brock, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, Florida Case Number 05-953-CA consolidated
with Case No. 05-1506-CA. (Staff's request.)
Continue Item 16A2 to the February 27,2007 BCC meetina: Recommendation to grant final
approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of "Veronawalk
Phase 1B". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. (Staff's
request.)
Move Item 16C1 to 10J: Recommendation to approve an agreement with FEBCO, Inc. a Division
of Watts Water Technologies, Inc. that allows FEBCO to seek certification of their Backflow
Prevention Devices (BPDs) otherwise known as Reduced Pressure Detector Assemblies (RPDAs),
which were installed during the inception of the fire and irrigation water system improvements in
Pelican Bay. Project Number 74023. (Commissioner Coyle's request.)
Move Item 1602 to 101: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
request from I HOPE, Inc. of Collier County to fund the $10,000 payment of permitting fees related
to the installation of thirty (30) FEMA trailers in the Immokalee area. (Commissioner Fiala's
request.)
Withdraw Item 1605: Recommendation to grant a loan to the Collier County Housing
Development Corporation (CCHDC) of $200,000 for the construction of an affordable housing unit
in Copeland using State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) funds. (Staff's request.)
Item 1607: Under Considerations, first bullet item, text has been deleted and will now read as
follows: "Annual beach parking permits would be obtained by residents in a similar fashion to
the current program and procedures. Residency will be the only requirement to obtain a beach
parking permit. Permits will be required on an annual basis. Beach parking permits to residents
will appear to be free. However, when a beach parking sticker is issued to a resident, the 001
Fund, commonly referred to as the "General Fund" '/Jill be debited the annual cost of a beach
parking sticker and transferred into a "Beach Parking Re'tenue Fund". This transaction v:i11
establish a uniform price for beach parking permits pro'tided for the residents as paid for through
ad valorem taxes. The Parks and Recreation Department's CLASS database will be used to track
various statistics reaardina parkina permit issuance. Amona these statistics will be resident
versus non-resident. The resultant data can then be used in developina cost and revenue
allocations. Parking will be available at all Collier County beach parking facilities without charge
with a permit." (Staff's request.)
Withdraw Item 16H1: Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding
attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose. Attending the Gulf Citrus Country Gala
on Saturday, March 24, 2007 at the LaBelle Civic Center in LaBelle, Florida. $60.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Halas's travel budget. (Commissioner Halas' request.)
Withdraw item 16H5: Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Will attend the Marco Island Historical
Society Spring Appraisal Faire Gala Live and Silent Auction on Saturday, March 3, 2007 at the
Hammock Bay Golf and Country Club, Naples; $75.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Move Item 17B to 8D: Recommendation to adopt a County Ordinance governing the threshold
amount of land or easement purchases requiring one or two real estate appraisals. (Estimated
fiscal impact not to exceed $300.00.) (Commissioner Coyle's request.)
Corrections to Item 17E: Also, in the 5th sentence under Section Seven (a), insert after the word
"oath" the following phrase: 'or by written declaration in accordance with Section 92.525, Florida
Statutes,' (This change requested by the Clerk for purposes of administration of the ordinance
procedure). Also in Section Seven (b), in line 4 should read: "... regardless of whether there is
any change in employers of . .." (Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items:
10:00 a.m. -Item 5E
11 :00 a.m. - Item 10E
11 :45 a.m. - Item 10H
1:00 p.m. -Item 12B
1 :05 p.m. - Items 10A and 1 OB followed by 8B
Item 5E to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation to hear a presentation from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service regarding the use of the Panther Consultation Area in reviewing land
development activities in Collier County.
Item 10E to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Recommendation to approve Collier County's Fiscal Year 2008
Federal Legislative Agenda.
Item 10H to be heard at 11:45 a.m. Recommendation to approve spending up to $35,000 for
appraisals, pre-contract expenses, to authorize a non-binding Letter of Intent, commence
negotiations for the purchase of Gawn Fishin, LLC property located in Everglades City and
approve the attached budget amendment.
Item 12B to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Board direction to the County Attorney relating to litigation
case of Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Courts v. Collier County, Florida, Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, as Ex-Officio Governing Board of The Ochopee Area
Fire Control & Emergency Medical Care Special Taxing District, ald/a The Ochopee Fire District;
Linda T. Swisher and Paul W. Wilson Case No. 04-941-CA, consolidated with Case No. 05-1506-
CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
Item 8B to be heard at 1 :05 p.m. followina 10A and 10B: This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDZ-A-2004-
AR-6417 Ronald Benderson et ai, Trustee, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes,
Inc., requesting to rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPUD) known as the 1-75/alligator Alley Commercial PUD. The proposed PUD
amendment requests the following: to reduce the size of the PreservelWater Management Area
from 15 acres currently required by the PUD to 10.58 acres; to delete residential uses as a
permitted use; to provide a new list of commercial uses comparable to those allowed in the C-1
through C-4 Commercial Districts, with SIC codes; modify the PUD Master Plan to depict the
footprints of existing land uses and conceptual footprints for undeveloped tracts; to modify the
circulation system; to establish a maximum square footage of 265,000 square feet of retail and
office area; to relocate the existing western entrance 50 feet to the east; and to delete the 50 foot
perimeter setback. The property consisting of 40.8 acres, is located on the north side of Davis
Boulevard in proximity to the Intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR-951) and 1-75. The subject
property is located in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Companion item with Developers Contribution Agreement.
Item 1 OA to be heard at 1 :05 p.m. This item was continued from the January 23, 2007 BCC
meeting. Recommendation to approve a Developers Contribution Agreement (DCA) between
Benderson, Westport and Davis Crossing (The Developers) and Collier County to obtain right-of-
way, easements drainage commitments and advanced funding for the future expansion of Davis
Boulevard. (Companion item to 8B and 10B.)
Item 1 OB to be heard at 1 :05 p.m. This item was continued from the January 23, 2007 BCC
meeting. Recommendation to approve a Developers Contribution Agreement (DCA) between
Waterways Joint Venture VII (The Developer) and Collier County to obtain property for roadway
water management, drainage and access easements for the future expansion of Davis Boulevard.
(Companion item to 8B and 10A.)
February 13, 2007
Item #3A
SERVICE AWARDS: 5 YEAR, 10 YEAR AND 20 YEAR
RECIPIENTS - PRESENTED
Now the service awards.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Service awards. You have some
advisory committee service awards today.
The first service award -- Commissioner, are you going to do it
up there or are you going to come on down?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we take a minute and
come down there. I think it's much more -- better to be able to deal
right from their level.
MR. MUDD: The first recipient today is Carol Wright, and it's a
five-year award for the Vanderbilt -- for her participation in the
Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
Ms. Wright?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much for your service.
We're going to need to get a picture, if you could, right here in the
center. Thank you.
MS. WRIGHT: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: The next -- and then we'll go to another category
which is our 10-year recipients. Our first 10-year recipient is Kent
Orner, and he has participated for 10 years on the Ochopee Fire
Control District Advisory Committee.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for 10 years. We really do
appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you so much for your
dedicated service.
Page 11
February 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hope you're going to stay around for
a while.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It keeps you young.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Stand right here for a moment, then
we'll get a picture together.
Once again, thank you.
MR. ORNER: Thank you. Appreciate it.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Our next recipient is George Ponte. He has served
for 10 years on the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: George, congratulations. Thank
you.
MR. MUDD: George, if we could get a picture.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, George.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Fiala?
MR. MUDD: No, we'll come -- we'll do that in just a little bit.
We're going to do proclamations --
MS. FILSON: Oh, proclamations.
MR. MUDD: -- now first.
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF
FEBRUARY AS SCOUTING ANNIVERSARY MONTH, TO
ENCOURAGE CITIZENS OF COLLIER COUNTY TO EXPRESS
THEIR APPRECIATION TO THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
COUNCIL AND THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA FOR THEIR
INTEREST IN AND DEDICATION TO AMERICAS YOUTH -
Page 12
February 13, 2007
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this brings us to
proclamations. Our first proclamation is a proclamation designating
the month of February as Scouting Anniversary Month, to encourage
citizens of Collier County to express their appreciation to the
Southwest Florida Council and the Boy Scouts of America for their
interest in and dedication to America's youth. The proclamation to be
accepted by Mel Moore, senior district executive, Boy Scouts of
America; Barbara Coen, district vice-chairman, Boy Scouts of
America; and William H. Poteet, Jr., Alligator district chairman, Boy
Scouts of America. Come on up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Come on up.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: As a former Eagle -- not a former.
You're always an Eagle Scout.
MR. POTEET: You're always an Eagle Scout.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: As an Eagle Scout and a former Scout
Master, it's indeed my privilege to be able to read this proclamation
today.
Whereas, the Boy Scouts of America have been in the forefront
of instilling timeless values in youth since its founding in 1910; and,
Whereas, this national youth movement has made serving others
through its value-based program its mission; and,
Whereas, the Boy Scouts of America's committed to helping
millions of youth succeed by providing the support, friendship and
mentoring necessary to live a happy and fulfilling life; and,
Whereas, the Boy Scouts of America, Southwest Florida Council
and its Cub Packs, boy scout troops, and venturing crews are
celebrating Scout's 97th anniversary in America and the 100th
anniversary of scouting internationally with the theme, "100 years of
Scouting, When Tradition Meets Tomorrow"; and,
Page 13
February 13,2007
Whereas, there are more than 1 70 community organizations and
3,800 dedicated volunteers that make scouting available for more than
30,000 youth members in our area who participate in the scouting
program as a means of character building, citizenship training and
personal fitness; and,
Whereas, the Boy Scouts of America is the largest organization
in Collier County providing youth leadership training with over 2,500
youth and 700 adult volunteers participating; and,
Whereas, citizens of Collier County express their appreciation to
the Southwest Florida Council and the Boy Scouts of America for
their interest and dedication to America's youth.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that February be designated
as Scouting Anniversary Month.
Done in order, this, the third (sic) day of February, 2007, James
Coletta, Chairman. And it is my pleasure to make the motion for
approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval by myself,
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
Now all 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
so much.
MR. POTEET: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When they take a picture, you want to
Page 14
February 13, 2007
hold this towards the picture.
MR. MUDD: Bill, you want to say a few words?
MR. POTEET: I'll just say something real quickly. First of all,
I'd like to thank the commission for doing this proclamation today. I
remember that -- well, I feel that maybe some of the commission
members remember when scouting was started some hundred years
ago. Little before my time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Fiala remembers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I raised my hand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was in that too, boy scouts.
MR. POTEET: Scouting is alive and well in Collier County . We
have a number of units from Marco Island to North Naples out to
Immokalee. Immokalee we're running some programs that are unique
to scouting. There's soccer-oriented programs with the youth, and
they're doing it very successfully.
We have over 700 volunteers that put a lot of time into the
program and make this work, but basically, scouting would not be
alive if (sic) the citizens of Collier County, the businesses of Collier
County that support it so earnestly, and for all the governmental
entities between the commission, the school board and everyone else
that coordinates the events that we have in this county, and we thank
everybody that's participated in the program.
And if there's any child out there that ever wants to become a
scout, there's absolutely no reason why they can't. Money should
never be an object. Scouting is open to all youth, all the boys between
the ages of 8 to -- up to 18. When they get to be 14, we kick in the
gear and do some high adventures. So there's a lot of activity out
there.
And so we just thank everybody for allowing the program to
prosper so well as it does in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one other addition. And to all of
Page 15
February 13,2007
those dedicated parents who give of their time who don't have to do
that, but because they care about their children and everyone else's
children, they also make this all possible. Thanks, Bill. And that's to
both of you.
MR. POTEET: Donna, you've discovered the secret of scouting.
Scouting allows parents to grow up with their kids, and we know it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 10,2007 THROUGH
MARCH 17, 2007 AS SAVE THE FLORIDA PANTHER WEEK
TO ENCOURAGE CITIZENS OF COLLIER COUNTY TO JOIN
IN THE CELEBRATION OF THE FLORIDA PANTHER.
ACCEPTED BY TOM MURRAY, PRESIDENT, FRIENDS OF
THE FLORIDA PANTHER REFUGE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is a
proclamation designating March 10, 2007, through March 17, 2007, as
Save the Florida Panther Week to encourage citizens of Collier
County to join in the celebration of the Florida Panther.
To be accepted by Tom Murray, president of Friends of the
Florida Panther Refuge.
MR. MURRAY: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Proclamation: Whereas, the people
of Collier County treasure their wildlife and take pleasure in the
natural heritage handed down to them by generations past; and,
Whereas, the Florida panther is the official state animal of the great
State of Florida; and,
Page 16
February 13, 2007
Whereas, the Florida State Legislature has established the third
Saturday in March as Save the Florida Panther Day; and,
Whereas, the Florida panther is a magnificent subspecies and a symbol
of the natural character of the Everglades ecosystem of South Florida;
and.
Whereas, because Collier County is the stronghold for the
long-term survival of the Florida panther, the natural resource
managers, non-profit groups, citizens and businesses in the county
want to gather to celebrate this species for the South Florida
ecosystem; and,
Whereas, it is the will of the people of Collier County and,
therefore, a mission of their government to rescue the Florida panther
from the threat of extinction; and,
Whereas, it is proper and fitting for all Floridians to pause and
reflect on the plight of the Florida panther and the task of preserving
the sleek, lean and beautiful Florida panther subspecies to enrich the
legacy of generations yet to come; and,
Whereas, we encourage each citizen to join in the celebration of
the panther.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County Florida, that March 10, 2007,
through March 17, 2007, be designated as Save the Florida Panther
Week.
Done and ordered this 13th day of February, 2007, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James Coletta,
Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion for
approval and a second, and I'm going to ask for comments because I
do have one to make.
I am going to vote for this because it's a wonderful proclamation;
Page 1 7
February 13, 2007
however, I want everybody to keep in mind that I don't think it's fair
that Collier County and the residents of Collier County have to take
the total burden of mitigation of a national treasure totally on
themselves. Millions of dollars are spent out of taxpayers' money
when we're protecting a national treasure.
I hope at some point in time we get our federal government and
state government involved to help to carry the cost of it.
Meanwhile, we have a motion, we have a second.
Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing 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. Thank you very
much, sir.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take a few moments. After we
have a picture, you can say a couple words. You could work here.
MR. MURRAY: This is a long proclamation, and I think it says
it all, but if I could just make just one or two remarks.
I want to thank you very much, Commissioners, for what you've
done. The Florida panther, as you know, is one of the most
endangered animals on earth. People all over the world are interested
in protecting the Bengal tiger and pandas and whales and so forth.
People all over the United States are interested in the animal that we're
trying to protect here, the state animal of Florida, the Florida panther.
We understand that there are issues. There may be funding
issues. There are issues of development and habitat loss which, of
Page 18
February 13, 2007
course, is the main threat to the Florida panther. There probably needs
to be some balance, the balance some of us think is swinging in the
wrong direction.
Many would like to build a panther habitat, and there's also
people all over the United States that would like to live in Yellowstone
Park, but that's not permitted by the federal government.
So we thank you for the proclamation. We appreciate it very
much. The panthers, if they could vote, and they cannot, would
certainly vote for you and appreciate, once again, what you've done.
Bye now.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY, FEBRUARY
AND MARCH 2007 AS NAPLES PATRIOTIC MOMENT
MONTHS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next proclamation is designating
January, February and March 2007 as Naples Patriotic Moment
Months. Proclamation to be accepted by Sharon Kurgis, Merrill
Lynch, and Phil Lewis of the Naples Daily News.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Looks like you're on your own,
huh?
MS. KURGIS: I am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Welcome, Sharon. I'll read
the proclamation.
Whereas, in January 2006, Sharon Kurgis organized the first
Naples Patriotic Moment series of celebrations to pay tribute to all
men and women who served in the military to defend the liberties that
are often taken for granted; and,
Whereas, we watch the United States of America's military
Page 19
February 13, 2007
continually be called upon to preserve peace throughout the world and
conduct operations in very dangerous environments. Sharon Kurgis
and her supporters believed that Naples residents needed a way to
stop, reflect and honor the men and women of today's and yesterday's
military. In essence, pause for a Naples Patriotic Moment; and,
Whereas, in January of 2007, Sharon Kurgis and supporters
decided that the 2006 events were so successful that they scheduled
Naples Patriotic Moment ceremonies every Sunday, Monday and
Tuesday evening at 5:30 p.m. from January until March 2007, at the
Sugden Community Theater courtyard on Fifth Avenue in Naples;
and,
Whereas, each evening local musicians provide brief musical
presentations to entertain participants with period-related music before
honoring representatives from military organizations ranging from
West Point graduates to Korean War veterans; and,
Whereas, every ceremony concludes with a message from the
military representative guest speaker of the evening, the lowering and
folding of the America flag and the military bugle call, taps; and,
Whereas, although most of us are very thankful, we often do not take
the time to stop and reflect on the sacrifices made on our behalf; and,
Whereas, we believe that the Naples Patriotic Moments is a unique
way for Naples to pay tribute to those who serve or have served in our
military; and,
Whereas, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
would like to express its sincere appreciation to Sharon Kurgis and the
Naples Patriotic Moment sponsors, Merrill Lynch and the Naples
Daily News, for Paying tribute to our local veterans and publicly
recognizing their sacrifices and dedication to our great nation.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the months of January,
February and March, 2007 be designated as Naples Patriotic Moment
Months.
Page 20
February 13, 2007
Done and ordered this 13th day of February, 2007, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Jim Coletta,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ifwe could at this time, could I have
those people that have served in the service please stand. That would
be you, too, Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas, and
myself. And with that --
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We didn't take a vote on that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we didn't. But I was looking for
a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's already been made and
seconded by Commissioner Halas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, a second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing 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.
MS. KURGIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll get a picture, then we'd love to
have you say a couple words.
MS. KURGIS: Thank you. Thank you for this proclamation
Page 21
February 13, 2007
from the veterans.
When I came up with this idea, which was kind of a basic idea, I
just thought about seeing sunset on Fifth Avenue and having taps
played and having people take a moment out of their busy day and just
thinking about everything the United States has ever been through and
that we're still a free country and that we still never have to worry a
whole lot about what happens to us on a daily basis. I mean, we just --
we live in a wonderful place and a wonderful area.
So I thought about having taps played on Fifth Avenue, and went
over it with some of the local business owners, and managed to get a
flag up, and we started having taps played and asked some of the
military to come down, different groups, whether Vietnam War
veterans, Korean War veterans, maybe World War II veterans of the
Pacific Theater. We even had last year Pearl Harbor veterans, and we
had two of them come down, which was a wonderful evening.
It's just where you fold the flag, say the Pledge of Allegiance and
play taps. It has grown, and the reason it has grown is because of the
power of our veterans. The veterans in our county have a lot of
dedication and a lot of patriotism.
And what has really -- every night that I've been there, there --
somebody has tears in their eyes, and I think that a lot of people feel
that whatever they -- whatever happened to them in the military,
however life was, their life, I'm sure, has been changed.
And when they're here today, and like I said, living the freedoms
that we all enjoy every day, I think they still feel that their
contribution was something, you know, worthwhile to what we're
seeing in our life today.
So I thank the veterans. And please come down. There's a
schedule in Naples Daily News every Friday in the showcase. And
we invite all veterans, even if it's Korean War veteran night, we may
have 100 veterans down there. And we ask you to lower the flag. We
ask you to say the Pledge of Allegiance. And everybody will stop and
Page 22
February 13, 2007
say the Pledge of Allegiance with you. I don't care if you're eating
dinner at Yabba's or McCabe's or you're walking across the street, you
will stop and say the Pledge of Allegiance. There isn't anyone that
continues to move during that time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to presentations.
Item #5A
THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT ADOPTED THE PHOENIX AWARD TO
RECOGNIZE LOCAL FIRST RESPONDERS, WHO THROUGH
THEIR SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE, HAVE SUCCESSFULLY
BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE DIED.
THE PHOENIX IS A MYTHOLOGICAL BIRD THAT DIED AND
ROSE RENEWED FROM ITS ASHES - PRESENTED
The first presentation is the Collier County Emergency Medical
Services Department adopted the Phoenix Award to recognize local
first responders who, through their skills and knowledge, have
successfully brought back to life individuals who have died. The
Phoenix is a mythical bird that died and rose renewed from its ashes.
Mr. Summers?
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good morning. Dan
Summers, Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services.
As you know, this is one of my most exciting things, one of the
things I'm most proud of with this group. Let me also recognize some
of our chiefs that are here today. Chief Brown from North Naples;
Chief Peterson from Golden Gate; Fire Chief Page from EMS; and
Chief McAvoy from City of Naples. So I know they're -- just as I,
they're very proud of their personnel. I hope I didn't miss any of our
Page 23
February 13, 2007
chiefs that came in.
Commissioners, I wanted you to be aware that while we are,
indeed, celebrating the accomplishments of these men and women, our
paramedics and our first responders, one of our own has suffered a
tragic loss recently. Last week Battalion Martha Ginter, Marti, lost
her husband Dale to cancer last week. Many of our responders could
not be here this morning, as they are with Marti, who is receiving
friends this morning.
Dale was also a member of the Golden Gate Fire Department,
and many folks also remember Dale as one of our first road rangers on
Alligator Alley.
So we know that between Marti and Dale, they probably have
over 45 years combined experience in emergency services. And as
you know, they will truly be missed, and we ask you to please keep
Marti in your prayers today and in the future.
I know that Marti and Dale would like for us to celebrate the
success of these outstanding men and women who have worked so
hard in their profession of emergency medical care. You know,
you've heard me say it's one thing to be in the lifesaving business. It's
quite another to be a lifesaver, and that's what these men and women
are today.
So with those thoughts -- and I'm sure that Marti's desire for us to
move forward and recognize these individuals, I'll ask Les Williams,
our EMS training division, to read the names of our Phoenix Awards
recipients. They're going to come up and join you with a photograph,
they're going to go back downstairs to the EOC and receive their
actual Phoenix Award.
And I know, too, Commissioners, you would also like to
recognize the families of these paramedics who support them in their
endeavors to do well in Collier County.
So Les, if you'll read the names.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, Les Williams, Collier
Page 24
February 13, 2007
County EMS. I'm going to read all the names and have them come up,
and we'll save the applause till last. We'll make a brief comment and
save the applause till last.
From Collier County EMS, we have Kenneth Haberkorn. Come
on up as I call your came. Guy Spieth, Richard McGee, Bruno Lovo,
Christian DeBiasi, Christian Quintana and Patricia Dixon.
From City of Naples Fire Department, Mark SanAngelo.
From North Naples Fire Department, Zak Jones.
From East Naples Fire Department, John Hoover, Harry Zafiris
and Kevin Nelmes.
Golden Gate Fire Department, Matthew Zaleznik, Jeffrey Roll
and Justin Beasley.
And from the Marco Island Fire Department, Dean Heasley, Ray
Ladurini, Albert Munoz, Dustin Beatty, James Jay, Jerry Adams,
Daniel Fernandez, Brian Franklin and Donny Jones.
The citizens and visitors of Collier County have truly received
world-class patient care due to the dedication, desire and
determination of the local law enforcement, fire departments and EMS
personnel.
Commissioners, county personnel and visitors of today's meeting,
I am honored to present to you today's heros.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: I think we got it.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Gentlemen, thank you very much.
Item #5B
RECOGNIZING CHRISTOPHER ATCHLEY, CRAFTSMAN,
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
FOR JANUARY~ 2007 - PRESENTED
Page 25
February 13, 2007
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next presentation is a -- is a
recommendation to recognize Christopher Atchley, a Craftsman for
Facilities Management, as the Employee of the Month for January
2007.
And Christopher, if you could come forward, please.
Commissioner, we'll get them. We'll get them for you. You can give
them to them from the dais, if that's okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can do it from down there. You can
stay up there.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Christopher Atchley, Craftsman for
Facilities Management, was selected as the Collier County's
government Employee of the Month for January 2007.
Chris is always upbeat and energetic in whatever job he is
assigned to. He treats each department like they are his only customer,
even though he has assignments all over the county. Chris responds
quickly to any work order that is submitted and often comes by at the
beginning of the week to check and see if the department will need
anything done that week.
You can tell from Chris's fantastic attitude and constant whistling
while he works that he takes great pride in his job and is always
willing to do the extra things that are asked of him.
Chris exceeds expectations in not only completing the assigned
task, but also checks back in case something else is needed at the last
minute. In the past 36 months, Chris has received over 21 letters of
appreciation and commendation entered into his personnel file. The
letters are from various individuals and organizations throughout the
county and the State of Florida.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present to you Chris Atchley,
craftsman, facilities management Employee of the Month for January
2007.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. One more, Chris. Hold
Page 26
February 13, 2007
it. We have somebody -- is that your wife?
MR. ATCHLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you on behalf of the
. .
commISSIoners.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, our next presentation is a
recommendation to --
(Applause.).
Item #5C
RECOGNIZE MIKE OSSORIO, CONTRACT LICENSING
OFFICER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENT AL SERVICES, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR
FOR 2006 - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Next presentation is a recommendation to
recognize Mike Ossorio, Contracting Licensing officer, Community
Development's Environmental Services, as the Employee of the Year
for 2006.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Mike Ossorio, Contracting License's Officer in the
Community Development's Environmental Services Division was
selected Collier County's division Employee of the Year.
As one of the four contract licensing officers working for Collier
County government, he manages and directs all matters pertaining to
Collier County licensing ordinances, researches, inspects, investigates
complaints and educates contractors about licensing requirements,
policies and procedures.
In 2005, Mike cited 289 unlicensed contractors and fined them
$86,700. Additionally, he mediated numerous cases between
homeowners and contractors and was able to collect and return
$154,517 to homeowners who were engaged in contract disputes.
Page 27
February 13, 2007
In addition to responding to client complaints, he worked closely with
the City of Naples Building Department to check job sites for
unlicensed activity and contractors working without permits.
He also meets with local contractors to update them about changes in
state laws and insurance requirements.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present to you Mike Ossorio,
Contracting Licensing Officer, Community Development's
Environmental Services' Employee of the Year, 2006.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mike, congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thanks again. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5D
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE WASTE REDUCTION AWARDS
PROGRAM (WRAP) TO RECOGNIZE BUSINESSES AND
INSTITUTIONS FOR ENHANCED AND INNOVATIVE
RECYCLING PROGRAMS - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to our next
presentation, and it's a presentation by the Board of County
Commissioners for the Waste Reduction A wards Program, WRAP, to
recognize businesses and institutions for enhanced and innovative
recycling programs.
And Mr. Dan Rodriguez, your Director of Solid Waste, will
present.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you.
The mandatory non-residential recycling ordinance by the Board of
County Commissioners, in -- July 27th of2004, established a Waste
Page 28
February 13, 2007
Reduction Awards Program, the WRAP Award, to recognize
businesses and institutions for enhanced and innovative recycling
programs.
On behalf of the public utilities division, solid waste management
department and the Board of County Commissioners, we are pleased
to recognize Imperial Healthcare for their efforts to contribute to the
greater good of all of Collier County by helping to prolong the life of
our landfill by recycling and reducing their solid waste stream through
enhanced recycling programs.
Their recycling program began with the cubic yard of cardboard
recycling container. The program was expanded in early April 2006
by adding eight 96-gallon commingled recycling containers to collect
materials such as newspaper, office paper, magazines, plastic and
aluminum cans.
Additionally, the company contracted with a paper shredding
vendor to place the secure documents into locked containers to be
recycled.
Imperial Healthcare promotes source reduction by using
nondisposable dishware such as drinking mugs for individual
healthcare patients. The healthcare facility practices waste reduction
by buying items in bulk, which reduces packaging. The housekeeping
staff recycles all the plastic from laundry detergent and cleaning fluid
containers.
Imperial Healthcare is an outstanding example of an institution
that manages all -- that manages an excellent recycling program that is
in compliance with the non-residential mandatory recycling ordinance.
The WRAP Awards program includes a certificate, atrophy, the
use of the WRAP logo, and space on the www.Colliergov.net recycle
website to showcase their waste reduction and recycling program;
therefore, on behalf of the county commissioners and the solid waste
management department, public utilities would like to congratulate
Mr. Raymond Adkinson, who's present here today, the maintenance
Page 29
February 13, 2007
supervisor, and the staff of Imperial Healthcare, for their continued
support in promoting waste reduction and recycling. Their efforts in
recycling leadership is a positive example to other healthcare
institutions and will have a significance effect on sustaining the life of
our county landfill.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Raymond, it gives me -- it gives
me great pleasure to give the business community this award on behalf
of the Board of Collier County Commissioners to Imperial Healthcare
in regards to you realizing the importance of saving our landfill, and
we appreciate the steps that you've come forward with in regards to
preserving our landfill and to keep a lot of these items out of the
landfill.
Thank you very, very much on behalf of the Board of County
Commissioners here in Collier County.
(Applause.)
MR. ADKINSON: I really didn't have anything planned to say
today, but I want to thank everybody very much.
Recycling's always been, you know, a big part, ever since I was a boy
scout. Recycling, saving the land for future generations is really
important.
And I want to thank Janet for noticing that we're doing our best
to reduce the waste and preserve the land. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5F
PROJECT PRESENTATION: IMMOKALEE ROAD EXPANSION
FROM U.S. 41 TO 1-75 RAMPS. A 3.5 MILE PROJECT.
Page 30
February 13, 2007
PRESENTED BY JOHN CARLO, INC - ROAD
ISSUES/CONTRACTS TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT A BCC
WORKSHOP MEETING; W/TRANSPORTATION AND
PURCHASING STAFF TO BE INCLUDED - PRESNETED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Move on to 5F, is it, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And that is a project presentation,
Immokalee Road expansion from U.S. 41 to 1-75 ramps. It's a
3.5-mile project presented by John Carlo, Inc.
MR. PETTIT: Chairman Coletta?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. PETTIT: Chairman Coletta?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
MR. PETTIT: Just -- Mike Pettit, for the record. I'd like to make
a comment.
The contractor in this matter has sued the county, and I think it's
great they're here to report on the status of the proj ect, but we have
disputed claims which we have been unable to amicably resolve up to
this point, and I would request that we not -- or recommend at least
that you not engage in discussion with the contractor about those
claims, which include claims for time and money on the project and
maybe focus on just the status of the project going forward.
Transportation staff and our office will report back to the board at
the time the case is at issue, which is when our response to the
complaint will be filed, which is going to be sometime over the next
20 to 30 days, and advise you of what we think the county's position is
at that point in time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Pettit. We'll keep that
under advisement as we go through this deliberation.
Yes, sir. We welcome you here today.
MR. CARLO: Well, it's good to be here. And I thought what I'd
do is just quickly go over the status of the job schedule-wise, and stop
Page 3 1
February 13,2007
me if I stray into an area that you don't want to talk about.
But the original days in the contract were 900 days. The original
completion date was, or is October 19, 2007. The additional days
we've requested is 316. The additional days granted to date is 81.
If you take the 81 days that we've been granted and add it to our
original completion date, our revised completion date currently is
January 8, 2008.
We've had in the area -- we also had in this contract milestones,
so the area between -- I'll just quickly run through these -- 1-75 to
Livingston, the original completion date was 11/15/05. The actual
utility relocation date, when the utilities were actually relocated, was
04/18/06, about five months after the original completion date.
The second area, Livingston to Airport, which we're currently
working in, the original completion date was 07/03/06. The actual
reloc -- utility relocation date was 10/15/06, approximately three
months after our original completion date.
I bring these up only to highlight, you know, one of the
challenges that we've faced on Immokalee Road that we didn't
anticipate.
Having said that, the procedure or the -- my plan going forward
is as follows: We've got the Goodlette-Frank project winding down.
As you know, we started final asphalt milling and paving last night.
We think that will be done in about 10 days.
Those crews -- we've already taken one crew from
Goodlette- Frank and put them on Immokalee, and our plan is to take
the remaining crews as they become available over to Immokalee
Road. So we're cautiously optimistic that we can finish the job in the
days allotted, including the revised -- the additional days granted.
The problem with that optimism is that it doesn't take into
account the reality that, you know, we've noticed -- I'll be frank here.
We've noticed in Collier County that on Immokalee Road in
particular, that much of the work that's proposed and shown on
Page 32
February 13, 2007
drawings for us to do, it doesn't appear that anyone has taken into
account the existing utilities that may conflict with it.
And that's a problem because then, if you can imagine, we're out
there thinking we're going to put in a water main and we find out that
there's something else there, and we have to stop and we have to go do
something. And that's really the major, major challenge on
Immokalee Road.
I'm a civil engineer. I used to work for a consulting company.
And if we, in the company I worked for, put out plans with the lack of
pre-engineering that Immokalee Road has -- and I -- forgive me for
being a little bit straight with you on this, but this is really a serious
issue -- we would have been fired en masse. This is just unbelievable.
It just appears like someone drew lines on a drawing and said, there
you go. And I guess we're supposed to know that you really can't put
it there because there's other stuff in the way. And just -- there you
go. I guess that's the project status as far as straight from my heart, as
far as I can --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have Commissioner Henning,
then Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm quite disturbed that
we can't communicate with a contractor to the Board of
Commissioners' card (sic) on a dispute that goes to the court, and the
only ones that wins is the attorneys, and the board needs to be aware
of the issues.
And we tend to find out these issues after it's well into the court
systems. And the only ones that really lose in this is the residents of
Collier County, my opinion.
I also am concerned about the utility mislocations on our
contract, and that's one of the biggest issues that drives up the cost of
roads and the delays of roads which is very frustrating for all. So
we've got to do something different, and I don't know what it is, and
Page 33
February 13,2007
I'm sure Commissioner Coyle will figure that out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Halas is next
though, and he'll probably beat Commissioner Coyle to the punch.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Norm, if you could step up to the
podium also. This has been an ongoing issue with just about every
road contractor that comes to Collier County.
Is this unusual for Collier County or is this something that other
counties also run into? And if you could give us a brief synopsis of
why we're running into these type of problems. I think everybody
needs to know what's going on here.
MR. FEDER: Yes, Commissioner. First of all, it is a little bit
unusual and, in some respects, not, and I'll try to clarify that.
First of all, in an example of a corridor like Immokalee, our
initial design going in there was looking at taking additional
right-of-way, which ended up in significant impacts to the businesses
along that corridor.
There was a redesign. As a matter of fact, one year's delay on the
design to go back and narrow up that corridor, and yet we've got an
awful lot of utilities in that corridor, all of which existed and all of
which new lines were set to go in for upgrading of all those utility
lines.
The growth area that Collier is compared to a lot, we are
experiencing a situation where just that happens. I'm trying to put in
the 30-inch water line where a 20 already exists today because of
demand of growth, and everybody's upgrading the utilities at the same
time.
In the area of Immokalee Road, that was designed earlier on.
There was some potholing done, but not a lot. We have taken, and not
just of recent date, but in projects and design, a lot more work on
potholing, but we don't have a lot of good data on where our utility
lines are, whether they be public or private, and those as-builts are not
reliable.
Page 34
February 13,2007
We send out in every design, as everybody does -- as DOT noted,
they ask the utilities where they're located, ask them to send that back
in the drawings.
The other thing we're finding is, because we're moving on a
second or third generation, actually, we've got a lot of abandoned lines
that no longer are on anybody's plans.
So while you go out and you identify that somebody told you you
have a line here, and you do some testing on that, more than we're
doing now, and find that, yes, while it's a little bit different than they
said, but we found it and we know what we're dealing with, or we
think we do, there are an awful lot of lines down there that no longer
are on anybody's plans or are being kept up, and unless you dig up the
whole area, you don't know that those thing are there.
The other area is obviously relocation of utilities within the
right-of-way corridor. Since public utilities are allowed to put their
right-of-way -- their utilities within the corridor, they then have to
move those when they're asked to move them. They give us plans, we
work from that. But it's a non-profit center. That's not the area that
they're focused on when they're trying to focus on other issues for
their own expansion, their own utility progress. So that's something
we're constantly fighting to try and get those issues addressed.
So what I can tell you is we've done some things already to try
and get more information. But I can also tell you, what part is not
unusual is to have a situation where you encounter surprises where
something is not quite to the depth that it was supposed to be because
it's not even across the whole corridor.
So even if you do some potholing or found out that, yeah, this
seems to be generally where we said it was located and, therefore, it
should be all the way through, that's not necessarily the case.
Somebody encounters a little bit of rock, they make a shift, they go a
little bit differently.
That's a lot of what we're finding that is not unusual. What we're
Page 35
February 13, 2007
finding unusual is the lack of good as-built plans. We're keeping those
records. We're now working on all of our right-of-way permitting
where we're updating those records because they change very quickly.
Once these utilities are put in laterals, which is the connections from
development, are quite often a lot of the conflicts, and that data wasn't
out there very well from all the private development connecting into
the utility system.
So we're keeping that data, we're getting good as-builts. Weare
doing additional potholing, but we are still going to be finding
surprises when you dig up under the ground.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are you telling me that our past
historical references to where these utilities were placed were not
really properly signified?
MR. FEDER: As I was told by one utility, Commissioner, when
they told me they were on the west side of the roadway, I finally
found them on the east side of the roadway in the construction project.
And they told me, well, we were within the right-of-way, weren't
we?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's move--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one more question to ask,
Mr. --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then we're going to go on to
Commissioner Coyle, and we'll come back to you if you have more
questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One other question. This is to the
contractor. Do you find that doing business here in Collier County is
more difficult than other counties in regards to the items that you just
brought up before the commission?
MR. CARLO: I would have to say yes. That's the crux of the
matter. Like Norm says, you anticipate some problems. I mean, you
just do. It's underground. You anticipate that there are going to be
some conflicts for the reasons Norm mentioned, but it just seems to be
Page 36
February 13, 2007
all over. Everywhere we go there's a conflict or a pipe there that
nobody knew about, and yeah, it is -- it is more pronounced in Collier
County, I would say, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you blame this on prior
recordkeeping?
MR. CARLO: I would say that's got to be it. As a former civil
engineer consulting, that's got to be what they rely on is former
records, and they're just not there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think we are aware of this
problem, that's one reason we set up this series of briefings so that we
could hear from everyone involved in these projects. It is a serious
problem.
I think it goes beyond just recordkeeping at the -- at Collier
County government for the utilities we're responsible for. It goes to
people who have utilities that we have no responsibility for, and that's
what I would like to focus on.
We have an obligation to get our act cleaned up with respect to
recordkeeping, and if we -- we certainly can't go back in time and
correct all of those records at once. What that means is we're going to
have to do a better job of relocates. It means trenching the entire
blasted corridor, I don't much care, but we've got to solve that issue.
But now tell me -- I have two questions only. One is, how many of the
utilities that caused delay on this project were the result of third parties
over which we have no control?
MR. FEDER: A significant portion of the delay both in their
moving the utilities in a timely fashion and in what they identified as
locates versus what we found, and they're not identifying other lines
that they had that they no longer operate or maintain record for.
MR. CARLO: I'd agree with that for sure.
Page 37
February 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now that's Florida Power &
Light, it's telephone companies?
MR. FEDER: It is Florida Power & Light, it's ComCast, it's
Teco, it's Embarq, it's -- anybody that's a utility is in that corridor.
And in fairness, they've all grown very fast. They've abandoned lines,
put in new lines, and the recordkeeping wasn't there.
And to your point, which is extremely well made, we have to do
something about it. We started out with requiring -- and at the end of
projects we're getting good as-builts, but it can't stop there.
You, just last board meeting, approved some shift in personnel
that I've made, which is to take my locate section, which was in
traffics ops, to take my right-of-way permitting, which was in
stormwater, and my survey crews, which are also in stormwater, bring
them all together in road and bridge where the actual final product
needs to be maintained and where all my records are being kept.
We're working through a process right now to make sure that
we're taking those as-builts, we're getting all the information. And
instead of identifying something out there and saying on a locate, well,
I don't know what that is, but anyways if it's not on the plans, it's being
flagged so that we're starting to try and find out what's down there for
when somebody else starts working in the corridor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, when I'm having
work done at my house, as an example, ComCast, telephone
companies, anyone else who has utilities there, they will come out and
they will mark where those are located. Now, if we run into
something in an area where they have not identified it, it seems to me
that it is their obligation then to repair that. Now, we can't solve this
right now but I think we need --
MR. FEDER: I understand where you're going.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We need to start talking about
responsibility here and --
MR. FEDER: They--
Page 38
February 13,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- we ought to have them come out
and mark the location of their lines, and if we're constructing in an
area where they have not marked any lines and something is cut, it is
the responsibility of that particular utility, and the same thing applies
for the county. If we have marked out something there and we have
not identified it properly and it is destroyed through construction, we
ought to be responsible for fixing that.
MR. FEDER: And Commissioner, I fully appreciate that. To
date, the inference has been the right to use the right-of-way puts the
responsibility back on us. And I agree fully, if we had a franchise
situation like a municipality, we have a lot more control over that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's see what we can do legally in
the future to try to get better control of this, because it is a serious
problem. It's not going to stop now. It's going to occur on every road
project we're building.
MR. FEDER: We agree. And I'd add to that even another item
that I've asked legal to look at as well, and that is, for these utilities, if
they have either not moved in a timely fashion to the plan that they've
given us that we provide to the contractor ahead of time or if they
don't provide us a schedule when we request one, if they're X
percentage behind or X percentage days behind giving that, that we no
longer issue right-of-way permits.
While they have the right to be in our right-of-way, we have to
issue a permit for work so we know where it is and have a chance of
trying to record that as an as-built, well, we maybe look at whether or
not we have the option to tell them no more right-of-way, get that
project caught up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to jump in here for a
moment. I think we've got some very good thoughts going back and
forth here. I don't think it's totally -- the guilt falls totally on the
contractor. I think the responsibility comes back on this very
commission to see that maybe we do a better job of working these
Page 39
February 13, 2007
things out ahead of time.
What I would suggest -- we're not going to solve this problem
here today. That's beyond our means. We'll be here all day long and
we're a bunch of amateurs when it comes to something like this.
What I would suggest is that we have a staff workshop take place in
this very room, it can be televised as a public workshop. I'd love to
attend it. I'm not going to force my fellow commissioners to be here.
But I would love to see a workshop take place where we can start to
hash all these issues out.
If this man has got a lawsuit against us, it's for a very good
reason. We have had lawsuits against us before in the past. We want
to make sure that we're at least doing as much as we should do, what
other counties do, to be able to keep these contractors coming into
Collier County to build roads. We can't afford to be without one more
contractor. We don't have enough to get the roads done as it is.
So let's get this workshop planned, a staff workshop with the
contractors. I'd be more than happy to attend. I'll invite my fellow
commissioners, but it won't be a mandatory commission workshop,
and maybe we can hash this out and come back with some solutions
that will work for everyone.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, we looked forward to that and we
agree that this ought to be discussed more in a workshop setting.
What I will do, just as a follow-up to the item here -- I do want to note
that John Carlo is progressing well on Immokalee Road. They are
bringing the other resources and coming in, and we anticipate, as
they've told us now, that will be the first of January, which would fall
within what we've already agreed are days, and the time frame.
And so I don't want, in all this discussion, that to be lost, that
they are moving well on that project. And we're going to continue
working with them.
One other issue we have is milestones and liquidated damages.
We'll bring those issues to the board as well --
Page 40
February 13,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good.
MR. FEDER: -- as we've discussed with them based on
completion of the job.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Henning had it
right when he said, the only one that gains from these lawsuits is the
attorneys.
Do my fellow commissioners agree that a workshop is in order?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning,
you've got the last word, then we're going to move on to the next item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. But I think it's
appropriate for our meetings for the contractors to come in and tell us
where they're at and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I still --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and where's the roadblocks. I
don't think it's out of line for us to get educated along with the
residents and hopefully get some direction.
But here's the thing. I don't know about these contracts that we
have with the design professionals on designing the roadway. I don't
know exactly what the responsibility is, and I think it's more
appropriate for the Board of Commissioners to direct the county
attorney to take a look at those contracts and see what the obligations,
not only on this road, but all the roads under construction and in the
past, on what their obligation was on utility locates. If these design
professionals got paid for location of these utilities, it's a disservice to
everybody that we don't hold them accountable.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's something that could be done
in the workshop setting and brought back the final results. We're
going to be here forever trying to get to the bottom of this today. Let's
let a workshop condense the material down to something that we can
get our arms around and then take it from there.
Page 41
February 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we give the direction to the
county attorney to take a look at those contracts today?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't see any reason why not, and
bring it back to the workshop to be able to incorporate it in the whole
thing to come back to us with. That sounds like a wonderful idea,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would support that guidance.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, if I could, I'd also recommend that
purchasing as well as legal and transportation be in on that workshop
and thoroughly discuss the issues --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we're all in agreement with
you on that.
MR. FEDER: The only other thing I'll add, Commissioner, is to
the comment -- and I know I'm getting on turf here, so I'll look at staff,
I'm not going to assume that because we have a lawsuit that's valid,
I'm only going to tell you we'll work through the issues and continue
to do --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would expect that much from you at
least, from everyone, to be honest with you.
Mr. Mudd, and then we're moving on to the next item.
MR. MUDD: Let's talk about this -- I want you to go back a
little bit in your past. We came up with GIS and said, we need a GIS
system, and that was around 2000, 2001, because the drawings that we
were getting were all manual, were stored all over the county and
nobody had a central repository for same, and there were some
corrections that were done on manual plans and there was none on
whatever.
This county for three times prior to 2001 tried to bring GIS in,
and it failed because there wasn't a central repository. There is a
central repository, and it started in 2001. The board has started to take
corrective action, and every as-built that comes in also comes in as a
GIS file and that is now added to the overlays.
Page 42
February 13, 2007
What you can't find -- now, Commissioner, you're looking for a
solution --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know.
MR. MUDD: -- and I'm trying to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know that, and you incorporate this
into the workshop, Mr. Mudd. And I agree with you 100 percent,
GPIS (sic) is extremely important to be able to get to the final thing
for a final solution.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, and what I'm -- what I'm also
going to say is the fact that this board has taken corrective action in
order to start in 2000 and to bring those things forward, okay, and now
has a central repository.
What you don't have in that central repository are the paper
copies and things that have been stored prior to that time period, and
that, in a lot of cases, is your problem with your undergrounds.
Next was a comment that was made from the dais that this wasn't
brought in front of the board before. I believe Mr. Feder, six months
ago or seven months ago, put a picture on that overlay that had an
FP &L pole paved around on lmmokalee Road, and I believe --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who made that comment? I don't--
I'm trying to figure this one out, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: I believe at that juncture that it was brought to the
board's attention that there were some serious problems with utility
movements on this road, yes, sir, and there was. And so I just want to
make sure that the record is straight that, you know, we're not -- staffs
not trying to hold anything back from the commission, okay. We--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We didn't say that, Mr. Mudd. We're
the ultimate responsibility it falls with on this commission, and we're
directing you to do a workshop and bring all these things into play,
condense it down to the point where we can make logical decisions.
And I think that's the direction to go. So let's go on to the next item.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 43
February 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much for being here
today.
MR. CARLO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're looking forward to working
with you.
Item #5E
A PRESENTATION FROM THE U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE REGARDING THE USE OF THE PANTHER
CONSULTATION AREA IN REVIEWING LAND
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN COLLIER COUNTY -
PRESENTED; RECOMMENDATION FOR U. S. FISH &
WILDLIFE TO SEND AGREEMENT AND NOTE WHERE
UNDERPASSES THAT ARE NEEDED TO THE BCC AND TO BE
PROACTIVE; USF & W REP. STATED THAT PANTHER
MITIGATION IS TO BE REVIEWED ON A CASE-BY-CASE
SITUATION IN REGARDS TO FEES; RETURN IN 4 MONTHS
FOR PRESENTATION - CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have a 10 o'clock time certain.
That is 5E, and it's a recommendation to hear a presentation from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the use of the panther
consultation areas and reviewing land development activities in
Collier County.
MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to take a moment to get the briefing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. If it's going to take a few
minutes, why don't we take a break and come right back, and then we
won't have to take a break at 10:30. Would that sound agreeable?
Give him a few minutes to set up?
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Page 44
February 13, 2007
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for being here, Paul.
MR. SOUZA: My sincere pleasure. Thank you again for having
me. It's good to see you all. I hope the new year is treating you well.
What I would like to do today is to have a follow-up discussion with
you on a question that was of concern, and that has to do with our
panther consultation under the Endangered Species Act. I'd like to
offer you a brief outline of our discussion.
First I'd like to just quickly touch upon the wealth of natural
resources in Collier County. I'd like to briefly describe for you the
role that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services plays in the Endangered
Species Act implementation.
I'd also like to provide a little bit of context for you about this
issue in particular, Florida panther conservation. I firmly believe this
is the greatest endangered species challenge that we face in the
country today, and I do believe also that we're all in this together in
finding positive solutions.
With that I'd like to focus on some keys to conservation success.
I really believe that to be successful in this most difficult of
conservation questions, we must find creative ways to work together,
and I'd like to offer some ideas in that regard.
I would like also specifically to talk about the issue that we
discussed when I was here last, and that has to do with the panther
consultation area. We did take a hard look at the most recent science
that's available in an effort to help to clarify our process.
In the end what we want to do is to provide a process that is very
clear to people so that people have a sense for where panthers
predominate, what type of projects will impact panthers, and how we
can avoid and minimize those impacts, because that's really the key
and central part of our job, finding a way to ensure that, despite the
growth we're facing in Southwest Florida, in Collier County, in
particular, we can protect enough habitat so this endangered animal
Page 45
February 13, 2007
can persist.
As you all well know, Collier County is blessed with a wealth of
resources. There are many threatened and endangered species listed
under the Endangered Species Act that my agency is entrusted to
protect. This slide shows you three. The bald eagle, the Florida
panther, and the manatee.
I'm very pleased to say that the bald eagle is one of the most
significant success stories that we've had under the Endangered
Species Act. I believe my agency is now in the final stages of
preparing information that will help us de-list this bird altogether from
the endangered species list, a wonderful success story, and I really
think it helps us all remember and focus on what is the most important
goal, and that is recovering these species to the point where we no
longer have to worry about them from a regulatory perspective under
the ESA.
The Endangered Species Act is a very unique environmental
statute. It was passed in 1973. Its goal was to identify imperiled
species nationwide and to set up a framework that will help to recover
them. Again, de-listing them being the objective.
A couple of the key provisions that I know are of interest to you
are section 7 and section 10. These are the regulatory tools through
which we review proposals that could have impacts on panthers and
other listed species.
Section 7 deals specifically with federal actions. For example,
the Corps of Engineers has a significant role to play in Southwest
Florida, and really all of Florida, because it permits development that
occurs in wetlands so that federal action triggers the Endangered
Species Act review.
Section 10 focuses on private actions that do not have a federal
nexus. So if somebody wants to do something that would have an
impact on any listed species, we would review it under section 10 and
complete something called Habitat Conservation Plan.
Page 46
February 13,2007
The purpose of these reviews is to take a hard look at the
proposal at hand, to consider the impacts of that proposal and its
indirect effects in the context of the species' condition as a whole and
make a conclusion about whether that particular impact and its related
impacts will jeopardize survival and recovery.
So, really, these tools are a safety net allowing us to maintain the
species at current levels in an effort to use the other tools ofESA and
the other partnership opportunities we have to recover the species.
Just to provide a bit of context. I believe that Florida panther
conservation is amongst the greatest challenges we face in the country.
There are roughly 80 to 100 animals left in the wild today. That is a
very small number.
And I think it's critical to understand that this is an animal that
requires a tremendous amount of territory. A male home range can
span up to 200 square miles. So we're talking about an animal that
requires really a significant amount of space in South Florida.
Another point I want to focus on quite a bit today is vehicle
collisions. One of the most significant causes of death for panthers is
getting hit by cars. This is particularly a concern in Collier County,
which I'll talk about in greater detail.
Panther conservation keys for success. I see, quite frankly, some
cynicism when I talk to people about the prospects for the Florida
panther. And I am optimistic by nature. I personally have more hope
than many I talk to, and I think it's because we have successes to be
proud of.
If you were to turn back the clock 10 short years, the Florida
panther had maybe 20 or 30 individuals left. It was on the verge of
extinction. Through some management activities and partnership with
the State of Florida, we brought some Texas cats into the population.
It was very carefully controlled so as to not swamp the genetic
integrity of the panther.
What we saw was a dramatic rebound, and the population has
Page 47
....~, ......... I'
February 13, 2007
tripled. There are challenges associated with that, which I'll get to a
little bit later, such as panthers and humans on the interface of panther
habitat.
Seventy-five percent of panther primary habitat is protected
today. We have a strong foundation from which to work. Where we
need to focus our efforts in South Florida is the remaining 25 percent
that, quite frankly, is some ofthe most valuable real estate in the
country. People want to live in this beautiful county, and beautiful
Florida in general. We need to find ways to get the right balance and
protect enough habitat to protect this animal.
ESA consultation. This was the real point of focus of our last
discussion. It became clear to me that people were questioning our
previous consultation boundary. Our previous consultation boundary
was, quite frankly, drawn in ways to make it clear where that line
follows. It followed 1-75 for a significant portion of the panther
consultation area. It followed water management structures when
possible, just so it was very clear to people where that boundary fell.
Since then we have obtained much better information that helps us
understand precisely where panther habitat is, and that is what we
reviewed in detail in part because of the attention you brought to this
matter.
In that old consultation boundary, we did see areas that had been
developed. Naples, we know, has developed quite a bit over the past
10 years and will continue to grow. And what we sought to do was to
help people clearly understand where that area that is most important
is found today. We obtained the best available science, two papers in
particular that were published in 2006, that delineated panther habitat
and panther usage.
Essentially what they did was look at aerial photographs and
identify the vegetation in the landscape mosaic of habitat that panthers
use on a regular basis. It also used radio telemetry. About 40 panthers
of the 80 to 100 panthers that exist today have radio collars. This
Page 48
February 13, 2007
means that they can be tracked periodically by our state partners.
By overlaying where the animals predominate and the habitat, we
were able to get a very strong sense for the most important places for
panthers.
I do want to be very clear, however, because I think there's a
critical element that I want to be sure people fully understand.
Panthers are a wide-ranging animal, and we have identified the places
where they predominate, but it is also true that they move outside of
these areas on occasion.
Right now, for example, we have a panther that is found very
close to the coast, and it is outside of the area that is designated as the
predominant panther habitat or our panther focus area. Under the
ESA, it is our job, it is our mandate, to protect these animals wherever
they are found.
And so when we have cases where the animals move outside of
these areas, we still must take care to review impacts that potentially
could affect them. That is simply our mandate under the statute.
It's also important to state that we see impacts outside of the areas
where panther habitat predominates and panthers are found that could
impact panthers. The best case I can offer you in Collier County is
that of traffic.
I'm going to move to the next slide here to help paint a picture for
you. What this slide shows is the panther focus area as defined by the
best available science, in that pinkish hue, and you can also see the
dotted line which represents our previous consultation boundary.
The dots that you see represent where we have had panther
mortalities from cars. And the best example I can give you that
describes how traffic, generated even from outside of this area
affecting panthers potentially, is road 951. On this map, road 951
demarcates the western edge and the southern portion of this panther
focus area.
We had a panther that was killed on this road in 2006. We had a
Page 49
February 13, 2007
pan -- two panthers that were killed on this road in 2005. And quite
frankly, it stands to reason, again, as I mentioned before, the panther
population is comparatively strong today.
Weare seeing panthers moving out into the fringes of their
habitat, and that's where we have issues. That's where we see
problems where that traffic comes into contact with panthers.
The point I want to make sure is, projects that will increase traffic
in or adjacent to the panther habitat area delineated here still must
receive review. We must do our best to avoid and minimize those
impacts and help to describe them in the context of the overall
condition of the animal.
Another wonderful example is Immokalee Road. You can see the
list of points immediately to the east of the town of 1mmokalee. This
is a key location where panthers have been impacted, not only last
year, but since 2000.
With a challenge lies an opportunity. We know that crossings for
panthers are extraordinarily helpful. For example, 1-75 has a number
of crossings that connect habitat south of 1-75 to habitat north of75.
Florida Panther Refuge, for example, Big Cypress National Preserve,
and state-protected lands, these have a record of success.
Where we can find opportunities to retrofit existing roads where
we know there has been a history of problems, we can help avoid a
future impact, and that future impact is critical. When you only have
80 to 100 animals, every animal matters.
In Collier County, just last year, we had six panthers that were
killed on roads. Last year, 2006, marks the greatest number of
panthers that have been killed on roads on record. We had 11 in total.
This represents, arguably, more than 10 percent of the entire panther
population. I think the gravity of this threat is very clear. 2005 and
2004 we had eight collisions in Collier County alone for panthers.
I'm very close to reporting that there is a new piece of science
recently published within the last couple of months that has identified
Page 50
February 13, 2007
these hot spots, if you will, these places where we have had collisions
in the past. This provides us a road map of where we might speak to
retrofit existing roads with crossings.
I would like us to consider -- I would be willing to lend my
support to this effort -- developing some kind of a partnership
agreement where we could identify funds, perhaps, through our
regulatory process, that could be used to provide crossings in these
key locations. I think this is a way we can partner and avoid a threat
together.
I think it's also critical to recognize that as development moves
further to the east, when we have new roads moving into these areas --
and we know we will -- fitting them with crossings at the outset is
critical. For crossings to be effective, it's more than just the underpass
itself.
We have to protect habitat on either side of that road, or else in
five years, development will encroach upon that crossing and it will be
rendered useless.
Another key attribute of successful crossings is having fences
that guide the animals to the underpasses so that they don't decide to
cross a road in a place that's dangerous.
Another partnership opportunity that I would very much lend my
support to, we already have the vestiges of a beginning in this regard,
very much thanks to the leadership of Commissioner Coletta.
Because we have more cats than we've had in the past, because
we have more development creeping into that habitat, we are faced
with a situation where we could have more interactions between
panthers and people.
I believe it is incumbent upon us all to do our best to help the
public understand common sense tips that they can employ to keep
panthers from coming into their property to protect their livestock.
We had what I believe was a very well-received public town hall
meeting a couple of months ago in Northern Golden Gate, and we
Page 51
February 13, 2007
helped people understand what they can do to avoid potential
interactions. We have another one scheduled for Thursday in
Everglades City, and I believe this is the beginning of a trend.
I think we need to find more creative ways to reach out to people
and help them understand how to live in this urban wildlife interphase.
One idea that I would like to share with you and would very much
love your feedback to see if we could partner in this -- we know
building permits come through the county. Oftentimes my agency
reviews proposed development actions that will impact these habitats.
Is there a way that we can work with industry, work with the
developing community and provide brochures that they could offer to
potential homebuyers to help them understand that this is a wildlife
interface, that there are steps we can take to help keep panthers away
from our property.
I will say this is a process that has yielded real benefits out west.
A friend of mine moved to Colorado recently, and when he walked
around neighborhoods with his realtor, it was a common subject that
there are mountain lions in the area. We need people to understand
that when they purchase homes in these locations, there are wildlife
realities, and equip them with information they can use to keep
panthers out of their property when possible.
I will say this is very timely. I was very pleased to see Governor
Crist showing leadership on this issue. Recently he announced that in
his budget he has offered to have a public affairs officer that would
help people address issues when panthers come into their
neighborhoods. This person would be dedicated basically as a
communication source to the people of Collier County and elsewhere
where panthers may be found next to residents.
On my end, I very much would like to show leadership on this as
well. I very much would like to hire a public affairs officer that will
work on this at least in good proportion. I cannot commit to it yet
because of budget issues, but it is something I sincerely hope that I can
Page 52
February 13, 2007
make happen in the near future, adding to that state level commitment.
It is my hope that these are a couple of small steps that we can take
together to help people live in the urban wildlife interface
successfully.
I do want to applaud the leadership you've shown in the past on
this idea of a Habitat Conservation Plan in Collier County. I know
that you have a working group that is still hard at work to sift through
issues.
I want to reiterate our commitment to this process. We have
continued to be a regular contributor toward finding whatever solution
might work for the county. It is not my role or our agency's role to
impose that on the county, but I do believe it is our role to help
provide information that you all can use to make the decision that
works best for the people of Collier County.
A multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan that identifies where
growth is going to occur, that identifies the potential impacts to
panthers and other species will allow us to do the up-front work to
identify what would need to happen to offset those impacts. It would
provide a number of benefits, as we've seen in some places, that I
think could be very welcomed in Southwest Florida as well.
For example, by completing this up-front work, by looking at the
big picture, we can help streamline the process later on. The standard
process follows in a project-by-project review. And as a result, when
the new project comes to the floor, we deal with it.
If we can look strategically together at the future, I think we can
do a better job of helping to do the up-front work necessary, to do the
conservation work necessary, so that five years down the road when,
quite frankly, the regulatory environment may be significantly tighter,
every time panther habitat goes away, I think it makes the remaining
panther habitat that much more significant.
So by focusing early, by focusing now, we can help to provide
assurances in the future that will allow the needed development that
Page 53
February 13, 2007
we all recognize move forward in a way that's consistent with panther
conservation.
I hear from industry all the time, what they're after is a clear
understanding of what the rules of the game are. They want to know
early in the process what the expectations are. They want to know
that we are going to complete our review in a timely fashion. So an
HCP is one way where we could help to provide that surety for the
people of Collier County.
Again, ultimately, this is the county's decision, but I stand here
prepared to provide whatever information I can to help you make
whatever decision you choose.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm going to -- we have a
number of commissioners that wish to speak, and I'm going to ask my
fellow commissioners to please keep their questions limited to three at
one time, then we'll come back to you so we can keep a rotation going,
because there's a lot of people that want to speak.
First Commissioner Halas, them I'm going to take the opportunity
to speak after Commissioner Halas, and then Commissioner Fiala,
then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess I have three questions, so I
better make sure I phrase these correctly. You talk about leadership.
If you could do me a favor, could you go back to the slide that was in
the beginning of your presentation on the historical area that the
panthers roamed.
MR. SOUZA: Be happy to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Go all the way back. There
we are. Isn't it interesting that you represent the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife, okay? You're telling us that it's our responsibility to come
up with the funding to protect these animals. Let me tell you, I'm
probably one of the biggest conservationists on this board, but I'm
going to tell you something. It's not left up to us.
If you want to preserve them animals, it is up to the U.S. Fish and
Page 54
February 13, 2007
Wildlife to either go out and purchase the lands that they need to
protect so that they take that -- those lands out of production for
development. And you owe the people that own those lands the right
to go out there and buy that land or else let them take -- let them build,
and you have to figure out the solution to these panthers.
If you look at this whole range, nothing was done by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife until they got down here to Southwest Florida, and
now it's our problem.
Sir, I got a problem with that. I think that you got to step up to
the plate and open up your wallet. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that was great. I didn't hear
three questions, but we're going to cut you off there and go right to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's enough.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- myself. That was very passionately
said. Paul?
MR. SOUZA: I'd be happy to comment, if you'd like, or
otherwise we could go to questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I don't think it was a question.
I think it was more of a comment. So why don't we just leave it at that
for the moment and then later I'm sure you'll have --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: See ifhe's going to come up with
some money.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's true. Now, one of the
things I did find encouraging in what you did say is you did mention
funding coming from your department. And that's wonderful, and
we're going to be going to Washington very shortly, Commissioner
Halas and myself, along with members of staff and some -- one
member from the City Council of Naples.
One of the things I'm sure we're going to be asking about is how
we can possibly fund to protect this national treasure from the national
treasury rather than to become the burden for the residents solely of
Collier County.
Page 55
February 13, 2007
And, you know, everybody here, I think, wants to see the panther
thrive, they want to see it be successful; however, you know, we're
also concerned about our ability to be able to meet the needs of our
population.
Such things as roads. It's a big thing, and I appreciate you're
getting a little bit closer, where we need to be, on this Habitat
Conservation Plan. I've been one that's been very critical in the past
about it, and I have to tell you that I'm still -- I got reservations.
It would be -- my problem is the fact that I don't want to see it
open ended where all of a sudden somebody can come in and identify
some small little plant or reptile or something that may exist that's
slightly different than the rest of it, some small microcosm that existed
everyplace in the world, and use that for a reason to be able to stop a
needed road that has to serve Collier County.
There has been some examples. And I'm very concerned about
the town of Immokalee. We'd had an effort going forward there for
years to try to bring this place up by the shoestring. We've been doing
a hand-up to them, not a handout, trying to get them going, finding all
sorts of incentives to make it work.
And recently we lost out on a large plant coming in. Because of
the panther study that had to be done and mitigation that was going to
take forward (sic) and the length of the study, they gave up and the
whole thing went away.
Now we have Habitat for Humanity who's trying to provide
affordable housing right there next to Farm Workers Village, and
we're being told it's going to be $5,000 per unit for them to be able to
proceed to be able to pay for panther mitigation.
Paul, this is the problem. We've got to be able to somehow come to
some great understanding on this to get this from point A to point B in
a meaningful way.
I do like the idea of a public affairs officer that's going to be
working at all times with the public and taking the ideas back and
Page 56
February 13, 2007
forth to try to get things going. That's a positive note.
Meanwhile, we do have some people from Immokalee. I know they're
going to want to speak, so I'm not going to elaborate any more on that.
From that, we're going to go to Commissioner Fiala, then we're going
to go to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. My question just was
concerning the Immokalee Airport. And that was a devastating blow
to us here. There's a huge swath of land all fenced in, nothing can get
in there at all and yet we aren't able to move forward with an initiative
that was very important to that community.
And I was wondering what you are going to be doing to address
something like this in a more reasonable and responsible fashion.
MR. SOUZA: Well, I think that's a wonderful question and,
quite frankly, it is not clear to me that my agency's action was the
cause of that regrettable departure. Nonetheless, I will tell you that we
are committed to moving forward with our reviews as quickly as
possible.
And I encourage you, if there are issues that you believe on a
specific project are being troubled, are slowing down the process, to
call me. Quite frankly, it wasn't clear to my office that this was an
issue with Immokalee Airport, and I think that if we could turn back
the clock, our agency could have, perhaps, done something
differently.
Again, it's fundamentally not clear to me that our action alone
was the real issue there, but I do not mean to pass blame. I am
prepared to work through issues in the future if there are timeliness
questions that people are concerned about. I just urge you to call me,
have someone at the county call me, and we can work through issues
together.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Also members of the chamber of
commerce and the master planning committees all can communicate
with you. We know that, Paul. We appreciate you keeping the lines
Page 57
February 13,2007
of communication open.
Commissioner Fiala, I'm sorry. Are you -- did you finished?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I didn't mean to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I didn't want to cut you off.
Commissioner Coyle, then we go to Commissioner Halas and then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'll try to be briefer than the
other commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You'll try.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do have a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was pretty brief.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You were the champion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- brief statement, and then I have
exactly three questions, which I'll give you all at one time and then let
you deal with it.
I am very encouraged by the things you have had to say. I am
encouraged that you have come here to work with us on the solution
of a very, very difficult problem.
You understand that Collier County, through our Growth
Management Plan efforts, has already preserved over 100,000 acres in
Collier County of environmentally sensitive land and that now the
total amount of Collier County that is permanently preserved from
development exceeds 80 percent. There's not much more we can do to
increase the habitat that is available to panthers.
So here are the questions. Number one, the Fish and Wildlife
Service frequently issues take permits based upon the health and
viability of the species on a statewide or national basis, yet we have
species in Collier County we want to protect even though there might
be plenty of them in other areas. How do we deal with that?
Secondly, since we don't have any more land we can purchase or buy
Page 58
February 13,2007
__ I mean, we're doing it all the time. We're taking land out of the
development cycle, but we don't have huge amounts of land to
contribute to panther habitat.
So rather than us having to spend lots of money in mitigation for
land somewhere that has, perhaps, marginal benefit, can we use that
money to build underpasses for panthers to avoid the traffic on the
roadway, which appears to be the significant issue?
So rather than spending our money on something that has only
marginal benefit, can we spend our money on something that has a
substantial benefit in reducing the number of deaths of panthers on the
highways?
And number three, we're involved in the Habitat Conservation
Plans, as you've indicated, but we're also involved in developing
Watershed Management Plans, and these plans have to be coordinated.
It is going to take us a long, long time to pull together plans for all of
the protected species.
Now, we were starting to do this incrementally so we'd get
something on the ground quickly, and your agency discouraged us
from doing that, so now we're working on all protected species. Very,
very difficult problem. It's going to take years and years before that
gets to be a reality.
So I'd like for you to respond to those three questions, if you
would.
MR. SOUZA: I will do my best. If I forget one, please --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'll refresh your memory.
MR. SOUZA: Your first question had to do with protecting the
wealth of other natural resources in Collier County. I will tell you I
firmly believe that the best way to conserve any resource is to do so
before it's imperiled, and I believe that this is the way we get the
greatest conservation gains.
The Endangered Species Act was created to deal with the species
that really are in the direst condition, and this is the wrong time to be
Page 59
February 13,2007
focusing on another issue. If we could have thought strategically back
when the panther was in its entire range and created a network of
protected lands, we wouldn't have been in this position.
My agency is entrusted with helping to protect a host of
resources; threatened and endangered species is one subset. In South
Florida, the area I manage has 68 of them. It takes a lot of our time
because it's very litigious and it just is, quite frankly, difficult. We
face these difficult questions like the panther in other parts of South
Florida as well, although the panther, I believe, is the most
challenging.
My agency can provide you technical assistance for other
national resource conservation. We work hand in hand with the State
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission which also can
do the same. So I guess I would submit to you, if we can help you, if
you're interested in conserving other species as well above and beyond
threatened and endangered species, I say, thank you for that leadership
and let me know how I can help.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You didn't get to a number of the
questions, but I'll just restate them, and if during the course of our
discussion today you can answer those, it would be helpful.
The issue about contributing any mitigation that we might be
contributing specifically to building underpasses under the roads for
panthers rather than buying some parcel of land somewhere, that has
only marginal benefit, if that.
MR. SOUZA: I think that this is an option that we can consider.
I think that in specific cases, yes, along the lines of the idea that I
mentioned, perhaps, we can develop an MOA that would allow a
crossing fund to help retrofit these other existing roads where we've
seen impacts.
I do want to state, however, that habitat loss is the greatest threat.
And I hear what you're saying, 80 percent of Collier County being
Page 60
February 13, 2007
protected and 20 percent left potentially to be developed. I think we
need to think strategically together about the remaining places that
really are most important.
About a year ago a study was completed that helped to identify
the panther dispersal corridors that basically are the common paths
that panthers take moving from the southern part of the state up into
Hendry County north of you and up to the Caloosahatchee River. I
think we need to sit down together and identify those areas that are
absolutely most important and focus our energy on those places.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we have done that with our
eastern land stewardship area. I think all that was developed with the
panther migration patterns taken into consideration. We used the data
that was available at that time.
But that's -- thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, thank you very
much. What we're going to do is, I want to just keep us on schedule.
We've got an 11 o'clock time certain. We're going to continue to the
end. We've got three people we're going to allow to speak for three
minutes maximum.
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Henning, then after the
three speakers, if you feel the need to make a final comment for
closing, then we'll do it at that time.
So Commissioner Halas, you're next, then Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that, obviously
you've already heard that we're looking at a bypasses road around
Immokalee, and we're already running into some problems.
I think the way to solve that problem would have that road
elevated, but obviously we can't exp -- we can't afford all the
expenses, so I'm hoping that through a working partnership, as you've
recommended, that there'll be some federal funding coming forward
so that we can build this highway and that the funds will come at a
Page 61
February 13, 2007
very rapid rate here and we can address this concern and make sure
that the highway is totally elevated so that we don't have any blockage
for the animals and we don't have to worry about putting up fences.
So I would hope that you understand that we need to get this
bypass road around Immokalee, 80 to 29, and that anything that you
can do to help get federal funding down here so that we can address
this. We can't burden this whole thing by elevating the highway
ourselves. We're here to work with you. You said it's a partnership.
So I'm looking forward to those dollars coming down to address our
concerns down here so that we can protect the wildlife, the panthers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very well put, Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thank you. What I heard
was a -- an opportunity to partnership with the Fish and Wildlife to
identify where these overpasses need to go, and I think that would be a
great tool to have, not only for transportation, but also requests for
land use changes that would affect a roadway crossing as needed.
I'm all in favor of that, and I hope before we end this
consideration that we can get there, and it is going to be a work in
progress of an interlocal agreement or a mutual understanding, and it's
going to be a benefit to -- the panther's not going away or the Texas
cougar, or whatever you want to call it. It's not going away from
Southwest Florida, so let's deal with it and make it a positive for our
citizens and community. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
That was very well put too.
Would you please call the first speaker.
MS. FILSON: Jennifer Hecker. She'll be followed by Fred
Thomas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please state your name for the record.
MS. HECKER: Good morning. Jennifer Hecker with the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and I'm here today to represent the
Page 62
February 13, 2007
Conservancy and our over 6,000 members.
First I'd like to commend the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
all their efforts to protect this critically endangered species; however,
we are concerned, and we're here to express our serious concerns, with
the revised consultation boundary.
The consultation boundary was originally intended, according to
a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000 letter, to quote, map the best
available and most recent information regarding existence and
location of the Florida panther, however, the revised consultation
boundary does not include many areas that panthers have been
documented to be present.
This should be noted in -- that also, this is in light of -- that the
presence data only represents about, currently, a third of the
population of panthers that are radio collared. It's accurate, but it's a
partial map of presence of Florida panthers in Florida.
Anywhere -- any area that panthers have been documented to be
present or a project within these areas has the potential to, in fact,
affect the panther; therefore, under the Endangered Species Act,
consultation should occur in all of these areas that panthers are
documented to be present.
Additionally, the Endangered Species Act requires consultation
to occur where indirect or cumulative impacts might occur. This is
such as road expansions or the like.
While we agree that panthers are not likely to use heavily
populated areas, panthers are likely to be impacted by increased
activity in these areas if panthers -- if there are patches of suitable
habitat present or if panthers have been documented to be present;
therefore, the Conservancy believes that the consultation boundary
would need to be greatly expanded based on best available science
and all data of presence in order to be compliant with the Endangered
Species Act.
Furthermore, we believe that Collier County is fortunate to have
Page 63
February 13,2007
these critically endangered species present in our county, and we in
Collier County share in that responsibility to responsibly steward the
panthers' habitat and to ensure that activities we permit do not further
jeopardize this critically endangered species' sustainability; therefore,
we'd ask for your support, your continued support in doing this.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Fred Thomas. He'll be
followed by Richard Rice.
MR. THOMAS: My name is Fred Thomas. Fred N. Thomas, Jr.,
from Immokalee, and I'm also, as many of you know, a wildlife
photographer. And you all -- many of you have seen my panther
pictures.
In the early '90s we changed the ecology of Collier County. We
changed it very significantly by building, putting in, orange groves,
most of them in the Immokalee area east of 29, ranging from the
Hendry County line all the way down to 858, and even below 858 east
of29. There's a couple of them that are west of29. Many of them
have been impacted by canker in the middle '90s and have been
changed to where you grow grass -- sod farms -- sod farms, and a lot
of the stuff that was Ave Maria was all full of canker.
Now, what is the significance of all these orange groves, and how
did they change the ecology? They changed the ecology because those
fruit trees attracted the wild pigs. Easy fruit, easy eating. Those trees
that are kept short by the farmers so they can be easily picked have
fresh young leaves for the deer. They have been attracted to these
areas in significant numbers, and the panther followed them because
that's their food supply.
And the reason why you have some attacks in the southern
Golden Gate Estates is the lack of their food so they've impacted some
of the domestic animals. We need to understand that.
Fish and Game and the rest of the folks that are concerned about this
Page 64
February 13, 2007
need to come up with some new tracking things so we can see what's
gOIng on.
And I support very much what Halas said, I think it was Halas,
that we need to have elevated roads. The elevated roads do two
things. Not only does it protect the panther, but you give some
drive-offs where people can enjoy the environment from above
without bothering them.
I mean, we put a bridge across the mouth of Chesapeake Bay so
people could enjoy the environment across the bay. We can do the
same thing down here.
I mean, if we do these other crazy things, we can do that. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Richard Rice.
MR. RICE: Yes. I'm Richard Rice, the Executive Director of the
Chamber of Commerce in Immokalee.
One of the things that concerns me is -- and I do commend you
commissioners for thinking about the growth pattern that's going to be
continuing eastward, and it's going to affect Immokalee over the next
few years.
We have to be prepared for it, and the time to prepare for it is
now. We need to be laying the groundwork that will allow this
growth to come in a good manner and not have to be playing catch-up
later on.
We've talked about the bypasses. Fish and Wildlife has already
come out in opposition of that bypass road because of the endangered
species. I'm concerned about another endangered species that hasn't
even been mentioned, and that's that migrant farmworker that gets hit
as those trucks go through our downtown area.
We have people that are maimed and killed because the truck
traffic is continuing to go through our downtown area and it should be
going on a bypass. That's one of my concerns.
Page 65
February 13, 2007
Again, I commend the commissioners for your thought -- for
your forethought. We welcome your input. We'd like to see a
partnership. We'd like to see it come out ahead of time instead of
against it right from the start.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
That concludes the speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Final comments, going down
the line, if you wish to speak again.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Let's just give direction
or ask the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to send a -- some sort of agreement
like was spoken and also identify the needed underpasses and send it
to the county commissioners so we can get it to our staff and see what
we can do for the future being proactive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Paul, you want to comment on that?
MR. SOUZA: I'd be happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That sounds like a wonderful
first step. There's a lot more to be done, but that's a wonderful first
step. Also I'd like to see you, on your own, take on working with the
Immokalee Master Plan and the EDC in Immokalee to see what can be
done in the long-range plans that are taking place there, get right down
to the grass-roots movements that are there and make it happen.
Possibly they may be able to schedule you in at one of the future
meetings to be able to make a presentation and start a working
relationship.
I'd like to see the ideas come back through them to us, myself.
Then again, too, any comments you can give to the commission
directly would being very much appreciated.
Okay. With that, we're going to move on to the next item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, my light was on.
Page 66
February 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see it. No, it's
not on so you can't.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you said you were going to
give each of us a comment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There you go. It's on now. Go ahead.
Well, you've got to push the button. If you're not quick enough, you're
not going to get to do it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Am I to understand that you're
proposing pulling back the original panther consultation area; is that
what this diagram is intended to convey?
MR. SOUZA: What the diagram conveys is our panther focus
area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. SOUZA: This is the place, based on the best available
science, where panthers predominate and the habitat conditions
generally support panthers.
I do want to be clear, however, projects that are outside of that
panther focus area that will impact panthers, whether it be that panther
that ventures outside of that area -- and we see it happen on occasion.
There's a panther, as I mentioned, right now along the coast -- or when
projects will have indirect effects outside of that area, in particular for
Collier County traffic. We have to review those projects because
that's a measurable impact under the statute that we must do our best
to document, analyze and see how it will impact the overall
population.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We need to pin this down. This is
very, very important. You will recall that our original concern was
that we were being required to spends hundreds of thousands, if not
millions, of taxpayer funds mitigating areas where no panthers had
been seen in many, many years.
Am I to conclude from your answer that we're going to have to
continue doing that?
Page 67
February 13, 2007
MR. SOUZA: There will be a case-by-case review based upon
the merits of the specific project outside of that panther focus area. If
it's within the panther focus area, it's very clear. If it's not, it will
depend on the actual impacts of that proj ect. If it will generate traffic
that will have a measurable impact on panthers, we must review it
under the statute.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You're saying to me that the
consultation area is not going to be changed?
MR. SOUZA: Well, what we've done, again, is clarify that
boundary. I think there was an understanding that everything within
that previous boundary required compensation for impacts. What
we've done is clarified that.
The answer is, no, that's not the case. The answer is, if it's within
the panther focus area, in all likelihood, yes, there is an issue. If it's
not, it will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis based upon its specific
impacts, and there may not be an issue, it may not be likely to
adversely affect, is the nomenclature we use, but there may be a
measurable impact, again, in urbanizing areas based on traffic that
could bring more traffic to 951 or bring more traffic to Immokalee
Road. And in that case, we would review it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm still trying to get to the
point of whether or not we're going to be obligated to pay mitigation
fees in those areas. Let's use this particular panther that is roaming
through East Naples and over to Keewaydin Island.
This is a relatively new occurrence. This panther might be gone
in another six months. Now, what are we supposed to do in the
interim? Does that mean that anyone who wishes to build a home or
any road that we wish to build in East Naples must be reviewed from
the standpoint of mitigation?
MR. SOUZA: It does not necessarily mean from the standpoint
of mitigation. What this boundary is, first and foremost, is a guide for
the Corps of Engineers. When the Corps of Engineers or any federal
Page 68
February 13, 2007
agency will have impact that will be in that panther focus area or
could impact that panther focus area or known sightings of panthers,
they forward it to us for review.
In the case of the panther that's down along the coastline, we
would review the proposal at hand, and we would have to make a
judgment based upon an analysis if we thought it would have an
impact.
In many respects, probably the answer is, no compensation
necessary because all scientists believe that that animal is simply
spending some time there and is going to move back into the panther
focus area at some point in the future. But we must review it under
the statute. The panther is there, and we have to, under the ESA,
consider whether that specific proposal will have an impact that's
measurable.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That panther is outside of the
consultation area as it is currently defined. Are you saying to us that if
there is a panther that goes outside the consultation area, that all
developments or all changes in use of property and all building of
roads and streets will be subject to Fish and Wildlife review when a
panther goes outside even the defined consultation?
MR. SOUZA: If a panther -- yes. If a panther is outside of that
panther focus area and we have a record of it, we must review it. The
question of compensation is fundamentally separate. We have to
review the merits of that proposal and the specific impacts and
determine whether we think it will rise to the level of measurable
harm.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me say to you that I think
you're getting us all into a lot of trouble. When the time comes that the
people begin to feel that they are being inordinately burdened for the
protection of a transient animal, you're going to find major resistance
to preserving the panther at all.
Now, we have to recognize one thing. There's a limited amount
Page 69
February 13, 2007
of land that we can preserve in Collier County for the panthers. It's
not going to expand much more. And we're doing everything we can
to protect that land here. If we make it more burdensome upon the
taxpayers of Collier County, you're going to find less and less support
for any kind of panther preservation or protection program.
We need to get this very clearly defined, because if you're telling
us that every permit right now for building a home or any road
building we're doing in East Naples or any public works development
we're doing in East Naples now has to go to the Fish and Wildlife
Service for review, which could take a long time -- we've seen that
happen -- there is going to be a substantial reduction in a commitment
to preserve space and everything else for the panther.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm sorry. Let me help a little bit
with this. You did offer to try to give the county that jurisdiction to be
able to do it, and we're going to try to work towards that end, or at
least look at the possibilities, which is a great way to get there.
Is there any --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't get that. I didn't hear that at
all.
MR. SOUZA: May I make one comment, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. SOUZA: I fully appreciate what you're saying, and, quite
frankly, this process that we have embarked on over the past six
months in partnerships since the last time I was here was meant to
help clarify this issue.
Where that boundary fell before, clearly, areas developed since
that time. What we have tried to do with this is use the best available
science, based on 2006 information to help us understand clearly
where the focus areas are going to be.
Yes, there might be a case where a transient animal moves
outside of that area, and the degree to which compensation would be
required if the project does not have measurable impacts from traffic,
Page 70
February 13,2007
for example, on that focus area, is going to be minimal.
I don't want you to leave with the impression that if an animal
travels significantly far away from this panther focus area, that it's
going to result in a six-month review process. That's not necessarily
the case. It is the case, however, if we have a project that is going to
increase traffic on 951 where we know there have been panther
mortalities recently, we have to consider that in detail.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have projects every day on 951
that are increasing. Are they being reviewed by Fish and Wildlife?
MR. SOUZA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All of them?
MR. SOUZA: Well, the ones certainly with a federal nexus or
the Corps of Engineers permit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, this is not clear to me. I did
not get what Commissioner Coletta said, that you will negotiate an
arrangement to let us make these decisions. I haven't heard that
anywhere.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wasn't that that Habitat--
MR. SOUZA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Conservation Plan that was going
to supposedly get us there if we could ever agree to that?
MR. SOUZA: Precisely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's years away. That's
years away. You're not going to have those plans put together
anytime in the near future. It's going to take a long time for those
things to be put together. What do we do in the interim?
Okay. I've belabored that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you've brought up some good
points. We don't have the answers. We're hearing the same thing over
and over again so we can understand it. We might want to look at
bringing this back again in another four months or so to see what has
changed and what -- maybe some of these concerns were addressed
Page 71
February 13,2007
where we start working towards that, and I'll leave that up to you if we
get through it, Commissioner Halas. Commissioner Halas --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- go on.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All I have to say is that we're here
to work with you. But if you want us to abide by all the rules and
regulations and it's going to be a burden to the taxpayers of Collier
County, I expect you to come here -- part of the partnership of the
interlocal agreement is going to be with a blank check to help us,
okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, would you like to see
this reviewed again in another four months?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we -- it sounds like
we're going to get some kind of an agreement. Why don't we have the
staff take a look at that. Also, it sounds like you could provide us a
map where underpasses are needed. Boy, what a great planning tool.
This is in the making of partnerships, so it's going to come back to us
through some sort of agreement with the assistance from the county
attorney and county manager.
I wouldn't give it a time frame. I would just say, let's do
whatever we can to make a workable document that we can move
forward with.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That sounds like a wonderful
idea. The only reason of a time frame is it makes people have an
objective to try to reach a place and time so that we can get it done.
That was the only reason I was suggesting four months.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we can't direct the agency
to give them four months to bring it back, I wouldn't imagine. They're
going to get it back.
Page 72
February 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do you want a report in four
months, wherever it is in the process, or do we just want to leave it up
to whoever is dealing with it to bring something back at a final point
in time, wherever it is? I'd like to hear something in four months,
myself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I think we could do
that through the county manager's correspondence during a regular
meeting, if we had information given to us. And, the thoughts of staff
and the county attorney.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, if we were going to do it with
correspondence, it's going to be limited, it won't be two-way, I would
suggest that you get that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: However you want to do it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would suggest if you want to do
correspondence, two months, then we can direct the county manager
at that point in time suggest correspondence, then direct the county
manager at that point in time what to do as far as an additional
workshop or to bring it back during the regular BCC meeting. That's
my thoughts. What's the thoughts of this board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think we need a workshop.
I just think we need another report back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I like the idea of time
limitation. People have to step up to the plate then because they know
when the reports are due.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They might.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So you'd like to see a time
limitation on it, four months, three months?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Four months is great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Paul, I mean, we should be able to
have a draft copy available before four months, I'm sure, at least some
Page 73
February 13, 2007
direction on this, and then we can come back and discuss it at that
time or through the county manager's office, present it to us for our
comments.
Okay. With that, Paul, thank you so much for being here. Do
you have any final closing comments?
MR. SOUZA: I just want to say, thank you again for taking the
time to focus on this very difficult issue. It would be my pleasure to
move these documents forward. I sincerely hope that we can even
broaden our partnership to these new ideas we've discussed today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we're looking forward to
working with you.
MR. SOUZA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, we have an 11 o'clock
time certain that we're going to go right to. I don't think we're going to
make the 11:45 time certain, the way it looks now. We'll see what--
how this develops.
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE COLLIER COUNTY'S
FISCAL YEAR 2008 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA-
APPROVED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10E, 11 a.m.
It's a recommendation to approve Collier County's fiscal year 2008
federal legislative agenda. Ms. Debbie Wight, Assistant to the County
Manager, will present.
MS. WIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners. Debbie Wight,
Assistant to the County Manager. You have before you a
recommendation to review the projects proposed for Collier County's
fiscal year 2008 federal legislative agenda and determine which will
be presented to the congressional delegation in Washington, D.C. for
Page 74
February 13, 2007
federal funding consideration.
The executive summary is four pages. I don't know if you have
had a chance to review all the projects. There's a list of nine of the
county projects in prioritized order based on our lobbyist
recommendation.
Here today is Valerie Gelnevatch (phonetic), our Lobbyist
Representative, if you have any questions on that recommendation,
and we also have the city's projects list of five, and City Councilman
Gary Price is here with us today if you have any specific questions on
those projects.
You also have as attachments briefing sheets on specific details
of those projects. We ask that you make a decision on which projects
you would like included on our list.
And that being said, do you have questions on the executive
summary?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Fiala first, then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just wondering if we asked
Marco Island if they had anything to add to it, the City of Marco
Island?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. No, ma'am, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. It's hard to tell the
difference.
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. But I made a mistake before. This is
a direct response to the joint city/county workshop where it was
brought up during the workshop that we tried to incorporate the city's
-- the City of Naples issues into -- into the county's priorities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: It does -- it does make it interesting -- it does make
it interesting for our lobbyists because the lobbyists work for both
cities and counties. But in this particular case, we have -- we have the
unincorporated portion of the county affecting some things in those
Page 75
February 13,2007
municipalities adversely in some regards.
And if the City of Marco had an issue where they wanted federal
funding, we would accept that and we would bring it forward to you
on the list. We don't try to not take what folks have. I mean, we had
33 items came up, one of which was the Gordon River dredging which
came up through staff through the environmental staff of the city with
Gary McAlpin as your coastal advisor all the way along the coast, and
that came forward and was processed right along with the whole issue.
It just so happens that project is not only in your county list, but it's
also in the City of Naples list.
One of the items on the City of Naples list, I will -- I will bring
out. And I had this conversation with Dr. Lee vis-a-vis email, and I'm
going to put up on the visualizer something you don't have in your
packet, not to complicate, but to try to get at a particular issue.
All of those proj ects that you see on this list have to do with
Naples Bay and in some way trying to make Naples Bay better. If you
look at those proj ects -- and I tried to lay this out for Dr. Lee last
night. I said, if you lay those projects out and you put them on a
laundry list and say okay, this is what you get, what you get from each
one of the congressmen -- and they only have one that represents
them, and that's Congressman Mack, or from a particular senator--
and they've got it merged together, House and Senate in order to get it
-- you'll get some part of that particular project.
So if it was -- you said you wanted $3 million for the broad area
south linear park and you had that whole list, you might get
Congressman Mack and/or the senator to get you half a million dollars
for that particular piece, and you won't get any other money because
you've tapped out what he can put on an earmark.
And that makes it very difficult to get through a $25 million
project. At that rate, if you're working the federal side of the house,
you're going to be out 75 or 80 percent of the cost of the project in
your municipality, you're in the county, and you're only going to get
Page 76
February 13, 2007
about a 20 percent cost share with the feds.
If you can get the proj ect authorized -- this is important. If you
can get the proj ect authorized in the federal system, okay, and you go
through that authorization, then the whole project and its synergistic
parts, some of which are itemized on this list, all become eligible for a
65/35 cost share; 65 percent being paid by the federal government
and 35 percent being paid by the municipality or the county.
So you get a bigger cut of that $25 million pie coming from the
federal side, and the federal side will give it to you, okay, in larger
doses. And it won't be held against Congressman Mack's eligible
earmarked money and/or Senator Nelson or Senator Martinez's
earmarked money that they have.
And so it's important that you realize that especially in that
project. Now, you have a project on your list called the Gordon River
dredging. Gordon River dredging was dredged by the Corps of
Engineers some years ago. It is a federally authorized project. That
means the feds have responsibility for O&M.
If you looked at that list, the federal-- Ferguson's breakdown of the
federal budget, you go to the Corps of Engineers, you'll notice that the
Corps of Engineers O&M has been increased by 25 percent over
where it was last year.
So there's a good opportunity here that you'll get all $3.3 million
out of the feds to dredge that project with little or no cost share from
the local sponsor because it is a federally authorized project and they
have an O&M responsibility because they've done it before and they'll
do it again, and it comes under the Small Harbors Act. So that's an
important facet.
What I would recommend in the Naples Bay project, instead of
approving that project, approve it as an authorization that we go after
the authorization and go after the bigger bite of the apple so that we
can really get something for our money and get some of our taxpayer
dollars back.
Page 77
February 13, 2007
So my recommendation is that you get eight appropriation
projects and you have one authorization. The one authorization
project you're looking for is the Naples Bay cleanup issue of which
this is a list.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I totally agree. I think we have
to do everything we can to get as much money as we can towards the
Naples Bay cleanup. This is so vitally important to the City of Naples
and to the entire county. So thank you for that advice.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Deb, is this the -- this is the
third year hiring a lobbyist in Washington?
MS. WIGHT: Second year, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This will be the second year?
MS. WIGHT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what did we get last year in
those efforts?
MS. WIGHT: Last year, sir, in FY -'07, we gave it -- there's an
explanation that -- on the executive summary. We did not get any
funding. There were -- there was $850,000 in earmarks in the -- in
three house bills. Unfortunately the earmarks did not --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. WIGHT: -- result in funding.
MR. MUDD: For the entire nation.
MS. WIGHT: No governments got any.
MR. MUDD: For the entire nation, all the earmarks got wiped
out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm willing to give another year,
but I don't want to be an employment center for lobbyists. And you
take my comment however you want to.
Number seven, I'm not in favor of an entitlement.
MS. WIGHT: The healthcare access, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. I want to -- my opinion
Page 78
February 13, 2007
is to take that off.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. Which one?
MR. MUDD: Healthcare access for the uninsured.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, wait a minute, before we do
that, I think we need a little more discussion on that. We need to have
a better description of it than what's in here. Exactly where was that
money entitled to -- to go, and what was out there that was going to
help you work with? And it's far from an entitlement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what this amounts to is
where we're trying to get federal funding to take care of people that
are going to end up in our emergency rooms that will be a lot better
off paying -- trying to acquire federal funding so it doesn't put a
burden on -- the end result is, I have to pay for it through my
insurance program.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Marcy Krumbine's here. She can
give us a briefing on it before we just strike it off as something that
isn't worthy.
MR. MUDD: It's on page 16 of your packet.
MS. KRUMBINE: Okay. This is part of the plan program, the
physician led access network. By the way, Marcy Krumbine, Director
of Housing and Human Services. And this is the program,
Commissioners, that you enjoy so much because the physician
community is donating over a million dollars worth of their services
for people who are uninsured or underinsured. And so this funding
would help expand the program.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's a tremendous program where we
have the industry stepping up and we're a partner in it to try to make
this whole thing work. This would go a ways to be able to cover so it
would be able to fit hand in glove with what's already being done out
there. Not all of the cost can be absorbed totally by the physicians
that are willing to do this.
And this program's been a tremendous success in Collier County.
Page 79
February 13, 2007
You've got -- you've got reports on it before.
Dr. Colfer, did you want to comment?
DR. COLFER: Dr. Joan Colfer from Collier County Health
Department. Yes, I would just support what Marcy said. We've had
members of the medical society here before you to celebrate the, over
a million dollars worth of free care that they've provided, and this
funding would help us to ensure that that program continues.
MS. KRUMBINE: And a final comment. When we did
showcase this program when the congressional -- when all the
different legislators came down, they were all in support of also
supporting this program and bringing it forward to the House and the
Senate, so they loved coming out and seeing what was being done.
This is a great public/private partnership with county playing just
a minimal role through the Collier County Health Department and the
Collier County Housing and Human Services Department helping
with staffing. But so much of this is really being done by the
community at large.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have enough support to keep
that in? I want to keep this moving forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have three nods, unless you want
to put it to a motion, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not going to support it. I
already gave my opinion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. We're there, thank you.
Thank you very much. I'm sorry. We're getting out of line here.
Commissioner Coy Ie was next, if I'm not mistaken. I hope I didn't get
out of order.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just had some questions.
The executive summary states that the Gordon River greenway
crossing and city-wide bike pathway system is already in the FY-'08
Page 80
February 13,2007
federal agenda. I don't see that anywhere in our FY -'08 legislative
agenda. The bottom of page 2, executive summary.
MR. MUDD: No. What it's basically doing is it's taking -- the
Ferguson Group is taking a look at the proj ects that the county staff
has gone through plus the list of five that the city has provided, and it's
basically saying that you -- that the draft FY -'08 federal agenda
already contains -- and that's the one they're talking about, the 1
through 9 -- already contains four transportation projects, and two of
the city's requests are also transportation projects, so you have six in
total.
And what they're basically saying to you is, you have two
congressmen. They're all going to get a bite, but they're only going to
get an appropriation that has to do with transportation requirement, all
right. And if you give them six proj ects to say, these are
transportation issues, you're only going to get one of them, maybe
two, funded, depending if they get another congressman's allocation,
okay, in the thing. They're only allocated --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I understand now, but let
me clarify something. Is it necessary that these be specific projects
that we're lobbying money for, or can they be transportation projects
in Collier County? Must we actually pin a label on them and put a
geographical determination on them, or can we just have
transportation and/or bicycle pathway projects in Collier County?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm going to ask Val to come to the
mike to help me a little bit. But in my experience that I've had -- and
it's limited, but it is experience -- they've always been specific to a
location when we've -- when I've gone and asked. But Val, maybe
there's been something that's different someplace.
MS. GELNEV ATCH: Okay, thank you. If I'm understanding
your question correctly, is it -- is the question, can all three of these
sort of bicycle/pedestrian projects be combined into one project?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
Page 81
February 13,2007
MS. GELNEV A TCH: Okay. Well, then let me ask you a
question. Do they connect?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not necessarily.
MS. GELNEV ATCH: Okay. Is it thought of in the county as
one big pedestrian/bicycle-friendly network?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We are always trying to link
bicycle and pedestrian networks in Collier County.
MS. GELNEVATCH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It might be many years before
we're able to get to that point, but what we wind up doing is creating
clusters of these kinds of networks throughout the county. Our
ultimate objective will be to tie them together, but my concern is, if
we have to -- have to treat these as discreet projects, we are always
going to be competing or have one proj ect competing against another
project, and I'm not sure that's the best way to deal with these things.
MS. GELNEV A TCH: Well, I think -- I think what you're
ultimately going to want to do, and particularly in this -- in this first
year of going after funding for that type of project -- we didn't have a
type of project like that on the list last year -- is in the initial year, I
think you do want to specify -- I know you do want to specify that,
you know, funding for this portion of the project is going to go to this
area.
As the projects develop and become, you know, as you've
suggested, probably into a more coordinated and comprehensive plan
of pedestrian and bicycle walkways and sidewalks throughout the
county, then we will evolve our briefing sheet and our discussions
with your congressional members to say, this has now become a
comprehensive plan throughout the county, and so funding could go
here or -- you know, or it could go there.
But you typically -- even if all of these were combined now, you
would typically phase your project and let your congressional
members know that, you know, for this phase in fiscal year '08, we're
Page 82
February 13, 2007
going to be directing funding here, and then in the out years we
anticipate that future funding, should it come, would go towards these
different areas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, then I'm
going to take a turn, and then we also have four speakers that we'll
allow three minutes apiece.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When I look at the list, we look at
archives technology. I think the county manager touched a little bit on
the subject of restoration of Naples Bay, and I have some concerns.
I wonder if there's any monies that could be allocated from the Corps
of Engineers to address cleaning up the Naples Bay, possibly
authorizations from the Corps.
MS. GELNEV A TCH: I think that's exactly what the county
administrator was describing, that rather than going for an
appropriation this year -- which actually is -- you've got the cart before
the horse.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. GELNEV A TCH: What you want to do -- what you really
want to do is to go after what's called a Water Resources Development
Act Authorization that authorizes the whole project.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does that also take into
consideration Gordon Pass dredging? Would that be incorporated, or
would that be a special issue?
MS. GELNEV ATCH: That would be a separate authorization
that, fortunately, already exists. So you've already passed through
step one, and now you can seek to draw down funding to go ahead and
dredge the pass.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ifwe have to -- if we have to pare
this down, I think that what I would suggest is dropping the archives
technology and putting on there the Naples Bay authorization for the
Corps for the restoration of the Clean Waters Act, so that's where I
Page 83
February 13, 2007
stand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I second your motion for discussion
purposes, okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And if I may?
The -- a couple of things that I'd like to note here is that the Gordon
Pass dredging, we already picked up on that. We did include that into
it.
The Bayshore Drive/Shadowlawn transportation corridor can
address something -- some of the city bike paths systems. So we're
picking up something in that with our original objectives.
My concern is that the Fleischmann Park Recreation Center, it's a
very, very noble and worthy project, no doubt about it, and we do
have to do something along the line, but it's going to be directly
competing with the Immokalee--
MS. GELNEVATCH: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- South Park Recreational Center
that has been in the works now and waiting in line for some time. And
if we have to share those funds back and forth, we don't have the funds
within our own system to be able to move it forward at that
expeditious rate. I think we need to concentrate on the Immokalee
issue, and then when we've got that settled, come back with the
Fleischmann issue the following year.
That's my suggestions. And your motion includes what is in here
at the top under Collier County's financial year 2008, federal
legislative agenda with the addition of Naples Bay added down there
as the -- what is that word there?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Authorization.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Authorization action.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, we're going to
go to the speakers and then we're going to go to comments from the
Page 84
February 13, 2007
commissioners before we take a vote.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My motion includes that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Call the first speaker. Three minutes,
and please state your name for the record.
MS. FILSON: Fred Thomas. He'll be followed by Vicki
Jenkins.
MR. THOMAS: Good morning, Commissioners. I have my hat
on as chair of your Immokalee Master Plan and Envisioning
Committee and your CRA advisory council at this point.
I want to thank you for leaving the Immokalee South Park Center
on the thing, and we have representatives from both the Weed and
Seed program and the Front Porch program along here with us who
were concerned about this issue in making sure it went on with
continued funding. We've been trying to find -- work very desperately
to find an opportunity to provide a recreational facility for young kids
who cannot get to our major facilities that are about a mile and a half,
almost two miles from this particular location, this high concentration
of low income families.
We really want to thank you all for your continued support for
those kinds of issues in Immokalee. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Vicki Jenkins will be followed by Richard Rice.
MS. JENKINS: Good morning. I'm Vicki Jenkins, and I'm
representing the Greater Immokalee Front Porch. Weare a new
non-profit organization that represents the residents of the south
Immokalee side, and our endeavor is to work with the agencies and
organizations in Collier County to improve the lifestyle for the
residents that live in that area in the South Park.
We do appreciate you having it on your agenda item for 2008,
and we wish that it is approved because it's well overdue. The
Page 85
February 13, 2007
residents there right now, they're using a dilapidated trailer that has
been there for quite some time and had some recent floor repair lately
__ well, last year after an incident that happened there.
The adults as well as the children would definitely appreciate
having a community center in our community so they have family
events that they can have somewhere decent to go to besides trying to
commute across Main Street and also having our youth walking from
the south side of town all the way to the north side of town. So we
really do appreciate you looking at this item and we just wish for
favorable results.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. JENKINS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Richard Rice. He'll be followed
by Terrie Aviles.
MR. RICE: Again, Dick Rice, Immokalee Chamber of
Commerce. We would urge that you continue to keep this particular
project on the agenda and go forward with it because we're talking
about -- as Fred mentioned, as Vicki mentioned, we're talking about a
group of young people who do not have the flexibility or the ability to
go to other parks in the area.
I Hope has been doing a great effort in Immokalee restoring
homes from Hurricane Wilma. We're talking about an area that has
been greatly impacted by not only the hurricane, but just by the nature
of the community, and we need to do everything we can to enhance
the recreational aspects of that community and to keep people focused
on what needs to be done. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Terrie Aviles.
MS. AVILES: Good morning. My name is Terrie Aviles, and I
am the Weed and Seed coordinator. Like the speakers before me, I
also ask that -- I thank you for keeping it on the agenda and ask that
you continue to support and ultimately fund this proj ect.
Page 86
February 13,2007
Weed and Seed has offered programs at South Park in the past. I
can tell you, there is a great need, and we would love and we are
excited at the idea of going back there and offering the same kids
more programs through parks and recs., through a partnership with
parks and recs. So please consider and move forward this item.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much. That concludes
the speakers.
At this point we do have a motion on the floor by Commissioner
Halas and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's summarize that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which items were included and
which items were not included?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go to page number 2.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Got it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Collier County financial year
2008 federal legislative agenda, go down to legislative agenda,
remove --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Number nine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Technology--
MR. MUDD: Action technology, number one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- at--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Authorization.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- authorization action for the Naples
Bay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, Naples Bay restoration?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's number two off the city's
Page 87
February 13, 2007
list?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And number five -- their number five and
our number five are the same.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Same, okay. All right.
MR. MUDD: Now, I believe you came up with an idea, then I'll
let you vote on this and we'll talk just a second. I believe we need to
do some work for next year's piece.
And Commissioner Coletta talked about the following year
getting Fleischmann back on when the South Immokalee one comes
off, but I believe Commissioner Coyle hit upon it a bit of a jewel, is to
get those bike path issues connected in a bigger proj ect, and you
include part of the zoo property that we own now, and get it all linked
up and lay it out there as a project done in phases and lay the phases
out, and then we can go after a multi-year appropriation on that
particular project. And I believe you get it as one item instead of
having two separate, three separate, and you really get at the brunt of
the issue --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That could be the entire central
park --
MS. GELNEVATCH: And that's--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- recreation pathway.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All together as one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's next year, and I think you'll
find everybody very supportive.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have a councilman here
that I wish the chair would recognize to give us a little bit of input
before we go to a vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Price, forgive me for not--
MR. PRICE: That's okay, no problem. I appreciate the
opportunity and looking forward -- Gary Price, Naples City Council. I
appreciate the opportunity to be part of the process and look forward
Page 88
February 13, 2007
to our work in Washington. And I think so far we've shown the spirit
of cooperation in trying to work through these issues, and there are
many worthy causes, and I think -- I think we're doing the best we can
with what we have.
The comprehensive bike path issue is important, and I think we
touch on a little bit as our role of MPO, and we talk about it, but I
think we forward -- look forward to working with all of you to come
up with a comprehensive plan. I think it's critical. And maybe it isn't
a priority this year.
The Fleischmann Park issue is one we'll deal with. And
separately, I think the Immokalee proj ect is certainly worthwhile.
I'm here as a member of the city council to not only push for issues
that I have, but try to encourage when we're in Washington, support
for your projects. They're our projects. I see it as our projects. So I
just wanted to make sure that I extend that and look forward to our
cooperation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Councilman
Price. Next year I hope that we involve Marco Island and Everglades
City in this process also.
Commissioner Coyle, then we take the vote.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, just one final comment. I
would hope -- well, it's my understanding, we still will be working
with the city on the Fleischmann park issue. It seems to me that we
left our joint meeting with the understanding that we would continue
talking about what the alternatives were with respect to Fleischmann
Park, and they were, you know, everything ranging from the county
taking over Fleischmann Park to the county maybe making some
contributions or including them in our inventory of recreational
facilities. So we still owe the city, I think, a response on Fleischmann
Park. It doesn't -- it's not affected by this vote, but I think we still owe
the city a response.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree. Thank you for that.
Page 89
February 13, 2007
With that, no other comments, we're going to call the question.
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. And I thank
you.
What we're going to do, we're running close to lunchtime. What
I'd like to do -- the next item is going to be the Gawn Fishin property.
I'd like to call the speakers at this time. Then if they don't want to
come back after lunch to be able to sit through our deliberation, they
can do so. Does that sound fair? And then we could break for lunch,
because I've got a feeling we're going to be talking about it for a little
while, and I'd like to try to keep us on schedule as much as possible.
Item #10H
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE SPENDING UP TO $35,000
FOR APPRAISALS, PRE-CONTRACT EXPENSES, TO
AUTHORIZE A NON-BINDING LETTER OF INTENT,
COMMENCE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF
GA WN FISHIN, LLC PROPERTY LOCATED IN EVERGLADES
CITY AND APPROVE THE ATTACHED BUDGET
AMENDMENT - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: This is 10H. It's a recommendation to approve
spending up to $35,000 for appraisals of pre-contract expenses to
authorize a non-binding letter of intent, commence negotiations for the
Page 90
February 13, 2007
purchase of Gawn Fishin, LLC, property located in Everglades City,
and approve the attached budget amendment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, if we may, Ms. Filson, I'd like
you to call the Mayor of Everglades City first out of respect for his
title.
MS. FILSON: Mayor Hamilton. He'll be followed by Brian
McMahon. I can't read the last name.
MAYOR HAMIL TON: And thank you, County Commissioners.
I won't take your time here. I know you have a busy day, but I want to
bring up some issues here on that piece of property that's in
Everglades City.
Right now we are having -- actually we have never issued any
COs on that property. All the permits that's been permitted has been
pulled back.
And right now, there's a lot of issues that's not been cleared up
with these people, and at this time Everglades City, as mayor
speaking, that piece of property is condemned right now until we
decide -- it's got to go all back through the planning and zoning board
to see what we want to do with it. So that's where we stand with the
Everglades City property right now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MAYOR HAMILTON: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Is your light on from
before, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no --
MS. FILSON: -- is Brian McMahon.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- we have the public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Larry Block.
MR. McMAHON: Good morning, whatever's left of it. I'm
Brian McMahon. I'd just like to make quick comments on the Gawn
Page 91
February 13,2007
Fishin property. One of the uses of that property could be possibly a
launching ramp. I would just like to remind the commissioners that
the Water Management District have entered into an agreement as a
result of the 640 acres for the roads in the south blocks and have
verbally committed that they would assist us in construction of a
launching ramp. This would be an opportunity, I believe, to get the
Water Management District to assist us in financing whatever it is that
needs to be done. So please keep that in mind.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Larry Block.
MR. BLOCK: I've got a question. I am Larry Block, partner in
the advertising agency, Block and Block, but here as president of the
Naples Fishing Club; represent several hundred saltwater fishermen. I
think you all know that with the privatization of a number of ramps
and launch areas, there's less and less place for fishermen to put their
boats in the water.
I think it's interesting that they're advertising the new, the most
recent privatized ramp or boat launch area on Marco Island as
affordable for the average man. It's only $77,000 to keep your boat
there. I have a $3,500 boat, so I probably won't be keeping it there.
But we need ramps. A lot of us like to go fishing around
Everglades City. I met our commissioner, or head of our commission,
down there many times to fish before he was a commissioner, and it's
a great -- it's a great fishery. The area around Naples has become
worse and worse for fishing with red tide and some of the other
problems we have, so that areas down there's attracting more and more
saltwater fishermen, and a ramp down there would be absolutely great.
Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that concludes the speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner -- I'm sorry. Forgive me, staff presentation, yes. That
Page 92
February 13,2007
would be very appropriate.
MS. RAMSEY: Thank you. I just wanted to go through a
couple of slides that I had that -- first of all, the first slide shows you
the location and the boundary of the parcel that we're talking about,
and it is in the Everglades City area along the Everglades City Airport,
as you can see by the photo in front of you.
Excuse me just a second here. I've got fat fingers. I can't get it
out.
This is an aerial of the parcel looking from the Barron River in
toward the airport. And just a few general facts that we've been able
to pick up with the real estate property department, that it's about 52.9
acres. That parcel is kind of split into two with the road going in
between it.
The north side of the road is, about 19 acres have been cleared
and 14 acres of mangrove wetlands. The south side has two acres of
uplands, three acres of transitional, and then 15 acres of mangrove
wetlands.
Right now there's 815 feet of existing dock. There's 45 boat slips,
27 of them were permitted to be sailboats and 18 motorboats. There's
two partial buildings right now, and there's an eagles' nest on site.
The current zoning is a resident tourist zone, and its permitted uses are
marinas, boat docks, boat launch facilities, gift shop, recreational
facilities as well as residential.
This is the project site as it was displayed in a 1997, I think,
permit, and you can see the project site. This is the area that can be
cleared and the forest and mangrove wetland as it was sited for
development.
This again is an aerial that shows the eagles' nest, the partial
structures, the boat dock area as well as the airport. We've talked to a
number of different people about this particular site. Our number one
priority would be to utilize it for boating access to the public for
fishing and recreational activity, and South Florida Water
Page 93
February 13,2007
Management, as you heard earlier, could be a possible partner on this
particular parcel.
The Airport Authority has asked us to see if they could get
approximately three acres for some additional hangars at that location.
Utilities would like to see a recycle center down there, which would
require about one and a half to two acres.
Transportation is looking at it in the wetland area for some
mitigation opportunities, and Conservation Collier looked at it
yesterday as a possibility for preservation of the wetland itself.
And this is a view looking at a little bit farther out to show you the
access out into the island areas.
With that, I'm ready for some questions that you might have. If I
can't answer them, I have real property here as well that might be able
to help you through the process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll start with Commissioner
Henning, then Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I want to remind
everybody, this is -- this is not an action to purchase the property. It is
just to evaluate it. And I feel blessed that the mayor is here to tell us
some of the problems that we are not aware of, so I hope that we work
through those.
I'm going to make a motion to approve, and I trust the mayor will
be back to tell us his opinion about a potential use down there to
increase the activities in Everglades City.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe that's how I might find
out what's going on with that aging catfish down there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, at this point we have a
motion by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
Commissioner -- I forgot the order -- Coyle, then Commissioner
Halas.
Page 94
February 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd strongly support the motion. It
is not a motion to buy the property. We need to get all the details.
I'm a little surprised to hear that all the permits have been pulled back
and the property has been condemned, but we need to sort through
that.
There is a lot of opportunity for Everglades City and the county
and the taxpayers of Collier County here to benefit from this property,
so I strongly support the motion. We can't afford to just let it lie there.
We need to move ahead and investigate the possibilities and
coordinate closely with the mayor.
And with that, I'm ready to vote on it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me. I'd just like to say that
I'm glad that the county is looking at the -- looking at something of
this nature. We've lost so many marinas here, and it's getting more
and more difficult for people who own boats. We have to trailer these
boats.
And I'm hoping that not only can we rectify that particular
problem with the addition of the docks that are going to be located
here -- one thing that interests me is the fact that it's a deepwater
situation because we're going to have sailboats there. But maybe
eventually there can be some other avenues that we address the voting
public.
And at that, I'm ready to vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm going to make a comment,
too. I think one of the most important things that we've got to do here
as part of the deliberation that's going to take place is to work very
closely with the mayor and the city attorney to go through all the
avenues, unknown possibilities.
If we run into something that is a tremendous roadblock that
makes that impossible for one reason or another, then we bring it back
to this commission before we spend that 35,000 -- up to $35,000 that
Page 95
February 13,2007
we spoke of.
And I think that's just good sense. I don't think you have to make
that part of the motion, because I'm sure that if we come up against
something that's impossible, that we're going to want to consider our
actions.
But in any case, with that, any other comments?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor of the
motion made by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner
Fiala, 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, 5-0 to be able to go
forward and do a due diligence to see what's possible.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The recommendation by staff was to
approve spending $35,000 for appraisals and pre-contract expenses to
include the purchase of Gawn Fishin, LLC, property located in
Everglades City.
I will tell you one of the things that could come up is the new
Manatee Protection Plan down there because they have some concerns
to bring that up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Manatee Protection Plan
adopted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife is not to change it. That
happened last year. Is there something new?
MR. MUDD: There's something new that's on the horizon.
We'll get into it and we'll check on that. We're just trying to make sure
you understand.
Page 96
February 13, 2007
Three, authorize the county manager to sign the letter of intent
and approve the budget amendment. Those are the four things that are
there, and I believe your motion basically incorporated those. Just
wanted to make sure I got that clear.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was a part of my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And part of your second,
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You did understand. That's good.
Commissioner Fiala understood.
With that, you did very well. I've very proud of this commission.
We were going to break at 12 o'clock, we're right on schedule.
Is there any other business that we have to do on this particular
issue? I don't believe so, is there?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're done. Break for lunch. Be
back here at 1 :05. I gave you three extra minutes.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I realize that. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, ifhe could only say
something, we'd be all right.
Item #12B
BOARD DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
RELATING TO LITIGATION IN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
OF COURTS V. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AS EX-OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD OF THE
OCHOPEE AREA FIRE CONTROL & EMERGENCY MEDICAL
CARE SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT, NK/A THE OCHOPEE
Page 97
February 13, 2007
FIRE DISTRICT; LINDA T. SWISHER AND PAUL W. WILSON
CASE NO. 04-941-CA, CONSOLIDATED WITH BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
VS. DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NUMBER 05-953-CA
CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 05-1506-CA, NOW
PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - MOTION TO PETITION
THE COURTS TO PROCEED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE
(NOTICE OF PRIORITY) WITH A BENCH TRIAL - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I just did, rah, rah, rah. 12B, is it?
MS. HUBBARD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And who leads off? You,
Jacqueline?
MS. HUBBARD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please go ahead.
MS. HUBBARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jacqueline
Hubbard, Assistant County Attorney.
I'm here to speak with you about item 12B. Essentially let me just
tell that you where we are -- we have filed a motion with the court --
not a motion. We filed a notice to the Court indicating that in our
opinion anyway, this case should be a priority case, which means that
the Court should move it up on its agenda.
We have not yet heard from the Court. We filed a notice of trial
in early -- early to mid January. The Court indicated -- or the Court's
judicial assistant did indicate that there may be some time available in
July, which is quite a ways away.
We filed that motion, that notice of priority, shortly after finding
that out, and then a couple of days ago counsel for the clerk, David
Ackerman, filed a document indicating that the clerk also wished to
proceed in an expedited manner, but we haven't heard anything from
Page 98
February 13, 2007
the Court.
So we're just waiting -- we are essentially ready to go to trial.
Weare waiting for the Court to give us a trial date. We have been
informed that the trial judge is in a medical malpractice case currently
in Lee County. I understand that when that case began it was
expected it would take as long as five weeks. So that's where we are.
Weare essentially waiting for the judge to tell us when we will be
able to start the case.
Essentially, that's all I have to report to you today. Mr. Weigel
has a few other things he'd like to say regarding the case.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Jackie. As she indicated, we've
noticed the case as ready for trial, looking for expedited timing. It's
been a long time getting to trial. And additionally, initially when the
case was filed against the Board of County Commissioners sitting as
the Board of the Ochopee Fire District with the other two employees
of the county, Swisher and Wilson as separate defendants, our
response to the Court was, in fact, a trial by jury, and that has been
endorsed by the clerk's attorneys as well.
We believe at this point that through the exhaustive preparation
for trial, discovery that's been had, many, many depositions and things
of that nature, that the fact issues are ones that we think the judge
should decide, and looking for the board's endorsement, we would ask
you to consider a further request to reduce expenses which can be
considerable for the seating and utilization of a jury during trial, that
this board endorse that we have a bench trial, that is the judge decide
both the issues of fact and law and that a request -- that the clerk and
his counsel make a similar request to reduce the costs so that we can
get to the issue when we get to trial more quickly, less expensively of
what the clerk's legal responsibilities and limitations are.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I guess what I'm hearing is,
Page 99
February 13,2007
you need some direction, what the board prefers as far as whether it be
a jury trial or not?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, what we're really looking for -- that is
correct, what we're really looking for is endorsement from the board
essentially reaching party to party indicating that the board believes
that the case can be handled by the judge handling -- deciding both
fact and law and that the additional expense that comes from the
empaneling of a jury, working through a jury, which could take days
and weeks longer for a trial that we think is essentially legal issues
with little fact at issue, is a needless expense, and we would request
the board endorse that tack and that -- and a request that the clerk and
his counsel consider to make the same request to the Court.
If both parties so request, the Court ought to establish the case as
one for the judge alone. And we think that that's the smarter decision
at this point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thank you for the
clarification. It is my understanding, we were to go hand in hand over
to the Court's system and find out what the legal system says. So if
the clerk wants a jury trial and you're recommending a -- for the judge
to decide, to me, that's not going hand in hand, and maybe we could
hear from the clerk as -- if there's any compromise or -- I mean, I don't
mind a jury trial personally, but I want to do what all parties want to
do. I don't think we have to be indifferent on this issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Crystal?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Crystal, if you'd rather have the--
MS. KINZEL: Thank you, Commissioners. Our legal counsel is
here in the audience, and I'd probably prefer that they take that one,
but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to legal counsel, I'm
going to go to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'd rather wait until after the
public speakers have spoken, whoever -- whoever that might be.
Page 100
February 13, 2007
MS. FILSON: I have one public speaker, Steven Blount.
MR. BLOUNT: Good afternoon. Steve Blount on behalf of
Dwight Brock as Clerk of Courts.
I guess what I'm hearing is that they're proposing some sort of a
partial settlement offer, settlement of one of the procedural issues in
the case, and that is whether or not we are going to have a jury trial or
a bench trial.
We have not had a formal proposal up to now, so I don't know
my client's complete reaction of that at this time. We'd obviously
consider any settlement offers that we think would be beneficial to the
case and the taxpayers of the county.
You know, I think I have some opinions with regard to the
expense issues, and I think I would implore the commissioners, all of
the commissioners to pay particular attention to what's happening in
this case rather than just listening to what you are being told about
what's happening in this case.
Go look at the case yourself. And among the things I would ask
you to go look at is, look at the motion to disqualify counsel that was
filed by the County Attorney's Office, look at the 14-day trial that was
conducted in an attempt to disqualify counsel in this case, look at the
expenses that were spent on that, look at the findings that the Court
made at the conclusion of that motion to disqualify counsel, and what
you will find is that the Court disagreed with almost every single
assertion of fact that the county made.
And I think if you look at those things and you look at the
expenses that have been incurred up to now and how they were
brought about and the delays to now, I think that affects the response
to offers of this type and whether or not they're truly motivated by
expense factors or motivated in order to take a procedural advantage
in the case.
My off-the-cuff response is that I think the citizens of this county
are entitled to sit on a jury and that a jury is perfectly capable of
Page 101
February 13, 2007
hearing the issues in this case. I don't think it's a significant expense.
You're talking about a minimal number of challenges for cause.
We ought to be able to seat a jury in a few days. I don't see where it's
that big a deal. This litigation has been going on for three years. And
to come up now and say there are no issues of fact that are very
important so we can just go ahead and do a bench trial, I think, is a
little disingenuous, but my client will respond accordingly when we
receive an offer of a procedural settlement.
MR. WEIGEL: There may be more speakers.
MS. HUBBARD: Oh. Are there more speakers?
MS. FILSON: No.
MS. HUBBARD: Commissioners, I feel compelled really to
responded to the comments that were made by opposing counsel just
in the sense of relaying to you what at least our office believes to be
the truth about this matter.
First of all, the allegations for the disqualification of the clerk's
counsel was based upon many facts which led us to believe that the
counsel for the clerk was intimately involved, and I mean intimately
involved, with the transactions involving the $21,000 donation to the
Ochopee Fire District.
Let me just summarize this for you in terms of what is
uncontested.
First of all, the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, the
law firm that currently represents the Clerk, along with four other
attorneys that have been retained by the Clerk in this case, were also
the attorneys for the City of Everglades City.
Our Fire Chief, Chief Paul Wilson, received a donation from a
developer who had sought a development order from the City of
Everglades City. The city attorneys, Mr. Pires and Mr. Lombardo
from Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, admit that they drafted and/or
reviewed the development order.
The development order called for the provision of a fireboat to
Page 102
February 13,2007
the Ochopee Fire District. The Ochopee Fire District is a department
of the county. The Fire Chief is an employee of the county.
An agreement was drafted between the developer, the City of
Everglades City and our fire chief for the donation of $21,000 to the
purchase of a fireboat. The fire chief signed the agreement. The
mayor of Everglades City signed the agreement. The developer signed
the agreement.
The mayor of Everglades City has testified under oath that he
was of the impression that his law firm, Woodward, Pires &
Lombardo, which is the same law firm that currently represents the
clerk, had reviewed that agreement. His practice, he testified, was
never to sign an agreement that had not been reviewed by his lawyers.
His lawyers are the same lawyers that represent the clerk. They're the
same lawyers that discussed at numerous public meetings in
Everglades City about the donation of a fireboat to the Ochopee Fire
District.
This donation for a fireboat was never brought to your attention.
It was never placed on an agenda for you to approve or disapprove of
it. Instead, an agreement was drafted. It was handed to our fire chief,
he signed the agreement, and he put the donation into an account in
which volunteer donations are generally put into.
You hired an accountant, an independent certified public
accountant to review the matter. The public accountant, certified
public accountant who reviewed the matter, reported back that there
were no improprieties that he could see in that account, and he had
performed an accounting over the past five years.
The clerk's attorney, Mr. Anthony Pires, has testified under oath
that he reviews your agenda on a regular basis to see if there's
anything of interest that he needs to be informed about.
In January of 2004 Mr. Pires noticed that the Ochopee fireboat
purchase was on your agenda. He also noticed that on your agenda
was a motion to accept this $21,000 donation to approve the entry
Page 103
February 13, 2007
retroactively of the agreement that was signed by your fire chief.
When the agenda came before the county manager for discussion
__ and by the way, at all of those discussions a representative of the
clerk is present -- the clerk's representative informed the county
manager at that meeting that this matter involving the fireboat should
be pulled from the agenda.
The county manager then went into an investigative mode and
attempted to locate all the information he could regarding the matter,
and when the investigation ended, he turned over his documents that
he located to the clerk.
The matter was pulled from the February 10th agenda and it was
placed on your agenda for February 24, 2004.
The clerk's office was informed that it would be placed before
you on February 24, 2004. The Friday or the Monday preceding that
board meeting, the $21,000 was taken out of that account and
delivered by hand to the Clerk of Courts. And one day before you had
your board meeting to take up the matter, rectify the matter, make
peace with the clerk and even agree with the clerk that the money
should have been delivered to him, the clerk filed a lawsuit one day
before your meeting.
And in that lawsuit the clerk demanded that you turn over to him
the $21,000 that you had already hand delivered to him that Monday.
So we were sued by the clerk, and the lawyer that handled that lawsuit
was Mr. Anthony Pires, the same lawyer who represented the City of
Everglades City, who drafted the development order that called for the
fireboat, who reviewed our draft of the development order that called
for the fireboat to be provided to our fire department in Ochopee and
who filed the complaint against us.
Now, Mr. Blount likes to say that the motion for disqualification
took 14 days, and I challenge him that that is an inaccurate statement
that he has made. The judge in this case had very few full-day
hearings in that matter. There were many afternoons of two hours of
Page 104
February 13,2007
hearing or three hours of hearing or hearings that would be interrupted
for other matters relating to the case, and so that simply is not a true
statement that it took 14 days to try the motion of disqualification.
The other thing about the motion for disqualification, aside from
the fact that we believe it was well grounded in both fact, law and the
rules of ethics that govern the Florida Bar, because the clerk refused to
agree to any factual assertions by the county, every single fact had to
be proven, which led to an even longer motion for disqualification.
And ultimately, if you read the transcripts of that hearing, you
will see that the trial judge ultimately made a decision whether to
believe, by the way, county staff, who testified under oath, that not
only did Woodward, Pires & Lombardo represent the City of
Everglades City, draft the development order calling for the fireboat
and draft the complaint against the Board of County Commissioners
regarding that same matter, but that several years prior -- we're talking
middle '90s now -- this same law firm drafted the Articles of
Incorporation for the Friends of the Parks of Collier County, Inc., had
those delivered to the secretary of state, and essentially sat and met
with county staff and told them how to set up this non-profit
corporation, which became the umbrella groups for all these various
friends groups.
Now, the reason why the motion for disqualification was filed is
because you have all of those uncontested facts which led us to
conclude that under the rules of professional conduct of the Florida
Bar, when an attorney is that deeply involved in matters that are
currently in litigation, they should withdraw from representation in
that case.
Now, in this particular matter, not only did we point this out to
Woodward, Pires & Lombardo shortly after the litigation began, I
personally wrote a letter to them saying we intend to file a motion for
disqualification against you based upon certain facts, and we think you
should be given the opportunity to withdraw as counsel.
Page 105
February 13,2007
We were advised all along the way by one of the most
preeminent professors of law at the University of Florida, that in her
opinion, Professor Amy Nashburn believed, and believes to this day,
that in this particular case the motion for disqualification should have
been filed, was filed, and should have been granted.
Now, so it doesn't matter -- those are the facts as I recall them.
That's the law as I understand it, and I think we will be ultimately
vindicated on that motion because I don't see how you can try this
case without bringing in the involvement of these lawyers, if we're
going to get into factual issues.
But be that as it may, where we are right now is that the judge
has made a ruling, and that ruling is as follows: We asked the Court --
and I'm going to use some legalese here, and if you have a question
with any of it, please feel free to ask me about it. But we did file a
motion with the Court to bifurcate the case after it had -- after all of
these matters had been consolidated.
Our position has been that the essential nature of this lawsuit is a
legal one, that what the county wants the Court to determine is what is
the extent of the clerk's audit powers. And we sincerely believe that
what the clerk wants from the litigation, from statements that the clerk
has made -- because the clerk admits that he does not know what his
audit rights, duties, powers and obligations are under the Florida
Constitution and under Florida statutory provisions, and believe that
those are two issues that are issues of law, and the judge should be
able to decide those first.
So we filed a motion to bifurcate asking the Court to handle the
legal issues first and the factual issues, if any, second.
The Court ruled that what they would -- what he would do is
handle the quo warranto matter that we file, which we sincerely
believe is an issue of law, and that he will hear the clerk's matter
regarding the Ochopee account and the request for an accounting of
that account after the quo warranto matter has been decided, which is
Page 106
February 13, 2007
why Mr. Weigel and the office has made this request that you decide
to make a further request of the clerk that in the interest of conserving
money in terms of litigating and finalizing this matter, that we do
proceed with a bench trial.
I don't agree with Mr. Blount that a jury can be selected in three
days, but for every day that the jury selection occurs, the cost of all of
these lawyers will be accumulating. And I'd like to remind you that
the clerk has on record six different lawyers, six lawyers, working on
this case, where we have essentially myself and we have one other
outside counsel, that the clerk has outspent the county.
If you look at your defense of Paul Wilson, the Fire Chief, Linda
Swisher, his secretary -- and the only reason that you have to pay for
their defenses is because the clerk sued them in addition to suing the
county. If you add up all of the outside counsel expenses for all three
defendants, you will find that the clerk has outspent the county
three-to-one.
And if you look at the amount of money that has been spent for
outside counsel in the defense of the county, which is the part that I
am handling, you will find that the clerk, by his own admission, and
by findings that have been entered into by our outside auditors, he is
outspending you 10- to-I. Ten times more money is being expended by
the clerk in this case as against you, the commissioners. You've
expended about $102,000 in out counsel in this entire case, and
approximately 215- for Paul Wilson and Linda Swisher together.
It is estimated by our outside auditors that the clerk has expended
$1.1 million on this lawsuit. And the only thing we're requesting --
because we know that if you have six lawyers working on a lawsuit
and they're billing you by the hour, then if you're going to spend a
week picking a jury -- and I estimate it's going to take at least a week,
if not more than a week to pick a jury -- then you're going to be
paying for those lawyers who are sitting there picking that jury.
We have no fear of going to trial with a jury. We think that any
Page 107
February 13, 2007
right-thinking citizen in this county can hear the facts of this case and
decide that the county is correct. But in the interest of simply saving
more taxpayer money, the county attorney's requesting that the board
take some action and say to the clerk, look, we've expended this much
money, we think it's a legal issue, let's take it to the judge. We're
ready to go to the judge. And if we don't go to the judge, we're ready
to go to the jury, and I just wanted to tell you that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
MR. BLOUNT: Commissioner, if I may, rather than believe--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is not a court of law.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hey, hey, hey.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please sit down. Sit down. This is not
a court of law.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He said Commissioner Coyle.
That doesn't include you, does it?
MR. BLOUNT: I have copies of the court's order.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, sit down now or I'll have you
removed. Sit down or you'll be removed. I hope I didn't get nasty
there. I didn't mean to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You didn't get nasty enough.
Thank you very much.
I'm continually amused at lawyers who come here and tell us that
if we'll really look at the case, we will certainly agree with them. This
is at least the second time someone has insulted my intelligence by
doing that.
What do you think we are, a bunch of potted plants here? We've
been following this case probably a lot closer than you have, or else
you would know some facts that you're not aware of.
So we know the political -- or the legal wranglings that have been
going on here. We know how things have been manipulated. We
know what the issue is here. And I feel we need to resolve it as
Page 108
February 13,2007
quickly as possible. It's a simple matter of law.
So let's ask the judge to make a decision and interpret the law.
The clerk has said he doesn't know what his responsibilities are. He
said that clearly.
We don't know what his responsibilities are, and I don't care. I
just want to find out what they are. And then whatever they are, we
will abide by them, and I'm sure the clerk will abide by them. So let's
get this problem resolved, get it to the judge, let the judge rule on what
the responsibilities really are, and let's get on with it.
I am tired of postponing this thing. And we have not been
responsible for most of that. Just a bunch of legal wranglings. You've
complicated the process. You've changed the context of the case. It
morphs from one thing into another thing on regularity. It -- and it's
all been done purposely to complicate the decision-making progress,
and I'm tired of it. And our lawyers, I think, are trying to get a
decision and I'm trying to get a decision.
I guarantee you that the clerk will not agree to a bench trial. We
know that going in because they want to string it out, they want to
complicate it more by bringing in other factors that weren't introduced
in the beginning, they want to keep morphing this thing into
something different.
So I say, let's get it solved. I don't care which -- what decision is
finally made. I don't care if the law says that the clerk has
responsibility to overrule the Board of Collier County Commissioners
at his discretion. I really don't care. Let's just get it solved, because
that's what it's really all about.
So I'm in favor of directing our legal staff to proceed to get a
bench trial on this issue as quickly as possible. If there's anything we
can do as Collier County Commissioners to petition the Court to get
this done quickly and stop this ridiculous hemorrhaging of money
going to lawyers for --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second that.
Page 109
February 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the purpose of fighting a legal
issue that can easily be made by a judge.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I third it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have the -- thank you,
Commissioner Coyle. I think you addressed a lot of concerns that are
__ the concerns of the commissioners that are on the -- sitting on this
dais.
My understanding is that there's been a number of depositions
that's been taken, and I think that once this -- if this goes to the Court
and becomes a jury thing, I think it's going to end up like an OJ.
Simpson trial, and I'm sick of it. All I want to do is get this thing
taken care of, and it should be a bench trial, and that's where I stand.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And my comment is I
feel like I'm in a strange city riding around in a taxicab who's driving
around in circles to run the bill up, I really do.
And with that, if there's any more comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see none. All in favor of the motion
made by Commissioner Coyle and seconded by myself,
Commissioner Coletta, 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.
Page 110
February 13, 2007
MS. HUBBARD: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
Item #8B (Companion Item to #10A and #10B)
ORDINANCE 2007-26: PETITION PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6417
RONALD BENDERSON ET AL, TRUSTEE, REPRESENTED BY
ROBERT L. DUANE, AICP, OF HOLE MONTES, INC.,
REQUESTING TO REZONE FROM PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) KNOWN AS THE I-75/ALLIGATOR
ALLEY COMMERCIAL PUD. THE PROPOSED PUD
AMENDMENT REQUESTS THE FOLLOWING: TO REDUCE
THE SIZE OF THE PRESERVE/WATER MANAGEMENT AREA
FROM 15 ACRES CURRENTLY REQUIRED BY THE PUD TO
10.58 ACRES; TO DELETE RESIDENTIAL USES AS A
PERMITTED USE; TO PROVIDE A NEW LIST OF
COMMERCIAL USES COMPARABLE TO THOSE ALLOWED
IN THE C-1 THROUGH C-4 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, WITH
SIC CODES; MODIFY THE PUD MASTER PLAN TO DEPICT
THE FOOTPRINTS OF EXISTING LAND USES AND
CONCEPTUAL FOOTPRINTS FOR UNDEVELOPED TRACTS;
TO MODIFY THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM; TO ESTABLISH A
MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 265,000 SQUARE FEET OF
RETAIL AND OFFICE AREA; TO RELOCATE THE EXISTING
WESTERN ENTRANCE 50 FEET TO THE EAST; AND TO
DELETE THE 50 FOOT PERIMETER SETBACK. THE
PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 40.8 ACRES IS LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD IN PROXIMITY
TO THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR- 951)
AND 1-75. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN
SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
Page 111
February 13, 2007
COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA - ADOPTED
Item #10A (Companion Item to #8B and #10B)
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A DEVELOPERS
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (DCA) BETWEEN
BENDERSON, WESTPORT AND DAVIS CROSSING (THE
DEVELOPERS) AND COLLIER COUNTY TO OBTAIN RIGHT-
OF-WAY, EASEMENTS DRAINAGE COMMITMENTS AND
ADV ANCED FUNDING FOR THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF
DAVIS BOULEVARD - APPROVED
Item #10B (Companion to Item #8B and #lOA)
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A DEVELOPERS
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (DCA) BETWEEN
WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE VII (THE DEVELOPER) AND
COLLIER COUNTY TO OBTAIN PROPERTY FOR ROADWAY
WATER MANAGEMENT, DRAINAGE AND ACCESS
EASEMENTS FOR THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF DAVIS
BOULEVARD - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that takes us to a time certain item
of 1:05. We're about 30 minutes off on that one, but that's okay.
And this is a three-part issue. You've heard this before. It starts
with an advertised public hearing, it's item 8B, and it has two
companion items, which are developer -- or developer agreements on
lOA and lOB, and I'll read them all at once, and I expect that you hear
them in the context, and then vote on them separately. But understand
that 8B is an advertised public hearing.
This item was continued from the January 23, 2007, BCC
meeting. This item is a companion to items lOA and lOB, which will
Page 112
February 13, 2007
be heard in and around 1 :05 p.m.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's petition PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6417, Ronald Benderson, et ai,
trustee, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc.,
requesting to rezone from planned unit development, PUD, to
commercial planned unit development, CPUD, known as the
1-75/ Alligator Alley commercial PUD.
The proposed PUD amendment requests the following: To
reduce the size of the preserve/water management area from 15 acres
currently required by the PUD to 10.58 acres; to delete residential uses
as the permitted use; to provide a list of commercial uses compatible
(sic) with those allowed in C-1 through C-4 commercial districts with
SIC codes; modify the PUD master plan to depict the footprints of
existing land uses and conceptual footprints for undeveloped tracts; to
modify the circulation systems; to establish a maximum square
footage, 265,000 square feet of retail and office area; to relocate the
existing western entrance 50 feet to the east; and to delete the 50-foot
perimeter setback.
The property consists of 40.8 acres, is located on the north side of
Davis Boulevard in proximity to the intersection of Collier Boulevard,
County Road 951, and 1-75.
The subject property is located in Section 24, Township 49 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. Again, a companion with the
developer's contribution agreements at lOA and lOB, which I will read
now.
lOA, this item was continued -- also continued from the January
23,2007, BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to approve a
developer's contribution agreement, DCA, with Benderson, Westport
and Davis Crossings, the developers, and Collier County to obtain
right-of-way easements, drainage commitments and advanced funding
for the future expansion of David Boulevard.
Page 113
February 13, 2007
lOB reads -- this is also companion to lOA and 8B. It was also
continued from January 23, 2007, BCC meeting. It's a
recommendation to approve a developer's contribution agreement
between Waterways Joint Ventures, VII, the developer, and Collier
County to obtain property roadway management -- roadway water
management, drainage and access easements for the future expansion
of David Boulevard.
And I believe that Nick Casalanguida -- doing a whole lot better
with your last name -- will present these items, but you need to swear
folks in and you need to do ex parte, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Why don't we take the time at
this point -- would you please -- could I have everybody stand who
wants to speak on these subj ects and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And now disclosures
from the commissioner. And can we handle both items at the same
time as far as disclosures go? Any objections from the county
attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: No, just get it on the record and you're fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, can we start
with you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I spoke to Nick on the
DCAs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I spoke with transportation.
My big -- my big problem is always transportation, it seems, and I
spoke to them at length about that. I also spoke with Bruce Anderson
representing the developer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And myself, I spoke with Bruce
Anderson, staff and I received emails.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. I talked
Page 114
~'<l" ~'.'.;-
February 13,2007
with staff a number of times, both times in regards to this item, and I
have no other -- anything else forthcoming as far as ex parte on this
other than the staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have spoken with the petitioner,
the petitioner's agent, Mr. Bruce Anderson, and the staff concerning
this issue and the accompanying developer contribution agreements.
We discussed the transportation problems, the improvements that are
likely to be made, and the total costs to the government and the
contribution -- and the donations that are going to be made by the
developer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And if I could, please, when it
comes time to make a motion, I hope the motion maker would include
all three items under the same motion.
There's no problem with that, correct, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No, pardon me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Commissioners, Nick
Casalanguida, with Transportation.
I'd like to just bring you up to speed on what's happened since the
last meeting we were in front of you. First of all, I apologize. I said at
the last meeting I didn't bring you the best arrangement or contract
forward, and we've done a lot of work since that time. I can assure
you from the minute I walked out of that room, I was on the phone.
We've met with DOT to conform finances and the obligation that
DOT would commit to and a time frame for that. I had a meeting with
the Water Management District to go over the potential pond site and
how we could limit our exposure to that pond site, and we've done
some work on that.
Worked with the County Attorney's Office to re-craft the
agreements and discussion and business points, as well as met with the
applicants multiple times.
Page 115
February 13, 2007
We've done analysis on traffic to see what would happen if,
based on vested traffic, what increases to that roadway and the
circumstances that would follow based on that increase without an
improvement. And that didn't come out too well, so we know we were
stuck with doing something at some point in time.
What I'd like to point out to you now is what we have changed
since that day. Working with the Benderson and Alligator Alley
PUD, they've agreed to double the water management that they will
take into their project on the north side of the road and they've agreed
to donate the land at no impact fee credits to the south side of the road.
Savings from that alone is several million dollars.
Working with developer of the Mystique development, we
understood with meeting with the Water Management District that
we'd have to put some of that land in preserve and mitigate, so we
have an option contract on an additional three acres.
So for a total of 13, we will get some pond site through the
permitting process, and we're reasonably comfortable that that
exposure has been, you know, restricted and limited based on that.
They have also agreed to build the pond site for us in exchange for
permitting the excavation and the soil that's out of there. That is a
tremendous savings as well, too.
The developer has also agreed to install the pipes and the
structures at no cost to the county. We will just be paying for the pipes
and the structures. That is also part of the agreement as well, too.
The Benderson agreement has not been changed because some of
these modifications only recently happened in the last days, but I
would like to enter into the record that that agreement will be brought
back to you with donated land and double the water management, and
that agreement will be updated.
I'd also like to recommend that if you adopt the PUD, that
transmittal to the DCA of the PUD is subject to that agreement being
submitted to us, signed and executed by the developer.
Page 116
February 13, 2007
With the Mystique agreement, we have made several changes
and are ready to submit those into the record to the county manager.
And I've got to give credit where credit is due. Attorney Klatzkow is
my partner in crime in this, and I could not accomplish the things I do
without him helping me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Poor choice of words, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: According to the applicant. I think he
wants to bring me up on charges is what I was told, right, Bruce?
As far as changes to the Mystique agreement, we have optioned
out the option for the county to turn down that 10 acres if we can't
permit that. That's in there.
The road impact fee credits that we are giving in exchange for the
land is above what they could use, so we've allowed an assignment of
those impact fee requirements, which is typical, and it's all within the
boundaries of our ordinance.
We have optioned out an additional three acres of land in this
agreement at a fixed price, still below what DOT estimates the whole
site would cost us, so we're getting that at still a discount.
We have limited the exposure as far as how many units we intend to
take if we have to go with the additional three acres and outlined that
in the agreement as well, too, and we have agreed that the
development would be vested upon execution of this agreement. I
think it would be fair only to assume that if the developer's going to go
this far, he'd have some surety. Both agreements have that in there.
And again, the Benderson development has agreed that a
majority of their additional square footage will wait, not till a certain
time certain, but until the road is substantially complete, and so that's
in there as well, too.
I think, Commissioners, based on the analysis we've done on the
traffic that will be in the area, that that state road is in the heart of our
urban area and connects our network, that it's critical that we move on
this.
Page 11 7
"-_.< '.r """-~_"^'.
February 13, 2007
Last time I said I didn't take it personally. I don't take your
decisions personally, but when I go back, I think about, what did I do
wrong because I try and present a complete package to you. I think in
the end you made a wise decision that we come back with a more
comprehensive package.
And at this time, if you have any questions, I'd entertain those.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to thank you on behalf
of staff and Mr. Klatzkow in negotiating what's taken place here, and I
think this is really beneficial to the citizens of Collier County. As you
know, we have a huge road impact there and we were promised funds
that did not materialize.
So at that, I make a motion that we approve numbers 8B, lOA,
and lOB.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have a few questions. I
just want to clarify some things.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess we didn't get a second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I'm sorry. I didn't mean -- don't
mean to interrupt you, sir. I just want to see if there's a second to that
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Henning.
Please go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page 4 of the executive summary,
top paragraph, the last sentence in the paragraph, talking about
statements that were provided verbally to environmental consultants
on September 21,2005, shall be completed. What were those, and are
they included in any kind of an agreement or included in approval of
this process?
Page 118
February 13,2007
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Nothing from environmental
consultants was in our agreement. I would ask that maybe Mike
DeRuntz or anybody else that's familiar with the environmental issues
here --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It says that the changes needed to
the environmental impact statement that were provided verbally to
environmental consultant, Ken Passarella, on September 21, 2005,
shall be completed.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is that, and are they going to
be completed?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
What they were requesting is that fencing would be provided
around the stormwater -- water management area, and that was
incorporated into the PUD document.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it is in the document?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not something we have to
worry about?
MR. DeRUNTZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now secondly, the right-of-way
that will be provided on the south side of Davis Boulevard is going to
be provided free of charge now. It's going to be contributed by the
developer, no impact fee offsets.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct, and one thing Attorney
Klatzkow pointed out is that those two business points in that
agreement will be changed to be very clear, twice the water
management, no impact fee credits or no monetary payment for that
land. It will be donated to the county.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And those are the two changes that
Page 119
February 13, 2007
have been authorized.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, what can you tell me
about the road capacity that is going to be created as a result of these
changes and these contributions by this developer?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. We've run -- we've run the
analysis, and we were expecting about 2020 we'll have some problems
at that time, but -- and I have to caution you, that assumes network
improvements as well, too. Santa Barbara extension, other things that
go on as well, too. But it buys us a significant amount of time. Any
further improvements, we started getting into the ultimate
improvements on that intersection and the interchange.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now bottom line, the
developer is going to have an impact himself.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The developer has also cooperated
in contributing land right-of-way and that sort of thing for the county's
use. How much of the new capacity being created by the developer's
contributions will be used up by the developer?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have that exact number. I
would ask that maybe Rick Reef (phonetic), would you have that
number handy? It might be in that statement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, here's where I'm going with
that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I appreciate the developer's and the
staffs ability to reach a decision on this and the contributions that are
occurring, and we badly need that additional capacity, but I think it is
fundamentally unfair for someone else to use the capacity created by
this developer without contributing their fair share.
How do we get other people who are coming on there to help
contribute their fair share so that we have a real fair share result here?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was pointed out, about one-sixth of
Page 120
February 13, 2007
the capacity that would be on the new capacity, not the existing
volumes on there. Your question is very good. And I think we've
looked at different ideas on how to deal with that.
I think as far as zoning approval's concerned, any new zoning
approvals, we could come in and negotiate, discuss, figure out what
the fair share would be towards that impacts.
You will have four or five additional agreements in queue
coming forward, and I think they're all tied to that proj ect being done
and paying their fair share in advance, prior to completion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How can we make sure? Because
what they could argue is, Benderson has already created the capacity
for us. We can take advantage of that without -- without contributing
anything.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator.
I need to note that what is happening here is, by these developers
coming forward and providing this, they are advancing this project.
The 27 million further and the other project and the 20 million with
the payback are going to be coming in the way of payback. Any other
development coming in this area will have to pay its impact fees as
well.
So in effect, this is a situation where there are a group of
developers, some vested and some non-vested, to be able to move
forward, are helping us advance this project with payback from the
state.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But -- I understand that, but
there's still people who have not contributed above their impact fee.
Impact fees are not sufficient to make up for the deficiencies here, as
this developer has recognized, and they have given us more than
impact fees to get this moving ahead.
I'm looking to make sure that other people who benefit from that
will be contributing something to sustaining the level of service of this
Page 121
February 13, 2007
road network --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me clarify your question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- which could be beyond impact
fees.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have some clarification I could add
to that because I've thought about your question a little bit. Some of
the DRIs that are in the area are required to pay their fair share above
and beyond their impact fees.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So we'll collect that. I would say that
a half dozen applications are still in the prezoning stage, so when we
get to that phase, we'll look at right-of-way and fair share payments
toward that as well, too. You will see that in the agreements that we
bring forward coming forward to you as well. There may be a handful
of vested developments that we cannot ask for additional monies from.
I would say that that's small compared to what you will see coming
forward, and also you have your TCMA requirements that are part of
that as well, too. So there are some safeguards.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. TCMA requirements could
help us provide levels.
Now, the final point is this, in the discussions with Stan Kahn
and DOT, which we had, they are willing to sign a contract, an
agreement, right now guaranteeing us the $20 million, starting
payment in 2013, if I remember correctly, okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, beyond that they're also
willing to sign an agreement giving us an additional $28 million and
they're willing to sign that in July when that program is approved.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, is all that -- is all that going
to be worked into this motion?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would suggest if that's your request,
Page 122
February 13,2007
we can do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the first thing we'll be doing --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll put that into my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. So--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We have a representative from
FDOT there, so I hope that we get some acknowledgement from them
also, just to get it on the record, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We had plenty of witnesses, didn't
we, Johnny?
MR. LIMBAUGH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you did stand up and be sworn
in, didn't you?
MR. LIMBAUGH: I did.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Would you object to doing
it again, Johnny?
MR. LIMBAUGH: Not at all. Johnny Limbaugh, Southwest
Area Office Manager for Florida DOT, for the record.
Yes, we're ready to go ahead and do -- there will be two
agreements, one which will be the -- for the 20 million from outside
the work program. The other agreement would address the second
portion of the project, which is in '11/12 to advance that project.
The reason we cannot enter into the -- both agreements today is
Santa Barbara to Radio project is in our tentative work program. We
cannot enter into an agreement until it is in the adopted work program,
which is July 1 st.
So what we've proposed is, go ahead and draft both agreements,
present them to the board for approval and signature. We would sign
the first one for the $20 million. We would hold the second agreement
until July 1. We would sign it, and at that time it becomes official.
Page 123
-~--_.~" -""'-""--"""",,,~,
February 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So if I could just summarize
then and put all this together, then I'm finished. The motion is a
motion to approve this item plus the two companion items
representing the DCAs, and they recognize the fact that the
right-of-way along Davis Boulevard and behind the gasoline station
there at the intersection will be donated to the county as well as water
retention area and that we're also getting right-of-way from the other
developer just to the west of Benderson, the Benderson development,
that Department of Transportation is going to sign -- or we're going to
sign an agreement with the Department of Transportation for the $20
million with paybacks beginning 2013 and that we will also sign an
agreement with Department of Transportation which will not be
accepted by DOT until July for an additional $28 million.
Okay. Did I cover everything?
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarification, if they don't sign it in
July, what happens to this deal?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're going to go out and tear up
951. We're going to bulldoze big ditches right across it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So it's not contingent on the July
agreement actually going forward?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not -- no. I merely said that we
would sign an agreement and submit it to DOT for the additional $28
million.
MR. KLATZKOW: Because they've taken money from us
before.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know they have, and they have to
understand there will be dire consequences if they do it again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in your -- is that in your
second also, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I love it, I love it when you can do it
Page 124
February 13, 2007
in one word.
Okay. Commissioner Fiala, then we have one speaker.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Yes, just a couple fast
questions. First of all, thank you so much for all your hard work. I
know that you really worked day and night to get this thing done.
I had a question on how it was written on page 3 of 203. There were
just a couple paragraphs. The first one said that 1-75 and Davis
Boulevard are projected to operate at a level of service F with or
without this project in the year 2006, and I was just wondering -- then
it also said, as a result, the transportation service division has changed
their recommendation from approval to denial. Could you explain that
to me?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. That was the old statement.
When they reference the project, they mean the development project,
not the roadway proj ect. So they're saying that based on the existing
capacity and roadway, that the Benderson project, that the road would
fail regardless of them in 2006, and we've seen that happen. So the
clarification is, the word project means two different things in those
executive summaries.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And the recommendation of
denial is not with -- holding true then, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. That would be without the
roadway project for the improvement, would be a recommendation of
denial, but since that proj ect --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. And one other
question, that is, the 1-75, 951, Davis Boulevard intersection, which is
a real mess right now, we haven't addressed that much here. We've
been talking just about Davis Boulevard, but still this traffic is going
to be hitting that intersection, and we've been told by the state, of
course, they won't even -- they can't widen 1-75 because the
intersection cannot accommodate the traffic that is generated
presently, much less any further. So what are we going to do about
Page 125
February 13, 2007
that intersection?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, I can address that. You're
already right now in the conceptual design stages, and you're going to
see an agreement coming, not agreement, but a change order to do an
additional design from Davis to the canal north of 1-75. It is our
intention to bid that project as one piece, from the canal south to the
Davis intersection, include the intersection, and west to Radio Road.
It would be one mile, one mile. And we expect and we hope to let that
in the spring of next year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that will all be one project then.
I couldn't imagine how we were going to do Davis --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and not do anything about that
intersection.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's our top priority, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That was my concern, and I
think -- with 1-75 remaining as a four-lane highway, will that in any
way affect what we're doing here?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're only going to make
improvements to that intersection. Even the ramp's coming off
heading westbound. Obviously the traffic on 1-75 will have an impact
as it grows at that intersection, but we're going to max out the
intersection in what we can control.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because we're trying to put through
an Everglades Boulevard intersection which will then bring a lot of
that traffic out of Golden Gate. And they're not going to go to Miami.
They're going to come here. And right now there's no way that
intersection could accommodate it, and we really feel it's important for
the Golden Gate Estates people to get out of there, but we've got to do
something about that as well as the 1- 7 5 thing. So my hope is that
we're taking a real close look.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We are. As part of the interchange
Page 126
February 13,2007
justification study, we will look at that and what impacts that will be
based on that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'd hate to see that
interchange not go through because the intersection can't
accommodate it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And the speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: Garrett Beyrent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Beyrent, state your name for the
record, please.
MR. BEYRENT: For the record, my name is Garrett FX
Beyrent. I'm the owner of the Magnolia Pond PUD, which is the
stretch of road that was previously referred to as from Davis to Golden
Gate Canal.
You may not remember me, but I appeared here about a year ago
when I was here to get a continuation of my PUD, and at that time
Norm Feder got up and presented to the board the fact that the level of
service on Collier Boulevard had dropped to F and that my PUD, as a
result, was no longer in conformance or concurrent with the county
PUD standard.
So as a result, I began to work with Nick Casalanguida and Don
Scott to remedy this situation in the form of a developer contribution
agreement. And my stretch of roadway is kind of like in the -- it's
really lost. I mean, it's the canal to Davis Boulevard.
And all the other developers that were working with Nick were
coming up with different contribution agreements, and I was too, but
my project, which I had approved in 1998, basically fell into a
moratorium status about four years ago.
And so what I was trying to do is I was trying to work with Nick,
along with all the other developers, to come up with a proportionate
share agreement. And we've been attending meetings for, gosh, a long
Page 127
February 13, 2007
time.
And what Nick and Don Scott drew up with Norm Feder, it
seems high from a developer's standpoint, because I'm only a 231-unit
PUD, and my contribution to improve Collier Boulevard is over a
million and a half dollars, you know. I'm not Benderson, and they're
spending a lot of money right now because they can't go anywhere
without Nick Casalanguida behind them, and the guy's done a great
job, and I just want to thank him for that, and I hope you go along
with him, and some day I can actually develop my project.
It took me -- it took me three years to build Magnolia Pond Drive
in to get a road through my project so they could build the Golden
Gate High School, and with that, I got a road and water and sewer and
-- but the whole idea is that the whole process of developing takes
many years.
And like saying a five-year program where your PUD is good for
five years and then it sunsets, boy, you can spend two years in
processing just your environmental issues, and I don't even have any.
So I just wanted to just thank the staff because these guys are
really working. You should see them sweat in that room trying to
hammer out different deals and all the developers saying, ooh, that's
too much money, that's too much money, and then you read in the
paper what it costs, you know, just -- if you guys don't build Collier
Boulevard -- and next year it's going to cost you a lot more money.
So listen to those guys. That's what you pay them for, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's true.
MR. BEYRENT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. And with that, I'm
going to close the public hearing.
We have a motion by Commissioner Halas, a second by
Commissioner Henning.
Any other discussion?
(N 0 response.)
Page 128
February 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing 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: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Thank you very much, Nick. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, everyone,
for helping to put this together.
Mr. Mudd, before you go on, we have some people in the
audience. I'd like to see if we could take care of them next since we're
taking care of our time certains.
I'd like to go to first, issue number 10F dealing with the CAP,
and from there, 8C, dealing with the Collier County fire prevention
and protection code, so that we can get these people out of here and
back to wherever they need to be.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So you want to do 10F first?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10F first.
Item #1 OF
STAFF REPORT FOR THE NORTHEAST REGIONAL UTILITY
FACILITY COMMUNITY ADVISORY PANEL REQUEST FOR
CONSIDERATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE BUFFER
CONSIDERATION, PROJECT NO 70902 AND 73156 -
DISCUSSED: NO ACTION TAKEN
MR. MUDD: 10F is a staff report for the Northeast Regional
Utility Facility Community Advisory Panel request for consideration
Page 129
February 13,2007
of an alternative buffer incineration, project number 70902 and 73153.
Mr. Jim DeLony, Administrator for Public Utilities, will present.
MR. DeLONY: Good afternoon, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator.
I'm scrambling a bit, putting my folks here, but I know we have
the CAP here. Commissioners, in front of you is the executive
summary, which essentially is a response by staff to come back at
your direction with the cost estimates.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you explain to the audience
what CAP is?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. Thank you. The Citizens
Advisory Panel which was set up as part of the delivery team for our
northeast facilities that are going to be constructed up on the
Orangetree area. And members of that -- in fact, members are here
today, and I'm sure they're on the list to speak today.
But this particular item is brought back at your direction. Your
direction was clear to provide you the cost estimate difference
between what staff was proposing as -- in accordance with the Land
Development Code vice (sic) what the Citizens Advisory Panel, or the
CAP, was requesting that would be built in terms of a buffer along the
northern boundary of that plant site, and that, as a matter of
introduction, is this particular item. And I await your questions, or we
can proceed as directed, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we do this. Well,
Commissioner Henning, I see his light on, so we'll go to him first.
After Commissioner Henning, we'll go to the speakers, and then let's
go ahead and deliberate and decide what we're going to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. DeLony?
MR. DeLONY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you spoken to community
development whether you would need to amend your conditional use,
since you're changing the buffer?
Page 130
February 13, 2007
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I have no -- I don't believe there's any
requirement for us to amend the continued use -- conditional use
permit for a buffer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Mr. DeLony, have you
checked with community development whether you have to change
your conditional use to fit the conditional use for changing the buffer?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. This is a -- this is part of a PUD,
planned unit development.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, a PUD?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, yes, sir. And this particular -- this
particular site, we're basically at all approvals through community
development less the final site development plan, which community
development will get here in the next couple months.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You still didn't answer
my question.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. Sir, I'm not aware of a need for that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you haven't checked with
community development?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I -- no, sir, I have not. But I would hope that
in my coordination with them up to this point, that would have been
indicated to me by community developments. I could ask that
question certainly, but I'm not aware of a requirement for a conditional
use permit for a buffer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you're deviating from
the code -- and I don't know. It might be above and beyond the code.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I seen at Commissioner
Coletta's town hall meeting was removing landscaping requirements
and putting it an eight-foot wall. And I know our code says up to six
foot. And you want to put an eight foot on a berm. So the little I know
about the Land Development Code, I think it would be a deviation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt?
Page 131
'-'___"0' .""___
February 13,2007
MR. DeLONY: Let me -- I have Bruce here from WilsonMiller.
Let's see if Bruce can provide you an answer to that question, sir, if I
might.
MR. TYSON: I'm Bruce Tyson, a Landscape Architect and
Planner with WilsonMiller.
About a year and a half ago we came and received a PUD
modification for this property. It was an amendment. And during that
process, we went through and explained exactly what was going to
happen with the buffer.
In my discussions with the people at CDES, they have suggested
that the treatment facilities that will be placed on this property will fall
more into a category of an industrial use. And because of that, the
code does allow for an eight-foot wall when you have an industrial use
that would buffer up to residential uses. So the reason that the
opportunity exists for an eight-foot wall is because the code allows it
for those use differences.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're not removing any
landscaping that was proposed?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir, we're not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's different than
what was presented to us at the town hall meeting.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I don't -- I'm sorry that my delivery team --
we got moved up a little quick, but actually the sketch, as I showed
you, a wall, and I had trees against that wall as part of it, and the only
vegetation that will actually be removed would be hedge that was
between that tree line.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right behind you, I believe is a
picture, and maybe we'll put it up on the board over there. And go
ahead and explain it one more time, Mr. DeLony, what the difference
is.
MR. DeLONY: Not that microphone.
Page 132
February 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right behind you.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. I believe at the meeting we spoke to,
sir, this is now a sketch of what I showed overhead. This is essentially
the CAP, or the Citizens Advisory Panel, requested buffer. It shows
you a good picture of the trees that would be part of that buffer, and
then the wall that would be part of it.
Do you have the other one?
This is the buffer treatment that we believe is consistent with the
Land Development Code which doesn't provide for a wall, but rather
only for hedges that are between that tree line, and this is a little bit
bigger picture. And I believe these are the pictures I showed at that
meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that answer your question,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I could be wrong, but with
a wall, you still had to have a buffer. And I'm just trying to get at the
Land Development Code now. A land -- or a hedged buffer, but that's
something that community development has to address.
So this might be a bigger issue than asking for additional monies for
additional buffering.
MR. DeLONY: Certainly we'll be looking closely at that. Today
we're here to discuss the cost alternatives between a concrete wall as
opposed to a vegetative buffer required by that LDC. To the best of
our ability, we've applied that.
But certainly -- and that's one of the things I spoke to at -- the last
time I was here. One of our very great challenges here is to make sure
that we are able to provide this information to you commensurate with
the expectations of everyone certainly before I have a full Site
Development Plan, which I will not have for a couple more months.
But it was felt that, before we could proceed with that final Site
Development Plan, we need to have the intent of the board as to
whether we would incorporate a wall-type buffer or vegetative-type
Page 133
February 13, 2007
buffering to our final Site Development Plan submittal. And I believe
that's correct, Mr. Coletta, to the direction of the guidance we got from
last time from you in particular.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Only through commission would I
give direction, of course.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And one other thing. This will
be enjoyed by paying -- by all the users in the water and sewer district.
MR. DeLONY: The actual construction itself, the cost
associated with construction of whether it's vegetative or concrete will
be borne by impact fees, as all new construction is within the
water/sewer district master plan and as well as our capital investment
strategy. Once these are built, of course, it's user fees, rates, you
know, what you pay on your water bill every month, that takes care of
the operation and maintenance of those built facilities.
Does that answer your question, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. DeLony, I'm going to jump in
front of my two other commissioners that are looking to be able to
address this.
Mr. DeLony?
MR. DeLONY: Oh, I'm sorry, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's okay. I didn't have your
attention, I guess.
Could you put up on the board over here what the map is of
exactly what CAP is looking for? I mean, there's been quite a bit of
modification from what it was back some time ago. What is it that the
885 -- $885,000 would be doing?
MR. DeLONY: The -- and Jake, I want to make sure that I get
this right, so help me if I don't, okay?
MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, you know it.
MR. DeLONY: As we can see here along the northern reach of
Page 134
February 13, 2007
this boundary, the Citizens Advisory Panel has requested this type of
buffer for this northern reach. That would extend from our property
point here adjacent to the fairgrounds to the water district's -- meet the
South Florida Water Management District's canal here, and they've
asked for that buffer to be a wall, a concrete wall for that
approximately 7,000 linear feet of boundary or that reach, and that's
what they've asked for.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And this is a takeback from the
original request was for that wall to go where, originally?
MR. DeLONY: As I understand it, the original request was to
provide for a similar-type wall along this reach here and extending up
through this reach here and, of course, this piece here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the part over there between the
fairgrounds and the --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- back side?
MR. DeLONY: There was -- we'd never got into discussions and
specifics of exactly what would be from this point here to here, but
certainly along this reach here and here as it abuts the Waterways
subdivision area, there was a request for a wall, and they have since
said they'd be happy with a vegetative buffer. That would meet their
expectations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: Jake, am I right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr.--
MR. SULLIVAN : Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you state your name for the
record?
MR. SULLIVAN: For the record, I'm Jake Sullivan, chairman of
the Citizens Advisory Panel, and that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, thank you. I'm going to go to
the other commissioners, then I've got some comments I want to
Page 135
February 13, 2007
make.
Commissioner Coyle, you're first, then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was going to wait until after the
public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, that sounds fine.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've got a couple questions I'd
like to ask Jim DeLony. What type of buffer do we presently have at
other existing facilities within Collier County where we butt up
against the residential area?
MR. DeLONY: They vary, and they vary based on the
requirements of the Land Development Code that was in effect at the
time that that particular site was developed. Some places we have
nothing more than a chain link fence. Some places we've got
something more substantial, and maybe a chain link fence with some
vegetation incorporated as part of that buffer.
We have very few places where we actually have a concrete
structure as part of that separation between the utility site and the
adjacent properties.
It's a function, again, of what were the Land Development Codes
in place at the time of the development as well as what was a zoning
on the adjacent properties to that, because we know over time, as
we've built infrastructure, adjacent properties zoning would change.
Primarily buffering is required -- and I've got Susan here to make sure
I keep this straight -- is to ensure compatibility between two adjacent
land uses.
In the case -- in our case here, our land use here is Estates
overlaid with, I believe, agricultural zoning in this area, just Estates.
Thank you. In this area here, this is residential. This has been recently
zoned residential, so the buffering requirements are obviously
different here per the LDC than they are in this area here.
So I hope I answered your question, sir.
Page 136
February 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, you did. And my last and
final question, until I hear the public speakers. You're talking about
impact fees for water and sewer district. Is this considered a water and
sewer district by itself?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir, it's not. This is not considered a
subdistrict. Once this becomes -- this area is part of the total district.
There's not a subdistrict.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we're looking for people
that live outside this area for their impact fees to shoulder some of the
cost of this? Because we have people that -- if you're saying that this is
in a separate sewer and water district that encompasses all the districts
that we have in Collier County; is that what you told me?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, we have one impact fee for the entire
district.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So what we're doing is
asking the other people in the county to shoulder the additional
expenses that are going to come out of impact fees; is that correct?
MR. DeLONY: The -- any expenses associated with capital
development within the district is shared amongst all impact fee
payees.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll-- at this time we'll call
the speakers.
MS. FILSON: Richard Babb. He'll be followed by Odus
Landreth.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Babb, besides stating your name,
if you would tell us, too, where you live. That might be able to help.
MR. BABB: I'm Richard Babb, and I live at 4225 18th Street
Northeast, which on the pictures up there, it shows on that north
boundary of the plant site.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. I reside immediately next to the
planned north water treatment -- waste water treatment facility, almost
Page 137
February 13,2007
left out an important word there. This will be a big construction job,
and it's going way out -- the construction is going to start soon with
our border, we hope, and go out into 2011 at least, and it will have all
the usual noise of construction of a job, the trucking equipment noise
and dust.
And this is right up against our yards where we try to live in
peace. The noise, of course, will include that constant beeping from
all the equipment, which is allowed to start at 6:30 a.m. outside my
bedroom window. It's allowed to go to 7:00 at night. Please try to
imagine what it would be like outside your windows. I'm sure you
have the picture, thank you.
This is why we on the CAP are requesting that you approve an
adequate buffer against this pending tumult to preserve our peace that
we now enjoy. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Babb.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Odus Landreth. He'll be followed
by Jake Sullivan.
MR. LANDRETH: My name is Odus Allen Landreth. I reside at
4220 18th Street Northeast, which abuts the north boundary of this
property.
When my neighbors and I first learned about -- that this facility
was proposed, we were assured by the sitting commissioners and by
the county manager that the facility would be built so that we would
not see it, hear it or smell it.
Our concern was that unless all three of these conditions were
met, the presence of the plant would affect both the quality of life and
our property values.
We know that the technology exists so that the odor will not be a
problem if the equipment is maintained and operated properly;
therefore, our concerns focus on not seeing and not hearing the
operation.
We are assured that property values around other -- two
Page 138
February 13, 2007
wastewater plants was not affected by the proximity to the facilities.
That statement is somewhat misleading because in the case of each of
the existing plants, the surrounding areas were developed after the
plant was in existence.
I had a map. Is there -- okay, right. This is the south portion of
the Goodlette Road plant, and it shows the western edge of the
Victoria Park subdivision, particularly Nottingham Drive and
Sandringham Gate.
Most of the lots on these streets are .26 acre. Looking at the
records of the tax assessor, the lots on the west side of the streets,
those lots abutting the utility plant, have a land value of $188, 160.
The identical lots on the east side of these streets and elsewhere in the
subdivision, have an assessed value of $195,840.
This is a difference of $7,680, or approximately 4 percent. Here
again, these residents knew the plant was there, but the property did
reduce the value of their property.
The county has proposed that the new facility be surrounded by a
buffer of trees and bushes which would screen most of our view of the
facility; however, they admit that they will always see partially
through the trees and probably at times through the bushes.
Weare asking that a concrete buffer be applied which should totally
screen the view of the facilities and will also reduce some of the noise
directly -- which would come right through the hedge that they
propose.
We ask for favorable consideration of this proposal, and yes, it
will cost more than the vegetation, but it will offer us more isolation
from the plant. And when we purchased and located our homes here,
we had no idea that this facility was coming.
We would ask that you spare us the thought of possibly losing
some of our value. Please let us have a solid buffer. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Jake
Sullivan.
Page 139
February 13, 2007
MR. SULLIVAN: Good afternoon. We've tried to make a
couple of points here today, but most importantly, nobody wants to
live next to one of these things. And you can see what they've done
out in Ave Maria with their plant.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Click on it again.
MR. SULLIVAN: They've extended the berm up out there
surrounding their plant a good 15 to 20 feet. That's an earthen berm.
We're looking for a wall. And what it's come down to here is, is that
we looked at an earthen berm, and we decided that the cost of that,
with staff, jointly we decided, the cost of that was going to be
prohibitive mostly because of what the cost of fill is nowadays.
But the wall -- we've got a few strong reasons as to why a wall
would be preferred over a landscape buffer. First of all, the landscape
buffer, the wall, would provide for a right-of-way for some sort of
protection and privacy to the people living adjacent to the proposed
plant.
The other thing is, is that it takes time for these plants to grow in.
We don't see that while they're drilling these wells and building this
plant that these trees and whatnot are going to be substantial to
provide the privacy that these folks need.
The other thing is that we don't want to -- if my technical guy
here would keep up with me, we'd have some photos up here.
We don't want these folks to have sites like they do down there at the
north plant. I know somebody had brought that up. One of the
commissioners brought up the north plant. They asked what kind of
barrier they have there. Well, they have a chain link fence there,
which affords folks the opportunity to see trailers loaded with the final
sludge material sitting there waiting to go to Okeechobee, and it's also
very inherent on storm conditions.
For a while there, the fence located at the north plant, it got hit by
Hurricane Wilma and it was laying on the ground. We don't see a
wall as doing that. We see a wall is going to be more protective to the
Page 140
February 13, 2007
security of the plant, and it will prohibit trespass by unauthorized
persons onto the plant.
There's been some mention as to how this is going to be paid for.
It's my understanding that once this plant is constructed, it's going to
tie into the other two plants. Our impact fees out there in eastern
Collier County help to pay for improvements to those two plants also,
I believe. I might be mistaken.
But this project -- more importantly, this project is estimated to
be $188 million. And what we're talking about here is less than
one-half percent of the total project cost, less than a half a percent.
We've already -- you've already approved an amendment to Corrolio's
(phonetic) contract, I believe, for a million dollars. This is less than
that.
So we'd ask that you abide by the guiding principles for
development of this utility facility, which said that you would be a
good neighbor, the good neighbor policy, and that you be respectful of
the folks that live there and approve this solid wall buffer. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I guess I'm already jumping to
the conclusion that we're going to build the wall because I think it's a
good idea. I just wanted to make sure that we were going to do that
before all the construction begins so that we can protect the
surrounding communities from as much noise and dust and so forth as
possible.
MR. DeLONY: Commissioner, for -- it's always been our intent
that whether your direction were a wall or a vegetative buffer, that we
would mobilize this summer -- late this summer, for sure this fall, and
get that in place so it's there growing, maturing, and we would then
begin mobilization later on in the following years to come. So the
idea as to building it first is exactly our plan, ma'am.
Page 141
February 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. I remember you saying
that before --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but I didn't read it in here. I just
wanted to put that on the record.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm going to go next, if you don't
mind.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One of the things I wanted to do first
is I want to thank staff and the members of CAP for working so well
together all these months. This is an excellent example of a county
outreach coupled with a meaningful citizen participation.
What you're hearing now is the end result. Everything else has
been agreed to. There's been a lot of great guidance that came from
this group and from staff working together. Tremendous
accomplishments have been made.
So don't think this is a one-issue group, it's not. It's just, this is
the one thing where staff could not go any farther with it. They had to
come to us to get the final direction.
I want to point out that the prorating of the expenses versus the
community benefit over a 30-year period, there would be a reasonable
period for a business to expense the cost. It would come to less than
$30,000 a year to offer this amenity that would go a long ways
towards making this community whole.
The residents in this area will soon be in deep discussion with the
county over the size of their impact fee to be paid when the new
plant's built. When this switch-over comes forward from the
Orangetree Utility to the new Northeast Regional Utility, there's going
to be a fee that's going to be contested.
Judging by what was experienced in other areas of the county
over increased costs of -- for installation of sewer and water, this
Page 142
February 13,2007
amenity will go a long ways towards proving that we, the county, have
a county government that cares for the people and it acts in a
responsible way.
And with that, I kind of hope that we can justify within this
commission. I am too also -- in fact, I'm going to go ahead and make
a motion at this time that we vote for the recommendations that came
down from CAP through staff for the additional money to build the
wall.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by
myself, Commissioner Coletta, and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
And we'll go back to Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. DeLony, can you put up the
map of the overall area on our screens or --
MR. DeLONY: Do I have -- do I have this on the -- this one in
the slide show?
MR. MUDD: Hold on. I can get you -- I can get you on the
camera.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: That's okay. Go ahead and get it up on this
while Mr. Mudd's moving the camera around.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm not sure that's going to --
yeah, that shows it to us okay. Now, we're suggesting that we put up a
buffer, a wall, only along the north edge of this property.
MR. DeLONY: Let me be as specific as I can about this. I think
that's what you'd really enjoy at this stage of the game; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. DeLONY: Throughout the Site Development Plan process,
this is what I've learned, that in this particular zoning environment
between this land use here and this land use here, there is no wall
requirement, and that's where I'm at and that's the recommendation I'm
at, and that's the reason that CAP is in here asking for a wall.
Page 143
February 13, 2007
When we move into this zoning environment here where we have
residential zoning against non-residential zoning, my best
understanding of the site -- of the Land Development Code's going to
require some type of substantial structure such as a wall between this
area and here.
Now, our plan is to address that in partnership with the developer
here and see if we can't cost share the burden of that barrier between
his property and ours. No commitment yet from them in regard to do
that. But my best understanding, that this will be some type of wall
six- or eight-foot wide because our Land Development Code
prescribes specifically, when you have a use other than residential,
that adjacent property has to have that type of buffer in between it.
That would be in this area from here to here, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Now, how about the rest
of the perimeter?
MR. DeLONY: The rest of it is basically going to be vegetative
barriers, buffers. We can accommodate with a vegetative buffer,
something other than a wall.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why can that be done when some
of the others -- other areas are adjacent to residential?
MR. DeLONY: Okay. Well, when we come -- as the -- if the
CAP will agree -- has agreed to remove this portion here, which is
residential adjacent property to what is going to be our park area, they
have agreed that they would work with us to get a waiver on that
requirement, and they would agree to that deviation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the distance between the
homes there just below your pointer and the perimeter of the property
for the water treatment facility?
MR. DeLONY: About 200 feet, 250 feet to the -- that would be
to the park. The facilities that -- this area here, in here?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. DeLONY: About 250 feet, sir.
Page 144
February 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. To the perimeter of the -_
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, if we were to measure the
distance from -- on the north side from the closest home to the facility
itself, not counting lakes and other open areas, what kind of distance
would we get there?
MR. DeLONY: About 350 feet is our current plan. No more __
certainly no less than 300 to these -- to these proposed structures to
these homes. At least 300 feet today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So they would be further
away from the neighbors at the north than will be -- than the people
will be from the south; is that what you're telling me?
MR. DeLONY: The specifics are with the current Site
Development Plan of these site -- of this first phase, we're about 350
feet, 300 feet from the existing homes on the north.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: Now, as we would develop this property over
the next 30 years, 40 years, we have committed to be no closer than
100 feet from that perimeter boundary. So I'm not going to say that
we have not committed ourselves to not build within that 200- foot
envelope. But our first phase is going to be at least 300 feet off the
line.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, a couple of points
were raised. One, there's going to be a lot of construction traffic going
in and out of there during the construction process. That is the access?
MR. DeLONY: The access has to come off of Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: And it just proceeds along between the
fairgrounds and the lakes here at the Waterways. And they will enter
the const -- the actual site itself for the plant is this acreage here, and
then all the construction activity will be in this area from that access.
Now, initially we can bring it in probably more closer this way,
Page 145
February 13, 2007
but eventually all the traffic will follow this route as Marla puts in her
amenities and attributes of her park system. Of course, that will be
much later to our construction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, you are governed like any
other facility by the county's noise ordinance; is that correct?
MR. DeLONY: I have no exemption from any other -- from any
ordinance in the county, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there -- is there any study which
indicates that there's going to be enough noise generated by the
operation of that plant to require the development or installation of an
acoustic wall?
MR. DeLONY: Our plans are to ensure that the noise generated
from plant processes, that we make sure we meet the county
requirement without that wall as it stands today. We would make that
part of the attenuation, what happens within the structure or around
that process as opposed to relying on a buffer or barrier at the
perimeter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And do you have any evidence that
a wall will substantially reduce the noise from construction on that
site?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I would tell you that from a visual
standpoint, I believe that it would provide some visual blocking. With
regard to noise, I think it's maybe somewhat problematic, but I have
no studies to back that up other than just what I said.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If the operation of a plant turns out
to be a noise problem for the residents, you're obligated to put up that
wall ?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. And I'd like to point to the evidence
that, you know, we've done that in the past on a couple of our plants,
and we'll continue. As we -- we modernize these plants and change
processes and retrofit, one of the things we're certainly going to take
care of, along with many other things, is noise attenuation to make
Page 146
February 13, 2007
sure we stay within county ordinance at the perimeters of those plants.
So yes, sir. We intend to keep ourselves in compliance with the
noise ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then bottom line, you
know, I have a -- I have a concern with setting precedent because
pretty soon if we start customizing every one of our public facilities
for each neighborhood, we're going to get ourselves into some real
difficulty with respect to cost.
We have standards. We develop those standards with a view
toward protecting the communities. I understand the need to do that.
But to spend almost a million dollars of our -- of the funds of people
who are paying to build this thing in an attempt to solve a problem
that has not yet materialized -- and we're only imagining what it might
be -- I think it is premature. I would commit to saying that if the
operation of this plant is such that it violates our ordinance, we have
an obligation to put it in, but I don't see any reason to do it now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On the same lines as where
Commissioner Coyle was going, if we're in violation of any
ordinances, he's absolutely right that we have an obligation to make
sure that we're -- we need to address that.
If this is strictly for the enhancement of an area, I would think
that the people who are going to benefit from this would need to step
up to the plate and this might be able to -- could be done with an
MSTU, if it's so -- if it means that much for them as far as the quality
of life or whatever that they stipulate. So that's my concerns.
If it's to deal with actual problems and if we need to address
those problems because -- to meet our ordinances, whether it's sight or
sound ordinances, I believe that we've got that covered. If it's strictly
to enhance an area, then I would think that that might be on the
shoulders of the citizens who would want that.
It's just like MSTUs that -- for beautification, whether it's
Page 147
February 13, 2007
roadways or whatever, and that's to benefit their particular
neighborhood. So that's kind of my concerns on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. DeLony, show me where
the proposed wall would go again. I apologize. I was __
MR. DeLONY: Okay, sir. The proposed wall per the request by
the Citizens Advisory Panel?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, sir.
MR. DeLONY: The Citizens Advisory Panel has requested, in
lieu of the LDC requirement for a buffer which is strictly vegetative,
provide for an eight-foot concrete wall stretching from our property
line, beginning here just to the east of the fairgrounds along the
northern perimeter of the site, to the canal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Gotcha. So tell me again what
you're going to do with the developer to the -- actually, it would be to
the west where the farm field is presently. What were you going to do
there?
MR. DeLONY: West, sir. Here? You're talking about this area
here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. DeLONY: This particular piece -- this tract here, this area
here, is now zoned residential. That's, I believe, being done by Pulte
Homes, and I may -- I don't recall the name of the development.
MR. MUDD: Orange Blossom Ranch.
MR. DeLONY: Yeah, Orange Blossom Ranch. Anyway, the
bottom line of it is, because of that being a residential zoning, and our
zoning here is not residential, we have a requirement per the LDC, as I
-- in my read of it, to provide for some type of substantial buffer
which would be -- basically a wall. So our intent is to negotiate, if
possible, the construction and the cost associated with that buffer to __
which would be mutually beneficial to us and them in some type of
Page 148
February 13,2007
cost-shared way. But I have no commitment from them to do that.
That's where we're going to go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But they also have to have a
buffer.
MR. DeLONY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And that's what the
board's ordinance says?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So anything short of that would
not be adhering to state statutes where the county manager must
strictly adhere to the board's ordinances. So I don't know why you're
going through this exercise, but that's fine. I'll be watching it.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, the way I see it, Commissioner
Fiala, we've got two votes, yourself and mine. And I hate to come this
far and walk away and say, you know, we tried. I still think that
there's a reasonable reason for it. Rather than to wait until sometime
in the future, now is the time to build it.
We have done all sorts of amenities. You heard it mentioned
before. When it reached a certain density, they put a wall in. When
this happened, they put a wall in. This was trying to get there before
we got to that point so you didn't have to live with the traffic that was
going to be taking place outside there.
But needless to say, I don't think we're going to get there. You've
got two votes. It takes three to be able to do it.
I'm going to withdraw my second and make a different motion.
If I -- if you don't mind.
MS. FILSON: It was your motion, not second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The problem is perceptual, what
you're going to see. When you come out your back door, what you
have to deal with. Some time ago -- I don't know if you
commissioners can remember it or not, we had something similar, and
Page 149
February 13,2007
it was a private developer who was going to do something to disturb
the scenery in the background across the canal some distance away
from these homes, and it was a wall that was being asked for. A wall
was too expensive. But what we came up with, and the developer
agreed to it, was to come up with something -- I can't remember the
exact number. Probably something like about, 12,500, for each
property owner to be able to use for a buffer screen on their own
property, be able to develop whatever they need to be able to be a
buffer in addition to what's going to be in the far background to try to
recapture a little bit of that amenity they used to have in the past.
Does this sound like something I might get a second for, 12,500
that they could use for their own vegetative buffer on their property,
they're responsible for building it and putting the sprinkler system in
and maintaining it thereafter?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it was a lot of excitement. It
was one of the better ideas of the day, I can see that right now.
Well, for the lack of a second, that idea -- yes, go ahead,
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Let me just tell you one of
the problems. I've got a group of constituents that are just waiting
because they want a sound barrier on Goodlette Road. Now, are you
willing to do that? They've got the same arguments. We just widened
the road. We've created the capacity for more traffic. They are
concerned about the noise that's going to be created by the traffic.
That's not the only one. You're going to run into these problems
everywhere we widen the road or we build a facility of any kind.
Let's face it, I have lived through weeks of pile drivers pounding
pilings into the ground next door to me. Every home around me has
been torn town and rebuilt over the past four or five years. It has been
constant construction every single day for four to five years.
It's a fact of life; things change. I have to put up with it. And
Page 150
February 13, 2007
when it's all finished, they're beautiful homes, they're nicely
landscaped, the people are quiet, they're wonderful people, and we're
all happy.
But getting through that, I understand the problem of these
citizens. It's -- no matter what we do -- and the wall is not going to
change it. It will not stop that noise of construction at least, so it is
going to be disruption. But the point is that once we start down this
road of trying to shield everybody from the impacts of what I consider
to be excessive growth at a rate that's much too fast, we don't, quite
frankly, control it. It -- our hands are, in this case, are tied. We
cannot just continue to throw money at things like this without
citizens' participation.
If it's a $12,000 commitment for landscaping, quite frankly, I
don't understand why -- there are a number of citizens there. Why
wouldn't they want to contribute to that? Twelve thousand spread
among all those citizens to get increased landscaping? They've done it
on Livingston Road, they've done it on Radio Road, they've done it
everywhere else in the county. Why wouldn't they do it -- they be
willing to do it here?
So I just -- I just am afraid of the precedent that we establish and
the obligation we're going to be creating for the next group to come in.
What are we going to tell them? We've got to treat people
equally, and we just can't pull one neighborhood aside and say, yes,
we're going to solve this problem for you but somebody else with a
similar or perhaps even the same problem, we say no. And I just don't
think we need to get into that kind of position.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we need a motion to bring this to
an end one way or the other, or do we just cease discussion on it?
Because it's going no place. I don't want to delay these proceedings
any longer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You had a motion and second.
Why don't we just vote on that motion.
Page 151
February 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He pulled the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I pulled the second to be able to make
a new motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So there's -- Mr. Mudd, you look
perplexed.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, no action. Let's move to the next
item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you very much for
being here today. I'm sorry we didn't get a little better result.
Mr. DeLony, thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What happens with CAP, they keep
going?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. We continue -- the Citizens Advisory
Panel will continue to go, yes, sir. There will be -- there will be many,
many more days of this. We're going to be in construction there for
some time to come, and we're going to need them to help us and
advise on how best to communicate and what we -- where they can
make a difference with regard to ensuring we are, indeed, a good
neighbor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next item, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you want to -- you had a second
one that you wanted to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right, the fire code. We have a
number of people here to speak on it, and I don't want to keep them
here any longer than we have to.
Item #8C
Page 152
February 13, 2007
REPEAL OF COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2002-49, AS
AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2005-32, TITLED: AN
ORDINANCE READOPTING THE COLLIER COUNTY FIRE
PREVENTION AND PROTECTION CODE BY AMENDING THE
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 58, FIRE PREVENTION AND
PROTECTION, ARTICLE II, FIRE SAFETY STANDARDS FOR
THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, BY
REPLACING SECTION 58-26, PERTAINING TO ADOPTED
STANDARDS AND CODES OF THE NATIONAL FIRE CODE
PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION
ASSOCIATION (NFPA), REPLACING SECTION 58-27
PERTAINING TO AMENDMENTS TO ADOPTED FIRE CODES,
SPECIFICALL Y NFP AI, 2002 EDITION REPLACING SECTION
58-27, PERTAINING TO AMENDMENTS TO THE ADOPTED
LIFE SAFETY CODE, SPECIFICALLY NFP A 101, 2002 EDITION
- MOTION TO DISCUSS AT WORKSHOP IN MARCH AND
FOLLOW UP AT NEXT BCC MEETING AFTER THAT
WORKSHOP - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: That would be 8C, repeal the Collier County
ordinance 2002-49, is amended by ordinance 2005-32, titled, an
ordinance readopting the Collier County Fire Prevention and
Protection Code by amending the Code of Laws and Ordinances of
Collier County, Florida, amending chapter 58, Fire Prevention and
Protection, Article II, Fire Safety Standards for the unincorporated --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Mr. Mudd. I've just been
reminded that we got so engrossed in the last item, we went way past
the break time for the court reporter, so we're going to take a
10-minute break at this time, and we'll continue at that time.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 153
February 13, 2007
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Commissioner, this is item 8C. Where I left off, Fire Safety Standards
for the unincorporated area of Collier County replacing section 58-26
pertaining to adopted standards and codes of the National Fire Code
published by the National Protection Association, NFP A, replacing
section 58-27 pertaining to amendments to adopted fire code,
specifically NFP AI, 2002 Edition, replacing section 58-28 pertaining
to amendments to the adopted Live Safety Code, specifically NFP A
101, the 2002 Edition.
Mr. Joe Schmitt--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you start, Mr. Schmitt,
Commissioner Fiala's got a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was just wondering, other
Commissioners, I would just like to put off until our workshop in
March rather than discuss it now and then discuss it again then. I
would like to just see us discuss this whole issue at one time, if I have
agreement on the other -- on the parts of the other commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I see no reason to waste time, but
the one question I had asked the staff before -- maybe we can just get
an answer to that and see if it has any bearing on your suggestion -- is
why were we going through the process of overturning this particular
ordinance, withdrawing it, and then coming back in with a revision?
Why couldn't we just come in with a revision and do it all at one time,
and the response I got was that it is staffs opinion, I guess our legal
department's opinion, that this is just an illegal ordinance. So if it is an
illegal --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that's not true? Okay. Then--
MR. KLA TZKOW: The ordinance is absolutely legal as it
stands. It may not be necessary, that's for the commission to
determine, but it's not illegal.
Page 154
February 13,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay. Then--
MR. SCHMITT: I'll clarify that, because I wrote that. For the
record, Joe Schmitt --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then let's answer Commissioner
Fiala's questions then, because my concern clearly is not valid. Why
don't we just do this at one time?
MR. SCHMITT: And that could be done. It could be done at
that time. This was basically a follow-up, as you recall, to the issue
you addressed involving the parking garage. The county manager
wrote a letter to chief --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, we've seen all that.
MR. SCHMITT: And we've never received a response, and this
was the next measure. But certainly this can be discussed at the
workshop. You can entertain all the input on this at the workshop. It's
to your pleasure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I see no point in doing it twice.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, did you want to
make a motion to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- continue? What would it be,
continue this till the workshop?
MR. SCHMITT: You cannot continue it.
MR. MUDD: You cannot repeal an ordinance during a
workshop. My answer is that you continue this item after the
workshop. And at the workshop, if you have a differing opinion to
your direction today that you give us then that says you want it to be
withdrawn, we can do that, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's exactly -- my motion
will be that I would like to discuss this subj ect at our workshop and
continue this item until after the workshop.
MR. MUDD: Next meeting after the workshop.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I second it.
Page 155
February 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The next BCC meeting after the
workshop.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Make one condition to the second,
please, that we take all the speakers and we ask them to waive so that
we can put everything into that at one time, and then we'll take a vote
when everybody waives, or else we're going to be here all day
listening to it now, then again at the workshop.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good suggestion.
MS. FILSON: We have eight speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would you call them, and
we'll see if they want to waive.
MS. FILSON: Melville Brinson?
MR. BRINSON: I would waive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Thomas Cannon?
MR. CANNON: I will waive with one clarification. My
response to the first letter was the workshop. So don't say I didn't
respond.
MS. FILSON: Edward Riley?
MR. RILEY: I would waive.
MS. FILSON: Karl Reynolds?
MR. REYNOLDS: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: Mike Brown.
MR. BROWN: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Jerry Sanford?
MR. SANFORD: I will waive.
MS. FILSON: Don Peterson?
(N 0 response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He waives.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He waives from afar.
MS. FILSON: Jack Pointer?
Page 156
February 13,2007
MR. POINTER: Waive, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we have a motion by
Commissioner -- I'm sorry. Who led it off? I don't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Fiala, and then it was seconded by
Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, now that they all waived,
let's change their--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let's vote on repealing this
thing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This guy's been around long enough.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion, 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,
gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's a good way of
expediting a lot of issues that come before us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Works for me.
Okay. Is there anything else out there that we have a number of
people for?
Page 157
February 13, 2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't believe so.
Item #7A
RESOLUTION 2007-37: SV-2006-AR-9962; WAL-MART
STORES EAST L.P., REPRESENTED BY BOICE-RAIDL-RHEA
ARCHITECTS, REQUESTING VARIANCES TO SECTION
5.06.04.C.A. TO ALLOW 13 ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS IN
THE W AL-MART SUPER-CENTER. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
IS LOCATED AT 5420 CORMORANT AVENUE, IN SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY~ FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us to 7 A. 7 A, this
item requires that -- all participants to be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's SV-2006-AR-9962, Wal*Mart Stores East LP, represented by
Boice, Raidl-Rhea Architects, requesting variances of section
5.06.04.C.a to allow 13 additional wall signs in the Wal*Mart
Super-center. The subject property is located at 5420 Cormorant
Avenue in Section 30, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier
County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Will all those who care to testify in
this particular item please stand at this time and be sworn in by the
Court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And any disclosures on the
part of the commissioners, starting with Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have talked with staff about this
issue. I do not believe I have talked with the petitioner at all. No, I
have received correspondence only.
Page 158
February 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have talked with staff in
regards to this, and I also talked -- had outside conversations with a
couple of people that were on the Planning Commission when this was
heard.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And myself, I have no
disclosures on 7 A.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I spoke briefly with staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Board of Commissioners
received the plan for the signs but it was not disclosed from who.
Okay. So all the Board of Commissioners received this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think that might have been
as a result of my request for a legible copy because it wasn't legible in
our executive summary, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A lot of things are not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. They might have given all
of us a copy. I just asked for a copy myself. So they might have sent
it to everybody to be fair.
MS. VALERA: Want me to clarify? Carolina Valera, Principal
Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development
Review. Yes, it was to address Mr. Coyle's request and also
community administrator, Joe Schmitt. He also asked me to put
together these plans so they're a little easier to understand what the
variance is about.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can -- Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: May I ask a question, then maybe
make a statement?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The Planning Commission
Page 159
February 13, 2007
reviewed this and recommended approval for three signs to identify
the food center, the pharmacy drive-through and the garden center.
What is before us today is a request for four signs, and I'm not inclined
to approve more signs than was approved by the Planning
Commission. So I will make a motion to approve the three signs --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and support the Planning
Commission's conclusions and recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a commission -- a
motion by Commissioner Coy Ie, a second by Commissioner Halas, to
approve the Planning Commission's recommendations.
Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I close the public hearing.
We'll go to Commissioner Fiala again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just one fast question. It
says you already have three signs on the building, but it never
mentioned what the three signs are.
MS. VALERA: And Mr. Chairman, the petitioner's here and also
they would like to make a brief presentation, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that answer--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That didn't answer my question at
all, no.
MS. VALERA: No, I'm sorry. Your question was?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It says it already has three signs on
the building. What are those three signs?
MS. VALERA: Yes. They have the Wal*Mart sign, they have
the Super-center sign and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Food center.
MS. VALERA: -- the food center.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any more questions? Hearing none,
I'm going to -- Commissioner Henning.
Page 160
February 13,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not going to support the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the reason I'm not going to
do that, if our sign ordinance is broken, the sign ordinance should be
amended for not only big business to take advantage of it, but also the
small mom and pops. So I'm going to go along with staffs
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we still have a motion
and second on the floor. Please, would you continue what you have to
add to this?
MS. COVINGTON-MOSS: Yes. My name is Chelsea
Covington-Moss with BRR Architecture.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Move the mike down just a little bit,
please.
MS. COVINGTON-MOSS: Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay.
MS. COVINGTON-MOSS: Chelsea Covington-Moss with BRR
Architecture on behalf of Wal *Mart. And after meeting at the
previous meeting on December 7th, I believe it was, I did take the
information that was given to me and the suggestions back to
W al *Mart, our client, and they did reduce drastically what they were
asking for, from 13 signs to four signs.
The four additional signs that they have asked for, as you can see
to the far left on the bottom here, garden center, which is over an
entrance, then they want retail center, again, over an entrance, food
center over the third entrance, so all three entrances where people will
be walking into the store, they will know what they are walking into,
as well as one informational sign above the pharmacy drive-through
that simply reads pharmacy drive-through.
I did go to the store last time I was here in Naples, and I spoke
with the pharmacist, and they said that they -- people don't really
Page 161
February 13,2007
realize that it's a pharmacy drive-through. They might think it's a
bank or something else. Once they've come into the store and they
realize there's a drive-through, then they begin to use it, but at this
time it's not identified properly.
So those are the reasons we're asking for four signs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Is there any other--
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to clarify
something from staff. Would you please tell me the difference in
requirements with respect to wall signs and directional signs?
MS. VALERA: Yes. Our code is very specific in regards to
what is advertisement and what is directional signs, and directional
signs are not advertisement. It's just to direct people, an exit, entrance
sign -- type of signs, and those actually are exempted from code.
So the code -- anything that advertises goods, that advertises
what the somebody's about, is advertisement. And so we considered
that all the signs that are being requested are, in fact, advertisement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I would differ in my
interpretation. If you have a sign that says emergency room at a
hospital, that is not really an advertising sign. It is a directional sign.
MS. VALERA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And whether it's located on a
marque at the front of the -- the entrance of the property or whether it's
located above the entrance to the emergency room, it is directional in
nature.
Wal * Mart is an advertising sign, but the drive-through pharmacy
is not an advertising because what company is the drive-through
pharmacy? It's not. It's a directional sign. It tells you that if you want
pharmaceutical products and want to drive through to get them, you
go to that place. The same thing is true if you want to go to a food
store.
Those are, in my estimation, are not advertisement -- advertising
Page 162
February 13, 2007
signs so much as they are a directional sign for Wal *Mart, which is
the name of the entire complex. People need to know which door to
go into to do whatever shopping they want.
I don't buy the retail sign because it has Wal *Mart right in the
middle of it. If you've got food store here and you've got drive-in
pharmacy down there, guess where you're going to go if you don't
need those two? You're going to go into the retail place, okay? So
you don't need another retail sign.
But as far as the three signs they're asking for, my feeling is, food
center, pharmacy drive-through and garden center are clearly
directional signs to direct people to the proper place to go shopping at
Wal *Mart. So under those circumstances, it does not violate the code,
and I think they can be permitted without violating the code.
So I understand there might be differences of perception,
interpretation, but I just thought I'd offer you the benefit of my thought
on this.
MS. VALERA: Sure. If I can explain again what staffs position
is on that. When -- in regards to the drive-through, you are
advisement -- advertising the pharmacy, so that's why staff has that
position that, in fact, you are advertising a type of good that is sold in
the Wal*Mart Super-center. Not -- I don't know if all the Wal*Mart's
have pharmacies, but the fact that they are advertising that they have
-- that they will require -- or that would like a sign that says
drive-through will tell people that they are selling -- that they have a
pharmacist center and that they will be selling goods within the
pharmacy.
The same applies to the garden center. A sign that says garden
center is also saying, we sell plants, we sell flowers, we sell seeds, et
cetera, et cetera. So that's how staff is interpreting that the designs
are, in fact, advertisement and not directional signs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't agree, but nevertheless,
that's a different issue.
Page 163
February 13,2007
MS. VALERA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I've made my motion, and
there's a second.
Have you made your presentation? Is that all you wanted to say?
MS. COVINGTON-MOSS: Yes. And the only other thing I
wanted to state was in regard to the statement that was made about the
smaller mom and pops stores getting the same advantages that a larger
retail centers like Wal *Mart would get, currently the way that the
LDC reads is that we are held to the same standards as buildings --
any building 60,000 square feet or more, and we are over three and a
half times that size; therefore, the percentage of signage that that
60,000 square foot building would receive greatly exceeds the amount,
percentage-wise, of the signage that we're allowed to put on our
W al *Mart. It's held to a number. Two hundred square feet -- or I'm
sorry -- 250 square feet of area is on an entire building.
And Wal * Mart right now adheres to that, and that's why we're
asking for additional, because they give different steps up from 25,000
square feet in area, and then it goes -- they give more signage to
people between that and 59,999. And then once you get to 60,000, it
doesn't matter how much bigger you get, that's all you're allowed. So
that's why we're asking for this variance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And just in closing, Mr.
Chairman, I'd like to draw another analogy here. Let's suppose we had
a sign outside that said government complex and that's all we had. Can
you imagine the confusion of people who wanted to know where they
should go? We have government complex and then we have the
administrative building, we have the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Courthouse.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- courthouse, we have the jail, we
have the museum, we have all of those kinds of things. I don't
consider those to be advertisements at all. I consider those to be
directional in nature. So anyway, that's -- I still support my motion.
Page 164
February 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. VALERA: And just to clarify that, Commissioner, and
that's why we just did an amendment to our code to exempt those
types of signs for government, for schools, et cetera, because we do
agree with you, those are not advertisement. Those are just purely to
direct people of what we have. So we don't sell goods. Well --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We sell services.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just -- it's all in
interpretation. It's -- and my feeling about this is, we're a community
of retirees as well as young people with children, and to drive up to a
very long store like this and not know where to go, I would need the
direction. I certainly don't want to walk around in the rest of the store
if I just need a pharmacy. And I don't care whose pharmacy it is, if
I've driven to Wal * Mart, I'm already there to use it so I need a
direction, and I'm going to give you a cute funny story. I am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In Ohio Amish country they have a
Super W al *Mart, except in that particular Super Wal * Mart -- and I
know of no other -- they have this long little building with the roof on
it where you park your horses and buggies, and they have little
buckets for water and feed, and every night they have somebody go
out and clean it all up. I swear to you, that's the truth.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, any other comments?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'll just let it go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. You can't top
Commissioner Fiala, that's for sure.
Okay. With that I'm going to call the question. All those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 165
February 13,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-1. Commissioner
Henning being the dissenting vote.
MR. MUDD: And that was for three signs?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Three signs.
MS. COVINGTON-MOSS: Thank you.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2007-27: PUDZ-2004-AR-6810: LIVINGSTON
GREENS, LLC, REPRESENTED BY GEORGE L. VARNADOE
OF CHEFFY, PASSIDOMO, WILSON & JOHNSON, LLP,
REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A REZONE FROM THE
AGRICUL TURE (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD)
ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS
HAMILTON GREENS RPUD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
CONSISTING OF 29.68 ACRES, IS LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 3/4 OF A
MILE NORTH OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, IN SECTION
31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY~ FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item.
Now we're going from Board of Zoning Appeals back to advertised
public hearings.
Next item is 8A. This item requires that all participants be sworn
in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDZ-2004-AR-681 0, Livingston Greens, LLC, represented by
Page 166
February 13,2007
George L. Varnadoe ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson, LLP,
requesting approval of a rezone from the agricultural A zoning district
to the residential planned unit development, RPUD, zoning district for
a proj ect to be known as Hamilton Greens, RPUD.
Subject property consists of29.68 acres. It's located on the east
side of Livingston Road, approximately three-quarters of a mile north
of Vanderbilt Beach Road in Section 31, Township 48 south, Range
26 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And would all those wishing to be
sworn in, please stand at this time.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Disclosures by the
commissioners, starting with Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I spoke with George
Varnadoe, the petitioner's agent, and I also spoke briefly with staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I also spoke with George
Varnadoe and staff.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I had meetings with staff, and
I also had meetings with the petitioner, Mr. Varnadoe.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do I get a chance?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, you're still here?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I'm still here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please. Go ahead,
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have spoken with Mr. Varnadoe
about this, and that's it. Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Varnadoe, we're
waiting for you.
Page 167
February 13, 2007
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. Good afternoon,
Commissioners. Don't have any horse and buggy stories,
unfortunately.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Too bad.
MR. VARNADOE: But I am here on behalf of -- George
Varnadoe, for the record -- Livingston Green LLC, seeking a rezone
of this 29.88-acre (sic) parcel.
Also have a cadre of planners, environmental consultants,
engineers, architects, to answer any questions you might have or make
presentations if you desire, but I'm going to try to make this fairly
short. The site --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Varnadoe? I'd like to make a
motion to approve this with the Planning Commission's
recommendations.
MR. VARNADOE: And sir, that would be fine. And I have one
qualification, if I might.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's that, sir?
MR. VARNADOE: In the Planning Commission's
recommendations, they had us make in our -- at my request, a
contribution to the affordable housing fund at the time of closing on
the units.
Since that time, staffhas asked if we would make them at CO
because they have no way of really monitoring when the closings
occur on the unit, and we have agreed to that because I understand that
would be some concern to staff to try to monitor that. So with that
one change, we certainly don't need to belabor this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll include that in my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
Marjorie?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. Marjorie
Student-Stirling for the record. Just one small change in the cover
Page 168
February 13,2007
ordinance that the PUD's attached to. In your packet I believe it's
called the Livingston Greens PUD document. It's the Hamilton
Greens PUD document, and that change has been made to the
ordinance. That's all. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any -- okay. We'll start with
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Varnadoe, I'm glad that you
stepped up to the plate and withdrew the $1,000 for affordable
housing. I think this --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, he didn't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He did not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He withdrew it until -- at such time
as the CO, until we figure out what we're going to do here as the
Board of County Commissioners in regards to linkage fees,
inclusionary housing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I feel-- I'm going to -- if that's
not in the -- if we don't get that taken care of, then I can tell you that I
will not vote for this. But I think we're on the right track here where
you're at least pulling back the thousand dollars until such time as the
COs -- or by that time I'm hoping that we can address this problem
before the Board of County Commissioners, because I believe your
project's going to be at least a year or two years down the road; is that
correct?
MR. VARNADOE: Absolutely, sir. And let me make very clear
for the record what we agreed to do. We agreed to pay $1,000 as a
credit towards any linkage fees that you might enact, and we would
pay that $1,000 at the time of CO on each dwelling unit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So in other words, we have to solve
this problem before we'll -- I'll accept that money.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I didn't --let's talk about
this a little bit, because my understanding is the offer isn't contingent
Page 169
February 13, 2007
upon us solving the problem. It stands by itself. If we solve the
problem, this would be applied towards it. In other words, the $1,000
would go away if it was an amount in excess of that?
MR. VARNADOE: That's correct. And--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then I --
MR. VARNADOE: Commissioner Halas, I respect your
position, because this is not a development by development problem.
It's an issue that we have countywide. It's not just the new projects
that are coming in. We have to address this. But, sir, I would ask you
not to penalize this developer for stepping up to the plate --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're not -- I'm not penalizing
you. I just got to look at this as what I feel is the right way and the
honest way of proceeding. We're asking developers to come up with
money, and it's getting to the point where if they don't provide the
thousand dollars per unit, then they may not get their units approved.
And where we're putting the money is we're just putting it in the bank
and we're not really directing where this money is going. So I have
some real concerns about this whole issue, okay? And it's not because
of you, sir.
MR. VARNADOE: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. It's just the idea that this
needs to be taken care of. We were going to address linkage fees. It
was killed. There was no discussion whatsoever, and then we've got
issues coming up with inclusionary housing. So it's all pending -- it
all is tied together, and that's why I have some concerns.
But as long as no COs are issued on this proj ect until we get the
affordable housing issue and everything that's tied in with it off the
table --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Comment you'd like to make on that?
MR. VARNADOE: Sir, respectfully, you know, you're putting
us in a box where we can't use our land unless -- until --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no. I'm just saying that as long
Page 170
February 13, 2007
-- in two year's time, we should have something taken care of on these
linkage fees or whether we're -- how we're going to address the
affordable housing issue to make it fair for everybody in Collier
County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You lost me, but we're going
to go to Commissioner Henning, then we're going to come back to
Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question for the petitioner and
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, I'm sorry. I
didn't --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the county attorney. Is this a
donation?
MR. VARNADOE: It's a donation, sir, just like you'd donate
right-of-way but as for impact fees and credits against that donation.
It's a donation if you don't ever adopt any fee for -- any linkage fee for
affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: If you do, then just like donating
right-of-way, we're asking for a credit against that. If you opt -- when
you adopt one that says $5,000 a unit, I'm already going to have paid
-- agreed to pay one thousand, so I owe you four.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. End of that discussion.
The density increases above, for the county attorney, TCMA,
additional density of three. Is that a -- is that a given or is that part of
any density increases? It is -- it's not an entitlement?
MR. VARNADOE: Commissioner Henning, we're not asking
for any density bonus.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: As far as I know, that they're at--
they're just at base density and they're not asking for a bonus.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I misread that. Oh, I see.
It's the three -- okay.
Page 171
February 13,2007
MR. VARNADOE: We were entitled to ask for up to four. Ifwe
use that other program we could ask for an additional three. Our
density is actually just less than three units an acre, 2.96.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because it is in a TCMA.
MR. VARNADOE: It is, but we're not asking for the additional.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not too--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I misread it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not too sure if it's Commissioner
Fiala or Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I was just trying to interpret
what just transpired. And what I took it as is, on your part, it was like
a commitment that you would participate in some form or fashion if
there is some kind of a linkage fee created, or whatever it's going to
be, you were going to do your part to it as -- after your COs, right?
MR. VARNADOE: No, ma'am. If you haven't done anything by
the time we do our COs, we're going to have paid you a thousand
dollars a unit and gone on with life because we can't price a product
based on not knowing what you've done.
What I'm saying is that if you never -- or I shouldn't say never. If
you don't get there before we do, then we'll make a contribution of a
thousand dollars a unit towards affordable housing. If you do get
there, then we'll pay whatever the linkage fee is and take the credit for
our thousand we've already committed. That was what I was trying to
explain.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, sorry to make
you wait.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that was clear enough.
That's what I was trying to do was get that clarified. I thought that
was pretty clear.
Page 1 72
February 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll close the public hearing.
Any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion --
MS. FILSON: Who made the second?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I made the motion, Commissioner
Fiala made the second -- 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. So the vote is 4-1 with
Commissioner Halas abstaining (sic). And you do want to make a
comment?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think -- I think -- hopefully
everybody understood why, okay? And it wasn't anything against
your product or what you're doing there. I think it's great. You and I
discussed that. It's just the idea that I feel that we've got to come to
closure on what we're doing here in the county, okay? Thank you.
MR. VARNADOE: And I appreciate your position, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate you stepping up to the
plate like you did, sir.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you.
Page 1 73
February 13, 2007
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2007-28: A COUNTY ORDINANCE GOVERNING
THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT OF LAND OR EASEMENT
PURCHASES REQUIRING ONE OR TWO REAL ESTATE
APPRAISALS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 8D. It used
to be 17B. And it reads, recommendation to adopt a county ordinance
governing the threshold amount of land or easement purchases
requiring one or two real estate appraisals. Estimated fiscal impact not
to exceed $300.
And I believe Kevin Hendricks, your Manager for Real Estate for
Transportation, will be present.
MR. HENDRICKS: Yes, sir. Thank you, Commissioners.
Kevin Hendricks, for the record.
This was on the summary agenda and was pulled, placed on
public hearings. And I'm here to answer any questions that you might
have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Who pulled it? That would be
the easiest thing.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it was me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, would you lead
off.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, yes. Let me --let me address
the issue that I had concerning this, and that is, the proposed ordinance
would allow the board to waive the requirement for any appraisal
where a purchase price of the easement is less than $500,000. I don't
understand why we have to waive than appraisal.
Five hundred thousand dollars is a fair amount of money. You're
suggesting a reduced appraisal process that is an appraisal process that
Page 174
February 13,2007
is less expensive by permitting the appraisal to be prepared by a
licensed stated certified real estate state appraiser who is a salaried
employee of the Board of County Commissioners for anything over
500,000 and less an a million.
Why don't we just apply the same -- same figure to the whole
thing?
MR. HENDRICKS: I'm sorry. I don't understand the question.
Specifically what?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. First of all, you're waiving a
requirement for any appraisal less than 500,000 -- or $500,000 or less?
MR. HENDRICKS: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. HENDRICKS: I'm increasing, basically, using a local
ordinance --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But it means that --
MR. HENDRICKS: -- to plan for Florida Statutes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it means that we could go out
and buy a $500,000 piece of property with no appraisal whatsoever?
MR. HENDRICKS: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And somebody on staff can
make that decision.
MR. HENDRICKS: No. The board must approve every
purchase. Anyone of those purchases would come back to the board
unless through --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do we determine the value of
the property then? Who's going to tell us what the value of the
property is? And how do we know that's the correct value of the
property?
MR. HENDRICKS: Oh, we've got -- we appraise property all
over the county. I mean, we review the appraisal.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute now. No. You're
saying no appraisal is necessary. So if no appraisal is necessary for
Page 175
February 13,2007
$500,000, how do we know it's really $500,000?
MR. HENDRICKS: Well, we're not going to just bring the
proposed purchase agreement to you without any discussion of the
value of the property and what our recommendation is relative to what
other properties are selling for.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you mean no outside appraisals
will be necessary?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He says none.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, none, no appraisals.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, that's what bothers me. If
you're going to bring to us an appraisal by you or someone who is an
employee of Collier County, that's fine. I'm willing to go that way.
But to just say, there will be no appraisal whatsoever --
MR. HENDRICKS: You currently have that with Florida
Statutes where the board may waive the requirement for an appraisal
where the purchase price is less than $100,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. HENDRICKS: That was written back in 1985.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay.
MR. HENDRICKS: And I would submit that certainly real
estate prices in Southwest Florida have increased by more than
five- fold in that amount of time. We can cite examples.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder?
MR. HENDRICKS: Oh, yeah, we'd still do an appraisal. We'd
still have a state certified general real estate appraiser on staff, and that
is the individual who would be doing appraisals up to a million
dollars. Plus we review hundreds of appraisals every year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we just say that any
appraisal for property less than -- $1 million or less will be done by a
state certified appraiser who can be an employee of Collier County
and get done with it? I mean, that's --
MR. HENDRICKS: We could do that.
Page 176
February 13,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that makes it -- that gives us
the comfort of knowing that a state certified employee, perhaps you or
somebody else on staff, is telling us officially, here is my appraised
price of this amount of -- this property. Will you approve the
purchase, okay?
MR. HENDRICKS: Certainly. Be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But just to say, we're not going to
give you an appraisal is --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I second your motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm in agreement with the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, great. Any other 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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Great job.
Commissioner Coyle, thank you for getting that language in there. I
think it was very important.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
Item #9 A
Page 177
February 13, 2007
RESOLUTION 2007-38: RE-APPOINTING JAMES A. PUSATERI
AND JOHN BARLOW TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
COMMISSION - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next part of
the agenda, which is 9 A. Appointment of members to the affordable
housing committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could I indulge the commission for
a second?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We have -- there's one individual
that has asked to be -- his application to be looked at, and that was Mr.
Don Spanier. And if you look at the information that was presented to
-- in our agenda, he's been involved in a number of issues and items of
affordable housing up in the state of New York. So I would ask for
your indulgence if you would maybe consider him to be put on the
Affordable Housing Commission.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I -- this is interesting
because what's so beautiful about this is that there's so many people
that want to be on this particular board. What they're recommending,
of course, is the people that have been on the board to be able to retain
those positions. So I would have to leave that up to you. Who would
you like to see him replace? Have you studied that end of it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I was thinking that maybe
Mr. James Gus--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pusateri.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Pusateri, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd love to throw in here that Mr.
Barlow and Mr. Pusateri attend every meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think that they are -- they
Page 178
February 13, 2007
both, as the committee had recommended, would hit the ground
running because they're both so in tune with everything going on, and
I would really like to make a motion that we take the committee
recommendation and approve it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm going to have to go along
with that, because I attend the meetings, and I've seen these people in
action; however, there's going to be other appointments coming up
shortly. They have some people that have been what's called
non- functional on the committee, and they're going to be weeding
them out, and we're coming back for a number of people. And I kind
of hope that we'll keep this list alive.
Is that correct, Cormac, rather than have to readvertise?
MS. FILSON: Yes. I do readvertise, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But could be keep this list
alive so that they don't have to reapply?
MS. FILSON: If that's the board's direction. I don't normally do
that, but if that's --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could we make that part of the
motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could you -- you don't know
whether these people will really want to apply again. I think it's
necessary that you at least contact these people and find out if they
really want their name on the list next time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just so we can give them the
opportunity to be there. They went through all the efforts to apply and
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, they might have to update
their application anyway, because there might have been some offense
against the law that might have occurred in -- well, that's one of the
questions we ask them, you know. And so who knows what happens
between --
Page 179
___.,,____c_ ._...______;...,_____..._
February 13,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: None of these are elected officials.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I see. Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What are you implying?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nothing. I was just trying to answer
Commissioner --
So we have a motion on the floor. I guess the idea of using the
present list is gone by the wayside. I don't know if there's any support.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'll just encourage Mr.
Spanier to -- when the time comes to resubmit his application. But I
do think he has a lot -- a wealth of information since he dealt with
affordable housing up in the State of New York before he moved
down here to Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's a couple others on here I
personally know, especially Arnold Karp, that I was very impressed
with myself. But in any case, we have a motion on the floor, we have
a second.
With that, any other discussion? Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, 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.
Item #9B
Page 180
February 13, 2007
RESOLUTION 2007-39: APPOINTING DAVID R. CLEMENS TO
THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9B. It's appointment of
member to the Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion we appoint
David Clemens.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle, to go with committee
recommendations.
All of 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 #9C
RESOLUTION 2007-40: APPOINTING DAVID BISHOF TO THE
LAKE TRAFFORD RESTORATION TASK FORCE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item it 9C, appointment of members to the
Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion we appoint
David Bishof.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
Page 181
--""'-. ,.,----.-....."-
February 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Bishop.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bishof.
MS. FILSON: No, it's F. Who did the second?
MR. MUDD: Bishofwith an F.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's argue about it.
MS. FILSON: I accidentally put a P in the committee
recommendation. It's spelled with an F.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing 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.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2007-41: ESTABLISHING SUPPORT FOR THE
STATE LEGISLATORS' EFFORTS REGARDING STATE
INSURANCE REFORM - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9D. It's a
resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, establishing support for the Florida legislators' effort
Page 182
-"'-'-"-- -.. --,,-,_.-
February 13, 2007
regarding state insurance reform.
Commissioner Coyle will present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is merely a resolution which
reaffirms what we discussed previously . You directed me to have a
resolution prepared. This is it. I think it -- with the help of the County
Attorney's Office, we have updated it to reflect the realities of the bill
that was actually passed and it's very supportive of the efforts of the
legislature and the governor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And what's the
recommendations on this? Just to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Make a motion that we approve __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to
approve this and second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing 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: Ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman. On a related -- on a related
subject.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir, please.
MR. MUDD: Okay. You told staff to come back -- I was going
to do this during communication, but we're -- we've got insurance on
our mind. You told staff to come back with the Florida insurance and
actuary request from Bobbie Dusek's petition.
After the special legislative session is over and they've passed
Page 183
February 13, 2007
insurance reform, is it the board's pleasure that we wait -- my recomm
-- staffs recommendation is that you wait until June or thereabouts
when they finally get some insurance companies that change their
ways, till we see how this starts to play out before we take any further
action on Ms. Dusek's petition, because we believe __
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you going to finish?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I thought you were. You
stopped talking for a second.
MR. MUDD: The petition was for $150,000 for an attorney and
an actuary so that they could start working -- their -- with this private
enterprise to move it forward to reduce our insurance costs. We
believe, staff believes, that it's a little premature in order to do that
even yet because it's going to take time for the insurance companies to
change their rates to get them out to the customers so we can actually
see what the result of the legislation is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, I think what was
presented to the Board of Commissioners, they haven't taken a good
look at the overall infrastructure of Collier County and the number of
new homes that fit the hurricane code. And it wasn't to hire -- 150 for
that group. It was for the county to hire, not for that group, for the
citizens of Collier County.
MR. MUDD: All I'm asking is, does the board want me to bring
that back now or do you want to wait a little bit longer? Because your
instructions were to bring it back right after the special session. I'll
bring it back for next meeting if the board wants, or do you want to
wait?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And it has nothing to do
with the raising of insurance or the lowering of insurance because of
the legislators. It's because -- it's just that we want a fair shake to our
residents to make sure they're value -- the community's valued overall.
And, yes, I would personally.
Page 184
February 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The problem we had at the
time was that we didn't know exactly what was going to be passed by
the legislature, and we, quite frankly, I think Ms. Dusek's organization
was trying to get information to support changes in the insurance laws
in the State of Florida.
Well, now that has happened. We don't know what the effect is
going to be yet, but we're still absent all of that backup information.
We don't know how much the people in Collier County have paid in
insurance premiums over the past decade or 20 years, as an example.
We don't know how much insurance companies have paid out in
claims to residents of Collier County over that same period.
We don't really have a good assessment of how our quality of
construction in Collier County stacks up with some of the other
counties. It is entirely possible, if we can gather the information, we
can make a case for substantially lower insurance rates in Collier
County because of those determinations.
So I would suggest we continue to see if we can collect that data.
I don't -- I'm not saying we have to spend all the money all at once,
but it would be interesting at least to get somebody who's capable of
doing that, maybe to have the county manager and staff sit down with
them and discuss the parameters of the study, and then come back to
us and tell us what is possible within what time frame and for how
much money.
The one thing, honestly, we haven't defined is we haven't told
you what we want. We haven't told you what information we need,
and I'm not sure we know ourselves.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm not arguing that point, but
you've asked us -- they asked us, 150,000. You basically tabled it
until after the special session.
If you want the staff to bring that item back -- because you didn't
know what the legislature was going to do. We now know what it did.
Page 185
February 13, 2007
We don't know what -- how it's actually going to -- what it's actually
going to result for us as far as premium reductions. We'll see that
soon, I hope.
The question is, do you want to proceed with the background
information? There was a request by Ms. Dusek that she use, or that
group FAIR, I believe is what they call themselves, that they use the
same actuary and attorney that they -- that I guess it was Monroe
County, David?
MR. WEIGEL: Correct.
MR. MUDD: That Monroe County used. We're going to need to
come back to the board and ask the board, yes, do you want to put
those dollars down? Do you want to go sole source? Do you want us
to go out for RFP for those particulars? All I'm asking is, do you want
us to come back with the item for the board's decision at the next
meeting?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I vote we come back. And let me
just say this. My understanding of what that person did from Monroe
County was that it was specifically limited to Citizens Insurance
Corporation. That is not my interest. I am not interested in doing a
study just on Citizens Insurance Corporation because it has been
changed so dramatically. Anything we study about them in the past
will be irrelevant for the future.
We need to take a look at the entire insurance picture in Collier
County with an emphasis on the standards of construction, because
one of the effects of this new legislation is likely to be that insurance
companies will be required to assess the vulnerability of a structure
based upon an inspection of the building rather than just using the year
of construction. Okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Directions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Directions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, let's bring it back.
Page 186
February 13, 2007
MR. MUDD: Bring it back next meeting?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: I think I've got two commissioners that say __
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Bring it back.
MR. MUDD: It's coming back. Thank you very much. I thank
you for your direction.
Item #10C
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT FISCAL YEAR 2006 GRANT
REPORT PROVIDING AN ANNUAL UPDATE OF GRANT
ACTIVITY - APPROVED
Next item is 10C. It's a recommendation to accept the fiscal year
2006 grant report providing an annual update of grant activity. And
Marlene Ford and -- Marlene Ford's our grant coordinator.
Come on up, Marlene. And Len Price will help her when she needs
to. Go for it.
MS. FORD: All right. Good afternoon. Marlene Ford, your
Collier County Grant Coordinator.
Today I have the privilege of telling you about the grants that we
have had so many successes with over the last year, fiscal year '06.
And I just wanted to present the report to you. I'm going to do this on
an annual basis. Normally you don't hear about the good news unless
you hear it through the newspapers, so this is going to be your good
news annual report, and I want to thank you for your support and also
take any questions, if you have any.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that I'm totally
impressed on the amount of grants that this county is getting, and I
want to thank you and your staff for working so diligently to bring this
forth. Some of these grants, yes, are cost shared, but the overall effect
Page 187
February 13,2007
on this county and what you're doing is outstanding. Thank you.
Keep up the great work.
MS. FORD: Thank you. It's all your staff doing this work.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion to accept the fiscal
year 2006 grant report --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- providing the annual update. Okay.
We have a motion for -- to accept this, second by Commissioner
Halas for -- motion made by Commissioner Coletta. Excuse me for
not getting that in.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing 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.
MS. FORD: Thank you.
Item #10D
A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH AND CODE
ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS REGARDING THE
CONTINUED INITIATIVES TO ELIMINATE UNSAFE AND
UNSOUND HOUSING IN THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY _
MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND
TO DRAFT A LETTER TO GROWERS CONCERNING
HOUSING NEEDS FOR THEIR WORKERS - APPROVED
Page 188
February 13,2007
MR. MUDD: Next item is 10D. It's a report to the Board of
County Commissioners from Collier County health and code
enforcement departments regarding the continued initiatives to
eliminate unsafe and unsound housing in the Immokalee community.
And Michelle Arnold and Dr. Colfer will present in order, I
guess.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm
here to just report back to you as you requested in the past on the
activities that has occurred in the Immokalee area with regard to the
elimination of substandard housing in that particular area.
As you all are aware, the initiative started at your workshop in
April of 2006. And my staff went out there in Immokalee and
identified, in June, approximately 103 units that met that substandard
housing condition.
Since the time that we reported to you in October, we found an
additional three units. And so the total units that we are looking at is
106 units that are out -- substandard.
Since the initiation of the report or this project, we have
eliminated 71 percent of the substandard units, and that has been in the
form of demolition or repairs. We're still working with the property
owners out there to do both.
I just want to show you an example of one of the repairs that we
recently documented in our report.
One of the things that we provide in a code enforcement
perspective that is kind of a gap or something that needs to be
addressed and -- is the -- currently mobile homes are regulated by the
Florida Department of Highway and Safety and Motor Vehicles.
They are the ones that are responsible for the initiation or the
permitting of those structures.
The Florida Building Code does not include any inspection or
guidelines for inspections and permitting of mobile homes with the
Page 189
February 13, 2007
exception of tie-down and the -- hooking those structures up to
utilities.
What I'm requesting at this time is that you all authorize staff to
investigate developing a technical amendment to the building code so
that we could look into guidelines for inspections and permitting of
mobile homes, because what's happened is, many of the structures that
were demolished or made vulnerable, more vulnerable as part of the
hurricanes and, you know, weather that we've had, are not being
inspected, and people are altering or modifying those things. And
this, I think, would safeguard those -- the residents out in Immokalee
and make sure that the alterations and modifications to those structures
are at least sound and meet some --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You just need--
MS. ARNOLD: -- minimum requirements.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- direction from the commission with
a nod of the head for that particular part?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I believe so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a bunch of Commissioners,
I think, that want to address that particular issue.
Commissioner Henning's first, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I think Commissioner
Coyle was first. But anyways, if the state is supposed to be doing it
and they're not doing it, why don't we get the -- ask the state to do it?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, what the state is -- what the state is doing
is actually inspecting it when they first are built, and there's no
inspection that is done subsequent to that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- what's the FAC number
so I could look it up, governing the mobile homes?
MS. ARNOLD: I don't have that information. I will try to get it
to you before the presentation's over though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else, Commissioner
Page 190
February 13, 2007
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I just have a problem
with taking on more -- more and more.
MR. HAMMOND: For the record, Bill Hammond, director of
building review and permitting. Commissioner, Florida Statute 553.73
is the Florida Building Code, and within that there's language that
exempts -- that exempts that manufactured housing from the Florida
Building Code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. HAMMOND: But I can forward you some more
information about the specific guidelines and governance for mobile
homes under the Department of Motor Vehicle and Safety.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. HAMMOND: I can forward that to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that wouldn't be in the
statutes. That would be either in the building code or Florida
Administration (sic) Code, the details of it.
MR. HAMMOND: The details of it are that that's correct, and I
don't have that specific admin. code number or the statute number, but
I do have the reference, and I can get that information for you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. HAMMOND: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So discussion is still on
whether to direct staff to go forward with this. And if I may jump in
front of you, Commissioner Coyle.
First off, the cost that we're spending, the county's spending to
remove and demolish the structures that are out there, that's money
we're all going to get back. Liens are being placed against property. I
believe there's an interest that secures every year on it.
Property values in Immokalee are just starting to turn the corner and
go up. I think we're going to see demand for it, and the county's going
to be made whole as far as those kind of expenses go.
Page 191
February 13, 2007
But we've been to Immokalee. We've seen the very worst cases
that we can see, and I think we were all moved by what we saw.
The thing is that, as hard as we try, there's a whole element of that
community that goes without the proper inspections. If we can get
there by coming up with the right codes and ordinances in our end of
the whole thing, I'm for doing it, if we're ever going to make these
people whole and be able to protect the well-being of the people that
live in Immokalee. I mean, nobody wants to live in substandard
housing.
Well, I've said enough. I'm not going to go into that anymore,
and I got ahead of Commissioner Coyle, and he's got something to
say, and I don't want him to forget what it was.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I already have, but -- no, really. I
would like to make a motion to approve the staffs recommendation.
It's my understanding that there just isn't any Florida Building Code or
any other building code that will permit either the State of Florida or
anyone else to inspect these things, and if we're going to do
something, we need to develop a local building code that can be
enforced by the county. I would like to think that the state would take
some responsibility, but I know they won't.
And rather than let the problem just sit there and fester, I'd like to
solve it. So I would -- I would support the staffs recommendation that
we accept the report and endorse the continuation of the identified
initiatives and to pursue the local amendment to the Florida Building
Code authorizing the local building department to establish and
enforce building standards for mobile home structures, but beyond
that, I believe that for those units that were previously rated as beyond
repair and that are now occupied, we should be able to impose some
fine on these people.
What you're suggesting is that we advise them that their licenses
for occupancy will be revoked at the end of the current migrant
season. I presume that's because you don't want to throw people out
Page 192
February 13,2007
on the streets.
MS. ARNOLD: Right. That's making reference to those migrant
facilities. And as a part of this study, we had our inventory and our
count of substandard units which is completely separate from the
count that the health department -- and Dr. Colfer is here to speak to
that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But now let me make sure
that we understand. If we make a motion, we're going to cover both
elements here.
MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
DR. COLFER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
I'm Dr. Joan Collier, the Collier County Health Department Director,
and with me is Nancy Frees, who's in charge of our Immokalee site.
You'll recall, as Michelle said, we -- you know, we toured Immokalee
housing stock, we showed you everything that was there, including
what we license, which is the migrant housing. And migrant housing
is defined as housing for five or more migrants, so it's not -- it's not a
trailer with a single family in it. It's a trailer that has, you know, five
men or five women, or whatever combination working the fields.
At the board meeting in May you provided some additional funding to
bolster staff in Immokalee to address the migrant housing problems.
And at the time -- and we're going to show you the same chart we
showed you then.
Okay. So what we showed you back at the May meeting was the
total, the 1,440 migrant housing units. Now, that doesn't sound like a
lot, but you have to remember that that represents over 8,000 beds.
And 50 percent we thought were still in good condition, 25 percent
needed improvement, but it was that last group, that 25 percent that
were beyond repair that we wanted to focus on.
And if that's unclear, the pie chart shows you the blue's the good
Page 193
.------ . ------"'..-,..--.--,,<,
February 13,2007
condition, the maroon is the "needs improvement," and the yellow is
what we primarily have been focusing on.
We hired staff, we began closing down and denying permits to
folks for those that were the ones that were in the worst repair, and
then Nancy's going to join me up here and talk a little bit more about
what some of those findings are and where we find ourselves,
particularly, Commissioner Coyle, with the folks that are already
living in those that we really don't want to have them remain as part of
the housing stock. But we -- you know, we also don't want to throw
people out in the street.
We think that we've closed down the ones that were, you know, a
health and safety danger, and those are -- those have been eliminated.
And Nancy can show you that piece.
MS. FREES: Hello. I'm short. For the record, Nancy Frees
from the County Health Department in Immokalee.
And as Dr. Colfer was saying, we have already closed that initial
-- and I gave my paperwork away. We ini -- we closed that initial 122
units that have been eliminated; that was almost 700 beds. And in __
as is mentioned in this current report, there are 129 units that have 740
beds that are occupied right now, and we could start tomorrow and
eliminate those and if we do, then we have 700 people that are on the
street within a week or so.
What we would like to ask your support and concurrence to do __
because they are kept to minimum standards. They have running
water. They do have refrigeration. There are no immediate health
risks or threats -- to begin eliminating putting those folks on notice
today, official notice. We have started verbally communicating that __
begin to put them officially on written notice that when those migrants
are gone -- many of those will start leaving in May, some in April,
some in May, so that generally those are vacant, and all of them, by
June -- that they know then that's the end of those units and they will
not be re-occupied after this season.
Page 194
February 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could we be assured of that?
MS. FREES: Well, as long as I continue to have staff to monitor,
yes, sir, because that's what we do is go back -- on the ones that we
have investigated, the ones that we have already eliminated, staff
continued to monitor those sites.
On other ones that we have identified -- and I'd like to show you
this one. As part of staffs activity of being out in the community,
behind a trailer off of -- near Lake Trafford Road, in the back yard we
found this bus and two RVs.
As you can see, those R V shave tarps on them because of
hurricane damage. So they had tarps put on by somebody at some
point. The bus was converted into sleeping quarters.
Now, this was -- we found this in January. And as you drove down the
front of the property, you did not know it was there, if our staff hadn't
been out on the street and looking.
So that property now looks like this. And as I shared with
Michelle, I never even got to refer it to county code enforcement. I
just told them, once we got done with them, that's who was coming
next. So they cleaned it out before anybody ever got further. So
within a matter of about four days, this is what they had done with the
property.
And so those pieces are things that are a little -- they are harder to
measure out of that original 700 -- or 8,000 beds, excuse me, that we
had. But those are still ones that we are continuing to work on.
The other piece of that -- if I could show this one, please.
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MS. FREES: Because as part of that, we have eliminated
completely by October those 674 beds. In December we added 54
beds that were in good facilities.
Since then we have added 300 -- and I have it right in front of me
-- 54 beds. So while we have continued to eliminate the substandard
ones on one hand, we have continued to gradually add other units that
Page 195
February 13, 2007
are in good shape and in good repair.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Halas, and then Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: First I want to make a comment.
Wouldn't it be nice if the employers or farmers provided housing for
their workforce.
DR. COLFER: As long as it was decent housing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And healthcare -- and healthcare.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And healthcare would even be
better. Would this motion that we have on the floor now cover trailer
flophouses, for instance? I'm only speaking of some that I'm aware of
right here off Bayshore, and I'm sure you are, too. Does it cover
things like that?
MS. FREES: On Michelle's -- we only are in them,
Commissioner, if they are migrant housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. Maybe -- okay.
MS. FREES: But if that would be trailer housing that is here in
Naples that does not -- or anywhere in the county that does not contain
migrants, that's where Michelle --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. I was just wondering if
that would help Michelle then in any housing, doesn't make any
difference where it's located, you know, besides Immokalee when it's
either unsafe or when they're using it as a flophouse.
MS. ARNOLD: This recommendation, yes, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I believe that when we
discussed this we had -- some time ago we had a workshop in regards
to addressing affordable housing and housing in Immokalee in
general. And I think at that time there were landowners, there were
people that were involved in the ago industry that said they were going
to step up to the plate and provide housing. Where does that stand?
Page 196
February 13, 2007
MS. FREES: Some of that, I can tell you, it's -- and I'm note
sure. Is it Gargiulo's?
MR. MUDD: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the one.
MS. FREES: -- that is south -- yeah, I never quite say it right --
south of Farm Workers' Village is -- which is on route 29, has new
housing that will be in place by the end of the summer, is what their
goal -- their objective is, is by the next growing season.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how many units are they
going to provide for their workers?
MS. FREES: That I don't have an answer to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think that would be very
interesting. I think that you need to provide --
MS. FREES: I'm afraid right -- I can find that answer. I can find
it out from someone, because we will be looking at those plans as part
of the migrant housing permitting process, so I can find that
information out and get it to you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that they have an
obligation in regards to this, and I hope that we can put pressure on
them to make sure that they fulfill those obligations, especially for the
migrant workers, okay? It shouldn't be a tax load on Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got it. And I'm going to jump in
front of you for just one second, Commissioner Henning, and give it
right back to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not a problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. That's one of the things
we did in the past is we had a workshop where we had all the different
people from the agricultural industry come in. We had it down at the
agricultural center. It wasn't the commissioners' workshop; it was
staff workshop.
I think we're ready for that again. They need to know out there in
Immokalee what is in the works, what is coming, so they can start to
Page 197
February 13, 2007
make their plans. This all purely has to be driven by profit.
If they know there's endangers (sic) to their workforce, they're going
to make sure that they provide a certain amount of housing to be able
to meet that need.
And so that would be my suggestion. I hope the commissioners
support it, that they have another workshop similar to the one that they
had last year with the agricultural industry out there at the agricultural
center.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I absolutely support it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I have any agreement on that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we've made it pretty clear
what we expect out of them, and all we have to do it put pressure on
them. I don't think we need a workshop. I think all we need to do is
have staff --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Here's the problem, here's the
problem. It's going to be the cause and effect. We're going to do all
this, and they're not going to be aware it's taking place till you get
close to the next growing season. Then there's going to be absolute
panic and the industry's going to be hurt. You've got to have a little
time to let them know what's taking place.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, we are coming down--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, you're absolutely
right, but I think if they listen to this and if -- I think if the press will
fill -- they have an obligation to make sure that what's covered in this
meeting, that it's put in the press and I think that everybody will get
the idea.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I don't agree, I don't agree. I still
hope that the commission here will agree to direct staff to have that
workshop with the stakeholders out there so that they can prepare for
what's coming down and be an active participate to provide that
Page 198
February 13,2007
housing. By the time the word gets back to everyone, it's going to be
too late. I don't see that happening without that help.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not only that, but a workshop can --
question and answers can be --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right, exactly. It's no--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you have to read it in the paper
and you only read an abbreviated version, that doesn't do anything.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I need one more nod. If I don't
get it, there won't be a workshop. Well, it looks like there's no
workshop, so --
MR. SCHMITT: I'll just add, for the record --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me give you -- for the record,
let's have staff draft up a letter to those growers that are out there,
okay, that were at that workshop that talked about what they were
going to do. They'll draft a letter up for your signature, we'll mail it
out to them to let them know what staff is doing to get rid of the
limitation of the housing, to let them know that they're still on the
hook to provide housing and ask them to reply back to you to let you
know what their plans are and when that stuffs going to come online.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
MR. SCHMITT: If I could add to that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's a wonderful alternative.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. SCHMITT: Just want to point out that the bill --
Representative Davis's bill did provide some additional funding for
those growers. We talked about that at the workshop to date. None
have stepped up. And we'll remind them of that as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd, for that save.
Okay. Where are we? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to get a clarification
from the county's position. They have no authority to inspect, permit,
any alterations of a mobile home?
Page 199
February 13, 2007
MR. HAMMOND: For the record, again, Bill Hammond.
Commissioner, that is correct.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, it depends. If it's an aluminum
manufacturer adding an addition.
MR. HAMMOND: Well, okay. Well, that would be an
accessory addition that, under the Aluminum Association. That is
referenced under the Florida Building Code, and we do permit those
carport additions and roof-overs and things like that, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying if somebody
does an -- additional electrical outlets in it, you feel that you have no
authority to permit and inspect that?
MR. HAMMOND: Within the mobile home, that's correct,
Commissioner. I have no authority for that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. HAMMOND: Also for the record --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what you want to come
back is also about the maintenance of mobile homes. That's what I'm
reading here. Does not -- the Florida Building Code does not govern
the construction and/or maintenance. So we want to inspect
maintenance of mobile homes?
MR. HAMMOND: If -- maintenance of such a type that were
performed under a permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Not carpet cleaning or
anything like that?
MR. HAMMOND: Oh, no, no, no. No more than we would in a
residence. We don't -- we don't permit painting tile or such things in a
home either, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, okay. You never know
what the county staff is asking for. You just never know.
MR. HAMMOND: And again -- and for additional information
for the board, if a local amendment were -- were allowed to be
adopted by the Florida Building Commission, it would be sunsetted
Page 200
February 13, 2007
and it would have to be -- unless it were adopted by the entire state, it
would have to be readopted locally, because every three years the new
building code -- the new building code is -- has to be adopted by the
Florida Building Commission.
So any local amendment at this time would be sunsetted with the
adoption of the new code unless the state adopted that local
amendment, which they have the -- you know, the right to do. And if
the requirement were still there, then we could apply again to have the
local amendment for the building code to be continued for Collier
County .
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, I hope to put
this to a vote.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just wanted to clarify
something. My intention all along has been to address this issue of
unsafe housing all over Collier County, and East Naples is in need of
as much enforcement in many case as Immokalee does, okay.
So we -- I would like to hope we're extending this review into the East
Naples area or into any other areas where we have these kinds of
conditions. It's just that I know that I have seen similar conditions in
East Naples.
DR. COLFER: And again, from the health department
standpoint, what we're -- what we can get involved in is the migrant
housing component. I think that's why Michelle is asking for a little
bit more authority from her division as well.
We don't have too many, you know, migrant homes here in East
Naples. We do have -- we do have a farm out on the East Trail that
we're well aware of.
MS. FREES: We do have some.
DR. COLFER: And a few others that Nancy's aware of. I mean,
we do have a few, but that's not the majority. I think most of your
issues had to do with regular housing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So do I understand then that you
Page 201
February 13,2007
have only a responsibility for assuring that there's safe and healthy
living conditions for migrant workers but not for permanent residents
of Collier County?
DR. COLFER: Unless -- unless it can fall under some kind of a
nuisance statute, yes; otherwise, no, we don't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who does, Michelle?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. We have a minimum housing ordinance
that we rely on to do inspections for those types of conditions that you
were describing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And you're capable of
applying that same emphasis in places like East Naples?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Can -- are we doing that or
can you do that?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, we can. We don't have the resources to
do it all at the same time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Can you tell us how much
you need and what it will help you do if you do get the resources?
MS. ARNOLD: I could. I could come back and tell you that or
tell the county manager that, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If there's enough support on the
board, I would be happy to see you come back at least with a report
concerning what it would take to start cleaning up these kinds of
situations throughout the county.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's a separate direction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I nod my head.
MS. ARNOLD: I just need to make a clarification that it's -- our
authority is limited to rental properties. We can't go into
owner-occupied properties, private properties --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
MS. ARNOLD: -- unless it's a health, safety issue and we obtain,
Page 202
February 13,2007
in some cases, a warrant. And we have done that in the past, but --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So only rental properties. Okay, all
right. Well, I suspect most of these are rental properties I'm talking
about. But to get back to the basic motion, we've got a motion to
approve your recommendations, to draft some building codes that will
help us enforce these things and also to do something about those units
that were determined beyond repair but are still being used, you're
going to give them notice that they will not be relicensed after this
season?
DR. COLFER: That's correct. They've already -- for the ones
that we've been in, they've already been told that verbally. We were
just waiting for this meeting to put that in writing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there a fine that can be applied if
people ignore our warnings about this?
DR. COLFER: First of all, they would not get a license from us,
and if they tried to put migrants in there without a license, yes, then
we can fine them, and I think it's on a daily basis.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then, you know, you've got
my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're there. So let's move forward
now. We have a motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by
Commissioner Coletta.
Any other 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: Opposed?
Page 203
February 13,2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to lOG. It's a
recommendation to approve budget amendment of --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm going to take
something out of sequence here, Mr. Mudd. It's something that ties in
very closely with what we just talked about, while we're on the subject
of affordable housing. Let's go to 101.
Item #101
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVE A REQUEST FROM I HOPE, INC.
OF COLLIER COUNTY TO FUND THE $1 0,000 PAYMENT OF
PERMITTING FEES RELATED TO THE INSTALLATION OF
THIRTY (30) FEMA TRAILERS IN THE IMMOKALEE AREA -
APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: 101 is 16D2. 16D2 is a recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners approve a request from I Hope, Inc.,
of Collier County to fund the $10,000 payment of permitting fees
related to the installation of 30 FEMA trailers in the Immokalee area.
The item was asked to be pulled to the regular agenda by
Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. What I just wanted to do was
MR. MUDD: And Ms. Marcy Krumbine, will --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think this is a wonderful effort.
I'm just solidly behind it. What I wanted to say is that I see that
they're going to be selling these units then. Are they going to be
Page 204
February 13, 2007
selling them to investors who then will take it and do just as they've
been doing in Immokalee by having these substandard things and
renting them out in pieces or not?
MS. KRUMBINE: No, Commissioner. They have already
prequalified the families that are going in, and these are families that
have lost their homes during Hurricane Wilma, and they've already
been qualified for legal status and they're all also below the poverty
guidelines. So those are who are getting the homes, and they'll be
financing them for 24 months to recoup the money that they've
already put into it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's wonderful. Now, is there a
way that you can make sure that after they buy this at a very, very
reasonable price, they don't turn around and rent it to somebody else
or rent it to a few people? Do you have any -- any --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any ability?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, any ability to stop that from
happening?
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, within the 24 months that they're
financing this, there will not be any -- they will not be able to sell the
property. And then Mr. Rick Heers is here, and he's the executive
director of I Hope. And through conversations with him, he and his
board have also agreed to keep that affordable factor for several years.
And would it be appropriate for him to answer any questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to make sure that
even though it's kept affordable, if the -- if the people don't remain in
it but rent it out, how -- you know, is there any limitations? How will
you be sure that they don't then turn around on this place that they've
bought and then rent it out to somebody else?
MR. HEERS: My name is Rick Heers, for the record. I'm the
Executive Director of I Hope, and it's a privilege to come before you
to just address this issue briefly this afternoon.
Weare -- we have forms, applications, that we are requiring that
Page 205
February 13, 2007
families sign that they list the family members who will be residing in
these. For the first year that they are living in them, they will not even
have to pay rent unless they decide they want to begin a purchase
pnce.
They can live in it rent free but paying all of their utilities,
maintenance fee and insurance fee. And before they are allowed to
make a -- go into a contract to make a purchase, they also have to
attend a home ownership class that is being provided free for us by the
University of Florida Extension Office in Immokalee.
So we have the families' names listed and it is in the agreement
that if they have other residents in that, then they will be evicted, and
we have a long waiting list of other families who have already been
qualified that also are eligible to take their place.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. And is there any monitoring
that you do to make sure, other than them just telling you --
MR. HEERS: Oh, yes. We have a -- we have a partnership with
the Collier County Housing Authority landing -- Land Acquisition
Incorporated that will have an inspector who will go in at least on a
monthly basis and will inspect all of these sites.
And I would just ask the board to also keep in mind that we
already have gained funding for another 30 FEMA trailers. Once
we've gotten through this first 30, we've been given, by one of our
faith-based organizations, enough money to purchase another 30, and
we're already working with landowners to develop their sites so that
we can provide them with good housing units to put low-income
families in them.
And the park owners only want families. They -- that is part of
their stipulations also. They do not want these to become places where
we're stacking up people in them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. HEERS: I might also just quickly throw in that we have
been contacted by the Volunteer Florida and FEMA, and as we speak
Page 206
February 13, 2007
right now, another grant is being considered where we've been asked
to actually take over all of the FEMA trailers that have been placed in
Collier County during -- following Hurricane Wilma, which includes a
number in Naples, Chokoloskee, Everglades City, Copeland, as well
as a number in Immokalee. So we really -- we are wanting to provide
continuing affordable housing for families.
And we -- you had talked about the Amish. If I can just go back
for a minute. We have been having Amish folks here for six weeks,
and they'll be here for a couple of more weeks. And they have told me
themselves that they have been all around the country helping after
disasters, and they have never seen the wretched living conditions that
they have seen while they've been in Immokalee.
And we are working toward rehabbing the ones that can be
repaired, but there are a number of them that we are telling people that
we're not going to pour 4- or 5,000 dollars into units that cannot be
repaired.
So we're not -- we are -- some of these are migrant housing, but
most of them are not. They're year-round residents. And so we're
looking at trying to go insert some more modern housing for some of
the poor families in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Rick, it's important to note, too, that
these homes have been built to the hurricane standards today and
they're tied down in such a way that they're safe shelters for people to
stay in.
MR. HEERS: They are built according to the codes from 2004
on. And if I could also just throw in one more thing. You're talking
about the farmers, Mr. Halas.
I had one of the local large growers call me while I was on a
break -- while you were on your break today and ask if I could meet
with him tomorrow in a large delegation from McDonald's in Chicago,
and they want -- they want to begin to pour some money into
Page 207
February 13, 2007
providing better housing for farm laborers, and they're going to meet
with -- they have asked me to meet with them tomorrow morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great.
MR. HEERS: So that's one of the men that was at our meeting
out at the Agriculture Extension Office, Commissioner. And so things
are movIng --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Last year, and we're not going to do
this year, right?
MR. HEERS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, okay. I won't say any more.
MR. HEERS: So, you know -- I also need to throw this in. I
want to compliment county staff at the planning and zoning and
permitting department. We're very green and new at this, and we've
made a lot of -- we stumbled over our own feet on a number of
occasions, and when you've got people like Jamie French and Denton
Baker and Cormac Giblin and Susan Golden, people that have taken
us by the hand and have been very patient with us in persevering, it
has really helped us.
And next -- their next round of 30 won't take us nearly as long as
the first round of 30.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I make a motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second.
And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was this fees -- these permit
fees, were these county permit fees or are these state permit fees?
MR. HEERS: These are county permitting fees.
MS. KRUMBINE: No, they're county -- they're county fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And they're going to
probably inspect those after they --
MR. HEERS : Yes. That's where the -- the cost for doing all the
Page 208
February 13, 2007
inspections after we -- we've paid about -- we will have paid about
$3,500 for the tie-downs, $500 for the trailers themselves.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Well, I think you're
going to have good luck down there, because I hear it's real slow, so
you'll probably get that done in short order.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good.
Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It's still unclear to me what's
going to happen with the $10,000. How do we get that back? Are
these for-sale products or --
MS. KRUMBINE: Let me answer that. You're not going to.
This is -- what we're doing here is we're actually partnering with a
nonprofit agency, so this isn't a loan. This is a grant that we're giving
to them. This is about 10 percent of the total cost of -- they've gotten
all the rest of the money from private donations, so this is a 10 percent
grant that we'd be giving to them so that they could pay the permitting
fees. And that would be our partnership with this non-profit for them
to further their services.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And these trailers are not going to
be sold to anyone?
MR. HEERS: Well, they will be sold to the owners, to the
residents of those units after they have been in there a year and after
they have made -- kept their agreement to have the restricted people in
it and--
,
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm an unemployed person
who is here illegal -- or here legally, and I can purchase one of these
units if I meet the minimum --
MR. HEERS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- income?
MR. HEERS: No, sir. The other qualification right now is that
you also have to have had sustainable damage from Hurricane Wilma
to your living quarters.
Page 209
February 13,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. HEERS: This is only for Hurricane Wilma.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can do all that, okay, and so I
qualify and so I can purchase one of these. And in about three or four
or five years from now, I sell it for $200,000.
Now, are you telling me that I shouldn't have to pay that
permitting fee out of my profits on that unit?
MS. KRUMBINE: Commissioner Coyle, these are FEMA
trailers, and they're depreciating assets, so that in --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, give me a break. There are
thousands of trailers in Collier County that are appraised at way over
MS. KRUMBINE: And they're not FEMA trailers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It doesn't make any difference.
MS. KRUMBINE: And the other thing is that not all of these
trailers are sitting on owned land, owner-occupied land. So it is just
the unit itself. It's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not land. So I couldn't buy the
land. I can only buy the unit?
MS. KRUMBINE: Right. That is costing $500 today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I want to sell it, what do I sell it
for?
MR. HEERS: Whatever you can actually get out of it, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. HEERS: And we would be willing to -- I talked to our
board about this, and we'll be meeting in session later this week to
make the final -- drop the final guidelines. We would be even willing
to say that if they sell it, say, within a five-year period, that they will
return to I Hope 50 percent of the purchase price.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, you're making sense, okay?
N ow I'll buy that.
MR. HEERS: Because, see, we also ought to look at sustaining
Page 210
February 13,2007
our work that they're doing --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, absolutely.
MR. HEERS: -- because we're also talking about partnering for
affordable housing after Wilma is through.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a perfect solution.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You've solved the problem.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a perfect solution. If you do
that, I'm all for it.
MR. HEERS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's just that we've got to have
something sustainable. I've seen too many times when people have
flipped things and made a lot of money off it --
MR. HEERS: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and they have had no obligation
whatsoever to recover their own debts. So I'm very much concerned
about just give-away programs --
MR. HEERS: And we are also.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- without looking for sustainability
in affordable houses.
MR. HEERS: And if that is the sentiment of the board, our board
I know would be very willing to -- we'd have to check with our
attorney to make sure it's all legal, but I know Habitat for Humanity
does a similar thing when they provide houses.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you were to administer this on
the same basis that Habitat for Humanity is doing it, I have absolutely
no problem whatsoever providing you assistance to do this.
MR. HEERS: Good, good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So here we are. We have a
motion, we have a second. We had some discussion. Now, to that
discussion we gave you some guidance. You'll take that guidance and
include it in your sales as far as the resale value and recuperating some
of the money to be able to put back out. Still they'll be able to make
Page 211
February 13, 2007
money to be able to apply towards a home that they'll be able to move
up and use it for somebody else. Love it, did a wonderful job.
Commissioner Coyle, once more, you did a great job of bringing us to
this point. Didn't know where you were going. I thought for a minute
you were off at the deep end.
With that, no other -- don't see any lights on, so I'm going to call
the question. 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.
And we're going to take a break.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Item #10G
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR $38,198,334.09 TO TRANSFER
PROJECTS FROM VARIOUS WATER AND WASTEWATER
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS TO A 2006 REVENUE BOND
PROCEEDS FUND - APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is lOG. It's a recommendation to
approve a budget amendment for $38,198,334.09, to transfer projects
from various water and wastewater capital project funds to a 2006
revenue bond proceeds fund.
And Mr. Tom Wides, your Director of Operations for Public
Page 212
February 13,2007
Utilities, will present.
MR. WIDES: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Commissioners, good
afternoon. For the record, Tom Wides, Operations Director. Mr.
Mudd has already recognized our staff recommendation today, and I'm
prepared to either respond to questions or to give you a brief
discussion as to the basics behind this exec. summary at your pleasure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I've got a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner
Henning's light's on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is -- being that the permitting
has fallen, this action doesn't mean that you'll actually build the
infrastructure if not needed; is that your statement?
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, we will only build the
infrastructure if needed. And as you are aware, we continue to do our
master planning efforts almost every other year now to make sure
we're right-sizing our construction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So this won't affect the
user rate?
MR. WIDES: This is -- this will-- this is all contemplated in the
current master plan which was the basis for the user rates and the
impact fees, okay.
And, again, we have -- over the next four years, we have another
$200 million of revenue bonds to -- that are out there in the waiting.
So what it may mean is if things slow down or we change our
direction somewhat, we'll slow those future revenue bonds down or
make them smaller.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
MR. WIDES: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we have a motion to
Page 213
February 13, 2007
approve by Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing 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.
Thank you.
MR. WIDES: Thank you.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to paragraph 11,
public comments on general topics.
Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: I have one speaker, Frank Donohue.
MR. DONOHUE: Good afternoon. My name is Frank Donohue.
I'm here representing the Marine Industries Association of Collier
County today.
We're handing out a handout about some of the topics we'd like
to speak about. But before I get into that, I would like to compliment
the Board of County Commissioners for their decision this morning on
investigating purchasing property for public water access in
Everglades City.
Page 214
February 13, 2007
I've sat on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for six years
now, and one of our mandates sent from this board, to continue to find
water access, and I hope our investigation proves positive.
F or my topic that I'd like to speak about for a moment, for the
last two years the Marine Industries Association of Collier County and
the Board of County Commissioners and some private individuals
have been in litigation with the City of Naples over speed limit
changes that the City of Naples wants to do on Naples Bay. We have
opposed their changes, and we oppose their changes all the way to the
Fish and Wildlife Commission.
We -- based on a decision by Fish and Wildlife Commission to
approve their changes, we filed suit and we received a favorable
judgment, a 63-page judgment from an administrative law judge that
showed several things. It showed that the city's case was entirely
without merit, it showed without a doubt that the Collier County
Commissioners have concurrent jurisdiction on Naples Bay, and we
have felt -- and they ruled completely in favor of the Board of County
Commissioners and the Marine Industries Association in this matter,
that they're just -- they had no justification to continue their efforts to
get new sign markers.
So at the recent FWC meeting, which Commissioner Henning
attended, our own counsel attended, and the county attorney attended,
the FWC has thrown the decision back to their staff, which have
already ruled in favor of the city. So we felt the next step is what we
were going to request here today, and I will read from our handout.
This request is being made to protect the rights of all boaters in Collier
County when using boats on Naples Bay.
I move that the Board of County Commissioners direct the
county attorney to investigate the potential under the county's
concurrent jurisdiction to regulate Naples Bay to adopt 30 mile per
hour speed zones throughout Naples Bay where they're presently in
force, and to apply for waterway marker permits from the Florida Fish
Page 215
February 13,2007
and Wildlife Conservation Commission marking such speed limits
throughout Naples Bay.
And we're basing that on our recent decision from the
administrative law judge that the city is appealing.
And that's what I have. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I understand the problems
that we have in regards to boaters needing to have access to Naples
Bay. I also have some concerns that I, being a boater myself for 40
years, back since 1966 -- I have some concerns in regards to the
boaters being educated in regards to taking care of personal property
for people that live along those waterways, whether it be in Port Royal
or whether it be in Royal Harbor in regards to what wakes do.
I've been in there with my little 21- foot boat on Sundays and have
found that I almost got to the point of being swamped.
I think what needs to be done is an education process with the
owners of large water draft from 24 to 60 foot. I don't think they
understand the rules of the road and their obligations, and I think when
they're close by property, there's times when the wakes go over the
seawalls, and I think this is really what caused the whole crux of this
whole deal was that not only do people who own boats own property
that -- considering their boats being property, but there's also other
people that live along the waterways of Naples Bay, and I think we
need to look at that as a consideration.
So I'm looking for direction from you. How are you going to
educate the boaters who don't need to take -- or feel that they don't
need to take courses in regards to knowing the rules of the road and
their obligations as far as their wakes are concerned?
As I said, I had a 21- foot boat that I presently -- I don't use it that
much, but when I did use it and got back into Naples Bay on Sundays
or weekends, it was to the point where I was worried if my little boat,
21- foot boat, was going to get swamped.
Page 216
February 13,2007
And I know there's other people in there with 14- foot aluminum
boats and canoes and kayaks.
So what are you as the boating industry going to do to try to
educate those people?
MR. DONOHUE: Well, I agree completely with what you're
saying, Commissioner. I boat -- I'm one of the few people in the
industry that probably boat recreationally every weekend, and I see
the same situation on the bay. I've been on the bay since 1972, in the
recreational boat repair business as well as running marinas on Naples
Bay.
You've covered a lot of territory there. First off, there is existing
boating regulations, boating laws in the State of Florida that make you
responsible for damage from your wake. That's irregardless of speed
limits.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the problem is, I don't think a
lot of these captains realize that.
MR. DONOHUE: Well, I understand that, and I'll get to that in
just -- address that as I did to the city council a few weeks ago.
The situation -- we're not looking to take away the speed limits on the
bay. We feel that the speed limits we have on the bay presently on
weekends and holidays are sufficient. The city wanted to do 24/7,
which was all the way in the other direction, and they refused to sit
down and do any kind of a compromise with us.
There is certain areas of the bay, even on the holiday weekends
and speed limit areas, that there's some areas that we need to address,
and we're more than willing to sit down with the city and the county
with us and work that out, if that's what we could do. I'd much rather
do that than take this other tack, but I think this is where we have to go
to get us to the table to get a decision reached on this finally. We've
been working on this for two years.
As for education for the boating, we've always maintained in the
Marine Industries Association that education and enforcement is the
Page 217
February 13, 2007
key here. I recently spoke to the city council on this same topic before
they filed their objections. Cumulatively, we've spent in excess of
$300,000 between our two organizations getting to this point.
I told them for the last 25 years as one of the founding members
of the Marine Industry Association, it seems all I ever do is go fight
for things. I'd much rather spend my time, energy and money that we
gather through fundraising on education and doing good things for
boating in Collier County than going off to fight a war somewhere, so
to speak.
I go to Tallahassee or Washington DC to lobby, it's always for
some controversial issue. I'd much rather spend much more time
doing -- using our fundraising money and our efforts towards boater
education, and I don't have a problem with that.
I instruct the people at the marina that I run on the bay, advise people
of activities on the bay, to keep boating, you know, big boats slowed
down. Any knowledgeable professional captain realizes that he is
responsible for his wake, both for the boatowner and himself,
personally liable. Once you have a captain's license, it all changes.
You're personally liable also.
I don't know if I've answered all your questions, Commissioner,
but I think I've done a good dent into them.
But like I say, the Marine Industries Association is standing
ready, willing and able to put efforts in to making this problem go
away. We'd like to see safer boating at all times.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, I'll go to
Commissioner Henning then come back to you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the state statutes and the
Florida Administration Code is very clear. Placing of markers is in
case of people's safety, not property safety, manatees.
What I learned going up there -- and this is really a state issue. The
Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission stated, well, we don't -- we
Page 218
February 13,2007
don't question whether a permit application or an ordinance really
deals with the Florida Administration Code. We don't -- we can't
make anybody validate what's in their -- what's in their local
ordinance.
So it becomes very problematic through the whole State of
Florida, and especially in Collier County, that local government, just
through an ordinance, can say, well, we need to slow boating down
here. We don't have any proof that this is really a safety issue of
people or manatees, especially on people. We could just do it. And
you will see throughout the whole State of Florida a deterrent for
people to recreate or go fishing on the bays.
And in speaking to Mr. Klatzkow and the attorney for the Marine
Industries Association, it's best that we force the Florida Fish and
Wildlife to take action in this case. If they cannot or will not prove
that the City of Naples ordinances is valid or not, then their
recommendation is just what we have here, is to adopt an ordinance
for a marker replacement in Naples Bay, is because we do have
jurisdiction over it.
And this will force, hopefully, the Fish and Wildlife from taking
a position here instead of, well, we're not going to question it. I think
that we -- we should question it just like any application that comes to
the Board of Commissioners. We ought to verify it.
And Mr. Klatzkow, if I missed anything, please -- please assist
me.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I think you said that very,
very well. I would only say that we're not asking the commission to
look at the ordinance. We're looking for the commission to look at the
application. If the application they're making is without really
foundation or substance, we're asking the commission not to grant it,
not to look at the ordinance but the actual application is what we're
attacking.
Just to get at the heart of it -- and I'm not making any
Page 219
February 13,2007
recommendation on this whatsoever. What they're asking you to do
essentially would result in this, where we would have the top sign,
which would be the Naples sign, and the bottom sign which would be
the Collier County sign. And whether or not that's a good idea or a
bad idea, I leave to you. That is what they're asking this board, in
essence, to do. That would be the result.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm going to make a motion
that we direct the county staff to prepare an item for the Board of
Commissioners to consider on a near future agenda to do so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To do?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To file an application for a
marker request in the Naples Bay; is that correct, Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: That is what they are asking,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I need to understand this. We
are asking for a marker that would be placed below the one that says
30 to say 40?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, actually what you have in
front of you, what they're asking --
MR. DONOHUE: Is 30 miles an hour, Commissioner.
MR. KLATZKOW: It would be 30, but it would be the two
SIgns.
MR. DONOHUE: Yes, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: Actually this was their attorney's exhibit
that he brought to the commission that their attorney prepared.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you saying that we're going to
have one sign that says 30 mile an hour and another one that says 40
mile an hour?
MR. DONOHUE: No, Commissioner. That was a typo. It was
supposed to be 30. The state mandated speed limit it 30 miles an hour.
MR. KLATZKOW: We would have one sign from the City of
Page 220
February 13,2007
Naples saying whatever it says, and then we'd have another sign from
Collier County saying whatever it says. And if they were different,
they were different. If they were the same, they were the same. It
would arguably result in some confusion for the boaters.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was going to say, why don't you
pick 60 mile an hour?
MR. KLATZKOW: You'd have to vote for that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your motion is to allow them to have
-- bring it back so we can talk about the possibility of two signs?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you're right, and the key here is
that -- to bring it to a head because it's going to get to the point of
being ridiculous where the Fish and Wildlife folks will have to make
the decision on the merits of the petition versus just a carte blanche
stamp, rubber stamp, without looking at --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ridiculous, I understand. I second
your motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I'm saying the
application. Now, we also need to give direction before -- if we -- if
Fish and Wildlife accepts our application, that's when the board should
decide, and I don't think that it's wise to try to confuse people. But I
think that we ought to try to force the Fish and Wildlife to consider
our application.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, I see
your light's on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think the intent is to
demonstrate to the state agencies that Collier County has as much
right for jurisdiction over Naples Bay as anybody else. And if they
are, in fact, going to approve a petition from a municipality, they
should be able to approve a petition from the Collier County
government, and that puts them in a position of having to make some
decisions, and it's -- but what I would encourage the board to give this
Page 221
February 13,2007
thought to is that I don't -- I don't believe that we want to take an
outrageous position because it makes us look extreme in this case.
What is the objection to leaving the posted limits unchanged in Naples
Bay?
MR. DONOHUE: Bill Osborne from Marine Industries.
MR. OSBORNE: For the record, Bill Osborne from the Marine
Industries Association. What -- in essence, Commissioner, what we're
attempting to do here is to force the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand that.
MR. OSBORNE: -- FWC to recognize. In essence, what
happens now is they don't even consider the merits of an application.
They simply make sure the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed. The
ALJ has ruled that it is the responsibility of the FWC to go further
than that, that they have an obligation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me tell you what's
going to happen.
MR. OSBORNE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We know that 30 miles per hour is
probably too fast for the intersection with the channel going out to
pass, okay? If you put in a -- if you have us put in a suggestion that it
be 30 miles an hour for the entire length of the bay, then people are
going to portray us as extremists who want to run speedboats up and
down the bay without regard to life.
I'm only suggesting that, that if you want to take a reasonable
position which does the same thing you're wanting to do, and that is to
say, to the state agencies, that we propose that the speed limits remain
exactly as they are because they have not resulted in any serious
injuries and they have not resulted in a lot of accidents.
MR. DONOHUE: That's, in essence, what we're doing.
MR. OSBORNE: That's what we're doing.
MR. DONOHUE: That's what we're doing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But you see, 30 miles an
Page 222
February 13,2007
hour for the entire length of that channel --
MR. DONOHUE: The speed zones throughout Naples Bay
where they are presently in force, sir.
MR. OSBORNE: Where they are presently in force is what the
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, wait a minute. That sign
didn't say that.
MR. DONOHUE: No, I didn't do that sign.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, see, that's misleading.
And what I would --
MR. DONOHUE: We'd be very happy with the present speed
limit system that we have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, if you were to say that
and require that --
MR. DONOHUE: That's what --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That, I think, would give you the
higher moral ground that you're taking a formal position, and
furthermore, you've got experience that demonstrates that that speed
limit has not caused a lot of accidents or injuries.
MR. DONOHUE: And that's also what the administrative law
judge determined.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right.
MR. DONOHUE: That's all we're asking. Nothing more than
that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So--
MR. DONOHUE: We don't want to have some crazy huge speed
limits. We want to have our speed limits at the same as they presently
are, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay, good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. So--
MR. DONOHUE: We're glad to work with the county attorney
to help draft the particulars in that, but it's going to have to be very
Page 223
February 13, 2007
detailed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Henning, did your
motion cover this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, and -- but I also would
want to say that we have the evidence through a traf -- basically a
boating traffic study that shows the level of service on Naples Bay is
not a problem. So I just want to say -- state that before we vote on it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm concerned -- and it's not
going to have any decision on the way I vote -- but I'm concerned
about what you as the boating industry is going to do about informing
people -- that's not my district to start with, okay?
What are you going to do as far as the boating industry in getting
the message out that there may be areas -- even though it's a
30-mile-an-hour limit, but that you have to slow your boat down
because you are responsible for your wake, and not everybody's a
captain, okay.
MR. DONOHUE: I understand that, Commissioner. We can
certainly put up public service announcements. We can post large
memos in all the dealerships around the entire county. The Naples
Daily News is very, very supportive of our position and has offered us
spaces in their Nautically Speaking. We can put full-page, literally,
editorials and discussions on what's going to happen on Naples Bay
and cautioning people to watch their wakes and slow down, so it can
get out to the public.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing is property owners.
There's some property owners that are very close to the channels, and
they always like -- would like to have the boaters slow down, and
there's always signs that says no wake zone, but people are blowing by
those, and that's not fair. That's what's caused this whole problem.
Page 224
February 13,2007
So I guess there's a responsibility of the people who own boats to
make sure that they -- when you're on the water, that's your neighbor,
and you have to make sure that you take care of your neighbor also.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I want--
MR. DONOHUE: It's common courtesy on the water.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's stay with the motion that we
have in front of us. Each commissioner can speak one more time.
You just had yours.
We're going to Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner
Henning, and then --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm just about done. I think the
best educational program is the enforcement program, and you've got
to get both the Collier County Marine Patrol and the city's marine
patrol, and they've got to start -- they can cite people for unsafe
operation of boats.
MR. DONOHUE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if they see a big boat --
MR. DONOHUE: Reckless endangerment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- passing a small boat -- that's
exactly right. So they can cite them for unsafe operation, and that's
where we need to focus the effort. And if we get the county
government and the city government together and we get Marine
Industries people encouraging the law enforcement people to enforce
the law, you'll find that this problem will take care of itself, and so
that's really all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And with that, I'm going
to call the motion, Commissioner Henning's motion, my second.
You -- Jeff, is there something that you have to add to this?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor, indicate by
Page 225
February 13,2007
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.
I believe that brings us to --
MR. DONOHUE: Thank you very much, Commissioners, for
your insight in this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- comments.
MR. DONOHUE: And your support, thank you.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Staff and commission general information.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. Let's start with Mr.
Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I noted in the information that came
through today, Mr. Chairman, that there was a request from
Congressman Connie Mack to meet with the board this next Thursday,
February 22nd, requesting a time from 2:30 to 3:30. I do not know if
this board, you know, wishes at this point to indicate that they wish to
go forward at that point, but if you were to meet with him, it would be
a meeting that's noticed pursuant to the sunshine law, and I think Ms.
Filson has checked into the accommodations for where you may wish
to meet. Possibly this room.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right here.
Page 226
February 13,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that time was changed, if I'm
not mistaken, just recently. I was in on a break and --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- it was indicated they moved the
time I think it was 3:30 or 3:00.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, okay. I had 2:30 to 3:30 on February 22nd
based on a one oh seven --
MS. FILSON: They moved it in here and they're going to set it
up as a workshop. I didn't think they moved the time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I just picked it up from Nancy
when I was in there and she was working on my calendar.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You might want to just check that
out. Whatever the correct time is, I'm sure we're going to find out.
We have every intention of being here.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have to observe the fact that
sunshine's going to be a place because you can't duly advertise it in
time; is that what you're saying?
MR. WEIGEL: No, no, we can. We can notice it. It doesn't
require legal advertisement. But we'll just -- at your desire, we'll be
sure that it's noticed appropriately and we'll know from this point
forward to do it so we can take care of that tomorrow.
And other than that, Mr. Pettit does have something to bring to your
attention, if I may.
MR. PETTIT: Good evening, Commissioners. Mike Pettit, for
the record.
What I've passed out to you is a letter from John Vega who
represents the Husseys. I think some or all of you are aware that they
have filed a Bert Harris Act claim against the county.
And we have been negotiating with them for quite some time now
about the potential for some sort of settlement that would benefit the
Page 227
February 13,2007
taxpayers and the county and resolve that claim, and we continue to
negotiate.
But at one point in December I received this letter where one of
the attorneys for the Husseys proposed, Mr. Vega, that we simply just
buy the property. And I have sat with the county manager and also
Mr. DeLony and Mr. Feder and Mr. Schmitt -- and Mr. Feder and Mr.
DeLony may have some things that would be advantageous to the
taxpayers if we ever can come to a settlement on this matter, that they
could acquire, but the reality is -- I believe Mr. Mudd will nod his
head -- if you look on the second page of the letter, separate and apart
from the issue of the value of any TDRs that either the Husseys would
strip in advance of a transfer of the prop -- to the county or that we
would have to pay for and then sell ourselves, you see numbers of 90
million to $120 million for the mining rights.
I think that we are in a position where we would not recommend
going further with this type of a resolution, and I've so advised the
Husseys' attorney, but I wanted you to be aware of it, and that's why I
pass out this letter, and I'm also going to provide a copy to the court
reporter and answer any questions you have.
What I will add is, settlement negotiations along a different line are
ongoing. At some point I hope to come back to you with some sort of
proposal to resolve that claim.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, my reply to Mr. Pettit was, no
deal, too expensive, and oh, by the way, the mining rights aren't
guaranteed, okay, and you still have to go through that particular
issue. Why would they want to sell the mining rights if they could get
the mining rights? Because they could make a lot more on it than we
could. So that's the whole gist of the sending area dispute that's there.
That's something that you need to decide as it comes forward to
you, as it will, you know, during the GMP amendment cycle, but the
Page 228
February 13, 2007
price tag was way more than you could afford without a referendum
by the voters, and it just smacks right up against -- we're pretty close
to our budget limit of 13 percent.
Last time I looked we were about 11.5. You don't have too far to
go, and what you've got on the plate to get done with the EOC and
some other things, and Gawn Fishin, you're going to be butting right
up against it. To try to -- to try to scrape together another 90- to 120
million dollars, it was a bridge too far.
Now, my other comments that -- he brought that one up, and
that's better than the nod, I think, Mike.
The other -- I passed to each board member yesterday a draft,
two letters. I asked you -- I didn't mean to try to catch anybody by
surprise. But I asked you if you would read those over night -- because
I would discuss those particular letters.
And let's do what I believe is the easiest one first, and that is the
letter -- and I'm recommending that the chairman sign this letter to
Representative Richter. He has a bill right now, House Bill 389 that
he has filed to basically get at truth in millage and expand the columns
on the tax bill that basically talks about millage rate last year, millage
rate this year, and millage rate ifno budget changes are made so that
the taxpayers can understand that.
Part of F AC's position this year was to support revising the truth
in millage process to allow the expenditures of constitutional officers
to be individually stated and provide better information during the
TRIM process on functional expenditures.
I took the liberty to include this in this bill because the board had,
in a future (sic) action, had asked -- and I believe, Commissioner
Fiala, at the time, you were the chair -- to meet with the tax collector
to see if he could include that information on the tax bill for
constitutional officers a couple of years ago, and at that time he wasn't
willing to do that. He couldn't, by law, change the tax bill in order to
do that.
Page 229
February 13, 2007
So my recommendation to the board is we send a letter to
Representative Richter who's got a house bill already that talks about
truth in millage and ask him if he would include the F AC-supported
position of including the constitutional officers and their part of the
tax bill -- part of the millage on the tax bill.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you need anything more than
nods?
MR. MUDD: I need at least three nods for the chair to sign that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Were there any changes to the letter that anybody
wanted to edit --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, please.
MR. MUDD: -- on that particular issue?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One question, if you don't mind,
very briefly. Does that then cover everyone? Are all of the other
governmental agencies that are taxing districts and receive taxes like
mosquito control and all the others already listed?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They're already listed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They already are listed?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the only ones that are not listed
are the constitutionals and the court system?
MR. MUDD: The court -- the court system is under Article V
per se, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, okay.
MR. MUDD: And the rest of -- and the rest of the cuts are
basically fee based, and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, okay.
MR. MUDD: -- they're millage neutral for you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And I've got direction to take the draft of
Page 230
February 13,2007
this letter and get it up for the chair's signature.
The next item, I presented a draft, and it was probably a little bit
more debatable, and it had to do with an article that was in the paper
that -- where a Senator Bennett -- and I'll be specific -- basically called
the board a bunch of aristocrats, and in one particular case called one
of our commissioners an idiot.
This letter is to the -- Senator Pruitt who is the president of the
Senate at this time that basically talks about an apology and talks
about the county's position as far as what you've been told by your
citizens, 85 percent at least. It talks about having growth and the
infrastructure in place at the time that you approve development.
I provided that particular letter, a sample, a draft, to you, and I'd like
to get your comments. Do we go forward with this or do we just let it
die?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have no problems with it the way it's
written. Might be a little lengthy.
Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm sure we'll get a
response from the Senate president, a very kind response of, pretty
much, go pound sand, my feelings.
You were asking the Senate president to censor somebody who,
that's the way he is, that's the way he talks. You know, it's really up to
the elected officials up in Sarasota to make any changes.
But let me tell you, this senator, Senator Bennett, is running for Senate
president in the future. Now, do we want this board or future boards
to have a further degradation with a senator that may become Senate
president? Personally I don't want to.
You know, it is what it is. You know, I'm a big guy. If I'm an
aristocrat in some person's eye, then that's what I am, but I don't think
it is by the majority of the voters of Collier County, and I think that's
what really is important.
I would hope that we would not send a letter to the Senate
Page 231
February 13, 2007
president making him aware, I'm sure, of what he's already aware of.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to briefly comment on that.
There was a gentleman in the House of Representative called Ralph
Azar.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that was a different issue. I
think he threatened somebody.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He did a lot of things.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I mean -- well, he -- over
the last few years, Representative Arza ( sic) said a lot of things
publicly, like Senator Bennett. What he did over the phone, I believe
he threatened somebody's life, and that's a different situation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It still is. But I mean, still, we have a
person that should be responsible enough to stand up to his actions.
And you're entitled to your opinion, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you're right, this guy possibly
could become the Senate president. If we say nothing, it's for sure he's
going to become the Senate president. I don't know what effect this
letter will have on it, but the truth of the matter is, he defamed us, and
he did it with -- and he did it many times in the past.
Now, I don't know how my fellow commissioners feel about this.
Commissioner Coyle, I see your light's on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And I don't -- I don't take
this issue personally. I'm taking -- I'm thinking more strategically.
There's one thing we know. Senator Bennett will never, ever, support
Collier County or any other county when it comes to grant --
management of growth. He will never do that. He is totally and
completely under the control of special interests. He will tell you --
everyone that. He make no excuses.
He does not like county government. He thinks he should be
making all of the decisions up there, and if he becomes Senate
president, he will continue to do that.
Page 232
February 13, 2007
If we have a chance to make people aware of his extreme
behavior and positions, I think we should take that chance and make
sure they are aware of that, and maybe he won't become Senate
president if enough of these issues arise.
But if nobody talks about it, if nobody calls him on his conduct,
you can be assured that nothing will be done. At least there is a
chance. Are we going to make a friend of him? No. It will never
happen. Whether we send a letter or not, it won't affect it at all.
But I would like to make sure that a copy goes to Governor Crist.
I think anyone who has any respect for the power of local voters
should know that there are senators and representatives in Tallahassee
-- and Bennett is not the only one -- who is trying to subvert the local
interest of our voters and taxpayers, and everybody needs to know that
because that's dangerous.
Soon we're going to be almost powerless at the local level to do
anything because of people like Bennett. And I think we have to
make people aware that there are people like Bennett in the
legislature. And if we don't do that, they're never going to know it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I thought it was your motion,
but that's all right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I didn't make it yet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You didn't make a motion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, but you sound like you just did.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Whatever.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wanted to know if -- what
would we do with our own legislators up there? The last time around
when this first started hitting, they all supported his efforts, and in
fact, one of our legislators who co-signed the bill said to us as we were
Page 233
February 13,2007
all up there, well, I never even read it. I just owed him a favor. Well,
now what all is -- what are these things going to do -- if we send this,
are we going to alienate our own people, or do you think that they've
wised up to the fact that he's not a friend to Collier County?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. And I don't think we even
ought to confuse that issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They are going to do whatever
they're going to do with or without this letter. Everything in
Tallahassee is determined.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's true.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay? It's already determined.
The relationships have been forged. People are going to vote the way
that they feel they need to vote to keep their chairmanship of their
committee or to cultivate some votes of their own for things they
want. It won't make any difference what we do. And they've pretty
much told us that last time because we went up and asked them, please
oppose this bill, and they completely ignored us. So it's not going to
change anything.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala. That's--
okay. Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to call the motion. All
those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And let the record show there was
4-1. Commissioner Henning was the dissenting vote.
Page 234
February 13, 2007
And with that, do you have anything else, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: No, sir, I don't dare.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's start with you,
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing for me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I had something that came
into my office, and I'm sure that every one of the commissioners that's
sitting on the dais also had this, and it was in regards to affordable
housing and the drastic decrease in prices, and I have a real concern
about this. I think this just indicates the mark-up that's taking place
with housing. And if you look at what came across, that all of a
sudden now South Bay Plantation has housing available starting at
99,900.
And they have some housing that was priced as high as 279,900
that is now on the market for 139,9-. And I think this is the type of
housing that we're all -- we were all trying to work with here
diligently to take care of the essential personnel problem.
And I guess that just goes to show that no matter what we do as
far as increasing of density and everything else, that the developers
pretty much run the roost here. And then all of a sudden when the
loans get called in because of the slowdown in the market, they realize
that they don't have the clout that they had and then get down to more
realistic pricing of affordable housing.
And this -- I had some real concerns when I got this. So I just
wanted to bring this up as a discussion item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Any other comments on
it?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I got the same mailing, too. I was
quite amazed to see that we were so far off from the price. But
whatever it is, thank God that it did, and let's hope that it holds for a
Page 235
February 13, 2007
little while.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got to hold their feet to the
fire on this. This is totally wrong. I believe that we should have a fair
market price. This is a free enterprise system, but this is price gouging.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Once again, it's a free market
out there.
But do you have anything else to share with us?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's it. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I just got one thing, and I
want to make sure that you know -- you have anything go in the Daily
News that you didn't say? Am I the only one in the world that's ever
been --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, that's impossible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're the only one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I probably -- hate to even mention
this. There was a lot of inaccuracies on the article that was in
Sunday's paper. It said, leaders dispute how much failed affordable
housing fee plan costs.
The only one I want to share with my fellow commissioners is
the part that says, commissioner -- commissioners still have the option
of a reconsidered study, and Coletta said, he believes they will at some
point -- it is possible it might not happen until there is changes in the
make-up of the Collier County Commission, Coletta said.
Coletta did not say that. Whatever Coletta said it was close to it
maybe, but I never -- I can work with the commissioners that are here
now. As ornery and as difficult as they are and as bone-headed as
they may be, I can work with them, and I'm not looking for changes,
and I want you to know I didn't say that.
Other than that -- and I love you. That's it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't believe you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. You don't have to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
Page 236
February 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry, I have a few items.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You received a memo, the
Productivity Committee is going to be working on their 2007 work
plan. And is there any suggestions from the Board of Commissioners
that I could pass on to the Productivity Committee on the work plan?
I mean, I think it's -- since they look at the budget, I -- my opinion is,
they ought to look at the budget guidance and make recommendations
to the Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything you can get them to do will
be a plus, but there are -- they're a limited resource, and everything
they get their hands on, positive results come of it. So I guess it's how
much time they have. And actually, when it comes down to it, it's
their right to pick and choose what they want to work with.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, most definitely, most
definitely. But since it's the board's advisory board -- and they had no
problem with that either, asking the board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They ask (sic).
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The next thing is, in our
agenda packet, there are topics of discussion, the basics of the
executive summary, objective, consideration, fiscal impact, growth
management, and some of them say, legal consideration.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the attorney's office does
not write the comments in that legal consideration. It is the staff
member who writes the executive summary.
And I have a concern when a person is giving the board legal
advice when they don't have a license to practice law. And either --
and I think it's good that we have that advice. I don't want to remove
it. But I think it's prudent to say, if staff is going to write it, to have a
disclosure in that paragraph that the -- that the -- I wrote this and the
Page 237
February 13,2007
county attorney didn't and it's only my opinion, or direct the county
attorney to give us a legal opinion on it.
And I still have some other things.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Before you move off that item,
Commissioner Coyle has some comment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'd like to support that
concern, by the way. That was not my intent when I -- years back
when we discussed getting legal considerations put into the executive
summary. It was always my expectation that the county attorney
would prepare those. And I have known for some time that that isn't
happening. I'm glad you brought it up, Commissioner Henning.
Furthermore, I am concerned about the sequence in which those
things happen. I have the feeling that on many occasions what
happens is, the staff makes a decision or recommendation on
something, and then we find that the legal staff is put in the position of
either publicly undermining the staffs recommendation or finding a
way to support it, and I don't think that's the way things should work.
I think that legal consideration should evolve before the staff
makes recommendations and reaches decisions on these -- some of
these issues, particularly land use issues, because sometimes they're
very complex.
And I would like to see a change in the way that happens. I don't
know how to do it because I know that the staffs evaluation occurs
over a period of time long before we ever get it. But certainly, I
would like to see us give staff direction to get together with the legal
department and find ways to mesh their skills and recommendations
and reviews in such a way that there's mutual influence going on
throughout the entire process rather than just the staff reaching a
decision and then having legal staff placed in a position of either
supporting it or publicly undermining it or rejecting it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. This is a no-brainer. I think
we can give direction right now to them to go ahead with it.
Page 238
February 13,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, actually, it should
be during the development of the executive summary, work with the
legal --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe even further than that.
Maybe even back earlier in the process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's possible.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Legal notices to go out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But there has to be more
coordination with the county attorney or just tell the board, hey, that's
my opinion. It's not legal advice because I don't have a --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- license to do so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we had three nods there, right?
MR. MUDD: Let me just make sure I've got this down pat, okay.
I know that Mr. Schmitt pays the County Attorney's Office for the
attorneys that he has, Mr. Klatzkow, Ms. Student -- and I can't tell you
if they have any more, but I bet you there's at least one paralegal that's
down in Joe Schmitt's shop that basically is with him the entire way
on land use decisions -- Marjorie, you can correct me if I'm wrong --
but that is exactly what happens.
As far as the executive summaries and the legal statements that
are done, legal considerations on the process, yeah, I can't tell you
who writes that. I don't think it's the county attorney. But I will tell
you, there isn't anything that comes on this agenda that he doesn't
review or his department doesn't review. And if there's anything on
that agenda that they don't agree with, we will pull it before it ever
gets to this board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: So I'm assuming, Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're going to do it differently.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We are? Then you need to direct your
county attorney to do it differently because right now that's --
Page 239
February 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was done. It was done. It
was just done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. What else, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You boys and girls work
together, make it happen.
The next thing is, I met with a member -- an employee of the soil
and water district, and they have a big plan for environmental
restoration and stormwater storage that would benefit everybody in
Collier County, and it also has to do with this Winchester Head.
Their request -- and I agreed to bring it up to the Board of
Commissioners. At their request, they would like to meet with the
Board of Commissioners and tell the board what their plan is.
And I know that they wanted to -- or Conservation Collier wanted to
meet with them whether they agree with that or not. But being an
elected board to an elected board, I think is important.
And so, is there any problem with meeting with the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, there is. I think that it would be
a good idea when we get to that point. I think they need to work out
some of the problems with Conservation Collier, plus there is a
distrust out there for what's taking place because it's nothing more than
rumors that's going back and forth, the public out there, the Golden
Gate Estates Civic Association, the Frangipani Civic Association, and
the Corkscrew Civic Association. They're having some problems.
They'd like to have some community meetings, and I don't think we
should be involved in it till they get through that venting process. And
when they do, I'd love to have them come in because we need -- we're
going to be in the middle of a fire storm at this point in time with
everybody and his brother.
I think that they need to be able to handle that and then bring us
in when they get to the point where they've got some public buy-in on
this. That's my personal opinion.
Page 240
February 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I don't agree with
it, and I apologize.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's okay. We're entitled to
different opinions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The -- if we have a
workshop with the soil and water commission district, or whatever it
is, it's going to be public.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You better believe it will be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what would be a good time
for the public to get involved in it?
Now, that would open the door just like it has to other things in
your district for elected officials to get out to the public. I -- you
know, I can't say there's lack of communication between that district
and your associations.
But I do know you have a problem, a flooding problem, in
Golden Gate Estates. You have somebody that wants to assist the
county to fix that problem. And I think that as a public servant to the
people, that we ought to work together with other elected officials to
serve the citizens in this one case.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. And I disagree
wholeheartedly. It's my district. I know the people. I know that if we
tried to hold a meeting about a subj ect matter that we're totally
unversed and the people haven't come together, and you've got Collier
Conservation -- Conservation Collier in disarray over this particular
issue, it's going to be pure bedlam. People are going to be asking for
answers we can't get to. It needs to go through a growing process
before it comes to the commission.
That's the way I feel. I mean, if this commission so directs, then
that's the way it will be, but I don't think we're ready for it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any interest in meeting
with the soil and water district?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm anxious to meet with them.
Page 241
February 13, 2007
The sequence might be something worth negotiating. But I think I
would like to understand better the differences between Conservation
Collier and the Soil and Water Conservation District, and it might
make some sense to let them meet first. But I certainly would like to
meet with the Soil and Water Conservation District.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree. I think it would be good to
meet with them, but first I think that they have that -- they should be
meeting separately in order to come up with a plan to present to us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And do a little bit of public venting
before they come to us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, what is it to hold a public
meeting? Golden Gate Civic Association could schedule them in next
month.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Shouldn't be any problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If they could first meet with those
people, and then we could meet with them, that would be --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. It doesn't matter what the
results of that meeting is, I'd be glad to meet with them afterwards. At
least they had a chance to be able -- you know, you get better at
making your presentation if you do it several times in public before
you get before the commission, and then to be able to refine it, they'll
be able to find out. Maybe it will be a total endorsement of the public
out there and they'll come walking through the door with support of all
the civic associations. That would be wonderful. That's very possible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me do this. Let me
contact the members that contacted me, ask them to go out to the civic
association, and then once that is scheduled, I'll get with the county
manager to see what a good date would be for -- or is it, Sue?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think --
Page 242
February 13,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- somebody to -- for the boards
-- the two boards to get together.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. And Collier Conservation, too,
to somehow make an appearance before them at their meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's the big deal?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Commissioner, you're talking
about elected officials getting together with elected officials. It's a
request of theirs. I'm not going to demand that they get together with
Conservation Collier, because this is a bigger issue than Conservation
Collier.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to you, Commissioner
Fiala, Commissioner Halas's light's been on, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I can understand where
Commissioner Coletta's coming from. There's been issues in my
district -- and I know all of us have had issues. And it seems to work
-- the process seems to work better if groups that have an interest can
work together and hash out a lot of things before it comes before the
Board of County Commissioners.
A lot of times issues that were major issues -- or all of a sudden a
lot of those issues disappear, and I think everybody comes to a
consensus. So I really think that we can allow the process where the
people can work out their differences and then come before the Board
of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They don't even have to work out the
differences. They have to have some understanding of where it's all
coming from before they come through the door.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. It all comes down to
communication. And how often things are misunderstood. Each one
has a good point, but they have never discussed the points together,
and I think that that's the first and most important thing, they ought to
Page 243
February 13,2007
be meeting to discuss what their issues are.
Many times they find that they're the same issues, they've just
been presented differently, and then we should meet with them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. And if they'd like some help in
getting scheduled, I'm tight with all those civic associations, helped to
form the Frangipani and the one in Corkscrew. More than happy to
help get the word to them and set up an appointment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I will relay that to
them about getting a meeting with the civic association, Golden Gate
Civic Association, and then get with whoever to hopefully do a
workshop.
The last thing is --
MR. MUDD: But the guidance is, you will have a workshop
with them as they make --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Because, Commissioner, you're going to get with
them, but they're coming to see me on Thursday, the president and the
-- I've got Mr. Vanick (phonetic) and I've got Mr. Vasey coming in.
They put it on my calendar. I was just looking. They're walking in
the door.
So you've agreed to a workshop, and I could schedule that like in
Mayor June, and they'd have that opportunity. I'll ask them if that fits
In.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. MUDD: And then -- Commissioner, in your calendar, if it's
okay, please come to the meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When is it?
MR. MUDD: It's Thursday.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This Thursday?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Make sure you explain to them what
Page 244
February 13, 2007
the direction of the commission was.
MR. MUDD: I believe Commissioner Henning's probably going
to help me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I've already met with them
myself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to do it. The thing is,
the Board of Commissioners authorized the investigation of the
affordable housing funds. And, in fact, Commissioner Coyle said, I
want every penny accounted for. And I haven't had an update. So
what's the scoop?
MR. MUDD: The KPMG's finished their audit, they're writing
up the report, and we're supposed to be getting it.
At one time -- and Crystal, you can help me a little bit -- they were
thinking about combining them, but I think we've asked them to do
two separate reports and get them -- so we can report back to the board
on the one that they did.
MS. KINZEL: For the record, Crystal Kinzel, the Clerk's Office.
I think at this point they have a draft report and they're waiting on
staffs formal response. We have a draft of staffs responses, but I
don't believe it's been formalized at this time, and we're just waiting
on those, as I understand it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The audit, that was to be also
carried out into the private sector. Has that been carried out also?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As Commissioner Coyle stated,
I want every penny accounted for.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think -- I think I was the
one that brought that before the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you did, but it was just his
comments that I brought forward.
And with that, Commissioner Coletta, thank you for chairing the
meeting. You were forceful, but you keep us on target.
Page 245
February 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Pretty much so. We're 41 minutes
late, but that's all right. No, just kidding.
Thank you so much. It's been a pleasure today. We're
adjourned.
* * * * * Commissioner Henning 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
AN INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE BROCHU
PROPERTY UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM - ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR COST
TO BE $20,600 WITH AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF
$1.000 TO $4.500
Item #16A2 - Continued to the February 27,2007 BCC Meeting
GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE)
AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF
VERONA WALK PHASE lB. THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED
Item #16A3
AN APPLICATION BY NAPLES URGENT CARE, P. L. FOR
PARTICIPATION IN THE ADVANCED BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM - FOR A NEW
LOCATION AT 8350 SIERRA MEADOWS BLVD., EDISON
VILLAGE
Page 246
February 13,2007
Item #16A4
THIS ITEM REQUIRED 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. FINAL PLAT OF CHATHAM
WOODS, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A5
THIS ITEM REQUIRED 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. FINAL PLAT OF CALDECOTT
REPLAT - DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO APPROVAL
Item #16A6
THE BUILDING DIRECTORS ISSUANCE OF BUILDING
PERMITS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF PREVIOUSLY
EXISTING POOL SCREEN ENCLOSURES DAMAGED BY
HURRICANE WILMA, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THE
RESPECTIVE APPLICANTS RECOGNIZE AND AGREE TO
FILING THE REQUIRED REQUESTS FOR DIMENSIONAL
VARIANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE RESPECTIVE SIDE
YARD AND/OR REAR YARD ENCROACHMENTS - FOR TWO
SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENCES LOCATED AT 2207 ROYAL
LANE AND 248 EDGEMERE. WYNDEMERE PUD
Page 247
February 13, 2007
Item #16A7
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERING FUNDS FROM
FUND 339 RESERVES (ROAD IMPACT FEE DISTRICT 5-
IMMOKALEE) TO FUND 339 REIMBURSEMENTS (PRIOR
YEAR) IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 - FOR IMP ACT FEES
PREVIOUSLY PAID BEFORE THE SALE, TRANSFER OF
REFINANCING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
Item #16A8
ELECTION OF A CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN FOR
THE IMMOKALEE REDEVELOPMENT AREA ADVISORY
BOARD AND THE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY FOR 2007 (A COMPANION ITEM TO ITEM 16G1)-
APPOINTMENT OF FRED N. THOMAS, JR. AS CHAIRMAN
AND RICHARD RICE AS VICE CHAIRMAN
Item #16A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR VERONAWALK, PHASE 1B - W/RELEASE
OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16B1
THE PURCHASE OF 2.52 ACRES OF UNIMPROVED
PROPERTY (PARCEL NO. 216) WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STORMW A TER RETENTION AND
TREATMENT POND FOR THE OIL WELL ROAD WIDENING
PROJECT. PROJECT NO. 60044 - LOCATED BETWEEN
Page 248
February 13,2007
IMMOKALEE ROAD AND CAMP KEAIS ROAD
Item #16B2
AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. 07-4096 TO
BONNESS, INC. FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD (C.R. 881)
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT PINE RIDGE ROAD,
PROJECT NO. 60016, IN THE AMOUNT OF $420,587.37 -
RECONSTRUCTING THE NORTHBOUND DUAL RIGHT TURN
LANES BY IMPROVING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER,
SIDEWALKS, TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16B3
A SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL GRANT AGREEMENT NO.
4600000608 IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000 FOR PARTIAL
FUNDING OF THE 2007 AUSTRALIAN PINE TREE REMOVAL
PROGRAM - THE PROJECT MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN
ONE YEAR OF EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT
Item #16B4
AWARD BID #07-4086 SUPPLY & INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNS
AND MARKINGS TO TRUTWIN INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR THE
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $90,500 - FOR INSTALLATION
OF END-OF-ROAD SIGNAGE FOR ALL CANAL ROAD
ENDINGS IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
Item #16B5
Page 249
-"~"--"""~ . --. -~.,.._~"...".".,.._".-"".~~.._"._"""-- "--
February 13, 2007
CHANGE ORDER #5 TO ADD $298,485.00 FOR CONTINUING
INSPECTION SERVICES FOR KCCS, INC. UNDER ITQ 04-3583
CEI SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY ROAD PROJECTS FOR
PROJECT NO. 60006 GRADE SEPARATED OVERPASS ROAD
PROJECT ON GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND OVER
AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD
Item #16B6
THE USE OF THE RATE OF $3,850 PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET
BASED ON AN ALTERNATIVE ROAD IMPACT FEE
CALCULATION FOR A PROPOSED AMERICAN SIGNATURE
FURNITURE STORE TO BE LOCATED AT THE TRIANGLE
PARCEL NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF U.S. 41
TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH AND OLD U.S. 41 - AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C1 - Moved to Item #10J - To remain on Consent
w/changes to verbage
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH
FEBCO INC. A DIVISION OF WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES
INC. THAT ALLOWS FEBCO TO SEEK CERTIFICATION OF
THEIR BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES (BPDS)
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS REDUCED PRESSURE DETECTOR
ASSEMBLIES (RPDAS), WHICH WERE INSTALLED DURING
THE INCEPTION OF THE FIRE AND IRRIGATION WATER
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IN PELICAN BAY. PROJECT
NUMBER 74023
Item #16C2
Page 250
February 13, 2007
CONTRACT #06-4056 DISASTER RECOVERY SERVICES TO
JAMES LEE WITT ASSOCIATES, A PART OF GLOBAL
OPTIONS GROUP, INC., FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AS A RESULT OF A DECLARED DISASTER
IN COLLIER COUNTY AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE CONTRACT - FOR THE SPECIFIC
HURRICANE WILMA EVENT
Item # 16C3
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, THE FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL
UTILITY AUTHORITY, AND THE SEMBLER F AMIL Y
PARTNERSHIP LTD., ALLOWING THE FLORIDA
GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE
TEMPORARY WASTEWATER SERVICE TO THE PROPOSED
BROOKS VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT -
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PINE RIDGE
ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 951
Item #16C4
THE ACCEPTANCE OF FOUR SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AL TERNA TIVE WATER SUPPLY
GRANTS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $3,009,200 FOR THE
PARTIAL FUNDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE COUNTY'S PUBLIC WATER
SUPPLY SYSTEM - TO AID IN CONSTRUCTION OF SIX
AL TERNA TIVE WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS
Item #16C5
Page 251
February 13, 2007
THE SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE AND CERTIFIED
INSTALLATION OF REPLACEMENT PARTS FOR THE
OXIDATION DITCHED AND CLARIFIERS TO SIEMENS
WATER TECHNOLOGIES, IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $500,000 - MATERIALS NOT AVAILABLE
THROUGH AN AFTER MARKET SOURCE
Item #16C6
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN, LETTERS TO THE
CITY OF NAPLES, THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND THE
CITY OF EVERGLADES CITY REQUESTING THEM TO
ADOPT THE MANDATORY NON-RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-50 OR SIMILAR ORDINANCE - TO
EXTEND THE LIFE OF THE LANDFILL
Item # 16C7
FUNDS PROVIDED BY SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GRANTS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$425,847.00 AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT FOR THE RECLAIMED WATER AQUIFER
STORAGE AND RECOVERY PROJECT 74030 - TO PROTECT
THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY BY INCREASING THE
AVAILABLE RECLAIMED WATER TO BE USED FOR
IRRIGATION
Item #16D1
RESCINDING APPROVAL OF THE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT FOR FUND SHARING OF THE PULLING
Page 252
February 13, 2007
PROPERTY PROJECT AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON JUNE 14, 2005 AND TO
APPROVE A NEW AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES
FOR THE PULLING PROPERTY BOAT RAMP FACILITY IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $700,000 - TO ENHANCE BOAT
ACCESS FOR COUNTY RESIDENTS
Item #16D2 - Moved to Item #101
Item #16D3
THE PURCHASE OF RETROFIT SPORTS FIELD LIGHTING
FROM MUSCO LIGHTING FOR EAGLE LAKES COMMUNITY
PARK IN THE AMOUNT OF $261,543 AND APPROVE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - TO CREATE
MINIMAL DISTURBANCE TO SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES FOR FOUR (4) LIGHTED ATHLETIC FIELDS
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 2007-32: A RESOLUTION REESTABLISHING
THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR AREAS LICENSE
AND FEE POLICY, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 2006-
296 AND ALL OTHER RESOLUTIONS ESTABLISHING
LICENSE AND FEE POLICY
Item #16D5 - Withdrawn
A LOAN TO THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CCHDC) OF $200,000 FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
Page 253
February 13,2007
IN COPELAND USING STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE
PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) FUNDS - FOR THE DEMOLITION OF
AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME AND REPLACE IT WITH A
HOME TO BE SOLD TO A LOW INCOME FAMILY TO REPAY
THE LOAN
Item #16D6
NAMING THE SKATE PARK AT EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY
P ARK "VELOCITY SKATE PARK"
Item #16D7
RESOLUTION 2007-33: A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AND
IMPLEMENTING REVISED BEACH PARKING FEES AND
RULES IN COMPLIANCE WITH AN AGREEMENT WITH
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION~ REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2002-430
Item #16D8
A BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING $40,000 FROM
RESERVES TO FUND THE REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
ASSESSMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE FUEL SPILL AT
CAXAMBAS PARK - TO DETERMINE THE LONG TERM
REMEDIATION THAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE SITE
Item #16D9
THE USE OF $144,305 FROM THE HOUSING AND HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO BE USED AS A PART OF A
LOCAL MATCH REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN STATE AND
Page 254
February 13, 2007
FEDERAL FUNDING TO CONTINUE OPERATION OF THE
HORIZONS PRIMARY CARE CLINIC IN THE GOLDEN GATE
AREA - TO INCREASE THE PROVISION OF HEALTH
SERVICES FOR THE MEDICAID, UNINSURED AND
UNDERINSURED PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY
Item #16D10
TO AWARD BID NUMBER 07-4084 FOR POOL CHEMICALS
AND SUPPLIES TO VARIOUS VENDORS. THESE CHEMICALS
AND SUPPLIES WILL BE USED IN COUNTY PARK AND
RECREATION DEPARTMENT AQUATIC FACILITIES-
AWARDED TO ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORP., COMMERCIAL
ENERGY SPECIALISTS, INC., RECREONICS, INC., AND
NUC02
Item #16D11
APPLICATION AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR A SAFE HAVENS: SUPERVISED VISITATION AND SAFE
EXCHANGE GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 FROM
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND, IF
AWARDED, TO SERVE AS THE FISCAL AGENT AND TO
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A SUB RECIPIENT
AGREEMENT WITH CHILD ADVOCACY COUNCIL (D.B.A.
CHILD PROTECTION TEAM) - TO EXPAND DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE FAMILY ASSESSMENTS, CASE MANAGEMENT,
SUPERVISED VISITATION AND MONITORED EXCHANGES
FOR CHILDREN WHOSE PARENTS HAVE BEEN COURT
ORDERED FOR THE SERVICES
Item #16D12
Page 255
February 13,2007
AMENDMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY ON
AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND APPROVE BUDGET
AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT AN OVERALL DECREASE OF
$21,000 IN THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT PROGRAMS - DUE
TO A SURPLUS OF $24.000
Item #16E1
RESOLUTION 2007-34: A RESOLUTION EXECUTING THE
DEED CERTIFICATES FOR THE SALE OF BURIAL PLOTS AT
LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY
DURING THE 2007 CALENDAR YEAR
Item #16E2
THE ADDITION OF THE CLASSIFICATION DIRECTOR-
OPERATIONS SUPPORT-PUD TO THE 2007 FISCAL YEAR
PAY PLAN & THE REMOVAL OF THE CLASSIFICATION
DIRECTOR-UTILITIES FINANCE OPERATIONS FROM THE
2007 FISCAL YEAR PAY PLAN
Item # 16E3
AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTYS CURRENT AGREEMENT
WITH ICMA-RETIREMENT CORPORATION (ICMA-RC) THAT
PROVIDES A DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN TO
COUNTY EMPLOYEES - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16E4
Page 256
February 13,2007
A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
ARNOLD PROPERTIES, INC., FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF
GARAGE/WAREHOUSE SPACE BY THE SHERIFFS OFFICE AT
A TOTAL COST OF $29,192.40 - LOCATED AT 1100
COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD
Item # 16E5
A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH DOMENICO AND MARIA
LAGRAST A FOR TEMPORARY W AREHOUSE/ OFFICE SPACE
TO BE USED BY THE SHERIFFS OFFICE AT A FIRST YEARS
COST OF $84,000 - TO MOVE RADIO SHOP, MOBILE DATA
AND TELEPHONE OPERATIONS, LOCATED AT 4373
MERCANTILE AVENUE
Item # 16E6
APPROVAL OF BOYD BROTHERS SERVICE, INC. AS THE
SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER FOR THE INSTALLATION, REPAIR
AND REPLACEMENT OF AUTOMATED LOGIC SYSTEMS
AND CONTROLS - TO ALLOW FOR A POTENTIAL ENERGY
AND COST SAVINGS TO THE COUNTY
Item #16E7
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS - FOR A PERIOD COVERING DECEMBER 18,
2006 THROUGH JANUARY 23. 2007
Item #16F1
Page 257
February 13, 2007
APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16F2
THE SUBMITTAL OF THE ATTACHED EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT, PREPAREDNESS AND ASSISTANCE (EMPA)
TRUST FUND PROJECT APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA
DEP ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $68,440 - FOR THE RADIO TOWER TRAILER SYSTEM
SUPPORTING THE DEPLOYABLE MULTI-AGENCY
COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION SYSTEM
Item #16F3
THE SUBMITTAL OF A FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES MATCHING GRANT APPLICATION AND GRANT
DISTRIBUTION FORM FOR THE STAIR CHAIR PROGRAM IN
THE AMOUNT OF $69,850.24 - TO EQUIP AMUBUALNCE
SWITH THESE CHAIRS TO MOVE PATIENTS/VICTIMS
Item #16F4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000 FOR
THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES REQUIRED
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF SANDBAGS WHICH WILL BE
UTILIZED BY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND THE ROAD
AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT DURING FLOOD EVENTS
Item #16G1
Page 258
February 13, 2007
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SITTING AS THE
COLLIER COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ELECTED A
CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN FOR THE IMMOKALEE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA ADVISORY BOARD AND THE
ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR 2007 (A
COMPANION ITEM TO ITEM 16A8) - RECOMMENDING FRED
N. THOMAS AS CHAIRMAN AND RICHARD RICE AS VICE-
CHAIRMAN
Item #16G2
SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND A GRANT APPLICANT WITHIN THE
BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA - FOR REVITALIZING THE AREA
LOCATED ON LINWOOD AVENUE
Item #16G3
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)
APPROVAL OF CRA STAFF ATTENDANCE AT 2007
REDEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE, ICSC NORTH FLORIDA
SEMINAR AND 17TH ANNUAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT
SUMMIT; AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF ATTENDEES
REGISTRATION, LODGING, TRAVEL AND PER DIEM FROM
THE BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE TRUST FUND (FUND
187) TRAVEL BUDGET; AND DECLARE THE TRAINING
RECEIVED AS SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - HELD
MAY 30 THROUGH JUNE 1, 2007 AT THE ROSEN PLAZA
HOTEL IN ORLANDO
Page 259
February 13, 2007
Item #16G4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $91,400 TO INCREASE
BUDGETED REVENUES AND BUDGETED EXPENSES FOR
THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF AVIATION FUEL AT
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT - DUE TO AN INCREASE
IN SALES
Item #16H1 - Withdrawn
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDING THE GULF CITRUS
COUNTRY GALA ON SATURDAY, MARCH 24,2007 AT THE
LABELLE CIVIC CENTER IN LABELLE, FLORIDA. $60.00 TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL VIP BREAKFAST MEETING ON
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2007, AT THE DOUBLETREE
GUEST SUITES, 12200 TAMIAMI TRAIL IN NAPLES,
FLORIDA. $16.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
Page 260
February 13, 2007
PURPOSE. WILL ATTEND THE NAPLES PRESS CLUB
ANNUAL SPECIAL AUTHOR LUNCHEON ON SATURDAY,
FEBRUARY 24, 2007 AT THE CYPRESS WOODS GOLF AND
COUNTRY CLUB; $35.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. WILL ATTEND THE 2007 WOMEN OF STYLE 10TH
ANNUAL AWARDS ON THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2007 AT THE
NAPLES GRAND RESORT; $100.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H5 - Withdrawn
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. WILL ATTEND THE MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL
SOCIETY SPRING APPRAISAL F AIRE GALA LIVE AND
SILENT AUCTION ON SATURDAY, MARCH 3, 2007 AT THE
HAMMOCK BAY GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, NAPLES;
$75.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET
Item #16H6
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE PHYSICIANS REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER GOOD NEWS GALA ON SATURDAY,
Page 261
February 13,2007
JANUARY 27,2007 AT THE PHYSICIANS REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER, NAPLES; $35.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H7
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. WILL ATTEND THE MARINE CORPS LEAGUE
HONOR THE FREE PRESS LUNCHEON ON WEDNESDAY,
MARCH 14,2007 AT THE HILTON HOTEL, NAPLES; $25.00 TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H8
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR PREPAYING FOR A FUNCTION
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER PAID
IN ADVANCE TO REGISTER TO ATTEND THE URBAN LAND
INSTITUTE (ULI) SOUTHWEST FLORIDA DISTRICT
COUNCIL MEETING -WINTER INSTITUTE ON FEBRUARY 22,
2007 AND IS REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $75.00, TO BE PAID FROM HIS TRAVEL
BUDGET
Item #16H9
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER PAID IN
ADVANCE TO ATTEND THE EVERGLADES CITY HALL
RESTORATION CELEBRATION AS A KEYNOTE SPEAKER ON
Page 262
February 13,2007
JANUARY 27,2007 AND IS REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $20.00, TO BE PAID FROM HIS TRAVEL
BUDGET
Item #16H10
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER PAID IN
ADVANCE TO ATTEND SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVE PRE-SESSION LEGISLATION
EVENT ON JANUARY 29, 2007 AND IS REQUESTING
REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $35.00, TO BE PAID
FROM HIS TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H11
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR PREPAYING TO ATTEND A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE.
COMMISSIONER PAID IN ADVANCE TO ATTEND THE
NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BOARD MEETING ON
JANUARY 25, 2007 AND IS REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $3.00, TO BE PAID FROM HIS TRAVEL
BUDGET
Item #16H12
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER PAID IN
ADVANCE TO ATTEND THE HERITAGE BAY AFFORDABLE
Page 263
February 13, 2007
HOUSING GROUND BREAKING CEREMONY AND
LUNCHEON ON JANUARY 19,2007 AND IS REQUESTING
REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $16.00, TO BE PAID
FROM HIS TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H13
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER PAID IN
ADVANCE TO ATTEND THE BREAKFAST MEETING OF THE
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA - ALLIGATOR (COLLIER
COUNTY) DISTRICT COMMITTEE AND IS REQUESTING
REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $7.95, TO BE PAID
FROM HIS TRAVEL BUDGET
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 264
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 13, 2007
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
(1) Naples Heritage Community Development District: Minutes of May
15, 2006; Agenda for May 15, 2006; Minutes of October 23, 2006;
Agenda for October 23, 2006; Minutes of November 13, 2006;
Agenda for November 13, 2006.
(2) Port of the Islands Community Development District: Minutes of
December 8,2006; Agenda for December 8,2006.
(3) Quarry Community Development District: Minutes of August 14,
2006; Agenda for August 14, 2006.
B. Minutes:
(1) Collier County Plannina Commission: Agenda for February 1,
2007; Agenda for January 18, 2007; Minutes of December 7,
2006; Minutes of December 15, 2006 Special Session.
(2) Collier County Historical and Archaeoloaical Preservation Board:
Agenda for January 17, 2007; Minutes of December 20, 2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondence\021307 mise corr.doc
- -
February 13, 2007
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 06, 2007
THROUGH JANUARY 12, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD - IN THE AMOUNT
OF $3.250.251.51
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 13,2007
THROUGH JANUARY 19,2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD - IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1.895.128.08
Item # 16J3
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 20, 2007
THROUGH JANUARY 26, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD - IN THE AMOUNT
OF $3.987.224.62
Item #16J4
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 27,2007
THROUGH FEBRUARY 02, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD - IN THE AMOUNT
OF $3.241.718.75
Item #16K1
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000 FOR
OUTSIDE COUNSEL FEES AND $40,000 FOR OTHER
Page 265
February 13, 2007
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES (USED FOR EXPERTS AND
CONSULTANTS) - TO PROVIDE SPECIALIZED ASSISTANCE
WITH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDINANCE AND IN
THE COLLIER COUNTY VS. BROCK CASE
Item #16K2
A SETTLEMENT AT MEDIATION AND PRIOR TO TRIAL IN
THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED JOHN S. SEGRO, JAMES W
ANTONIOU AND JAMES A. ANTONIOU, JR., A MINOR V. P&K
POLE PRODUCTS, ET AL., FILED IN THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CASE NO. 02-2096-CA, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$125,000.00 - DUE TO AN AUTOMBILE ACCIDENT ON
FERUARY 21,2001 ON AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD NEAR
RADIO ROAD
Item #16K3
AN AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF EXPERT FEES IN
CONNECTION WITH PARCEL 140 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. ROSA A. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., CASE NO.
05-1033-CA (CR 951, PROJECT NO. 65061) FISCAL IMPACT:
$56,000.00 - FOR BUSINESS DAMAGE/CERTIFIED PUBLIC
ACOUNT ANT AND ARCHITECTURAL FEES
Item#17A
ORDINACE 2007-23: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER
COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 93-56, AS AMENDED, THE
ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE; AMENDING SECTION
ONE, DEFINITIONS; AMENDING SECTION FOUR TO
Page 266
February 13, 2007
PROVIDE A FEE FOR MICRO-CHIPPING; AMENDING
SECTION FIVE TO REVISE FEES BY RESOLUTION AND TO
ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR MICRO-CHIPPING;
AMENDING SECTION SIX, PROHIBITIONS; ADDING A NEW
SECTION NINETEEN ENTITLED DANGEROUS DOGS;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES~ AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Item #17B - Moved to Item #8D
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2007-35: PETITION A VESMT-2006-AR-10036,
AQUA, PELICAN ISLE YACHT CLUB TO DISCLAIM,
RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTYS AND THE
PUBLICS INTEREST IN A CERTAIN IRREGULAR WIDTH
UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST OF THE
SOUTHEAST OF THE NORTHEAST IN SECTION 17,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. AND BEING FURTHER DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2007-36: A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING 789.4
ACRES IN THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA
OVERLAY DISTRICT (RLSA) AS (BCI/BCP SSA 9),
APPROVING A CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR BCI/BCP SSA 9,
APPROVING AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR BCI/BCP SSA
9, AND ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF STEWARDSHIP
CREDITS GENERATED BY THE DESIGNATION OF SAID
STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA IN RESPONSE TO AN
Page 267
February 13, 2007
APPLICATION BY BARRON COLLIER INVESTMENTS, LTD.
AND BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP
Item #17E
ORDINANCE 2007-24: AN AMENDMENT TO COLLIER
COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 03-53, AS AMENDED (ALSO
KNOWN AS THE COLLIER COUNTY ETHICS ORDINANCE),
AMENDING SECTION SEVEN TO REQUIRE LOBBYISTS TO
REGISTER QUARTERLY AND UPDATE THE NAMES OF
THOSE ENTITIES BY WHOM THEY HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED
TO LOBBY AND ALSO REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF THE
NAME OR IDENTITY OF THOSE EMPLOYING A LOBBYIST
WHENEVER A LOBBYIST ENGAGES IN LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES
Item #17F
ORDINANCE 2007-25: APPROVAL OF THE HISPANIC
AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD'S 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
HAAB'S GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:41 p.m.
Page 268
February 13, 2007
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALSIEX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
(;l~ (#
JIM COLETTA, Chairman
ATTEST:
. ...' I,,"
DWIGJ:ITE;'B:R;OCK, CLERK
,
.;;;.-:-
....
--::~~~lUU~?~~&Cc ~\4 ~
?,t~H ",J' .u. l,~ l.~' '\
) \Vl.'~._'" ~1 '.
,
These minutes approv~y the Board on -3 ) I ~lb +_, as
presented ~ or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 269