BCC Minutes 03/13/2007 R
March 13,2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, March 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
Tom Henning
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Sue Filson, BCC Executive Manager
Michael Pettit, Chief Assistant County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
tI'..
~
,
-. \,
. ._~..:;:;;~:::;;.~.
AGENDA
March 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 PRESENT A TION 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. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, 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
EXPLANA TION 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,
Page 1
March 13, 2007
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
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. Reverend Dr. Craig Nelson, East Naples United Methodist Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. February 8, 2007 - District 5 Town Hall Meeting
C. February 13,2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting
D. February 22, 2007 - BCC/Congressman Mack Roundtable Discussion
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards
1) Presentation of the Advisory Committee Outstanding Member
Award to William H. Poteet, Jr., Chairman, Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
4. PROCLAMATIONS
Page 2
March 13, 2007
A. Proclamation designating Florida Surveyors Week as March 13 through
March 19, 2007. Florida Surveyors Week recognizes the many contributions
and the continual dedication of surveyors to the citizens of Florida and the
United States. To be accepted by Mr. David 1. Hyatt, PSM, State Board of
Directors, Florida Surveying and Mapping Society, District 5.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Project 66045 - Immokalee Rd. Design/Build Contractor Presentation.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Connie Stegall-Fullmer to discuss County
Development Standards and Zoning Variance Procedures.
B. Public Petition request by Ronald Bender to discuss side yard set back
vanance.
C. Public Petition request by Ovidio Pozo to discuss fence to be built behind
home.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m.. unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item was continued from the Januarv 23, 2007 BCC meetinl!. This
item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided bv Commission members. DOA-2005-AR-8543: Airport
Road Limited Partnership, represented by Karen Bishop, of PMS, Inc., and
Richard Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, requesting an
amendment to the Pine Air Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI)
Development Order to allow an increase in the maximum development area
of957,000 square footage (further limited to 707,000 square feet of retail
and 250,000 square feet of office), to a maximum total of 1,075,000 square
feet (further limited to 1,000,000 square feet of retail space and 75,000
square feet of office use); extend the buildout date from October 15, 2005 to
October 15, 20 I O. The subject 148.99 acres, is located along the west side of
Airport-Pulling Road, parallel to and approximately 1,600 feet north of Pine
Page 3
March 13, 2007
Ridge Road; and along both sides of Naples Boulevard, in Section II,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (Companion to
Petition PUDZ-A-AR-8550).
B. This item was continued from the January 23, 2007 BCC meetinl!. This
item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550: Airport
Road Limited Partnership, represented by Karen Bishop, ofPMS Inc., of
Naples and Richard Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson,
requesting an amendment of the Pine Air Lakes Planned Unit Development
(PUD) last revised in Ordinance No. 94-25, to allow an increase in the
maximum development area of 957,000 square footage (further limited to
707,000 square feet of retail and 250,000 square feet of office), to a
maximum total of 1,075,000 square feet (further limited to 1,000,000 square
feet of retail space and 75,000 square feet of office use); extend the buildout
date from October 15,2005 to October 15,2010. The subject 148.99 acres,
is located along the west side of Airport-Pulling Road (CR 31), parallel to
and approximately 1,600 feet north of Pine Ridge Road (CR 896); and along
both sides of Naples Boulevard, in Section II, Township 49 South, Range
25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to Petition DRIDOA-2005-
AR-8543).
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Haldeman Creek Maintenance Dredging
Advisory Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the County Government Productivity
Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory
Committee.
D. Appointment of members to the Collier County Airport Authority.
E. Appointment of member to the Environmental Advisory Council.
F. Appointment of members to the Health Planning Council of Southwest
Florida, Inc.
Page 4
March 13,2007
G. A resolution of the Board of County Commissioners to urge our Federal
Government to take immediate action to overhaul our immigration laws and
to protect our borders. (Commissioner Coyle)
H. A resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida to urge the 2007 Florida Legislature to renew their commitment to
traffic safety and do all they can to stop red light running. (BCC directive)
I. A resolution of the Board of County Commissioners to request that the Clerk
perform an audit of all funding in the Affordable Housing Program.
(Companion Item to be heard with KPMG audit report and management
responses related to the October 18, 2006 engagement letter between Collier
County and KPMG.) This item to be heard immediately after Item 10E.
(Commissioner Henning)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. To review the written and oral reports
of the Advisory Boards and Committees scheduled for review in 2007 in
accordance with Ordinance No. 2001-55. (Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the
County Manager)
B. To seek Board approval of a Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Amendment in the
amount of$625,000, increasing the loan amount from Collier County to the
Southwest Florida Expressway Authority from $150,000 to $775,000. (Don
Scott, Director, Transportation Planning and Bill Barton)
C. Recommendation to adopt a superseding resolution authorizing the
condemnation of fee simple interests and/or those perpetual or temporary
easement interests necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and
utility improvements required for the six-lane expansion of Collier
Boulevard from U.S. 41 to Davis Boulevard. (Capital Improvement Element
No. 86, Project No. 60001). Estimated fiscal impact: $5,000,000. (Gene
Calvert, Director, Transportation/Stormwater Management)
D. Recommendation to endorse the design and construction schedule of the
Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP) Phase IA; Project No.
511011. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
E. This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. Recommendation that the BCC accept
Page 5
March 13, 2007
the KPMG audit report and management responses related to the October
18, 2006 engagement letter between Collier County and KPMG.
F. Presentation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) by Mr. Greg
Bello, a member of the Goodland Preservation Coalition (GPC), pertaining
to the Coalitions recommended amendments to the Goodland Zoning
Overlay (GZO) along with other associated community data. (Joseph K.
Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and Environmental
Services Division)
G. Recommendation to approve the Southwest Florida Consortium 2007
Legislative Priorities which will be presented by participating
Commissioners in the six-county Consortium to their respective Legislative
Delegation in meetings in Tallahassee on March 22, 2007. (Debbie Wight,
Assistant to the County Manager)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners instruct staff to
present a proposed Ordinance for the Boards consideration at a future date
consolidating Ordinance No. 2005-55 (Collier County Code Enforcement
Board and Public Nuisance Abatement Ordinance), Ordinance No. 1997-35
(Collier County Code Enforcement Citation Ordinance), and Ordinance
2004-46 (Collier County Code Enforcement Special Master Ordinance), in
order to simplify the Code Enforcement process, and establishing
affirmative defenses to certain alleged code violations.
B. Board Consideration of Amendment Provisions to Collier County Ordinance
No. 79-8, as Amended, the Collier County Vessel Control Ordinance; by
Amending Section Five, Speed Limit in Certain Areas, to Establish the
Speed Zones in Naples Bay and to Direct Staff to Prepare a Waterway
Permit Application.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
Page 6
March 13, 2007
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 the Release and Satisfactions of Lien for
payments received for the following Code Enforcement actions.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners determine
compliance with the requirement for open space/natural habitat
preserve area as it relates to Ordinance No. 97-36, the Cypress Wood
Golf and Country Club Planned Unit Development Ordinance.
3) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearinl! 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 Fiddlers Creek Phase 2A, Unit Two. The roadway
and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
4) Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No.
59.835 "Livingston Lakes Commercial Excavation, located in Section
30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East to allow for the removal of an
additional 30,000 cubic yards of excavated material from the site.
5) Recommendation to approve the termination of the Cable Franchise
Agreement between Strategic Technologies, Inc., and Collier County.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award Bid No. 07-4094 - Lely Stormwater
Improvement Project Mitigation Area: Invasive Vegetation Removal
to All Florida Tree and Landscaping, in an amount not to exceed
$668,764.
Page 7
March 13, 2007
2) Recommendation to approve the purchase of improved property
(Parcel No. 130) which is required for the construction ofthe
Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension project. Project No. 60168 (Fiscal
Impact: $563,500)
3) Recommendation to approve Change Order No.2 to Professional
Service Agreement No. 03-3553 in the amount of $995,500.00 with
CH2MHILL, Inc., for the design of Collier Boulevard Road
Improvements from Davis Boulevard to Golden Gate Main Canal,
combining this project with FDOT Davis Boulevard Improvements
and Post Design Services, Project No. 60001.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the submission
of a State Revolving Fund low interest Construction Loan Application
and authorizing the Loan Agreement with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection for Collier County's South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant (SCRWTP) 12 Million Gallons per
Day (MGD) Reverse Osmosis (RO) Expansion, (Project No. 700971,
710221 )
2) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the submission
of a State Revolving Fund low interest Construction Loan Application
and authorizing the Loan Agreement with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection for Collier Countys South County Regional
Water Treatment Plant (SCRWTP) 20 Million Gallons Per Day
(MGD) Well field Expansion (Project No. 708921)
3) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment in the amount of
$459,250 and award Bid No. 06-3946R to D. N. Higgins, Inc. for the
North County Regional Water Treatment Plant (NCRWTP) Water
Chemistry Laboratory Ventilation Improvements in the amount of
$683,000 (Project 700952)
4) Recommendation to accept the South Florida Water Management
District Big Cypress Basin Local Government Agreement No.
4600000654 in the amount of $900,000 as partial funding for the
construction of the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant 20-
Page 8
March 13,2007
MGD Well field Expansion, Project 70892, and approve the necessary
budget amendment.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to rescind previous award to Weller Pools and
award the installation of a 32" diameter Aquatube Slide at North
Collier Regional Park to Varian Construction at a cost of$76,059.
2) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to declare a public purpose
and for the solicitation, receipt, and subsequent distribution of
property donations to Collier County Domestic Animal Services.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve submittal of an award application for the
General Knowledge Database Emergency Phone Bank Response
System to the Mitretek Innovations Award in Homeland Security
Program.
2) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
From January 24, 2007 through February 20,2007
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve the submittal ofa Volunteer Fire
Assistance grant application to the Florida Division of Forestry for the
purchase of wild land fire fighting equipment and approve the
necessary budget amendments to recognize and appropriate revenue.
2) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a Volunteer Fire
Assistance Matching (50/50) Grant offered by the Florida Division of
Forestry, and approve the necessary budget amendments to recognize
and appropriate revenue in the amount of$3350.50
3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2006-07 Adopted Budget.
Page 9
March 13, 2007
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award Bid
#07-4114 in the amount of $176,425.00 for Pelican Bay Streetscape
Irrigation System Phase VI to Stahlman-England Irrigation, Inc.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Collier County CRA Board to approve a
CRA Resolution amending the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Site
Improvement Grant Program to allow for new Shoreline Stabilization
Improvement Grant and Sweat Equity Grant Programs for Fiscal
Years 2008 and 2009; approve the Grant Application process; approve
the form of the Grant Agreement letters; and declare the grants as
serving a valid public purpose.
2) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve the purchase of a vacant residential (mobile home) lot in the
Bayshore area of the CRA as part of a CRA residential in fill project;
to approve payment from and authorize the CRA Chairman to make a
draw from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Wachovia Bank Line
of Credit in the amount of $90,000 plus cost and expenses to complete
the sale of subject properties; and approve any and all necessary
budget amendments. Site address: Folio # 52700840000
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Henning requests reimbursement for attending a
function serving a valid public purpose; Commissioner Henning
attended and spoke at the Marine Industry Member Meeting on
February 20,2007. $25.00 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's
travel fund.
2) Commissioner Halas requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attending the
Third Annual Honor the Free Press Day on Wednesday, March 14,
2007, at The Hilton Naples; $25.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Halas' travel budget.
3) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
payment for attending a function serving a valid public purpose.
Page 10
March 13, 2007
Commissioner attended the Veteran Services Department luncheon
honoring volunteer drivers on March 7,2007 at the Elks Lodge on
Radio Road. $16.00 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's travel
fund.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the Breakfast Roundtable Discussion at
Moorings Park on March 5, 2007 and is requesting reimbursement in
the amount of$10.97, to be paid from his travel budget.
5) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid for beverage at the 3rd Annual Marjory Stoneman Douglas
Festival on February 20, 2007 which he spoke at and is requesting
reimbursement in the amount of $5.00, to be paid from his travel
budget.
6) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend and speak at the Right Angle Club at Quail
Creek Luncheon on March 9, 2007 and is requesting reimbursement
in the amount of $11.00, to be paid from his travel budget.
7) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
Treviso Bay "Next Best Thing" celebration on March 2,2007, at
Treviso Bay; $10.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
8) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
Marco Island Alumni Club Monthly Luncheon on Wednesday,
February 28, 2007 at the Old Marco Inn; $22.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) To file for record with action as directed.
Page 11
March 13, 2007
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of February
17,2007 through February 23,2007 and for submission into the
official records of the board.
2) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of February
24, 2007 through March 02, 2007 and for submission into the official
records of the board.
3) The Finance and Accounting Department requires authorization from
the Board of County Commissioners to file an amended Internal
Revenue Service 8038-G form for Commercial Paper Loan A-25-1.
4) The Finance and Accounting Department requires authorization from
the Board of County Commissioners to file a Notice of Material
Events pursuant to SEC Rule l5c2-l2.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve
an Agreed Order for Expert Fees in Connection with Parcels 136, 836
and 936 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. David J. Frey, et aI.,
Case No. 03-2353-CA (Golden Gate Parkway, Project #60027) Fiscal
Impact: $2,500.00.
2) Recommendation to approve the Offer of Judgment in the amount of
$37,950 as to Parcel 134 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
TreeSource, Inc., et aI., Case No. 02-5167-CA (Immokalee Road
Project No. 60018). (Fiscal Impact $5,857.50)
3) Recommendation to approve an Offer of Judgment in the amount of
$8,500.00 as to Parcel 803 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
James M. Brown, et aI., Case No. 06-0525-CA (Santa Barbara Blvd.
Project No. 62081). (Fiscal Impact if accepted: $3,066.91)
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
Page 12
March 13,2007
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item has been continued indefinitely. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Recommendation to approve Petition A VROW -2005-AR-780 1,
12TH Street North disclaiming, renouncing and vacating the County's and
the Publics interest in a 60 foot wide right of way easement, known as 12th
Street North (previously known by record plat as Second Avenue) as
recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 12, of the Public Records of Collier County,
Florida, and more specifically described in Exhibit A and to accept a
drainage easement over the entire vacated area comprised of three separate
and segmented drainage easements, as depicted and described in Exhibit B,
Exhibit C and Exhibit D and a 20 foot wide access easement along the west
20 feet of the east 30 feet of the proposed vacation area, as depicted and
described in Exhibit E.
B. This is the second hearinl! for this item as reQuired by Subsection
10.03.05 EA. ofthe LDC which reQuires two public hearinl!s by the
BCC for rezone applications submitted by the County. The first of the
two reQuired public hearinl!s for this rezoninl! petition was held on
February 27, 2007. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. RZ-2005-
AR-7445, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.
requesting a rezone from the Conservation Zoning District with an Area of
Critical State Concern and a Special Treatment Overlay (Con-ACSC/ST)
and the Village Residential Zoning District with an Area of Critical State
Concern and a Special Treatment Overlay (VR-ACSC/ST) Zoning District
to the Village Residential Zoning District with an Area Of Critical State
Concern and a Special Treatment Overlay (VR-ACSC/ST-4) Zoning District
for Property Located in Sections 12 and 13, Township 52 South, Range 29
East, Collier County, Florida. (Copeland)
Page 13
March 13, 2007
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 14
March 13, 2007
March 13,2007
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Once again, welcome to the Collier County regular board
commission meeting. And we're going to start this meeting like we
start all our meetings, with the invocation and the pledge. And the
invocation today will be given by Reverend Craig -- Dr. Reverend
Craig Nelson.
Sir, would you take one of the podiums and please lead us. All
stand.
REVEREND NELSON: Let us pray together.
Dear God, I thank you for this day. As I was walking over here, I
thought this is one of those Chamber of Commerce days. Forgive me
for that because you made this day, and we're just grateful for it. It's
one of the reasons why we are here. Help us not make too many
gloating calls to the north because of the great weather.
I asked that this would be a great day also in here, that it would
be a good meeting. And as a good meeting, I think of the clarity of
mind for those who are going to present, for the wisdom of those who
need to make decisions. As I think of a good meeting, we dare might
even ask that it not be too long.
In your name we pray, amen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, would you lead
us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 2
March 13, 2007
Mr. Mudd, changes?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioner meeting, March 13,2007.
Add-on item 4B. It's a proclamation to recognize Collier
County's Habitat for Humanity and their milestone achievement of
building 1,000 homes in Collier County. To be accepted by Sam
Durso, president and CEO of Habitat for Humanity of Collier County,
and Mrs. Mary Ann Durso, executive director of Habitat for Humanity
of Collier County. The item was added at Commissioner Coletta's
request.
Next item is to continue item 6A to March 27,2007 BCC
meeting. It was a public petition request by Connie Stegall-Fullmer to
discuss county development standards and zoning variance
procedures. That item was continued at the petitioner's request.
The next item is to add on item 9J. It's a presentation by Dr.
Leonard Freeze (sic), head of the ethics department, International
College, and vice-president of the Character Council of Collier
County regarding the council's achievements over the past year and
future goals for Collier County. The add-on item was at
Commissioner Coyle's request.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: County Manager, Mr. Chairman, I
need to clarity this. This was not at my request. I specifically
introduced the petitioners to Commissioner Coletta's aide and
suggested that they wanted to talk with him about this and to schedule
it for the next meeting.
They are here today. I think it is inappropriate to add this
without advertisement. And if they are going to present this, it should
be presented after an appropriate advertisement.
But I did not request that it be placed on this agenda. So I don't
know what we do about that. I hate to waste their time, but I did
explain this to them yesterday. I did explain it yesterday when I
introduced them to the aide for Commissioner Coletta to see if they
Page 3
March 13,2007
could get an appointment to talk with him about this.
So I don't quite know what to do with it. But it's not my request
to place this on an unadvertised agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, if] may, I don't
know where the misunderstanding came from because I did repeat the
answer I got back to my aide. Obviously there's serious
misunderstanding.
I agree with you about the advertising element, and may I suggest
that we continue this to the next meeting?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that would be the
appropriate way to handle this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My apologies to the petitioner. I'm
sorry about that. Every once in a while human error steps in and we
misinterpret what the intents were of different people.
So if -- that would be -- yes, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, we're here for
the public. The public is asking the petition. Under petition the board
cannot take any action until a future agenda. I don't see where it hurts
to listen to the public petitioning their elected officials. I don't see any
problem with that at all.
I know in the past is we've asked to contact the county manager's
office to put it in a future agenda. These people are here today. I
don't have a problem with hearing what they have to say. I think
today is most appropriate being the lightness of our agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's go ahead and put it in the
form of a motion and start the discussion. You've got the floor,
Commissioner Henning, so make it in the form of a motion and then
we'll have a brief discussion, put it to a vote, and then move forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm going to, per the
chairman's request, approve the addition of the Character Council to
the board's agenda under a public petition.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
Page 4
March 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala to keep this
on the agenda, the add-on on the agenda.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, at the present time
it's not under a public petition, and that's one of the problems. It's
being added under 9, paragraph 9 as 91. And in my discussion with
the petitioners, they are going to ask us for some action, to take some
action. And if I could -- I think I could support Commissioner
Henning's suggestion if you were to move it to paragraph or section 5
-- or 6 of our agenda, which is public petitions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it's actually currently
scheduled under 9.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it would require movement
from 9 to 6 and become 6D in that case.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you agree with that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's what my motion
was. But I think we need some guidance from the County Attorney
per our ordinance; any commissioner may place an item on the
agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And while Dave's putting his mind
together on that, I just want one comment. The reason I would think it
would be best to move it to the next agenda is because, one, it's not a
timely thing, it's not an emergency. And if it's well advertised, there'll
probably be more attention drawn to it. Gosh knows, we just gave
him some tremendous advertising here this morning, and more people
would probably be here that have a vested interest in participating.
Page 5
March 13,2007
So I think it would be to an advantage to move it forward. So if I
don't support Commissioner Henning's motion, that would be the
reason.
Commissioner Coyle, or did we already --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could just make a comment.
By putting it under petitions, public petition, you are, in fact, requiring
it to be advertised for the next board meeting. So you could
accomplish that today, and that way it wouldn't violate the principle
that you're trying to uphold, which is to get it advertised.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to hear guidance from the
County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry. You're right.
Mr. Weigel, we kind of cut you short.
We'll come right back to you, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's -- I don't need to.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the statement was that a commissioner, a
commissioner, can put anything -- or put something on the agenda.
And under the procedure ordinance for the Board of County
Commissioners, it provides, in fact, that any commissioner, the
County Attorney, the Clerk, the county manager, may put an item on
the agenda. It also, of course, provides that the board at a meeting can
put -- make changes to the agenda or additions to the agenda.
And the question seems to isolate itself, is, at a board meeting,
can an individual commissioner put something on the agenda
unilaterally or is there an opportunity for the board to take a vote as a
board to add or not add something to the agenda?
When I review a practice, I look at either -- prior interpretations,
also past practices. And I do note that the board in the past has added
things to the agenda typically by consensus or motion and vote at a
board meeting itself.
Prior to a board meeting, any commissioner, as well as the Clerk,
Page 6
March 13, 2007
County Attorney, constitutional officers, can have something placed
on the agenda and it will be there.
By virtue of the fact that we're in a meeting right now, it makes
the question a little more difficult, can a -- which is can a
commissioner alone place something on the agenda if the other
commissioners wish not to do so?
Tough question. Again, the practice in the past has been
discussion and motion and vote by the board relating to a desire to put
something on the agenda, and I think the practice has typically been,
almost without fail, that if an individual commissioner desires to put
something on the agenda, the rest of the board has, in fact, accepted
that and made a motion and vote to do just that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you saying then that because
of the fact that this is an item of9J and it hasn't been advertised, do we
have the --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- the latitude to move this to
another part of the agenda, or do you believe that because of where it
is located on the agenda, under 9J, that it hasn't been properly
advertised so, therefore, we may not be going in regards to what needs
to be addressed in our ordinance?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I appreciate that different question there,
and the answer is, the board has the prerogative, the ability to place
this on the agenda essentially anywhere. Obviously if you were
attempting to put it under advertised public hearings, I would mention
that for the record that it's inappropriate.
But as far as the public petition aspect, it can go there, and your
procedure, as you know, and for the public to hear again, is that the
procedure under public petition is that typically action is not taken at
the board meeting where the public petition is heard. There is a
possibility for direction to staff and/or for a matter to come back at a
Page 7
March 13,2007
later -- at a later meeting. So it's no problem whatsoever to move it to
public petition.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there any part of the ordinance
that says a public petition has to be in by a certain period of time to be
on the agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it does in regard -- it does provide that the
petition shall be submitted prior to coming on the agenda; however,
that is the rule for the submitter, and I would say that the board has the
ability to place it as appropriate to conduct the business of the county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think we've got enough
discussion on this. I'm going to call the question unless the motion
maker has some other comment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would just request the County
Attorney to provide the AGO previously provided under the board's
ability to place things on the item -- on the agenda. I will provide it to
you so you can give it to the board.
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, well, fine. I think the board has received
that already, but we can certainly provide it again. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My own personnel feeling is that
sometimes, you know, we have to weigh in in what the public's best
interest is rather than the fine point of the law. It's what the intent is
that we're trying to accomplish.
But be that as it may, we still have a motion on the floor. If the
motion fails, it would be coming next week, or in two weeks from
now rather than this meeting.
So with that, I don't think there's any other comments, I hope not.
No, there isn't. I'm going to call the motion.
All those in favor of Commissioner Henning's motion to move it
on the agenda and continue it on this -- for this date, indicate by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 8
March 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
That was -- Commissioner Coyle, where were you?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was 3-2 in favor. I voted for.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You voted for it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. So the motion succeeded,
and it would be placed on the agenda for today.
MR. MUDD: Under 6D.
CHAIRMAN COLETT A: Yes, that's correct.
MR. MUDD: Next item on the agenda changes is to continue
item I6B2 to March 27,2007 BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to
approve the purchase of improved property, parcel number 130, which
is required for the construction of the Vanderbilt Beach Road
extension project, project number 60168, fiscal impact $563,500.
That item is being continued to the 27th of March at staffs request.
Next item is to move item 16B3 to lOH. It's a recommendation
to approve change order number two to professional service
agreement number 03-3553 in the amount of$995,500 with
CH2MHill, Inc., for the design of Collier Boulevard road
improvements from Davis Boulevard to Golden Gate main canal,
combining this project with FDOT Davis Boulevard improvements
and post design services, project number 60001. Item is being moved
at staffs request.
Next item is to withdraw item I6H2. That item reads,
Commissioner Halas requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attending the
third annual Honor the Free Press Day on Wednesday March 14th at
the Hilton Naples for $25 to be paid for Commissioner Halas' travel
Page 9
March 13,2007
budget. Item is being withdrawn at Commissioner Halas's request.
Note on the agenda. Item 16E2. Under considerations, second
paragraph, last sentence should read, these reports cover period
January 24, 2007, through February 20, 2007, rather than January 24,
2006, as printed on the particular executive summary.
You have some time certain items for today. Item lOA to be
heard at 11 a.m. It's to review the written and oral reports of the
advisory boards and committees scheduled for review in 2007 in
accordance with ordinance 2001-55.
Item 10D to be heard at 3:30 p.m. It's a recommendation to
endorse the design and construction schedule of the Lely Stormwater
Improvement Project, LASIP, phase IA, project number 511011. The
time certain was at Commissioner Fiala's request.
Next item is item 10E to be heard at 10:30 a.m. instead of 1 :00
p.m. as printed on your agenda. It's a recommendation that the BCC
accept KPMG's audit report and management response related to the
October 18, 2006, engagement letter between Collier County and
KPMG.
Next item is item 91 to be heard immediately following
companion item IOE. It's a resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners to request that the Clerk perform an audit of all
funding in the affordable housing program.
Last item on the change sheet is item IOB. It will be heard at
3:00 p.m. To seek the board's approval of a fiscal year 2007 budget
amendment in the amount of $625,000 increasing the loan amount
from Collier County to Southwest Florida Expressway Authority from
150,000 to 775,000 dollars.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Now we're
going to go to the commissioners for any changes to the agenda or ex
parte regarding the consent agenda or the summary agenda.
And we'll start with Commissioner Coyle this time.n
Page 10
March 13,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have no further
changes to the agenda and I have no ex parte disclosures for either the
summary agenda or the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, Chair. I have no
changes to today's agenda nor do I have any ex parte in regards to the
consent agenda or to today's summary agenda. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And myself, I have no changes to the
agenda, and the only thing I have to declare is on 17B, on that
particular item, I've had correspondence, email and phone calls.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have nothing to declare on
this summary or the consent agenda, and nothing -- no add-ons, no
changes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I have no ex
parte on today's consent or summary. I do want to move 16 Charlie 1
and 16 Charlie 2 to the regular agenda.
MR. MUDD: 16 Charlie 1 would become -- would become 101,
and 16 Charlie 2 would become 1 OJ.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You noticed how I used the
military terms.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. That totally threw me off, so
let's start again here on this. Okay. So we're moving 16 Charlie I?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 1.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: To 10 India.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that becomes --
MR. MUDD: 101.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 10 India.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And then 16 Charlie 2. What
am I saying Charlie for -- which becomes IOJ, 10 James.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Juliette.
Page 11
March 13,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Julia.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Juliette.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Juliette.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Juliette, okay. Well, we've got that
particular thing out of the way.
We thank you, Commissioner Henning. Anything else,
Commissioner Henning? That concludes what you had?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Well, we go to the agenda and the minutes for approval of to day's
regular, consent and summary agenda as amended with the ex parte
disclosure that's been made.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas -- Coyle,
excuse me.
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.
Page 12
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
March 13. 2007
Add on Item 4B: Proclamation to recognize Collier County's Habitat for Humanity and their milestone
achievement of building 1,000 homes in Collier County. To be accepted by Sam Durso, President and CEO,
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, and Mrs. Mary Ann Durso, Executive Director, Habitat for Humanity
of Collier County. (Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Continue Item 6A to March 27. 2007 BCC MeetinQ: Public Petition request by Connie Stegall-Fullmer to
discuss County Development Standards and Zoning Variance Procedures. (Petitioner's request.)
Add on Item 9J: Presentation by Dr. Leonard Ferenz, head of Ethics Department International College and
Vice President of the Character Council of Collier County, regarding the Council's achievements over the
past year and future goals for Collier County. (Commissioner Coyle's request.)
Continue Item 16B2 to March 27. 2007 BCC MeetinQ: Recommendation to approve the purchase of
improved property (Parcel No. 130) which is required for the construction of the Vanderbilt Beach Road
Extension project, Project No. 60168. (Fiscal Impact: $563,500) (Staff's request.)
Move Item 16B3 to 10H: Recommendation to approve Change Order No. 2 to Professional Service
Agreement No. 03-3553 in the amount of $995,500 with CH2MHill, Inc., for the design of Collier Boulevard
Road Improvements from Davis Boulevard to Golden Gate Main Canal, combining this project with FDOT
Davis Boulevard Improvements and Post Design Services, Project No. 60001. (Staff's request.)
Withdraw Item 16H2: Commissioner Halas requests approval for reimbursement for attending a function
serving a valid public purpose. Attending the Third Annual Honor the Free Press Day on Wednesday,
March 14, 2007, at The Hilton Naples; $25.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
(Commissioner Halas' request.)
Note:
Item 16E2: Under Considerations, second paragraph, last sentence should read: "These reports cover
period January 24, 2007 (rather than 2006) through February 20, 2007." (Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items
Item 10A to be heard at 11:00 a.m. To review the written and oral reports of the Advisory Boards and
Committees scheduled for review in 2007 in accordance with Ordinance No. 2001-55.
Item 10D to be heard at 3:30 D.m. Recommendation to endorse the design and construction schedule of the
Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP) Phase 1A; Project No. 511011. (Commissioner Fiala's
request.)
Item 10E to be heard at 10:30 a.m. instead of 1:00 D.m. Recommendation that the BCC accept the KPMG
audit report and management responses related to the October 18, 2006 engagement letter between Collier
County and KPMG.
Item 91 to be heard immediatelv followinll comDanion Item 10E: A resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners to request that the Clerk perform an audit of all funding in the Affordable Housing Program.
Item 10B to be heard at 3:00 D.m. To seek Board approval of a Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Amendment in the
amount of $625,000, increasing the loan amount from Collier County to the Southwest Florida Expressway
Authority from $150,000 to $775,000.
March 13,2007
Item #2B, #2C and #2D
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2007 BCC/DISTRICT #5
TOWNHALL MEETING, FEBRUARY 13, 2007 BCC/REGULAR
MEETING AND FEBRUARY 22, 2007 BCC/CONGRESSMAN
MACK ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
February 8, 2007 District 5 town hall meeting; February 13th,
BCC regular meeting; and February 22, BCC Congressman Mack
roundtable discussion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Move to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A move for approval by
Commissioner Halas and 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.
Item #3
PRESENT A TION OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OUTSTANDING MEMBER A WARD TO WILLIAM H. POTEET,
JR., CHAIRMAN, CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
Page 13
March 13, 2007
ACQUISITION COMMITTEE - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Service awards?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, this is a presentation of the advisory
committee's outstanding member award to William H. Poteet, Jr.,
who's the chairman of the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee.
Mr. Poteet, if you could come forward, please.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it's indeed an honor to be able
to give this to you. We appreciate your years of service, and we
expect more of it in the future.
MR. POTEET: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you please turn around and
face the camera. Please stand. Come on, guys. Get with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll shake your hand.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Coletta, give him the parking.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry?
MS. FILSON: Give him his parking pass for one month.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the proclamation. What else
you looking for?
MR. MUDD: Bill?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, forgive me. There we go, Bill.
This is a parking pass for one month.
MR. POTEET: A parking pass for one month?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. That actually comes free.
Once again, thank you.
MR. POTEET: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We really appreciate it.
(Applause.)
Item #4A
Page 14
March 13, 2007
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FLORIDA SURVEYORS
WEEK AS MARCH 13 THROUGH MARCH 19,2007; FLORIDA
SURVEYORS WEEK RECOGNIZES THE MANY
CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE CONTINUAL DEDICATION OF
SURVEYORS TO THE CITIZENS OF FLORIDA AND THE
UNITED STATES - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item on the agenda is
proclamations, proclamation 4A. It's a proclamation designating
Florida Surveyors Week on March 13 through March 19,2007.
Florida Surveyors Week recognizes the many contributions and the
continual dedication of surveyors to the citizens of Florida and the
United States.
To be accepted by Mr. David J. Hyatt, PSM, state board of
directors, Florida Surveying and Mapping Society of District 5.
Mr. Hyatt, if you could come forward, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whereas, since the colonial
days of the nation, surveyors have been influenced -- influential
citizens and leaders of the country and the role of the surveyor has
been and remains of vital importance to the development of our
country; and,
Whereas, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham
Lincoln, former presidents of the United States, served their fellow
man as surveyors; and,
Whereas, the citizens of Florida recognize the valuable
contribution of the surveying profession to history, and the quality of
life in Florida and the United States of America, and the important
decisions based upon the knowledge and experience of licensed
surveyors; and,
Whereas, their surveying profession requires a four-year degree,
the knowledge of mathematics, the related physical and applied
Page 15
March 13, 2007
science, and requirements of law for evidence; and,
Whereas, surveyors are an equivalent (sic) qualified and licensed
to determine the described land and water boundaries for the
management of natural resources and protection of private and public
property rights; and,
Whereas, the continual and advance (sic) of instrumentation as
required of surveyors is not only to be able to understand and
implement the methods of the past, but also to learn and employ
modern technologies to find solutions to meet the challenges of the
future and recognize the contributions and the continual dedication of
surveyors to the citizens of Florida and of the United States.
Now, there, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners of
Collier County, March 13th through 19th, 2007, be designated as
Florida Surveyors Week.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we pass this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala to pass this proclamation.
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.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll take a moment to get a photo,
and then if you'd like to say a couple words.
Thank you.
MR. HYATT: Thank you, Commissioners, for passing this
proclamation. I accept this on behalf of the Florida Surveying and
Mapping Society and all surveyors in Collier County as well as all of
Page 16
March 13,2007
our technical folks that do our drafting and that you see out working
on the side of the road doing the hard work that it really takes to get
surveying done. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE COLLIER COUNTY'S
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AND THEIR MILESTONE
ACHIEVEMENT OF BUILDING 1,000 HOMES IN COLLIER
COUNTY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is 4B, and
that is a proclamation to recognize Collier County's Habitat for
Humanity in their milestone achievement of building 1,000 homes in
Collier County. To be accepted by Sam Durso, president and CEO of
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, and Mrs. Mary Ann Durso,
executive director of Habitat for Humanity of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't see Mary Ann here today, but I
think Sam's a good representative of the family. Sam, thank you for
being here.
My connection with Habitat for Humanity goes back into the '80s
when I used to help you put up the signs for the new projects, procure
materials and set up for your different events. And so I have a tender
place in my heart for this organization and have for years. And for
that reason, it's an honor to read this proclamation today.
Whereas, Habitat for Humanity of Collier County began its
mission in 1978 to eliminate poverty housing from our community;
and,
Whereas, Habitat volunteers and partner families have built 1,000
homes in Collier County; and,
Page 17
March 13, 2007
Whereas, the lives of the Habitat partner families comprised of
5,000 residents of Collier County, have become enriched through
owning a simple, decent home; and,
Whereas, each of the 1,000 Habitat partner families work more
than 500 sweat equity hours to build their home in their neighborhood;
and,
Where (sic) each of the 1,000 habitat homeowners buy their
homes at cost from Habitat for Humanity and pay an interest-free
mortgage; and,
Whereas, each of the 1,000 Habitat homeowner families pledges
to partner with Habitat to build homes, strengthen families and create
communities; and,
Whereas, Habitat for Humanity of Collier County board of
directors, volunteers, donors and staff are committed to build the next
1,000 homes in seven years; and,
Whereas, Habitat for Humanity of Collier County and Habitat
families, donors and volunteers are recognized for working to improve
our community by building simple, decent, affordable housing in
partnership with hard-working families.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that Wednesday, March 14,
2007 be designated as Habitat for Humanity of Collier County Day in
celebration of 1,000 homes.
Done in order this, the 13th day of March, and signed by myself,
James Coletta, Chair. And it would be my pleasure, sir, to make a
motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval by
Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 18
March 13,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Thank you very much, Sam.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sam, thanks. How you doing?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hold that up and take a picture.
Seven years, Sam, that's pretty remarkable for your next goal.
MR. DURSO: We'd like to do even better, but that's -- I think
that's a realistic goal.
Anyways, I'd like to thank you very much on behalf of all the
volunteers and donors and homeowners that have made this possible.
We have 24,000 people that have either given us money or worked on
the job sites; 24,000 out of a population of 300,000 is pretty good.
Last Tuesday we put the walls up on the one thousandth home,
and at the same time, since it was a -- it's a duplex, we put the walls up
on the one thousand and first home, and we really do plan to do a
thousand homes in the next seven years. And obviously we appreciate
the partnership we've had with county commissioners and staff.
And your staff has been fantastic to us, and they're all -- we
obviously do things the right way. But when push comes to shove,
they really care about affordable housing and they help us out.
And just today I had to ask a special favor or Jim DeLony, and he
stepped to the plate and helped us. And tomorrow, we're going to turn
the water on for Trail Ridge subdivision, and next Monday we're
closing on about 25 houses. And within the next six or eight weeks,
we'll close on about 70 houses at Trail Ridge. So that means 70
families who are living in horrible conditions will be in new homes by
April 1 st at Trail Ridge.
We did the same thing in Immokalee back in December. We put
80 new families into homes in Immokalee.
Page 19
March 13,2007
So we're building lots of houses. It's lots of fun. We welcome
your participation. And keep helping us, and we'll talk about the
future as we go forward. But we will do 1,000 houses in the next
seven years.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Sam.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
A PRESENTATION ON PROJECT 66045: IMMOKALEE RD.-
PRESENTED BY JOHN MORGAN OF AST ALDI
CONSTRUCTION - EDDIE MARTIN WITH TRANSPORTATION
RECOGNIZED BY THE BCC
MR. MUDD: This brings us to presentations on our agenda, 5A.
It's project 66 -- excuse me. Project 66045, Immokalee Road
design/build contractor presentation, and I believe this is the Astaldi
project; is that correct? Mr. Peter?
State your name for the record.
MR. MORGAN: Hi, I'm John Morgan with Astaldi
Construction. I'm the project manager on the Immokalee Road
project. As you can see on the projector, that Astaldi insignia looks
real good next to that Collier County insignia. We'd love to do more
work for you.
This is a design/build project from 1-75 to Collier Boulevard.
We're converting four lanes into six. And let me show you. That
shows the limits of construction. Very basic job. We've overcome
most of the obstacles, and we're on our way.
I'll show you a little cross-section. That's the typical
cross-section of the roadway. As you can tell, we're widening the
median to accommodate the three II-foot travel lanes. There will be a
Page 20
March 13, 2007
pathway on the north side of Immokalee Boulevard, and it will be
approximately 10 feet wide and it will continue from Northbrook to
almost Collier Boulevard.
And here's our happy part of this presentation. We've built 30
percent. We're approximately 42 percent complete, and we've only
used 32 percent of the time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whoa. That's outstanding.
MR. MORGAN: Thank you. Recognition is due to our key
personnel. Penny U. Summers. Of course, nobody can succeed
without an office manager. Tim Sipe, our project superintendent, and
the field personnel, from the operators all the way down to the
laborers.
Speaking of that, 70 percent of our crews actually live here in
Collier County. I thought you'd like to hear that.
And that's the basic project overview. And I'm open for any
questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's start off with Commissioner
Henning, go to Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, I've been going
down Immokalee just to view what Astaldi's doing because of the
concerns of -- issues in Lee County. I can tell you, I am really
impressed with their movement of this project. And, in fact, I had a
complaint from a resident they were working on Saturday -- on
weekends.
I encourage this company to move forward as they're doing, and I
would hope that other road contractors would take note of your
progress on, not only Immokalee Road, but also what I see on Santa
Barbara.
MR. MORGAN: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that I had a lot of
Page 21
March 13,2007
heat from my constituents when this project came up about, why
would I choose Astaldi to get a project done here in Collier County
when there is so much concern and duress by people up there in Lee
County in regards to getting this project done.
And we all don't know what all of the underlying facts were that
hold up road building. I'm just so grateful that you were successful as
you have been. Obviously you haven't run into a lot of unknowns as
far as stuff that's been buried in the right-of-way. That obviously must
have been taken care of because that section of road was widened not
too long ago to four lanes.
So I'm glad that things are going good. I know that you've bid on
another project here in Collier County. I hope it goes as well, but I
can see that it may -- you may run into some problems there because
of underground situations.
But I want to commend you and your company for stepping up
and really assisting to get this project done in a very timely manner.
Thank you so much. And would you tell your people there that we
appreciate all the time and effort that they've put into this.
MR. MORGAN: And thank you for the positive comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'd just like to summarize a
couple of key points here for the viewing public. We're some distance
away from completion, almost 18 months, but you have been able to
improve the completion date by almost a full month.
MR. MORGAN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you're still within budget.
MR. MORGAN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there haven't been any budget
overruns, there haven't been any schedule overruns. Things are going
on very well on schedule. I agree with the other commissioners;
you're to be commended for that.
And if you complete this project as proposed, as promised here,
Page 22
March 13, 2007
on time and within budget, you're going to hear a lot of cheers out of
this county commission, and we're going to be really happy to see you
doing more work for the county. So thank you very much.
MR. MORGAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to add my personal thanks,
too. And regrettably this is what the newspaper will call or the
television stations will call a good news item, and it probably will
never appear before the public, but I challenge them to do it.
This does happen as a regular basis. We see a lot of good news
items like this come forward. But generally the only thing you hear is
the negative items that happen, or those that may be impeded one way
or the other.
But regardless, your company's doing the right thing. I hope that
sometime in the future we can re-look at our bidding process to
recognize the efforts of companies such as yourself when we go to
rank them, as far as giving them credit for what they've done and
bringing it in on schedule, because what good does it do sometimes to
let a bid to the lowest bidder and then find out that because of cost
overruns that could have been projected in and everything, you end up
paying more than the second bidder. But that's something for another
day.
Sir, once again, you have the thanks of this commission and of
the community. Please, keep up the good work.
MR. MORGAN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I think that concludes
that, Mr. Mudd, or is there staff or --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MORGAN: Before I walk off, I'd like to compliment
Collier County itself. All the representatives we have dealt with to
date have been very responsive and handled the situation very well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Page 23
March 13,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We have a very capable
staff and we're very appreciative of them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have Eddie Martin in charge
of this project, and Eddie's been with the county for a long time, is
very proactive for the -- not only the board, but also the residents.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Eddie Martin, are you here in the
audience?
MR. MARTIN : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, stand up.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Martin. We really do
appreciate what you're doing working with the company.
MR. MARTIN: And thank all of you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Thanks again.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY RONALD BENDER TO
DISCUSS A SIDE-YARD SETBACK VARIANCE - PRESENTED
AND STAFF TO BRING BACK TO FUTURE AGENDA
W/RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STAFF TO WORK WITH MR.
BENDER
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public petitions.
The first public petition is 6B, and it's a public petition request by
Ronald Bender to discuss a side yard setback variance.
Mr. Bender?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, can we move
this?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Bender's here.
Page 24
March 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Bender's here? Okay.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Standing by the door.
Mr. Bender, come on up to the podium.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Bender, state your name for the record. How
you doing?
MR. BENDER: My name is Ronald Bender, and I live on 66th
Street in Golden Gate Estates. And basically I'd like to thank Mr.
Mudd for his guidance and help in getting to this point.
But the reason I stand before you today is because 21 years ago I
built a detached concrete block structure to be used as my garage on
my two and a quarter acres in Golden Gate Estates.
The zoning stated that the side yard setback was 10 percent of the
width of the lot for all property in the Estates at that time. My lot is
150 feet wide, and I complied and placed the building 15 feet from the
lot line.
My son has returned to Naples after serving four years in the
United States Air Force. He wishes to live in Naples and finish
college here. And due to the lack of affordable housing in Collier
County, we felt that converting this building to living space would be
the best solution to our housing problem.
I started the process by visiting the building department. And
everything was fine until I got to the zoning department. They
informed me that the Estates zoning side setback was increased to 30
feet and I could not change the uses of this building from a garage
because it was not 30 feet from the lot line.
I was under the impression -- excuse me -- that the existing
building might be grandfathered in, as I had no way of knowing at the
time of construction that the rules would change after the fact.
Obviously the building cannot just be picked up and moved in
another 15 feet. I am here to ask for a variance to be able to use this
building as living space. This would not be an issue and I would not
be in front of you today if my property rights were not taken away by
Page 25
March 13,2007
doubling of the side yard setback in 1991, five years after I built the
garage.
Specifically, my point is that my property is 150 feet wide and I
have lost the use to place anything on 60 feet, which is 40 percent of
the width of my property.
This does not affect all Estates lots. For instance, my neighbor's
house is seven and a half feet from the property line because -- and
because their lot is 75 feet wide and the zoning change did not affect
them, if the lot was vacant, they could still build a house seven and a
half feet from my property line, or if they wanted to build another
conforming covered structure, it would only have to meet the seven
and a half foot setback.
Another neighbor has a lOS-foot lot, and he can build a
guesthouse or other structure with only a lO-and-a-half-foot setback.
With my property's 30-foot setback requirement, I feel that this is
discrimination and has no factual justification.
Property owners of Golden Gate Estates should not be treated
unequally or have their property use taken away without just cause or
tax relief.
In conclusion, I would request a side setback variance to
accommodate my building proposed change of use. My specific
situation may be part of a larger issue in that commissioners may want
to look into the possibility of restoring the property's side setbacks to
what they had been prior to 1991.
I f there is a good reason for the current setback rule to be the way
it is, nobody that I have been in contact with so far has been able to
tell me.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me go to Susan first. Susan,
would you address the setback?
MS. ISTENES: Certainly. Susan Istenes. I'm the Zoning
Director. The setback at the time Mr. Bender built his garage was
Page 26
March 13, 2007
required to be 10 percent of the lot width. In this case it's 150 feet, so
he's required to meet IS-foot setback, which apparently he does.
The code was changed. The latest record I could find was 1991.
I can't tell you why; I can only assume that it was probably done when
the Land Development Code was adopted along with our Growth
Management Plan, to be consistent with the Growth Management
Plan. And there were different setbacks for different lot widths in the
Estates.
As you know, there are legal nonconforming lots of record in the
Estates that were platted at 75 feet wide, and you can no longer do
that. So based on the width of the lot, yes, there are different setbacks.
The other thing I want to mention is, I'm not sure Mr. Bender
really needs a variance, and I was trying to figure that out with him in
the hall, because this is the first opportunity I've had to speak with him
or even meet him, and I was trying to look at his plan. So I don't
know if -- what that does to your discussion, but I just wanted to let
you know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So I mean, we still don't know if
there's a possibility of grandfathering this or ifhe even needs a
variance?
MS. ISTENES: I'm not sure he needs a variance because the use
-- there's different kinds of nonconformities. You have a
nonconforming use, you have a nonconforming structure and you have
a nonconforming lot. Mr. Bender has a nonconforming structure, and
the rules are different for each different type of nonconformity.
And in this -- and I think what may have -- what may have
happened is that a staff member may have applied the nonconforming
use provision to his structure, and the rules are different.
Like I said, he's converting to a use that's permitted by right as an
accessory in the Estates zoning, and so that's -- the use isn't an issue
here. But anyway, I was just in the hall trying to figure that out. I
don't know -- like I said, I didn't get a chance to look at his drawings.
Page 27
March 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. When you get a chance, since
this is my district, I'd very much like to know what the finding is
because I'll probably have other people that have similar questions.
Meanwhile, if worse comes to worst and he does need to get a
variance, that requires, what is it -- I know you have to go through a
whole public process.
MS. ISTENES: Correct. He would have to apply, and then he
would have to go through the public hearing process both in front of
the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners
sitting as the Board of Board of Adjustment and Appeals. And as the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals, you all would make the final
decision on that if he needs a variance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Bender, the way it works
with variances, at least for the Estates, unless there's some serious
objection or something that has to do with health, safety and welfare --
and it doesn't mean this is a pre-approval to this process, but this
commission generally has been very understanding in approving them
to go forward.
We don't know if we're there yet. We still have to explore the
possibility if it's even necessary to go through the variance part.
You cannot get this commission -- if it does require a variance,
this commission can't sign off on it at, per se, at a meeting like this. It
has to go through the process.
But let's do this, then we're going to go to Commissioner
Henning in a second. Let's give it a chance to find out, let Susan go
out and do the little bit of research, she'll report back to both you and
me, and then we'll know what the next step is that has to be taken. But
I'm sure you can get there from here.
MR. BENDER: Okay. Well, I'm here because I was told to be
here. That's why I'm here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, and I appreciate you being here.
Sometimes under public petition we can get these things to take one
Page 28
March 13,2007
step forward.
MR. BENDER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you availed yourself of that, and
I think we've made a giant stride forward to know where we're going.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bender lives
in District 3.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, forgive me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we do represent all the
people in Collier County. Commissioner Coletta and I, our districts
are in Golden Gate Estates. I looked at, after reviewing -- getting Mr.
Bender's email and reviewing his petition, reviewing our Land
Development Code.
And it's true, the larger lot that you have, the more rights are not
provided, and I have a concern.
Mr. Bender, if he's allowed to convert this garage to a guest home
and he wanted to replace his garage, it has to conform to today's
standards.
And if you look at the PUD's like what were to me by Mr.
Bender, it's true, setbacks are house to house, just a handshake away,
and what we have done in the past with lots in Golden Gate Estates,
the smaller the lot, the more you could use your property.
And I really think that we need a Land Development Code
change to make it more equitable for the people who have larger lots.
After all, they pay more taxes by owning larger lots. And in this case,
we allow them less of a land use than a neighbor with a smaller lot,
and I think that we need to correct that. I think that we need to direct
our staff to correct that inordinate government burden against
property, and that's my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So what we're doing is
directing staff to bring something back to us in the future?
Page 29
March 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Via Land Development Code
Amendment, and we have an amendment process coming up now.
And ifthere's no objection from staff, I would like to place that on the
next cycle.
MS. ISTENES: We can make the timing for that. I guess I just
would probably need further direction as to what you expect as -- I
think I understand, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I count on you and your
staff to bring us something equitable. That's all I'm asking.
MS. ISTENES: So it sounds like -- okay. It sounds like you
want to increase the setback requirements on larger lots in the Estates
zoning district?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it decrease or in -- decrease.
MS. ISTENES: Decrease, I'm sorry, yeah. Decrease meaning
you would have an increased buildable area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Usable. But I don't -- I don't
think it's appropriate to do it like we do at PUDs and that. And I think
what -- in Mr. Benderson's case -- I'm sorry, Mr. Bender's case, 15 feet
on a two-and-a-half-acre lot would be equitable, my opinion.
MR. BENDER: Well, may I say just that overall, why can't it all
be the same percentage? Why must it be different percentages? That's
the key.
MS. ISTENES: Yeah. That was kind of what I alluded to
before, and I'm not sure I could answer as to why it is the way it is
presently.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Halas, then we're going to wrap this up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we've sort of left out
disposition for Mr. Bender here. But if we could add to the motion
guidance to staff to work with Mr. Bender to find out if he even needs
a variance approval --
MS. ISTENES: Sure.
Page 30
March 13,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- would be helpful. But, yeah, I
would rely upon staff to come back to us with some recommendations
that make sense. I mean, you can take a look at them and try to decide
what the objective is and make some recommendations to us to make
sure that people are treated equitably here, and I would also support
the motion if you would add the guidance to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll amend my motion to include
that, but I have no question that Ms. Istenes is going to do that
anyways. But if we need that in the form of a motion, I have no
problem.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And it will be a part of my
second then.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would also, for myself -- I'm not
sure if the other commissioners are interested -- but I would like to
know what the history is of why this was proposed back in '91. There's
got to be some reason, and I'd like to make sure that I know what the
reasoning is before we move forward so we've got a history on this.
MS. ISTENES: Certainly. We could certainly bring that back as
part of the LDC amendment, just an explanation of what is and what is
proposed to change and the kind of background. That's no problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning and second by Commissioner Fiala.
Seeing no other discussion -- well, no, yeah. 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 31
March 13,2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Thank you, Mr. Bender, for being here.
MR. BENDER: Thank you.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY OVIDIO POZO TO DISCUSS
A FENCE TO BE BUILT BEHIND HOME; BANK OF AMERICA
WAS SUPPOSED TO BUILD THE WALL - STAFF TO MEET
WITH COMMISSION WITHIN 1 MONTHS TIME
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next public
petition, which is 6C. It's a public petition request by Ovidio Pozo to
discuss a fence to be built behind his home. Anyone you want, sir.
MR. POZO: My name is Ovidio R. Pozo. I live in Kings Lake
at 1737 Knights Way across from the Bank of America.
They have to build a fence that should be done before December
last year. Until now, nothing has been done. I contacted
Commissioner Fiala's office, and she wrote a letter to the branch
manager. They haven't done anything. I contact the board of code
enforcement. They have sent inspectors there two, three times, and
nothing has been done.
I'm living practically in the middle of the street. They have on
the lights, a smaller storage that I have in the back of my house. And I
ask you to do what you are supposed to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Michelle Arnold?
MR. POZO: Is Commissioner Fiala --
MR. MUDD: If] can help a little bit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Pozo is absolutely correct. Bank of America
was supposed to build that wall, okay, and they haven't done so. Staff
Page 32
March 13, 2007
has been in contact with the bank, one of Michelle Arnold's
investigators have been, and they're going to have that fence built by
the end of the month, this month, March, the end of March is what I
got in the email yesterday.
What I -- what I would suggest to the board is, the end of this
month, staff give you a report that the wall has been built; if it's not,
then we bring this in front of the Code Enforcement Board to take
action.
Michelle, am I wrong on this?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you go, Michelle.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We just had somebody from
Bank of America in -- I just had somebody in my office who is
campaigning to get some of our accounts, some of our loan accounts
apparently, and I suggested to her, because she was from the regional
office, that she needs to fix that fence before we have a pleasant
conversation. And I'll give you her name when I leave here.
She said she was going to work on that, and that was about a
week ago. But I don't know how that's going. I just wanted to put that
on the record as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Arnold?
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code
Enforcement Director. Mr. Mudd is correct, we have had
conversations with the representative from Bank of America. They've
made a commitment to get that fence done. We understand that there's
been some delays, and there actually was some confusion on a prior
case that we brought before the Code Enforcement Board.
And I think there was a matter that was discussed before this
board as well with the timeliness of the construction of that wall. So
we're trying to get it done as quickly as possible. We'll keep Mr. Pozo
in communication. I believe Mario Bono --
MR. POZO: Yes, ma'am.
Page 33
March 13,2007
MS. ARNOLD: -- spoke with you? So we'll keep him in
communication, and we'll, you know, proceed with a case if this
doesn't get done on time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Arnold, County Manager Mudd
has instructed staff to keep the commission informed. May I suggest
that we be informed not only that the wall's been built but within one
month's time, if the wall hasn't been built --
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- that we're also notified.
MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We need a progress report so we're
not left hanging because it hasn't been built and we didn't get notified.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would be most helpful.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments? Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have one just to tag on a
comment by Commissioner Fiala. I like the solution. It seems to
work out well for the petitioner.
But with respect to Bank of America, I would strongly oppose
any bank accounts with Bank of America as long as they pursue their
policy of issuing credit cards to illegal immigrants.
As a matter of fact, I'm going to be asking this board to instruct
staff to take a look at accounts, and if we have any accounts with Bank
of America, we should close them until such time as they abandon this
-- their issuance of credit cards to illegal aliens.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? I said the
same thing to her when she was sitting in my office. I said I didn't
think it would fall on receptive ears until they adjusted their policy.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And she seemed to not be aware of
Page 34
March 13,2007
it. I said, oh, let me tell you, we're all aware of it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm going to be closing my
personal account with them, too. So it's -- and I would encourage
anyone else to do that.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
MR. POZO: I think I will do, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good for you.
MR. POZO: Yes, ma'am, believe me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much for being here
today, sir.
MR. POZO: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got some good direction on
this. I think you're going to see resolution in a short period of time.
MR. POZO: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #6D
PRESENTATION BY DR. LENOARD FERENZ, HEAD OF
ETHICS DEPARTMENT INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE AND
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CHARACTER COUNCIL OF
COLLIER COUNTY, REGARDING THE COUNCIL'S
ACHIEVEMENTS OVER THE PAST YEAR AND FUTURE
GOALS OF COLLIER COUNTY - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next -- the next petition is a
presentation by Dr. Leonard Ferenz, head of the ethics department of
International College and the vice-president of the Character Council
of Collier County regarding the council's achievements over the past
year and future goals for Collier County.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Do you want me to put this
closer?
Page 35
March 13,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can the camera pick it up? Yes, I
think they can. I'd like to see it more for the viewing audience than I
would the commissioners. Probably at an angle.
MR. MUDD: Hold it right there. Just put it on down, we'll get
the camera -- we'll get the camera to crank up on it.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay.
MR. MUDD: You got a laptop?
MR. FERENZ: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Yes.
MR. FERENZ: And I think I'm pushing the right button, so I
don't understand why I'm not getting the transfer of the signal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Character Council.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's an extra charge for that.
MR. FERENZ: Thank you, thank you.
Yes, I'm Dr. Leonard Ferenz from International College and --
representing the Character Council here today.
The presentation that I'm giving you is on the centerpiece of a
character education program developed for Collier County public
schools. It's called the Circle of Excellence, and it's what's on the
easel there before you, Commissioners.
The reason that I'm here today is because in 1999, the Board of
County Commissioners passed a Resolution committing this county to
becoming a community of character. And at that time, an organization
was created, an advisory board to the commissioners called the
Council of Character for Collier County. That commission was -- or
that organization was decommissioned and resurfaced as a non-profit
organization that's a citizens' action group here in Collier County, the
Character Council of Collier County.
I return to you representing the Character Council of Collier
Counties -- it's been several years later now -- but I return to you
having now succeeded with the Character Council in creating a
character education program for Collier County public schools. That
Page 36
March 13,2007
character education program was implemented in part by the schools
as of last August, 2006.
Weare almost certainly eight months into that program. And the
centerpiece of the program is this, the Circle of Excellence. As you
can see before you, it's a perpetual calendar displaying nine positive
character traits, or virtues, if you will, nine positive and negative
injunctions that define each of these virtues or character traits.
The definitions for these character traits that you see before you
come from the Oxford English Dictionary, a thorough literature
search, and Roget's Thesaurus. These are very credible and scholarly
definitions that have been encapsulated in a very usable manner on
this calendar.
The calendar has been adopted by and is being utilized by Collier
County public school system. It is in the Boys and Girls Club of
Collier County.
The Ritz-Carlton organization is developing this calendar as a
device to inform and educate its employees in a very interactive way
that will help complement what the employee of the Ritz-Carlton will
learn that their children are learning in the schools.
The point of this calendar and what makes it quite unique is that
the character county -- Character Council has been able to design a
program that brings about full compliance with Florida state law.
The Florida State Legislature has, in fact, passed a law requiring
character education in public school systems and it requires the
stressing of the these qualities that I have included on this slide.
The words that are highlighted are additional character qualities
or attributes that the state legislature has recently added. But what I
would like to read to you is this passage. Members of the instructional
staff of the public schools shall teach a character development
program which is secular in nature and shall stress the qualities of
patriotism; responsibility; citizenship; kindness; respect for authority,
life, liberty and personal property; honesty; charity; self-control;
Page 37
March 13,2007
racial, ethnic and religious tolerance; and cooperation.
Every one of these elements is on that Circle of Excellence,
which brings this program into compliance with the Florida state
legislature's intent and mandate.
So these -- what we can ensure of the schools is that their
program in utilizing this visual piece will be in compliance with the
intent of the Florida state legislature.
There's enough latitude to define words like respect, words like
honestly, words like cooperation, but this is a very inclusive program
that fulfills that promise.
This is the centerpiece of an overall program developed by the
Character Council that includes not only this calendar, but a complete
vehicle for outcome assessment. It has suggested readings, role
playing situations, recommendations for implementation, and -- et
cetera, and it is a program that is designed to bring about character
education not only in a school setting but in businesses and for
individuals as well. It really has broad applications throughout the
community .
That is why I'm here today, because there are opportunities here
for the county government not only to promote positive character
development of the county's school children, which I believe is a very
important element that you have an opportunity to do here as the
county government.
I would like very much to invite you to consider making this a
visual part of the county's program in character education not because
I'm suggesting that the county's employees need character education,
but so that the county employees will be aware of what their children
are learning in the schools. That's going to be a very opportune device
for you to use to promote positive character development in the
county's children.
This would, and we hope, reduce the occurrence and frequency
of undesirable behaviors among the children in our schools, it will
Page 38
March 13,2007
improve the understanding and development of character
community-wide, and very importantly here, provide a model for
character education throughout the district and the state.
I invite you to consider this, ladies and gentlemen. The state
legislature is, in effect, mandating what it means to be a good person
or a person of good character. At the state legislative level, your
legislatures are defining what it means to be a good person by
including these character traits as what would be part of the character
education program throughout the state's public school system.
I think that it's wonderful that you can take an opportunity as we
have through the Character Council to actually influence that debate
and make a contribution at a more local level of what we, perhaps,
really envision as the appropriate elements in an individual of good
character.
Not only that, but this will, in fact, be a device that, perhaps, will
assist you in furthering the goal of the commission's Resolution
99-475. We would like to see everyone on the same page.
This is a wonderful visual piece that would have us all talking
about a certain character trait in a given month. Kindness in the
month of March, respect in a given month, responsibility in a given
month so that we can all be talking about the same positive character
traits and utilize the same definitions and understanding of what that
really means. It's a very interactive tool that will stimulate a great deal
of discussions.
So what I would ask the county to consider doing is making the
space available to display the Circle of Excellence, to help us get
everybody on the same page. I would love to see you utilize the
Character Council's program report in some effort to bring about
character education and awareness at the county so that we can have
opportunities to explain, inform and instruct, encourage discussion and
model behavior.
Cost to the county, I thought you'd like this part. The Circle of
Page 39
March 13, 2007
Excellence calendars will be free to the county because of the
sponsorship of the Ritz-Carlton organization, your state representative,
Garrett Richter, Iron Stone Bank, and the law firm of Cohen and
Grigsby, not to mention International College, all of whom have made
financial or in-kind contributions to ensure that this calendar would be
printed and made available to the public.
The school system has over 500 of these calendars in place right
now, and at no cost to the public school system.
Our program report and instructional support from the Character
Council would also be made available to you at no cost.
So your commitment really is one of personnel, of time, of
interest, and I certainly appreciate very much the time and the
opportunity to speak to you at this time.
And that's all I have to say. I thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much for the
presentation. It was excellent.
I'm sorry. You'll have to leave the computer behind if you can't
disconnect it quickly.
MR. FERENZ: You can't have it. It belongs to the college.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd?
Item #9 A
RESOLUTION 2007-56: APPOINTING VICTORIA TRACY,
LARRY JOE PATTON, ROY A. WILSON, KAREN L. BEATTY
AND TOM BRISCOE TO THE HALDEMAN CREEK DREDGING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 9A. It's appointment of members to the Haldeman Creek
Maintenance Dredging Advisory Committee.
Page 40
March 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I didn't see your button, but that's
okay, you spoke.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I don't know who put this
together but, you know, the map that you provided with the location of
the residences of the individuals was absolutely excellent. Was that
staff or you, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Staff put the map together, and I had Lisa put it in
your books.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. It was really very helpful.
But let me tell you what -- since this is my district, let me tell you
what I tried to do. I tried to make sure that each of the communities in
Bayshore Drive was represented in developing appropriate members
of this committee and identifYing them, and then I went through the
resumes of each applicant.
And I would like to suggest five members that I think are best
qualified and represent almost all of the areas within Bayshore Drive,
and the first would be Victoria Tracy, the next would be Karen Beatty,
the next would be Tom Briscoe, the next would be Roy Wilson, and
then Larry Joe Patton.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, could I --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Karen Beatty is a marvelous person
and she's in the real estate business. She also already sits on the CRA
board. And I -- I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not, but I thought
that Elmer Wheeler, who is on a different street, might have been an
acceptable one because he doesn't sit on any of those boards, but I was
Page 41
March 13, 2007
just throwing that in.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I would say that it's good to
have a tie with the Bayshore board because that way they have an
understanding of the overall strategies within the Bayshore
redevelopment area. It's good to have that link, I think.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think Karen would be an
excellent member to provide that coordination with the Bayshore
board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, could I ask you one
question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was just looking at the resumes
this weekend, and Charles R. Moore kind of struck a fancy in regards
-- can you give me some background on him?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I can probably look at his
resume and maybe give you some indication. My primary reason for
selecting these was that these people -- he is also from Naples Land
Yacht, and we already have two other members selected from the
Naples Land Yacht Harbor.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that would be -- that would be
an inordinate amount. Right now we have two from Naples Yacht
Harbor --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah,
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- two from actually Bayshore
Drive area, and then one from the Gulf Shore community. So I think
that reaches a better balance and doesn't overload any particular
community, that's the only reason.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. One comment. I -- would
you please push the button to be recognized, and then we'll be able to
Page 42
March 13,2007
proceed so we can keep some order.
Right now we have a motion by Commissioner Coyle, a second
by -- I'm sorry, who was the second?
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought it was Fiala, wasn't it.
Nope?
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning for the
approval of Tracy, Beatty, Briscoe, Wilson and Patton; is that correct,
sir?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments?
Commissioner Fiala, do you have something else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. 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.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2007-57: APPOINTING GEORGIA HILLER TO
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is to appoint --
appointment of a member to the Collier Government Productivity
Committee.
Page 43
March 13,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to nominate --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Nino Spagno (sic).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- Georgia Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your button wasn't on. I nominated
Nino Spagno, and I'd like to clarify the reason why. There's two
reasons. One, Nino Spagno's been here since the '50s. He's totally in
tune with what takes place. He helped for the Regional Planning
Council. He's got a history that goes way back in ancient times. He
put together the first transfer of development credit. His knowledge is
extremely deep.
I also know Ms. Hilter (sic) very well. She's an excellent choice
also; however, I'd like to point out that there isn't a single member
from District 5 on the Productivity Committee, and here we have a
very capable person, and I'd like very much to have consideration for
this person.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to have a point of order. I
thought -- didn't realize that we had to have a light on when we made
a nomination. I think that we also have to realize that we had
reconstructed the ordinance for the Productivity Committee a few
years ago, and we asked that they bring forth the people who -- after
they interview, come forward in regards to who they think is -- best
represents the opening that they have on the productivity board. So
my motion still stands, and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, so does mine, and we made a
motion at the same time, Commissioner. Let's hear from the other
commissioners, and then we'll make a decision how we're going to
proceed.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Boys, boys, boys.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If -- Ms. Filson, correct me if
Page 44
March 13,2007
I'm wrong. I think the board members received a correspondence
from Mr. Spagna withdrawing his name.
MS. FILSON: Yes. And I included it in the backup. He sent me
an email withdrawing because he didn't get recommended by the
Productivity Committee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then I withdraw my motion.
Commissioner Halas's motion for --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Georgia Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Georgia Hiller.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry. I see an awful lot of
lights. Is there anyone that wants to speak?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wanted to second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Fiala already
beat you to it, unless you want to withdraw.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I didn't have my light on, so you
can count --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you've got your light on. It's on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Technicalities. I'll recognize yours as
the second, okay. So we've got a motion by Commissioner Halas, a
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing 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: Okay. And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Page 45
March 13, 2007
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2007-58: APPOINTING MICHAEL V. MCELROY
TO THE GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9C. It's an
appointment of a member to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory
Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to accept committee's
recommendation, unless there's someone else.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala for accepting
the committee's recommendation.
Any discussion?
Commissioner Henning, did you -- oh, that's from before, okay.
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.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2007-59: APPOINTING MICHAEL KLEIN AND
DA VID GARDNER TO THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT
Page 46
March 13, 2007
AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9D, appointment of
members to the Collier County Airport Authority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman? My light is on, by
the way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I see it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to nominate Michael
Klein and David Gardner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. I didn't hear who they
were.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. Michael Klein and
David Gardner.
MS. FILSON: And just to bring you up to date, Commissioners,
I have another resignation from the Airport Authority that I've
advertised for.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Which makes three.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, so that we can --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not now. She's advertising for it.
She'll have to advertise for it.
MS. FILSON: I have to advertise for it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle. And who was the second by?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: By Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had my light on and I was just --
but as long as there's a third opening, then Monte Lazarus can come
back and apply again; is that correct?
Page 47
March 13, 2007
MS. FILSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. No other questions, we'll take
the vote.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Commissioner Henning, your light's on now. Is there something
that you wanted to add before we went to the next item?
Item #9 E
RESOLUTION 2007-60: APPOINTING RICHARD MILLER TO
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's about the next item. I make
a motion to appoint Richard Miller.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle to
appoint Richard Miller.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Environmental Advisory Council?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Environmental Advisory
Council.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
Page 48
March 13, 2007
And 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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2007-61: APPOINTING MARCY KRUMBINE AND
WILLIAM CRONE TO THE HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is appointment of
members to the Health Planning Council of Southwest Florida, Inc.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to make a motion to
accept Marcy Krumbine and William Crone, the two
recommendations, to be our appointments to the Health Planning
Council.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second that.
So we have a motion by Commissioner Fiala and a second by
Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
Page 49
March 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: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #9G
RESOLUTION 2007-62: URGING OUR FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO T AKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO
OVERHAUL OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS AND TO PROTECT
OUR BORDERS - ADOPTED W /CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9G. It's a
resolution of the Board of County Commissioners to urge our federal
government to take immediate action to overhaul our immigration
laws and to protect our borders.
Commissioner Coyle's request.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to -- I would like to preface a debate for this item with a statement of
appreciation to all of those immigrants who have come to our country
legally and who have contributed to the strength and security of our
nation and to our society as a whole.
This resolution is proposed by me because the federal
government has failed in its duties to protect our borders and to
enforce our immigration laws.
Page 50
March 13,2007
It is becoming increasingly apparent that local governments
across the nation are stepping in to fill the void where the government
is refusing to do their job. Our legislators are not -- are not moving
toward resolution of this issue in any meaningful way.
I think it is important that we also join that grass-roots effort to
let our legislators understand that we don't consider it acceptable to
grant amnesty to those people who have violated our laws.
So if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, I'll read the resolution.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whereas, the federal government
has failed in its responsibility to enforce our immigration laws and
secure our borders, this failure represents a threat to the security of our
citizens and places an unacceptable financial burden on the
hard-working taxpayers of Collier County; and,
Whereas, the federal government provides incentives and
rewards which encourage illegal immigration; and,
Whereas, it is estimated that as many as 20 million immigrants,
illegal immigrants, are in our county illegally;
Whereas, illegal immigrants place an unacceptable burden on our
n I should have in our country illegal, not in our county. Twenty
million immigrants are in our country illegally; and,
Whereas, illegal immigrants place an unacceptable burden on our
schools, healthcare system, social services and law enforcement
agencies; and,
Whereas, 30 percent of the inmates of the Collier County Jail
who have committed misdemeanors or felonies are in our country
illegally. These criminals not only represent a risk to our citizens, but
the costs of their apprehension, trial and incarceration are borne by
local governments and taxpayers; and,
Whereas, the incarceration of illegal immigrants costs Collier
County taxpayers $8 and a half million per year. That does not
include the cost of apprehension and prosecution. That's merely cost
Page 51
March 13, 2007
of keeping these illegal immigrants in jail.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the board urges the
federal government to reject all forms of amnesty which would permit
those who have violated our immigration laws to remain in our
country or to become citizens ofthe United States.
Be it further resolved that the board urges the federal government
to eliminate from our immigration laws those incentives which
encourage and reward illegal immigration.
Be it further resolved that the board urges the federal government
to swiftly and firmly enforce our immigration laws against illegal
immigrants and those employers who hire them.
This resolution adopted this 13th day of March, 2007, after
motion, second and majority vote, Board of County Commissioners,
Collier County, James Coletta, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would move that we accept this resolution.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. And so we have a motion
by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Then next to speak would be Commissioner Halas,
Commissioner Fiala, and then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coyle, I commend you for bringing this forward,
but I think this problem is a lot bigger than what meets the eye.
After you brought this on the agenda, I did some research this
weekend, and I've got little excerpts here that I'd like to read, and this
is in regard to a lawsuit that was -- a federal lawsuit that was brought
in regards to a meat packing company, and I won't mention the name.
But there was like 36 indictments.
And here's what I would like to read into the record. When the
government does not -- does go forward with enforcement action,
investigators are often met with hostility even when companies are
Page 52
March 13,2007
eventually excused of liability.
For example, when government -- the government did deport
illegal workers following a meat packing plant raid, it was -- it
outraged the food companies who complained of disruptions.
Midwestern politicians sometimes complain that slowing down
the work at meat packing plants increased the supply of livestock,
thereby harming the hog and cattle farmers who already had been
suffering from low prices of their food.
So what's happening here is that the 20 million people who are
here illegally, that they're being basically coddled by the politicians up
in Washington to the point where -- this all started from the NAFT A
Agreement back in 1993, and there's even talk now by a think tank in
Washington about having a North American union whereby we would
n the three countries, such as Canada, United States and Mexico, there
wouldn't really be any borders, and everybody would have free reign
to go back and forth, and I think that's the one way that they want to
eliminate this -- they won't have to address the amnesty problem
because if they come up with this union -- and they're also talking
about coming up with -- the monetary system would be simpler --
something as similar as the Euro in Europe.
So my concern is where this nation is going. And I hope that
because of proclamations like Commissioner Coyle's that we can get a
ground roots swell in regards to that n we want to take back our
country. And we welcome people who are here legally. But I have
some real strong reservations of people being here illegally. The food
n the meat packing industries basically hires these people and they're
basically slave labor.
So if you have time, I would Google the North American Union.
I'd also Google some of the big meat packing companies, and I think
you can find out that there's a trend here, and I think there's also other
industries where they pay these people under the table so we don't
even collect income taxes nor do we collect social security. So this
Page 53
March 13,2007
problem is huge, and I think that people need to get actively involved
in this.
They're also talking about a super highway system from Mexico
all the way to Canada. So I think that's something that you need to --
and it's called NASCO. So I think that's something that needs to be
brought up, and I think people need to get actively involved in politics
and carry this message to Washington.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's so well said. It's hard to say
anything after. That, I wanted to add that if the employers are so
concerned with this, then what they should be doing is stepping up to
the plate and offering anyone who wants to work there and who is an
illegal cannot work there unless they -- and maybe they'd have an
office that would then register these people to at least be here legally
so that they are paying their taxes.
Of course, the companies don't wanted to pay the social security,
their end of social security, yet they want these people to go to our
schools and -- their children to go to our schools and provide the
healthcare because the companies aren't going to provide the
healthcare either.
And -- but it's about time that these companies stepped up to the
plate and did their part, and I think it's most important that we take a
very strong stand that they can't continue to reap the harvests of illegal
aliens while we pay the costs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, it's my
understanding that the illegal immigration in the state -- in the United
States is over 24 million. I could be wrong. Can we add, whereas, to
estimated as many as over 20 million?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think you can pick any
number you want to pick because I've seen 24 million, I've seen 11
million. And I don't really -- we can say as many as 24 million if
Page 54
March 13,2007
you'd like to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why don't we just say
over and then n
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Over 20 million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Over 20 million.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there are estimates under 20
million, that's the only problem. I was merely trying to say, it goes as
high as 20 million --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: n or it goes as high as 24 million.
If you'd feel more comfortable with that, I'd be happy with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I think it reads fine with
that explanation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to thank you for bringing this
forward. It's important that we keep not only our fellow
commissioners aware of what's taking place, but the public. Once
again, this is a federal issue. It should be controlled at the border.
And the problem is, is that because of the cheap labor and the special
interest groups that are out there in the agriculture and the meat
industry, you're going to continue to see this for a long time until
enough pressure is brought to bear.
But the unfairness of this whole thing, the biggest unfairness is
the cost that we as individuals bear, and the taxpayers are responsible
for the ineptness of federal government to be able to control the
borders.
Somewhere along the line, I would like a cost estimate at what it
does cost our county taxpayers to be able to maintain the prisons for
the extra -- for the illegal aliens that are in there. I believe you said it
was 30 percent?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The illegal population in our
prisons, here in Collier County, our Collier County prison, is about 30
Page 55
March 13, 2007
percent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we know the cost because
Sheriff Hunter's calculated $8 and a half million a year just to keep
them in the jail, but that doesn't include the court costs to bring them
to court, the cost of hiring those defendants defense attorneys, it
doesn't cover the cost of the police investigations concerning the
crimes. It doesn't cover the costs --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll tell you where I'm going with this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What -- I would like to give you some
food for thought since this is your particular venue, and you're doing a
wonderful job with it. Would you consider possibly trying to come up
with a cost, we'll make up a bill and authorize it from the Collier
County Commission --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and send it to the federal
government?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Send it to the federal government,
that's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it would make a real blanket
statement, you know, that why should our citizens bear this cost. At
least get the jail part and the prosecuting part of it, and that's
something that's up front. There's a whole bunch of other hidden costs
out there that we're paying on a day-to-day basis.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, there's one point I'd like to
make to make sure everybody's clear on this. These people are not in
our jails because they're in our country illegally. They're in our jails
because they committed crimes.
And then once we've arrested them, we find out they're not even
here legally, then the sheriff can turn them over to immigration and
customs enforcement, but what happens to them after that?
Page 56
March 13, 2007
Our suspicion is that they're sent over to Miami, they're told to
return to -- for a court date in a year or two for an immigration hearing
of some kind.
So I am going to ask the Public Safety Coordinating Council to
get a monthly report of the disposition of every illegal immigrant we
have released to ICE and hopefully they will tell us what they did with
those people that we apprehended who had committed a crime and
who are in this country illegally. I'm afraid we're going to find out
that ICE just released them again.
So -- but I'm going to try to get that report, and I'll bring it to the
county commission whenever I get it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Think about sending a bill to the
Federal Government.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, absolutely, I think you're right.
I'd be happy to do that, and we'll try to finalize some of the costs of
other things.
EMS. We just wrote off a half million dollars for EMS costs,
most of which was for illegal immigrants. And we -- the hospitals do
the same thing. The emergency rooms. The costs are huge. And those
costs are transferred to you and I and all the other taxpayers of Collier
County .
And the list just goes on and on. It has a terrible impact upon our
country, and I'm tired of hearing from people about how much we
need labor. We can get all the labor we need legally. There is
absolutely no problem with issuing work permits for people to come
to this county to work, and I don't object to that.
But because our country's bureaucracy can't seem to operate and
our politicians in Washington think they're buying more votes by
letting these people stay in the United States and become citizens is
absolutely infuriating. And it appears that they don't even consider it
a serious issue now. So that's my tirade for the day.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good report, sir.
March 13,2007
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I believe why the federal
government is burying their head in the sand here is because they don't
pay the costs outright. We here in the State of Florida and each of the
counties, each of these illegal aliens that are in this county, or in the
counties, when they have to use our healthcare system, our schools,
and don't pay any taxes, this is a great burden on the general populous.
And it would be interesting to know what the -- how much the
healthcare system here in this county is burdened, and I'm talking
about the doctors' time, nurses' time is taken when these people walk
into the ER for healthcare needs. A lot of them don't have insurance,
and guess what, we end up paying the bills.
Schools are the same way. These people don't pay taxes. They
have children. They end up -- these children end up filling up our
schools, and that just puts a greater burden on us to provide
classrooms.
So when you look at this, the magnitude of this, it's unbelievable.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As you're writing to Sheriff Hunter
to give you those figures or ask him for an investigation into that, how
many of these illegals are just allowed to be released from our own jail
back into our own community and never given over to the federal
government? I believe that there are quite a few because the Federal
Government won't even take them.
And Sheriff Hunter was mentioning some of that in a meeting
that I had with him recently, and so that would be another interesting
fact to learn, because we're releasing them right back into our
community to continue to do the same.
Also, I wanted to know, can we ever question the Federal
Government, how long are we going to pay people to come here
illegally on boats from Cuba? Right now we give what, dry foot (sic),
Page 58
March 13, 2007
what do we give them, $9,000 each person, $10,000 each person?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know if it's that much. I
knew it was at least 1,500.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Sheriff Hunter said at one of
our Republican meetings it was 10,000. Somebody corrected him and
said it was 9,000. But it doesn't make any difference. We're still
paying them to come over here illegally.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Each person, family of five, that's
$50,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's your taxes at work.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's do this. We've got
Commissioner Henning, then we're going to take a vote on this.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we really need to
understand the plight of the Cuban people in Cuba. This is not about
coming over for work. Those people are politically depressed. There
is a big difference in that. So I just want everybody to understand,
there's different reasons why people seek over n to come to the United
States. Some want to hurt us. I don't think it's the Cuban people
coming over from Cuba, my opinion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I know they've been very
productive within our community, and they usually are pretty
educated as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So what we have before us is a
resolution that really doesn't address any of those issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's trying --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And meanwhile, there's always the
humanitarian issue that we're very much aware of.
And with that we're going to -- I'm going to call the question. All
those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 59
March 13,2007
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.
And we're going to take a 10-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
Item #10E
KPMG AUDIT REPORT AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSES
RELATED TO THE OCTOBER 18, 2006 ENGAGEMENT
LETTER BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND KPMG.
MOTION TO ACCEPT W /STIPULA TIONS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
Commissioner, this brings us to our 10:30 time certain. This is
item 10E. It's a recommendation that the BCC accept the KPMG
audit report and management responses related to the October 18,
2006 engagement letter between Collier County and KPMG. I believe
KPMG is there to basically brief their particular audit.
Mr. Jones will do that.
MR. JONES: Good morning. With me today is Deanne Wilkins
who performed essentially all the work on the specific transactions at
the housing department, and she'll review the actual single audit
findings that we had and be available for comments and stuff.
Before I start discussing our report, I'd like to first tell Mr.
Henning, thank you for sending me the backup information in your
Page 60
March 13, 2007
resolution, but there were some points in this that I just wanted to
address to clarify the error before we start going into our report.
The first one was that I think people looked at the draft findings
that we issued a few weeks ago to get management's response to be in
our draft report. That was clearly not the case.
I think if you've read our draft report, you'll see that we, at least
in my opinion, I think, have addressed all the concerns that the
commission had. But those were just findings to get management's
responses, which is only fair, before we publish them. I'm sorry that
they were released to the press. I don't know how that happened. But
the fact of the matter is, those were only draft findings as far as some
ofthe compliance requirements that we found during the audit.
A couple things that are clear from your minutes and the letter
that you had was, one is that you wanted every cent to be accounted
for. And I think if you read our report, we accounted for every cent of
the $506,075 that was provided to Collier County Housing
Development Corporation, every penny of it.
We looked at all the transactions. We looked at every money --
dime that came into them and was spent from the inception of the
incorporation. So we have accounted for all that.
We also looked at your major sub-recipients that essentially are
involved in the affordable housing program and looked at their
transactions, and those are all detailed out here.
We did not look at all sub-recipients in total, every dollar, but for
each sub-recipient you deal with, which is nonprofits and stuff, we did
take a -- we read their contracts with these nonprofits and we sampled
at least one transaction. And, again, some of these are routine.
For instance, the housing -- I mean, the Collier County Human
Services Department is a sub-recipient of the housing. There is a
contractor out providing medical referrals. We did look at the
contract. We tested the information that was provided to be
reimbursed and found that it was -- that we thought they were doing a
Page 61
March 13, 2007
good job of the documentation, although we did have a comment on
that.
So we did look at every single sub-recipient. We just didn't test
100 percent because so many of their transactions were routine
transactions.
In the concept of sampling, we do look at the controls that they
have and how these transactions are executed, and those are important
controls that we rely on. The fact that the Clerk's office reviews every
one of those expenditures and signs a check is an important control
that we rely on.
So all those expenditures, we thought, had been subject to a lot of
review, and we just wanted to get comfortable with one of them.
And then if you look at the SHIP, you'll see that there's a -- the
percentage of total amounts that we audited was about 20 percent.
SHIP is essentially for one purpose, down payment assistance to
individuals. And, again, those transactions are all routine.
We did select a sample, a random sample, and we found that the
procedures that they were following in providing this down payment
assistance was adequate. We did not feel that there was anything to be
gained except expense to the county to go through and look at every
single down payment assistance.
We felt that based on our reading of the commission's minutes,
that the concerns were on the money provided to the CHDO, as well
as the sub-recipients that were involved in affordable housing, and we
tried to cover that in our report.
There's some question, too, in the discussion for that resolution
regarding that the board wanted a performance audit. And I want to
let you know what a performance audit is. And we did not do one.
And again, there's a lot more to a performance audit than what we did.
We extended our audit procedures beyond what we normally
would have done in the housing department to essentially look at a
large volume of transactions that controls and stuff, but a perform
Page 62
March 13,2007
performance audit goes way beyond that.
A performance audit is an objective and systematic examination
of evidence to provide an independent assessment of a performance
and management of a program that gets objective criteria as well as
assessments that provide a perspective focus or to syn -- or that
synthesizes information on best practices or crosscutting issues.
Performance audits encompass a wide variety of objectives,
including objectives relating to assessing program effectiveness and
results in economy and efficiencies.
I've done performance audits. Some of the things that we would
have done if we're doing a performance audit of your housing
department is we probably would have surveyed a lot of the people
that got down payment assistance and seen what they thought of the
process that they had to follow.
Was it difficult for them? Was it smooth? Did the people at the
department, were they responsive? If the department had a plan to
provide X percentage of people, we would look to see, were they
achieving those planned results, and if they weren't, how were they
analyzed, and the reasons they weren't and what they were doing to
take care of it.
So it's a lot more. It's really looking at -- we've got this program
for the citizens of Collier County, and we want to make sure it's doing
its very best job in meeting the needs of the citizens. So we did not do
a performance audit, and I know your minutes reflected that.
There's questions regarding our independence, and there was
some excerpts taken of the deposition I gave with regard to the lawsuit
between the Clerk and the county in there. And essentially I wanted
to read a couple things. One is n and tell you again, we did not do an
internal audit. Internal auditing is appraisal of the diverse operations
and controls within the government entity to determine whether
acceptable policies and procedures are followed, established standards
or mea -- resources are used efficiently and economically, and the
Page 63
March 13, 2007
organizations -- organization's objectives are being achieved.
The term covers all form of appraisal of activities undertaken by
auditors working for and within an organization.
Internal auditors have their own standards that they have to go
by. And again, if we -- if we were doing an internal audit, we
probably would have sat down with you and had discussion on -- more
on the types of procedures we're going to do, outlined the scope. We
would have got input from a lot of people. We were told to do --
essentially to extend our financial procedures to address the concerns
that you have.
In my deposition the question was, could you do the internal
audit and the external audit, and my answer was no, because it would
jeopardize independence.
There's a lot of governments, there's a lot of public corporations
that actually hire outside CPA firms to perform all of their
independent -- all of their internal audits. And in those situations,
people that are doing the internal audits cannot be the external auditors
because essentially when we go in there, we look at what people in
Dwight's department have done. We make a determination if we can
take reliance on some of that information to reduce the extent of our
procedures. We take comfort in the results in how management has
responded.
What we did here was not an internal audit. Weare not relying
on our own work. We are not auditing our own work. And I just want
to be clear on that.
I want to read you just a couple of definitions of independence
because, again, these are very important. In all matters relating to the
audit work, the audit organization and the individual audit, whether
government or public -- so this applies to your internal audit people,
too -- should be free both in fact and appearance from personal,
external and organizational impairments to independence.
Now, an example of a personal impairment is preconceived ideas
Page 64
March 13,2007
toward individuals, groups, organizations or objectives of a program
that could bias the audit. You don't want someone auditing the
housing department that already has a bias as to what they think or
what they want to find.
We went in there totally objectively to do our job and not be
influenced by what we were reading in the newspaper, what we saw in
the minutes, any of that. We wanted to do a fair and objective job.
External independence is where our clients are telling us what
they want us to do as far as, we don't want the staff -- we want you to
cut back on certain procedures. Ifwe had a client that was trying to
influence that and we did that, we would lose our independence.
And the third is organizational, meaning that -- the way an
organization is structured. Obviously an internal auditor, if he was
auditing the Clerk's department and reporting to the Clerk's
department, would not be independent because organizationally he's
reporting to his boss, and so he's going to be, you know, in a position
of what he does.
When we do any work for the county which is outside of the
scope of our regular audit, we fill out this 12-page form that goes
through three reviews to make sure we don't have an independence
conflict.
And so we did do that when we did this. It was signed off on by
me, it was signed off on by a concurring part and a professional
practice part. But, again, we are very concerned about that because if
we weren't independent, obviously we couldn't audit your financial
statement.
So I hope that that clarifies to you that we believe we are
independent on the work that we did. And, again, I just want to
address the statements that were in your letter, Mr. Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do I have time to rebut?
MR. JONES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tharik you.
Page 65
March 13,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Go ahead, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm confused because you
said that you did everything that the board asked, and then you
recognize in the minutes the board asked for a performance audit.
And you said that you could not do a performance audit.
MR. JONES: That we did not do a performance -- not that we
could not. We did not do a performance audit. I did not sense from
reading the minutes, from my discussions with Mr. Mudd -- and by
the way, Mr. Mudd was very clear to me of his concern -- the board's
concern that they wanted every penny of the 98 grand accounted for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you provide me the
minutes, the approved minutes, where the board talked about 98,000?
MR. JONES: I think that was on your attachment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The minutes -- yeah, the
minutes were part of the attachment of the board, and I think we were
talking about the program, the affordable housing programs, and what
-- the exchange between you and the county manager and the
exchange from Mr. Joe Schmitt, which included the minutes. His
letter to the Clerk, Crystal Kinzel, talked about -- the board
specifically directed the Clerk not to audit the affordable housing
programs. So where does programs talk about 98,000 seed money in
the minutes?
MR. JONES: I think the $98,000 seed money was referred to
separately in the minutes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't find them.
MR. JONES: Well, in the minutes it was clear to me that you
wanted every penny that was given to the Collier County Housing
Development Corporation to be looked at.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Mudd -- this is from
Commissioner Coyle. We're going to get specific with the basis of the
Page 66
March 13,2007
things that we need to look at and what we will direct to do.
Commissioner Coyle: Everything.
Yes, sir, according to the county manager.
Down to the penny.
Mr. Mudd: Yes, sir.
And also, we will be doing a performance audit, okay? Not just a
financial audit. It will be a performance audit, right?
Mr. Mudd: Based on this, yes, sir.
Okay. Then my motion stands, stated Commissioner Coyle.
We didn't do a performance audit, we didn't count down to the
last penny. I looked at these minutes over and over and again, and I
think it's clear the board wanted every penny counted in the affordable
housing programs. It did not say 98,000. It did not say Collier County
Housing Corporation. Nowhere. It was the understanding of the press,
it was the understanding ofMr. Joe Schmitt. The board approved the
minutes in October. It's the understanding of the community.
Now, I apologize that that is not the understanding of the county
manager or yourself.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I would like to move on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I appreciate that. I'm going to
ask everyone else to hold to the end of the presentation and we're
going to go in order.
I don't want to interrupt the presentation until we've heard all the
facts and -- at that point in time. Take copious notes, and then we'll be
able to deal with it afterwards.
Please continue, sir.
MR. JONES: Okay. You all received a copy of our report, and I
wanted to highlight the contents of that. There's essentially five
sections. The first section -- and, again, in accordance with the
engagement letter -- was to look at the $98,000 of seed money and to
measure whether that money was disbursed in accordance with the 10
Page 67
March 13,2007
items that they had to agree to as far as accomplishments. We have
listed each of those accomplishments that were agreed to, how they
took place, what we observed and when the monies were expended,
and we concluded that the money was expended accordingly in
accordance with those accomplishments.
The second section on pages 5 through 8 is a very detailed
analysis of every dime that the Collier County Housing Development
Corporation received and expended, and it starts off with the funds
provided from Collier County, which totaled $506,875.
Now, I know the paper refers to 420-. I think they're talking
about the $320,000 for the land acquisition and $98,000 seed money.
But there was also another almost $100,000 of money that was
provided.
But we looked -- we looked at these transactions to see how they
were initiated, who approved them, you know, how they were
disbursed and the basis for the disbursement, and concluded that these
transactions were properly disbursed. And, again, we accounted for
all the money that's given to the CCHDC.
Regarding how the monies were expended, there was two types
of costs. There was land acquisition costs and start-up and operating
costs, and we have detailed out here every dollar of those costs that
were spent by CCHDC. And we have summary notes on the
right-hand side that explain each of them in detail. We looked at all
the invoices supporting these amounts.
On page 8 we tried to reconcile all the monies that Collier
County provided to the CCHDC as well as other monies they
received, and they did receive contributions of $1 ,280 and grants of
$3,700 as well as a housing fair that they put on that raised $3,200 of
revenue.
So we accounted for how all those monies were also spent and
essentially reconciled all the expenditures and revenues to come down
with what was left in the bank at CCHDC at September 30, 2006.
Page 68
March 13, 2007
Again, we did not come across any improprieties. We do not believe
there was any misappropriation of funds. The transactions we looked
at all appeared to be legitimate and legal.
The next section talked about our testing of the housing grant
monies. And, again, you received three different types of grants, each
with a different purpose. And we summarized essentially the grant
expenditures that we had in each of these three sources of revenue, we
backed out the payroll, because we performed -- again, we didn't look
at every single payroll check for the whole year, but we did look at
payroll checks for a number of individuals to make sure that they were
employed, that they were paid the appropriate rate, that their time was
charged appropriately to the grants, and some of them are split among
more than one funding source, so we made sure those things took
place.
You have two types of sub-recipients. You have those that are
associated with affordable housing and then you had those that are
subject for, like, public service. Again, the Collier County Human
Services Department is one of those. The David Lawrence Center
provides medical testing, is one of those sub-recipients. They provide
-- you have another one, I think it's EASF, that provides vocational
training.
We looked at all those contracts to make sure that the contracts,
what they accounted for, was appropriate, and we tested at least one
expenditure on each of those sub-recipients.
So in our feeling, even though we didn't look at every single
check, we felt that we were comfortable with what we examined and
the controls in place within the county, including what the Clerk's
office does on every one of these disbursements, to feel comfortable
that these expenditures have been accounted for.
And then we summarized the percentages. Obviously in the
CDBG, in the HOME, they were higher. In the SHIP they weren't,
again, as I mentioned. SHIP is pretty much just down payment
Page 69
March 13,2007
assistance. It's a very routine transaction. We did pick a sample. We
looked at those. We understood how the process works for people to
receive these awards and how the county follows up on them.
We also looked at what the housing department did on their
monitoring procedures. Again, whenever you provide funds to a sub-
recipient, it is very important that you have appropriate monitoring
procedures in place to make sure that these are expended on the right
items, that the people who are receiving the services are eligible to
receive the services. The sub-recipients are responsible for
determining eligibility, but your department is going out there and
making sure that they have the appropriate procedures, and they're
testing for eligibility, too.
And then starting on page 10, we went into the six major sub-
recipients that receive money in connection with affordable housing
projects, and we tried to discuss every single dollar that was expended
to them and how those funds have accounted or what the status of
those projects are to date.
Some of them are moving along, some of them haven't got
started, some are behind. One of them we actually took the funds
back because they didn't accomplish their objective.
And then after that section is a summary of our 2006 audit
findings, and behind that was a detailed list of every single finding,
but we summarized it, and I'll let Deanne talk about that a little bit.
MS. WILKINS: Hi. I'll just briefly go through each of these
findings, and then at the end you can ask any questions you have on
the specific findings that are there. The first finding --
MR. MUDD: State your name for the record.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What page are you one? Can you--
MS. WILKINS: This is page 13. My name is Deanne Wilkins.
The first finding has to do with the environmental review process
that HUD requires, and they require that you do environmental
procedures prior to expending any funds, which would be the HOME
Page 70
March 13,2007
and CDBG funds.
And when we were doing our test work, we noted that in the
HOME program, there was one large land transaction that they did not
do the environmental procedures prior to expending those funds. And
with the CDBG program, we noted four of the sub-recipients that they
do not do those procedures.
Some -- there's a different level of procedure. Some are fairly
minimal. The CDBG program sub-recipients requirements, they were
fairly minimal, that they did not follow. It's larger with the land
acquisition type projects.
The second finding has to do with what we call a Community
Housing Development Organization. And under the HOME program,
the county is required to expend or to give these CHDOs at least 50
percent of the HOME grant money. And in a county like Collier
where the HOME program is fairly new -- you've only had it since
about 2003, I believe -- there are not a lot of existing CHDOs, and it
can be difficult to get CHDOs set up and in place because there are
quite a large number of criteria to meet to be a CHDO.
What I did with the three CHDOs that the county has certified as
CHDOs is I went through the very detailed requirements of each of
CHDOs to see if they had the documentation and paperwork in place
for each of those three CHDOs. And I did note some documentation
exceptions in each of those three cases, which are detailed -- they're
very detailed. If you look at the findings in the back, each ofthose
items would be specifically addressed.
The next item also has to do with CHDOs, these Community
Housing Development Organizations. In order to consider the month
-- the money spent as actually a CHDO expenditure to fall within that
15 percent set-aside, the money has to be used as either a developer,
sponsor or owner, so the CHDO has to act in one of those three
capacities, and we did not believe, after looking at the documentation,
that the Collier County HDC was actually using -- was the developer.
Page 71
March 13,2007
They were considered to be the developer in this project by the
housing department, and we did not believe they met the qualifications
to be considered to be a developer in this transaction.
The fourth finding, again, has to do with CHDOs, and this is
Collier County HDC. In this particular case the HDC entered into a
joint venture agreement with another party to provide these 32
affordable housing units that were part of this project. And in this
situation, the home regulations require that the HDC have managing
general control over the partnership so that ultimately the funds are
spent in the manner that they're supposed to be spent.
The initial joint venture agreement, we did not believe in this
case that the HDC had managing general control. They have since
modified their joint venture agreement.
Finding five has to do with requirements under the Uniform
Relocation Act which addresses both relocation and property
acquisition done with federal funds in a voluntary type transaction,
which we considered this to be voluntary, meaning you were not
going to use the power of eminent domain to acquire the property.
There's essentially a letter that has to be sent out that states you
do not have the power or you will not use the power of eminent
domain, and it has to give the seller an estimate of the written fair
value of the property.
This letter was not done in a timely manner in this particular
case, and this is for the Big Cypress land acquisition of 224,000.
The next finding, number six, addresses tenant-based rental
assistance under the HOME program. This is when you're trying to
assist people that are in apartment rental units that can't afford the
rental units, and you can subsidize those rental units with HOME
funds.
And the issue here is that with -- under the HOME program you
cannot pay administrative cost to the organization that's administering
the program, which in this case is the Collier County Housing
Page 72
March 13,2007
Authority. The $20,000 they paid to the housing authority, they have
since used other funds, non-grant funds, to pay those costs, and they
reimbursed the grant for that $20,000.
The next finding has to do with the HOME program and match.
Under the HOME program the county is required to provide a match
of25 percent, and this is a match of non-federal funds.
In this county and in most government agencies in the State of
Florida, you will use your SHIP program as matching funds. When--
if you provide a down payment loan assistance to an individual, if you
consider that loan as part of the match, when that loan repays, that
money has to go to the HOME program instead of the SHIP program.
We did not have procedures in place that would allow us to
identify that as a SHIP match loan and put that in the correct fund. In
'06 you did not actually have any SHIP match loans that repaid, so
there was not an issue of repay in funds. It was just, essentially, the
controls were not in place there to identify those loans.
The next finding has to do with the two contracts that we have
that relate to medical services and referrals under the CDBG program.
The first one is with our own department, the Collier County Human
Services Department. We had a contract with them to do medical
referrals that paid a flat fee of either 687 or $1,000 depending on how
many times they saw a physician.
In this type of situation, we do not have backup to support why
we paid 687 or $1,000. Typically, especially in an intergovernmental
type contract, that would be a cost reimbursement type grant, so we
would look at the payroll or other documentation of the person
actually providing the referral assistance.
The second one is a contract with the David Lawrence Center.
And in this contract, if you read the specifics, we have agreed to pay
based on reimbursement, looking at payrolls of the doctors and nurses
providing the services. We ultimately paid a medical rate based on a
contract that David Lawrence Center had with Department of Children
Page 73
March 13,2007
and Families that was providing similar services, which was deemed
to be an appropriate rate by the housing department.
Finding nine has to do with program income. When you receive
program income from a grant, which would, again, be if someone
received a down payment assistance loan, they sold the property, that
loan repaid, the housing department has to draw what we call program
income before drawing entitlement money, the money directly from
the U.S. Treasury.
They received HOME program income for the first time in '06,
and the first two payments they received, they did not draw the
program income money prior to drawing the entitlement money.
They've now corrected that process.
Finding 10 has to do with the Big Cypress Housing Corporation.
We gave them $224,000 to acquire a piece of property. The scope of
the work for this piece of property, they were supposed to use the
funds for acquisition construction of four single-family rental units to
assist homeless families.
The $224,000 was actually used to acquire a parcel of land to be
used for phase -- all of phase one of the Eden Gardens project, which
includes a 51-unit apartment complex.
The housing department, from what I understand, is going to
modify their agreement to also include those 51 apartment units and
consider that to be HOME funded as well, which would mean we
would have to have affordable families in that unit -- in those units for
20 years, and we would monitor it for 20 years. So they're going to
pull those units into the funding.
Findings 11 and 15, they relate to CDBG, HOME and SHIP, and
this has to do with payroll and documentation of payroll allocations.
Most of the people in the housing department work on multiple grants,
and in order to charge their time to the grants, they have to have a
detailed reporting and tracking process where they're tracking
essentially each hour they work every day and, you know, tracking as
Page 74
March 13, 2007
to which specific grant that they work on.
And the housing department had really not refined that process
well until in like -- in the second quarter of 2006, at which point in
time, they now have a detailed process in place, and they are
appropriately tracking their time.
Finding 12 has to do with the requirements that are in written
agreements under the -- both the HOME and CDBG programs, their
regulations are very specific on the items that have to be in the written
contractual agreements.
We took your, essentially, boilerplate contracts and looked
through them. Some of them were unique, but we looked through
each of those to see if all the conditions that were in the HOME regs.
and CDBG regs. were in the contracts, and we did note some
exceptions to things that should be included in the contracts that were
not.
Finding 13 is a reconciliation finding with the SHIP annual
report. The general ledger was not initially reconciled to the SHIP
report that we filed with the State of Florida. The housing department
has since completed that reconciliation.
The last finding has to do encumbering SHIP funding. Under the
SHIP program, once they're awarded funds, they have 12 months to
encumber the funds and then 24 months after the end of the grant year
to expend those funds. There was one -- the 2004/2005 grant year was
required to have all funds encumbered as of June 30th of'06. Those
were not all encumbered by that point in time, but they have since
encumbered and expended the majority of those funds.
Thank you.
MR. JONES: We would be happy to respond to any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, there are questions. We'll go
with Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Halas, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. First, all the way
Page 75
March 13, 2007
back to the beginning and you spoke of detailed report, every penny,
and we were speaking about the seed money at that time, $98,000.
And I see that you accounted for it, but to me it really isn't itemized
penny by penny.
And there were many that threw a red flag on the table for me on
the whole field, like, for instance, to charge $10,000 to receive official
recognition of 50 1 C-3, to me, says, you know, you pick up your mail
and you notify people and it's $10,000. And $10,000 to develop a
short-term list of goals, and they had three of them; $10,000 to draft
and approve a mission statement which was one sentence? And these
were all paid to the same company that had two of their primary
people serving as officers on the CCHDC.
To me, that's -- there's something awfully wrong.
MR. JONES: I need to clarify. I see -- I see the confusion. If
you go to page 6 where it says, start-up and operating costs and the
first line item is salary and payroll taxes by health insurance,
telephone, Internet, rent and signage, travel expense, computer
supplies, this is how the $98,000 was spent.
The agreement with the CCHDC was that you would make
certain payments to them based on them accomplishing certain things.
So it wasn't -- there was not a $10,000 cost to file for a tax exemption.
The agreement with them said, when we do this item, you'll send us
some more of our seed money. But essentially on pages 6, 7 and 8,
that summarizes how the $98,000 was spent.
MS. WILKINS: And if! can add to that, there are really two
different types of contracts. There's what we call a pay point contract
which is essentially what this was. They met a certain goal; they got
paid a specific dollar amount. The other type of contract would be a
cost reimbursement contract where they would submit an invoice for
every single dime that was spent.
So in this particular case, it was a pay point type contract where
they accomplished a goal. They got paid a certain sum of money. But
Page 76
March 13,2007
we have gone back and see -- you did pay them $98,000, and we have
seen where they spent every bit of that $98,000, which is detailed
further down in here.
And I have actually -- I mean, I did the work myself. I looked at
every check that was ever cut out of the HDC down to the $20 invoice
to Office Max, the payroll. Every single dime that was spent, I have
looked at the check and the supporting invoices.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Weren't you feeling that there was
some type of conflict of interest when the same people who were
signing the checks worked for the law firm who was receiving the
checks and also who served on the board for the CCHDC?
MS. WILKINS: The law firm did not receive the $98,000 seed
money. The $98,000 seed money, the checks were written out to the
Collier County HDC, and then the funds were then used to pay
primarily salaries and wages of the executive director.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I found this to be very, very
confusing. To me it reeked of concern. Also great expend -- grant
expenditures. It says the grant expenditures were distributed. Were
they distributed in any time by illegals, which is something we have
asked to be prohibited, or the health insurance services offered to
illegals, and were the rental assistance programs offered to illegals?
Were they eligible for these things?
MS. WILKINS: The sub-recipients in these cases are charged
with looking at eligibility documentation of each person that receives
assistance. The housing department then is responsible for monitoring
the sub-recipients, looking at documentation to determine if they met
-- the individual receiving assistance met the requirements. I mean,
those n
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What we have discovered last year
-- I just happened to run across it myself, was we had no provision at
all to ask for any verification oflegality here in Collier County. We
just gave it to them.
Page 77
March 13,2007
And when I asked the question, they said, well, there isn't a
provision to ask for their -- for their legal residence applications or
permits or whatever. And my concern is, that people who are here
legally, who make that effort, who go above and beyond to pay their
taxes and so forth, might not get the money because we're giving it out
to just anybody. I'm very, very concerned about that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, let's let Denny
Baker just respond to that one there if we may before we get too far
away from it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. BAKER: For the record, Denny Baker, director.
I know this has been an ongoing issue with many of the
commissioners, perhaps all of the commissioners. And you remember
about a year ago we had this conversation, and we -- habitat, for
example, must have -- and we monitor this and we test it. They must
have the appropriate documentation. You remember those three
things we talked about, and I think Jim Mudd had it on the screen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For one person that buys, right?
Not for -- both people do not have to buy in that particular issue?
MR. BAKER: Just one, just -- that's correct, Commissioner.
And if you want to change that going forward, we can make that
change. But the house -- the person who has the debt must be legal.
Not to say that other people in the household are illegal. We don't
have the authority to go in and do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what about -- what about the
human services and what about the rental assistance?
MR. BAKER: The rental assistance, Marcy, could -- Marcy, can
you talk -- I'm going to let Marcy Krumbine answer that,
Commissioner. She's better qualified to answer on the rental
assistance of the --
MS. KRUMBINE: Okay. For the -- Marcy Krumbine, Director
of Housing and Human Services.
Page 78
March 13,2007
For the physician led access network -- and that would be
$85,000 program -- that program actually is specifically used for
clientele who are uninsured, and that is the only program that we have
that does not require documentation, and it's specifically that way.
That's the program where the doctors, the physicians, are donating
well over a million dollars worth of care. The -- and that program is
for anybody who is uninsured.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about the rental assistance?
MS. KRUMBlNE: The rental assistance is -- they have to be a
Collier County resident.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yeah. Collier County resident
MS. KRUMBINE: A Collier County -- a resident. They have to
be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But they can be a Collier
County resident without being a legal resident.
MS. KRUMBINE: No, they're -- no. It is all legal. And that is
only for somebody who is actually documented on disability, so they
have to be receiving social security disability. So they are legal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And there's proof that each one of
these n I don't know.
MS. KRUMBINE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I haven't heard that
there's proof of that.
MS. KRUMBINE: Yes.
MR. BAKER: In the SHIP activity, Commissioner, we see
copies of the tax return that they file and the signatures, we validate
that. We look at the social security card. We do a thorough -- I assure
you in the SHIP area we do -- that's the one I'm most familiar with --
we do a thorough confirmation of their legality.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was in --
MR. BAKER: Not to say that other people don't benefit, but the
Page 79
March 13,2007
person who's on the dotted line is legal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is legal. And we're assuming that
that person really is who they say they are?
MR. BAKER: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I ask that because --
MR. BAKER: Well, we have picture ID, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In the driver's license bureau, just
last week, we got a little email that said that the person that walked up
to get their new driver's license, when the Clerk looked it up, she said,
well, this person is dead. So they came back a couple days later with
a new social security number, and that person was also dead. So, I
mean n I mean, I don't know how much verification we go into, but --
MR. BAKER: We do look at picture IDs. And ifit's the same
person sitting in front of us, presumably they're alive.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Well, we get--
MR. BAKER: I'm not joking with that, but we can only go so
far. If the board wants us to go farther, we can deal with that,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me finish up by saying, when
we first hired KPMG and we first came in to even discuss this -- and
one of the things I said was, as far as I was concerned, I would just
prefer the Clerk to come in because I figure he's going to get in there
and delve all the way down to the bottom and answer all of these little
bitty questions, and I believed that I was told at the time that the Clerk
didn't do a performance audit and that's why we really should go with
KPMG.
We didn't get the performance audit, and I'm really sorry that we
didn't take the Clerk to do a thorough and complete study all the way
down to the bottom, detailed every penny. I would have liked to have
seen that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. First of all, I want to say that
Page 80
March 13, 2007
I appreciate all the energy and the thoroughness that KPMG did. And
I was the one that originally initiated to find out where the monies
were going and also to make sure that the money that was coming out
of Washington was accounted for, and I believe that your audit
showed that the monies were being distributed properly.
I do not believe, though, that you are in the realm of being an
attorney. And you picked out some interesting points in here, and I
have a ton of them that are underlined.
And I'm -- I want to share this with staff. I think that there was
too much coziness between CCHD (sic) and the people in our housing
department. There was some areas where money was given that wasn't
-- at the time there wasn't the documentation to support that money. I
was concerned about that, but later on it did show up.
I was concerned, and I still am, who really owns the property in
regards to Serus Point. Is it the CCHD (sic), or who really owns that
property? And I'm sure that that's something that needs to be
quantified.
I have some concerns on this Cypress -- what the heck is it
called?
MS. WILKINS: Big Cypress housing?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Who is that? Is that tied in
with CCHD?
MS. WILKINS: No, it is not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's a separate --
MS. WILKINS: That is a separate organization. They do have
CHDOs in other parts of the State of Florida. They have done similar
type projects. They have some in Miami-Dade, they have one in
Manatee Co n or Hillsborough County actually.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What raised my eyebrow
was the fact that the particular property that Cypress bought at 819
Church was -- had a valuation of $48,000 and yet $72,000 was spent
for that piece of property. And so --
Page 81
March 13,2007
MS. WILKINS: That is not Big Cypress. That was Collier
County HDC, the Copeland land, the Church Street property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And it was valued at 48,000
on the tax rolls, and yet we paid 72,000 for it. That--
MS. WILKINS: I don't have it in front of me, but the tax rolls--
I think they had appraisals on the property that would show that it was
worth more than the $48,000, a fair market appraisal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So you did run across the
documentation that said that it was n they had some legitimate
appraisals in regards to --
MS. WILKINS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then I have some other concerns.
The Serus Point, who really owns that? It's a joint venture and I
understand that the CCHD has been found not to be a developer. So
who does own that land?
MS. WILKINS: The actual land transaction is with -- the closing
statement for the land is Serus Point Partners, LLC.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But it says ajoint venture.
How many -- who else is in this?
MS. WILKINS: The joint venture partners are Serus part, (sic)
LLC, and Collier County HDC.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. There was a difference --
there's -- on page 6, I note that there was $3,375 received from the
county for closing costs on this land acquisition, and right now there's
an outstanding difference of $1 ,006.54. Has the county reclaimed that
cost yet?
MS. WILKINS: Not that I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So that's outstanding and
that's owed to the county; is that correct?
MS. WILKINS: Yes. There's also a developer fee agreement
associated with the Collier County HDC land transaction where there's
more additional developer fees owed to HDC upon completion of
Page 82
March 13, 2007
activities. They may be working with the developer fee association
agreement.
MR. BAKER: That -- Denny Baker. That $1,000 will be
credited against what's due them at the end of the day for their
developer fee, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That wasn't clear, that's why
I wanted to find out.
As I said, this is basically -- I think what I requested by a letter
and then what we discussed here at the board pretty much clarifies
where all the money is.
I did find that we need to be a little tighter in regards to making
sure that all our I's are dotted and our T's are crossed. And I want to
thank you for finding these because it's -- there's an amazing amount
of findings that you came up with, and I could go on all day but we
have a lot more business to do.
And I want to thank you very much. You accomplished what I
intended, in fact, even more so.
MS. WILKINS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. You're saying that
this is -- will be included in your year-end report?
MR. JONES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, this is for 2005 and
2006?
MR. JONES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Looking at some of these items
and going by memory that -- for the year end at 2005, some of these
items were included in your year-end report?
MR. JONES: I believe there was some --
MS. WILKINS: A few of them. If you really look closely at the
findings, there are multiple findings really associated with the two
Page 83
March 13,2007
transactions which all occurred in 2006. It would be the 320,000, our
land acquisition with HDC, and the $224,000 land acquisition
associated with Big Cypress. So a lot -- probably half of the findings
are different issues associated with those two land acquisitions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you answered my
question. I'm getting back to it. Will -- if it was included in the year
end 2005, was it a duplication of statement or was it the same finding
through your -- this audit?
MS. WILKINS: It would have been the same finding. If it's
repeated in 2006, it would have been the same finding, the same
process that was not followed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you're saying the
same problem happened over and over again that has not been
corrected by the county?
MS. WILKINS: Not necessarily. I mean, I don't have the 2005
findings in front of me. A lot of these findings are new findings. The
pay roll finding, for example, is a repeat of the prior year. They were
working on their process of developing their time reporting system.
That really did not get corrected until the fifth month of '06.
What we find often with findings is they will occur for two years
in a row because by the time we identify them, you are already into
the subsequent physical (sic) year. Once we identify them, then they
will take action to correct them. But oftentimes they are going to be
repeated for two years because the first three or four or five months of
the year, you're going to have them doing the same thing until we
identify the issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I agree with
Commissioner Fiala that the statements on page 1 and 2, carried onto
3, are very confusing and it does seem like they did receive monies to
do -- perform certain tasks, such as open a letter.
But I do have a question, continuing questions. The Board of
Commissioners individually received an email from Mr. Cecil, and in
Page 84
March 13,2007
that it showed all the expenses. I remember one expense, and I
believe it was to hold a meeting with the directors and other interested
parties to develop a goal, a mission statement, and the expense of that
was like somewhere between 100 and 150.
Did you find that?
MS. WILKINS: $167 was the amount.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great.
MS. WILKINS: And we are showing that to be funded with their
own grant money. They do have some contributions, and they do
have some other funds that do not come directly from Collier County
HDC. And if you look at page 8 of the report, Collier County HDC
revenue from other sources, the contributions and the expenses
associated with those, that $167 would be included in the
miscellaneous items of $672. So they do have some funds that do not
come from the Collier County government.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So that's a part of the
every penny, that $600 something?
MS. WILKINS: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- my last question
is, it seems like this audit, we have a lot of problems within the
affordable housing. There are some good things in here, but overall
would you characterize it as, we have a lot of problems that need to be
corrected?
MS. WILKINS: I do affordable housing audits at quite a few
city and county governments, so I am familiar with what other
governments do and how they spend their money, the issues that I find
from looking at other organizations, and I would really pinpoint
primarily the issues here, again, associated with those two
transactions, those two lands transactions.
The HOME program is pretty new for Collier County, 2003.
And until 2006, they had really only spent money for down payment
type assistance, very reoccurring transactions, fairly easy to get a
Page 85
March 13,2007
handle on.
Once they entered into other realms where they're trying to
provide affordable housing units that are done by the CHDOs, which
is a requirement, just the research, the underlying information just
really wasn't done, you know, in a timely manner. They should have
researched better before they entered into these two transactions.
If you take away those two transactions, compared to what I see
in other county and city governments, I would not consider their
housing department to be a mess, so to speak. There are certainly
issues they need to address and concerns that they have, which are all
reported here. But it's not something that's -- beside those two
transactions, that is unusual from what I've seen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you audit the other
programs that Collier County offers -- Collier County housing offers?
Did you audit other programs?
MS. WILKINS: I audited the HOME, SHIP and CDBG program
which, to my knowledge, are the only ones -- the only ones -- yeah,
that the housing department manages, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And just one last
question. In your findings, would you say, viewing those programs,
did Collier County get an A, B, C, D or E grading, in these findings
that you provided to the Board of Commissioners?
MS. WILKINS: I'm not exactly sure how to grade a housing
department, so to speak.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's go by numbers then
because you're a number person.
MS. WILKINS: Are we looking at accomplishments; are we
looking at, I guess, specific compliance with regulations?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Compliance regulations
according to federal standards.
MS. WILKINS: Compliance and regulations, I guess I would
take a C because we really didn't follow those HOME regulations
Page 86
March 13,2007
when it related those two CHDO transactions. But if you look at
individual down payment assistance, the other programs that they
have, there weren't a lot of noncompliance with regulation issues that I
noted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I am asking -- am I offending
you by my questions?
MS. WILKINS: No. It's really hard to, I guess, give a grade for
performance of a housing department because it's not just compliance
with regulations. It's, you know, what do they really accomplish?
How many people do they really serve? It's a very largely
encompassing question, so I'm just -- I'm really not actually sure how
to answer it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. If you grade it one to 1O?
MS. WILKINS: I think that's kind of the same question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Same question; I'm just trying to
get an answer. That's fine.
MS. WILKINS: I guess if! was to compare it--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. Let's get to the
other commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I don't think the expertise quite
goes that far, but we appreciate the attempt at it. And it was very well
put, Commissioner Henning. It's very interesting to try to get some
grade level on these things.
With that, we're going to go to Commissioner Fiala and then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I'm back to my first
10 items that all had to do with the $98,000. And I think that -- you
say it was all itemized but yet like, for instance, when it says develop
and approve corporate bylaws and it tells you how did, $10,000 -- I
know that that's very expensive to develop any corporate bylaws -- but
it doesn't break it down to anything else, but it just says $10,000.
And although you say it's on the next couple pages, it doesn't --
Page 87
March 13, 2007
you know, there's no way to show that that $10,000 equals this money
here. It doesn't even refer to item four, item four.
Same with -- same with draft, approve a mission statement, and it
tells you how they put their mission statement together and what the
one sentence was, $10,000. And it also talks about the brainstorming
retreat that Commissioner Henning referred to, $10,000.
Well, where was the meeting held? How long did it last? What
were -- were the expenses itemized? It doesn't tell any of that
information, so I don't know -- you know, you can't just refer to
something. I don't believe that it was itemized for somebody like me
to be able to read. Now, those were my questions in that.
And then also, Commissioner Halas asked the question, who is
this company, that $224,000, Big Cypress something. He said, who
owns that company, but then he went on to a second question, so we
never got the answer to that.
MR. BAKER: Let me -- I'll try the second one first. Big
Cypress is a -- is a -- they have -- they're a very large CHDO operation
in South Florida. They've been recognized by the State of Florida.
They've been in existence for many, many, many years.
They do -- they've had -- and I wish I had some information to
share with you because you'd be quite impressed. They've had many
developments in Dade County, in Palm Beach County. They're well
recognized. They're out of Homestead, Florida. They've done other
developments in this area up in Lee County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where are they doing this? Where
did they buy their land?
MR. BAKER: Eden Gardens. That's Big Cypress,
Commissioner, in Immokalee.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Rural farm worker housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. Now I got the -- it's
rural farm worker housing.
MR. BAKER: Yes, ma'am.
Page 88
March 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It didn't --
MR. BAKER: Because it's also Department of Agriculture
money, and there are many, many people supplying money to this
project. We're just one of several, and it is -- it is devoted to the
agricultural individuals.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. See, it doesn't -- it
doesn't really say that in here, and I'm sure that's why Commissioner
Halas asked the question as well.
MR. BAKER: And Commissioner, can I take your other
question? I'll take a shot at that.
If you remember way back when we had the affording housing
workshop, there was direction from the board to go ahead and
establish the Housing Development Corporation, the HDC. And the
board decided and approved -- approving $98,000. I don't remember
how we got to 98,000, but the board did give direction to staff to start
to provide seed money to the HDC.
Obviously we didn't want to give it -- just give a blank check or
give $98,000 to them at one time. And we knew that they had to hire
an executive director that would take down -- they have other ongoing
expenses, so we put deliverables in there over a period of time so that
we knew that when they accomplished these different things, it would
-- they would be using that money, the $10,000, for example, to
start-up expenses, to hire an executive director, to go find one. And at
the end of the day, they would be up and running and provide
affordable housing, which is what we all -- the mission of the HDC is.
So I think -- I wouldn't look at it in an exchange of filing a 501
3-C (sic) and get $10,000. It was -- that's one deliverable that was
allowed for them to be paid X number of dollars, $10,000, to progress
over and get their operation started up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Denny, from this is looks like, for
instance, $8,000 to file articles of incorporation with the State of
Florida. Now, that would be just considered a law firm who would be
Page 89
March 13, 2007
receiving $8,000 from what I read here.
MR. BAKER: No, no, no. No, not the law firm, Commissioner.
Law firm --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it doesn't say that though. It
just says, articles of incorporation. This is --
MR. BAKER: This money -- this money only went to the HDC.
The HDC had operating expenses, they had rent, they had Office Max,
as Deanne was talking about, and all their expenses.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hold community organizational
meeting, and $10,000. Well, heck, we hold them and we have
volunteers there. So, you know, it doesn't say that at all. The way this
thing is itemized, it's not itemized.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this wasn't a cost reimbursement
mechanism. This was a way to make sure the CHDO, which was
starting from nothing, was moving in the right direction to get
established.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that, but it doesn't tell
us in this thing -- as they said, they wanted a defined -- penny by
penny, and under here it just says, item number and it tells what you
did. It doesn't say what all the expenses were to arrive at that item
number, is what I'm trying to say, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: You're right, ma'am, it doesn't, but that was not a
cost reimbursable section. That was a -- that was an item to be
published to task before the county would provide them any money on
that particular task to get on your way to give them seed money of
$98,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, maybe when we get it back
again it could -- item one could be referred to in the breakdown of
expenses then.
MR. BAKER: Yes, ma'am. I'll do that for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
Page 90
March 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let me see if I can take a
shot at clarifying that. Just like we've agreed to give the Tollway
Authority $175,000, or maybe even a half million dollars over time,
we've said, okay, we'll give you part of that initially to buy -- to pay
for a consultant to give us some recommendations, and so we give
them that money whenever they get the consultant.
But there is a background of where that money goes, but we gave
it to them in a lump sum, and essentially that's what's happening here
where we said, look, when your articles of incorporation are filed or
before, in order to get to that point, we'll give you $8,000, and then
they go about the process of getting all that done, and they've got
expenses to do that that go beyond just filing their articles of
incorporati on.
But if you'll go to page 5, you will see that seed money for
$98,000 listed there in the middle of the page, and that -- there's a total
funding received from Collier County of$506,875. Then following
that is a detailed breakdown of how all of that $506,000 was spent,
and in the right margin are all of the invoices and the specific amounts
of invoices. So that amount of money is spread over all of these costs
here.
The first thing that we saw where they got $10,000 for their -- or
$8,000 for their articles of incorporation was just a payment schedule,
and this is a sequence in which they got their money.
Now, Chip, let me make sure that I understand what -- you've
taken all of the money that went from Collier County to the Housing
Development Corporation, the seed money and everything else?
MR. JONES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've gone through that entire
amount of $506,875, and you have listed below that on pages 5, 6, 7
and 8 all of the detailed expenditures for that amount of money?
MR. JONES: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you show that they have spent
Page 91
March 13,2007
$498,938.05 and they retained $7,936.95, and that adds up to the total
amount of money that we've given them, which is $560,875?
MR. JONES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we've accounted for all of that
money, not just the 98,000 seed money, but all the of the other money
that we have given to the Housing Development Corporation.
So the other part is that you then went to another level to test the
payments made to sub-recipients and you went through those, but you
did not cover every single payment to sub-recipients. You didn't
follow it down to the very, very bottom line; is that a fair statement?
MR. JONES: That's correct.
MS. WILKINS: Yes. But one thing, we did look at every penny
is if was associated with affordable housing units. Anything where
there was dirt, construction, we looked at every penny of that, if it had
to do with an affordable housing unit.
The sub-recipients that we did not look at every penny would be
something like Collier County Housing Authority that has a monthly
invoice for tenant-based rental assistance. I probably looked at three
or four of those 12, the documentation on those three or four was
appropriate or, you know, identified the administrative cost issue, so
then we moved on. I just wanted to clarify that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So what I'm getting at is
that if the board were to conclude that the audit doesn't do everything
that we thought it might, what we need to focus on is just filling in the
gap rather than criticizing the entire study, because you did a lot of
work here. And from the standpoint of a performance audit, I think
you came very close because you did reveal procedures that exist that,
perhaps, are not as tight as they should be, and we need to tighten
things up and maybe do things a little more promptly and more
accurately.
So I would suggest that if the board feels that additional work is
done (sic), maybe what we need to do is hire an accounting firm who
Page 92
March 13, 2007
we go look at the sub-recipients and look at some of the detail that you
didn't get into. And I don't know that the cost will be worth the effort,
quite frankly. But if the board concludes that you want to go that far,
we could certainly do that. That's something that you -- I think you
have said is -- you don't think is necessary --
MR. JONES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- based upon your preliminary
findings; you don't think that's necessary?
MS. WILKINS: Right. And if you look at the percentage of
coverage, I mean, we've looked at -- I don't have it in front of me --
but probably 75 percent of all sub-recipient expenditures.
The area that we haven't looked at as a high percentage is the
individual loans to -- for down payment assistance or rehab assistance.
So if you're really filling in the gap as far as a dollar amount that we
have not tested, it would be the fact that we have only tested 30 down
payment assistance transactions for the SHIP program when, you
know, there may be 300.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, okay. Now, I'll give you my
personal opinion. If! were to look anywhere, that's exactly where I'd
look, because I think that holds the greatest potential for abuse, and
I'm very sensitive of that in the Bayshore redevelopment area where
we provide assistance for those kind of things. So -- and I'll leave that
up to my other board members.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can I make a suggestion,
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETT A: You may want to consider the staff
recommendations here, start a motion going forward, then we can
build on it as we see necessary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I would be happy to do that.
I am happy with your audit based upon your explanation here. I'm, of
course, disappointed that we have discrepancies, and we need to get
Page 93
March 13,2007
those fixed as quickly as possible and we need to make sure they don't
reoccur.
And I would even make that part of my motion and acceptance,
that we get things -- we've established -- establish a time frame. When
are we going -- you know, when can we expect to get a report from
you as to when it's -- these deficiencies have been corrected and then,
perhaps, even have our own internal auditing capability, take a look at
these throughout the year to make sure that we're adhering to the
process.
Now that's the end of my motion but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- I want to make a request.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could you remove the word perhaps?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whatever it was, I remove the
word perhaps.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was, perhaps, have our own
internal audit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And have our own internal
auditors monitor during the year to make sure we're doing what we
say we're doing. And then once this gets more routine, we won't
maybe need to do that so frequently.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let me get some clarification, and
that is, the internal auditors. That's the same people that are presently
doing the audit in Collier County?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm talking about our -- the
people who do more of the performance audits, and I'm talking about
our operations research people and/or our Productivity Committee, to
go take a look at things that have already been defined, say, have we
developed the procedures to fix it, okay?
County Manager?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: County Manager? Go ahead, Mr.
Mudd.
Page 94
March 13, 2007
MR. MUDD: First thing is -- and just so you note, back in the
attachment it gives all the findings and staffs response, and we'll be
glad to -- and we're going to fix this, okay? It's always been the
intention. We don't overlook our issues and we take audits very
seriously and their findings very seriously.
I also want to make sure that the board understands that, you
know, in the last 24 months on your visualizer and on your screen,
housing -- this housing section has been audited 10 times, okay? So it
isn't just this time that it gets looked at.
I mean, HUD, DCA on SHIP, the housing finance corp. comes in
and takes a look. Everybody takes a look at the audits and what we're
doing to make sure that we are abiding by the law, and I appreciate all
of this, especially since you take a look at what happened in
Miami/Dade, okay, and the nightmare that they're going through right
now.
So the more eyes on this in this particular case the better. And I
believe the section is learned from every particular audit that's been --
that's come down in the last two years as far as taking a look at what
we do. Again, we are in infancy as far as this program is concerned. I
mean, we've watched it grow over the last four years from nothing to
where we are particularly today.
And I will also say that when you looked at the engagement
letter, once the board was done, we had the letter that Commissioner
Halas had sent over to Mr. Brock at the time of 22 August in which
the board was discussing on that day in September. We took that
particular piece.
I sat down with Commissioner Halas to try to ascertain his
particular concerns. We tried to take a look at what was said at the
board meeting. I asked staff to please draft an engagement better.
They sent me the engagement letter in October, and I didn't believe at
the time that I got the engagement letter that it went far enough based
on the discussion that the board was having at that meeting.
Page 95
March 13, 2007
At that time I added two items to get more specificity in this
particular audit to get into the sub-recipients, and at the same time
spent -- to pay particular attention to the Collier County Housing
Development Organization, which seemed to be of major concern to
the commission. And that was the engagement letter, and that's how it
-- and that's how it went off.
I thought at the time -- I still think at the time -- that I tried to
capture what the board's desires were in the particular audit. Today
we have the results of the audit that have been provided to you.
You're going to those particular issues.
But I will tell you, this hand, staffwill make every correction
that's recommended, and we come will-- and we will get those things
fixed, and we will back to this board as far as what we've done and
what we haven't done and where we sit on that particular item through
all 15 of them that are listed on this particular page. And even on the
CAPRS (phonetic) we go through this process as far as when it gets
corrected and whatever. So it's always been our intent.
So that's all I have to say.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm going to jump in here
for a minute before we go to Commissioner Henning, then back to
Commissioner Coyle.
Thank you for an outstanding job of bringing this audit together.
There is a lot of confusion. We're not accountants. It was a learning
process as we're going through this. Questions were pointed, and they
were very good on the part of all my commissioners.
We got some very good direction here. We have methods in here
and methodology to be able to correct the deficiencies. I'm personally
very happy that this item came forward and that we're able to get into
such deep discussion.
Commissioner Henning, and then back to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, before I speak about the
motion, I believe we have public speakers. We have no public
Page 96
March 13,2007
speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Then I want to continue.
You know, it's no question this information was brought to me by a
citizen of Collier County concerned of every penny counted in the
affordable housing department.
Reviewing the minutes, it's clear; reviewing the staff
correspondence, it's clear. It's clear that we did not get it. This audit
is not acceptable to me. I appreciate it, but it's not what the board
asked.
I reviewed -- I did a public records request. I reviewed
Commissioner Halas's memo to the Clerk of Court. I reviewed
statutes, Commissioners, and it's clear, the internal auditor has the
right to audit anything, any account, that the county commissioner
has. It doesn't say the permission of the Board of Commissioners.
And as I provided in my memo, we stopped them from doing so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are we going to address this in your
next item, which I was going to try to get in there before we went to
lunch? What I'd like to do is try to stay as close as possible to the
motion --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. That's fine, but I'm not
-- I can't support it because it did not --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I understand, Commissioner
Henning..
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It did not hit what we wanted to
hit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But we're going to come back and be
able to deal with your item right afterwards, with the permission of the
commission, and we're going to run a little bit late.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you short. Do you have something
else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree. Let's move forward.
Page 97
March 13,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, sir.
Commissioner Coyle, and then hopefully we'll be at the point
where we're ready to take a vote.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Very quickly. The fact that
you accept this audit doesn't mean that you don't want to fill in some
gaps. Ifthere are gaps, let's identify them and give the staff
instruction about what to do about them rather than going back and
doing it all over again by somebody else. That's -- that is simply not
efficient.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's one way to get you to quiet
down.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One more computer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I bet you you've lost your train of
thought.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, that never happens.
Now, the second thing, Chip, could you please go back to some
of your introductory remarks when you were talking about accounting
guidelines and requirements to assure that your audit was truly
independent.
You talked about certain biases that might exist, the avoidance of
using your own past work to support any conclusions concerning this
audit.
Could you go back to those and review those very briefly for me.
MR. JONES: Yes. And I will give you an example. We did
some special work on the utilities, and that was an engagement
handled by a totally different team. I had zero involvement because,
again, our professional standards and our requirements require that I
stay out of that because it was a consulting type of engagement.
But to quote from the n what we call the yellow book, which is a
standard that all governmental auditors have to follow, it says, in all
matters relating to the audit work, the audit organization and the
individual auditor, whether government or public, should be free both
Page 98
March 13,2007
in fact and appearance from personal, external and organizational
impairments to independence, and then I gave examples of each.
External would be where you're dictating to someone to limit
their scope to just certain things. And I don't want you to look at this
transaction or that type of thing.
Organizational would be a reporting issue where the person
who's performing the audit may be responsible to the person that they
are auditing, and then obviously it couldn't be an independent.
And personal is essentially, like, I could not own -- we have
independent standards, but I can't own any Collier County debt or
anything like that, but also it came down to, the example I think that I
gave was preconceived ideas about -- towards individuals, groups,
organizations or objectives of a particular program that could bias the
audit.
Again, we did not feel we had any of those. We didn't feel we
had a personal, external or organizational independence, and we also
-- we considered the work we did to be essentially an extension of the
audit requirements that we would have done anyway. We just went a
lot deeper.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. That's very
helpful. Thanks.
I'm finished.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. There's no more
discussion. Okay. Hearing -- seeing none, all those in favor -- and the
motion's made by Commissioner Coyle and seconded by
Commissioner Halas -- indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 99
March 13,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show that the--
Commissioner Henning was in opposition; Commissioner Fiala left
the room for a moment. And the vote was three for and one opposed.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 91 --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: -- which is the next one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we really should tie them
together. If you don't mind, I would like to continue this so that we
have it tied together and everything's still fresh in our mind.
MR. MUDD: This is a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I still vote on that last one? I
didn't accept it either, or is that too late?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's too late. You weren't here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right.
Item #91
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO REQUEST THAT THE CLERK
PERFORM AN AUDIT OF ALL FUNDING IN THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM. (COMPANION ITEM TO
THE KPMG AUDIT REPORT AND MANAGEMENT
RESPONSES RELATED TO THE OCTOBER 18, 2006
ENGAGEMENT LETTER BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
KPMG.) - DENIED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 91. It's a resolution to the Board of
County Commissioners to request that the Clerk perform an audit of
all funding and affordable housing programs. It's a companion item to
IOE, which you just heard.
Page 100
March 13,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I mean, I don't
see how independence could be when somebody is asked to perform
certain tasks like was in the engagement. The resolution is there
because there is a lot of concerns from the community, and also if you
viewed the Naples Daily News this weekend -- and I had permission
to reproduce this by the -- Mr. Phil Lewis.
And it was a guest commentary by Steve Auger, and he is the
executive director of Florida Housing Financial Corporation, a public
corporation of the State of Florida.
And in his guest commentary he stated, for two years,
2005/2006, as this report covered by KPMG, 2005/2006, that over $20
million was expended in Collier County, and almost 2,000 affordable
homes in Collier County for those two years were created, were
created, in this county, and that is almost two DRIs.
Now, I don't know where they're at. I'm not sure if anybody here
can tell us where they're at -- where those are.
I have a concern that it's the understanding of the State of Florida
that millions and millions of dollars are -- and thousands of affordable
housing unit are created in Collier County every year, and I don't
know where they're at. And I think that we owe it to our citizens to
account for all those expenditures and all those affordable housing so
we can find the needs of what we need to do for affordable housing in
the future.
So I'm going to move -- based upon my memo to the Board of
Commissioners, I'm going to move that resolution and encourage the
board to pass this resolution so that we can have accounting for the
citizens of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala to move
the resolution of the Board of County Commissioners to request that
the Clerk perform an audit on all funding in the affordable housing
Page 101
March 13, 2007
program.
Any discussion?
Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We just -- we just tasked staff
recently to give us a complete accounting of all of the affordable
housing in Collier County just at our last meeting.
So they're supposed to be coming to us with the identification of
where that is, and I know that some of it is in Arrowhead. A lot of it is
in Immokalee, and, of course, some of it is in East Naples.
So, yes, we have been approving and building affordable housing
in Collier County for years. In fact, we've got 2,000 units approved on
the books right now that haven't been built. So yes, you're right, we
need to identify them, but I'm not sure that all that money comes
through Collier County government and goes to CCHD.
So I think we might be getting on a wild goose chase here just in
an effort to get the Clerk involved in something. The -- this, I think, is
an operational issue. Give us a report of how many affordable
housing units we've got and where they are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, I don't know if
you read this guest commentary. I'll be happy to give it to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I did. Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But also, I sent you an
email, forwarded you an email, from Mr. Auger. I don't know if you
read it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I got the email, but it didn't include
the backup material that apparently you referred to or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was this article.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the backup material.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And these are just the SHIP
funds. They're not the federal funds.
Page 102
March 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think so, but that's okay.
We can debate that later.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- but those need to be
accounted for. I don't know who can do that, but there needs to be
some coordination between this corporation's understanding, because
my fear is, that information was provided to the State of Florida of
how many units, and we need to get to that answer. But more
importantly this doesn't address the -- my resolution doesn't address
what I brought up about the housing units.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay? But they do need to be
accounted for, and we do need to get an answer. I'm sure we can
through our staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's wrap this up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. My feeling is that if we've
got a problem, if there are holes in the audit that was just
accomplished, let's fill in those holes. Charging somebody else to go
out and do another audit will make how many audits now that we have
done on this -- in this process over the past 18 months?
MR. MUDD: It will be 11.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It will be 11 audits --
MR. MUDD: Twenty-four months.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- in 24 months. So I think it is --
it's going to take the Clerk time to do it. I think it is a waste of time to
go back and repeat everything that KPMG has done, and I think they
have done a good job in what they've covered.
Ifwe've got a problem with it, let's identify the holes and let's fill
in the holes. Let's just not go say, let's have another audit. And then
I'll be willing to bet you I'll have problems with that audit too, and so I
might just recommend that we hire another firm to go do another audit
of the Clerk's audit.
I'm also -- continue to be astounded when I hear the standards
Page 103
March 13, 2007
that are established for audits to assure that there is no bias. How can
the Clerk possibly audit this? The Clerk is writing some of the checks
for this stuff, or all of them.
You couldn't conduct an audit, Chip, if you were writing the
checks for the accounts that were being audited; is that true?
MR. JONES: Yes, I wouldn't be independent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You would not be independent. So
I'm astounded that there is even -- that this possibility even exists, that
someone who is intimately involved in the process of receiving
invoices, examining them and writing a check to pay them, could then
turn around and do an independent audit of that process. That is
absolutely astounding to me.
MR. JONES: I think what has to be distinguished is that it would
not be the Clerk's finance people doing the internal audit. It would be
their internal audit department that is under the direction of the Clerk,
but I would imagine that the Clerk would stay independent of telling
them what to do and how to do it.
I mean, the internal audit department is supposed -- internal audit
departments I work with generally report to the Clerk, and they go
through a risk assessment on areas of the county they think need to be
addressed.
They have a line reporting to the Clerk, but the Clerk doesn't tell
them, I want you to look for this, this and this. The internal audit
department is the one that essentially tries to understand what areas
they need to focus on and how they do it, and they have a formal
reporting line to the Clerk.
But, again, just to clarify, I think what you're talking about is the
Clerk's Finance Department, and they would not be independent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Chip, there's nobody here who does
not understand that we're in a lawsuit with the Clerk.
MR. JONES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is no way to conduct an
Page 104
March 13, 2007
unbiased report, an audit, of something like this when you're involved
in a lawsuit that is designed to try to define the limits of authority of
the Collier County Commission and the Clerk. It is impossible to do
an unbiased and independent audit under those circumstances.
Once those responsibilities are defined by a court, I will be feel a
lot more comfortable about it.
MR. JONES: I agree 100 percent. I was just addressing the fact
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand.
MR. JONES: -- if! was writing the checks, that that was going
to be the sole reason that would disqualify me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll say right now, the Clerk
does a wonderful detailed report. I don't have any problems with the
Clerk doing reports or audits as long as they don't supersede the
decision making responsibility of the Collier County Commission and
don't interfere in the administration of our contracts. Once we've
made a legal decision to do something, that ball stops here.
MR. JONES: No disagreement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's where our disagreement
lies with the Clerk, from my standpoint. So I don't -- I cannot
understand how there can possibly be an independent audit by the
Clerk at the present point in time.
MR. JONES: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. So that's where I am
with this. There's no bias against the Clerk's ability to audit. They do
a good job, they do a thorough job. We need to resolve the limits of
authority of the two agencies because there's a lot of confusion about
what it is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I appreciate that. And we're --
we're moving forward. Hopefully we're going to be able to reach the
points that we can take a vote on this. Commissioner Henning, then --
I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala.
Page 105
March 13,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's all right. Commissioner
Henning --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no. Commissioner Fiala, I
ignored you two times now, and I'm not going to do it a second time --
or a third time, because I don't want you to take it out on me later.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, perception is so much --
so much the name of the game here as well, and as far as I'm
concerned -- and I shouldn't speak for everybody, but I'm going to --
we have absolutely nothing to hide. And as long as we have nothing
to hide and we want a thorough report, a totally thorough report, I
would invite the Clerk to audit as well.
I think that there's nothing wrong with that. I would hope that he
would drop his lawsuit before he would audit because I think it would
be nice to have that out of the way, quite frankly.
But I don't see us ever trying to hide any of our figures from the
Clerk, and I would love to have him say, I'm dropping the lawsuit, I'll
come in and audit and we're done with it.
And that's -- perception is so much. People ask me all the time,
well, why don't you want the Clerk to come in? Well, he can come in.
I figure everything we have is aboveboard and honest, so why not let
him come in and do it? I would love to have him, that's why I've
seconded this motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Now, Commissioner
Henning, and then we're going to take a vote.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep. You know, it's my
understanding -- and I've asked several people, not the Clerk of Court
-- and I don't want to speak about the lawsuit -- the Clerk has -- does
not have spending authority without the board's approval. The board
doesn't have spending authority without the Clerk's signature. He
doesn't have the authority to write checks without the board approving
it by action, budgetary or on the agenda.
And I will provide the -- Mr. Jones with the statutes of the role of
Page 106
March 13, 2007
the auditor, not only the statutes, but the Constitution, so that we all
have a clear understanding what the duties are.
To me it's clear. I spent a weekend going through all this stuff.
The Attorney General is clear, but obviously we're not all clear on
that.
So I've said what I've said.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Mudd, then we're going to take a vote.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. A statement that was just made about,
doesn't have an independent piece about spending money.
Last year -- and I brought this to our external auditor's attention.
I've even gone as far as the CFO and the attorney -- or the auditor
general of this state.
The budget of the Clerk of the Courts was amended by $4.2
million without the authority of this board, and he spent $3.3 million
of that amended budget without the authority of this board. So the case
where he didn't have independent authority to spend money, I don't
believe, is true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you agree he has the ability
to spend that $3.2 million?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: I didn't say --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You said it.
MR. MUDD: No, I said he did it. I didn't say he could do it. I
said, he did it. You made a statement, sir, on the dais, that he doesn't
have the authority to independently spend money. And I will say to
you, if that is the case, then he shouldn't have spent the $3.3 million
that he did without the authority of this Board of County
Commissioners.
That's all I have to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think we've worked this
Page 107
March 13,2007
subject to death, it's 6:21 -- 12:21. There is definitely a difference of
opinion around here, not always unhealthy.
And with that, I'm going to call the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you refrain (sic) back what the
motion was?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd be more than happy to repeat the
motion. The motion was to pass Commissioner Henning's resolution
of the Board of County Commissioners to require that the Clerk
perform an audit of all funding in the affordable housing program, and
I don't think anything was changed from the article in front of you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And so we're going to be voting on
that.
Okay. With that, all those in favor of the motion, indicate by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
And I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then the motion failed by 3-2
with Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Fiala being in the
minority in favor of it.
And with that we're going to break for one hour. We're going to
be back at 1 :30.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
Page 108
March 13,2007
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
Commissioner, you had an 11 o'clock time certain that had it to
do with briefings by your advisory boards.
Mr. Chairman, how do you want to handle that particular issue?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go right to that. These people
are very important to the county, and I'd really like to get the business
over with so they can get back to their daily routines.
Item # lOA
TO REVIEW THE WRITTEN AND ORAL REPORTS OF THE
ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES SCHEDULED FOR
REVIEW IN 2007 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE NO.
2001-55: THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS, THE
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE, THE DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL, THE
ENVIRONMENT AL ADVISORY COUNCIL AND THE GOLDEN
GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED - MOTION TO ACCEPT
REPORTS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That would then bring us to lOA. This
item to be heard at 1 I a.m. To review the written and oral reports of
the advisory boards and committees scheduled for review in 2007 in
accordance with ordinance number 2001-55.
And Michael Sheffield, assistant to the county manager, will
present and kind of do the introductions, I believe.
MR. SHEFFIELD: Hi. Good afternoon. Mike Sheffield from
the County Manager's Office. This year you are review 11
Page 109
March 13,2007
committees; six today and five at your March 27th meeting. Today
you will be reviewing the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, the
Productivity Committee, the Development Services Advisory
Committee, Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council, the
Environmental Advisory Council, and the Golden Gate Community
Center Advisory Committee.
The written reports are included in your agenda packet. After
each presentation, it is requested that you make a recommendation to
either accept the committee's report as presented or propose any
changes that you would like to see happen with that committee. And
ifthere are no further questions or questions at this point, I'll announce
the first committee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I think we're pretty
well-versed in what these boards stand for, but we'd like to hear it
directly from them. And if you would please, continue.
MR. SHEFFIELD: The Board of Adjustment Appeals.
(No response.)
MR. SHEFFIELD: Okay. The Productivity Committee?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next.
MR. SHEFFIELD: The Development Services Advisory
Committee.
MR. BROOKER: I'm here. Clay Brooker, for the record,
Chairman of Development Services Advisory Committee for the year
2006. My time's up already, I guess. I guess you received a report,
and I've -- would answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioners? Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Brooker, you reviewed the
recommended budget of community development?
MR. BROOKER: There was at one time a subcommittee of
DSAC of -- Budget and Operations Subcommittee, I believe, was the
Page 110
March 13,2007
name of it. It has since been disbanded. And since that -- we would
re-comprise it whenever issues came up that need to be reported to us
in that regard. So in the last year, as I sat as chairman, I don't recall
seeing a whole lot of the budgetary information from -- directly from
community development, but I may stand to be corrected in about 30
seconds.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Joe Schmitt, your administrator of community
development and environmental services. Every year the DSAC
reviews the budget. As part of your budget packet every year was a
cover letter from the DSAC forwarding the recommendation to the
board based on their review of the budget.
Commissioner, if you wish, we'll provide you previous copies of
those letters of endorsement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's fine.
MR. SCHMITT: I think Clay is -- I don't know if we've done it
since Clay's been chair, but every year we do it, and we'll do it again
this year. And any fee adjustments or any other type of adjustments in
regards to operational aspects at community development are passed
through the DSAC.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question, if I may. Do you find that
you're making -- that every meeting takes place, you have enough
people there present to have a quorum?
MR. BROOKER: Yes. In the last -- while I was chair -- actually
in two years now that I've served on DSAC, we've never not had a
quorum.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I compliment you for that.
That says very well -- you're serving the public very well.
Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You had said here something
about the recommendations that you present at times are not presented
to the BCC. Has that been taken care of, that issue?
Page 111
March 13,2007
MR. BROOKER: I've spoken with Mr. Schmitt about it. I
believe the frustration was -- and it probably has part to do with the
length of time. We are one of the first committees in probably a four-
or five-month process for LDC amendments to see those proposed
amendments.
By the time they actually reached this board, they may not look
anything like the animal we saw four- or five months previous. So
there have been occasions in the past where we would make
recommendations and the county staff who is there making those
presentations would wholeheartedly agree with our recommendations,
but for one reason or another, perhaps it being because it's changed so
significantly over that four or five-month review process, our
recommendations were -- just disappeared. Whether that needs to be
tweaked a bit -- I've spoken to Mr. Schmitt about it. Weare going to
try to improve the process by which DSAC's recommendations get to
ultimately the BCC loud and clear.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I need some clarification on the
statement you just made, either by you or possibly Joe Schmitt. Is this
because that -- it goes through each of the committees and it gets more
rectified in regards to the direction that we're going on the land
development codes, or the growth management plans, that these
people look at?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, yes, to answer your question.
And if I could elaborate a little bit then?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. SCHMITT: As they go through the amendment process, as
Clay just mentioned, they're one of the first committees. And
certainly we value their input because, honestly, they're the
practitioners. The folks who make up the DSAC are the ones that are
actually using those amendments frankly in their daily business.
But as some of these amendments go through the EAC
Page 112
March 13,2007
subcommittee, then the EAC, and then on to the Planning Commission
and then to the Board of County Commissioners, they sort of morph
and evolve.
We have attempted in almost every instance to bring anything
that has changed materially, bring it back to the DSAC for their
reVIew.
I know of the one we were referring to here, and I think there was
some disagreement. We probably failed to voice that disagreement
when it got to your level. Though you know in your packet of the
LDC amendments, there are spreadsheets that list all the various votes
and any objections or recommendations.
And we will attempt to be much more clear in regards to any
recommendations or amendments or any changes in this future cycle
so you are clear -- so it's clear to you that you understand there may be
objections or recommendations that were made and how those -- those
things moved through the process and who made the changes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Brooker, is there anything that is
not in our report that you wish to share with us at this time?
MR. BROOKER: No. I think everything as stated there is
sufficient, and we would continue to work with Joe on, perhaps,
tweaking the process by which you ultimately receive our
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. And, of course, you can
communicate to the commissioners anytime that you want, and we
receive communications on a regular basis.
We thank you very much for what you're doing for your
committee, for the time they put in, what they do for Collier County.
Thank you for being here today.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you. You're welcome.
MR. SHEFFIELD: The next committee is the Board of
Adjustment And Appeals.
Page 113
March 13, 2007
MR. HAMMOND: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Bill Hammond, director of building review and permitting.
In accordance with the ordinance that establishes the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals, I serve as the secretary for that board. I
understand you have the report in front of you, and if you have any
questions regarding the purpose and nature of the duties of the board,
please, I'm prepared to answer those.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why do we currently not have a
chairman? Do you have a difficult time in getting a quorum?
MR. HAMMOND: Actually, the board doesn't meet on a regular
basis. The board meets when someone appeals either a decision by
myself as the building official or the fire code official, and they want
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to hear that.
So currently, the process of the board is that when they convene
to hear an appellant's case, they will elect a chairman for that seating
of the board. Since -- you know, like I say, since they don't have a
routinely elected chairman as the secretary, we thought it was just
prudent for me to come and represent the board in that case, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I think that pretty well
covers it. Please give our thanks to the board for the time that they
give us and the service they give Collier County.
MR. HAMMOND: Absolutely. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. SHEFFIELD: The next committee to be reviewed is the
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council.
CHIEF PAGE: Commissioners, for the record, Jeff Page with
Emergency Medical Services. Both the chairman and the vice-chair
were unexpectedly called out of town, so I'm here to answer any
questions that Dr. Albritten had submitted to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Questions? I know that this is
Page 114
March 13, 2007
__ there's a lot of demands placed upon this board every now and then.
They probably go through different peaks and valleys of demand.
Can you tell me where you are now and what kind of decisions
are being laid back on the board for -- to be made in the future for
recommendations coming before the Board of Collier County
Commissioners?
CHIEF PAGE: Probably the most -- where their main focus is
right now is with the ALS engine agreements. Dr. Tober did meet
with the advisory council at their last meeting, and they're requesting
that at the March 28th meeting with EMSAC, that we bring to them a
proposal that will eventually go to the board for consideration, but
they want Dr. Tober to review it first, provide his recommendation to
EMSAC and -- so that they will provide a recommendation to the
board from that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One of the things I had a little
problem with was, I don't think that there's maybe enough
communication going on. I just hated to read in the paper that Dr.
Tober had sent the letter, and we were never told about it. And then
when people called me and I had to say, I don't know, I never heard
about it, it's pretty embarrassing when it says, that, you know, we
approve all of this stuff, and yet we're never told about it in advance.
And when I asked Jeff Page, I said, why didn't you at least give
us a heads up? He said, well, you know, he couldn't just do that on his
own. I said, well, you know -- and Dan Summers was there, and I said
to Dan, I said, well, then, why don't you let us know? And he said,
well, I have to check with my boss first, Jim Mudd.
And I said, you mean to tell me Jim Mudd wouldn't let us know
about this? I said, we're the ones that are stuck in the end answering
questions. And I truly believe that as these things go on, you're talking
with them now, you're talking about different agreements, decisions,
you ought to let us in on what's going on, because the end result is,
Page 115
March 13, 2007
we're the target.
CHIEF PAGE: Understood.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think that pretty well covers
it. Thank you very much for being here today.
MR. SHEFFIELD: The next committee is the Environmental
Advisory Council.
MR. HUGHES: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Bill
Hughes, and I'm the chairman of Collier County's Environmental
Advisory Council. I'm here for any remarks or comments you may
have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right off the bat, how has the
attendance been at your -- have you had a quorum?
MR. HUGHES: Yes, I have. I had one time approximately, I
believe, a year and a half, possibly two years ago where I didn't.
That's the only time since I've been the chair that we didn't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's the hot button issue right now
with the environmental council?
MR. HUGHES: Well, there's several. First of all, there's
protection of endangered species always, because of our growth, as we
all face. And may I compliment you for the pressure that you sit
under, as we all sit under, trying to make these decisions.
The second, very important issue is water quality which is --
again, we're very proud here in Collier County to bring up issues that
are not only important to this county, but to the State of Florida as a
whole. And the State of Florida and South Water Florida -- South
Florida Water Management recently expressed interest to pick up
some of the concepts that we've expressed. So we're very, very proud
of that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One of the things you can be proud of
is the fact that when we assign this task to you, we want you to take
the task on without any preconceived notions, and not to worry about
what the commission might think of the final result. It's supposed to be
Page 116
March 13,2007
an independent study, and it's been very good. What we've been
getting in the past, I've been very pleased with. I'm sure in the future
when we receive -- we might not accept every recommendation, but it
certainly goes through a lot of scrutiny that helps us in our
decision-making process.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Did you get your two alternate
members that we voted in for you?
MR. HUGHES: I haven't got them yet, and I'm told they're
commg.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And also, the AEC, it says,
has reviewed several projects, each time has determined that the
projects threaten the ability of this barrier island and to support its
sensitive wildlife in the appropriate manner. There is already a
recognized problem here, and I was just wondering, do you need us, in
any way, to be assisting you in that?
MR. HUGHES: No. Our position is to advise you of what we
believe is technically correct for the welfare of this county pertinent to
the natural --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I weigh heavily on that, by the way.
MR. HUGHES: -- resources. I know. You all do, honestly.
And, again, you bear a heavy burden. We all know that, and we just
taste a little bit of it.
So I would never want to be sitting where you're sitting, all right;
however, what you're referring to with that comment refers to
Keewaydin Island. We're very concerned about all our barrier estuary
outlying islands, especially with the data that we're receiving from the
national government, the federal government, and our future.
It's very serious. I don't think this is a forum right now to go into
the details of that; however, it's not going to get better. Looks like it
will get worse.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Page 117
March 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we thank you very much for
that input. We'll be looking forward to some of the final results from
the project you're working on in the near future.
MR. HUGHES: Thank you all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, give my compliments to
your board.
MR. HUGHES: Thank you. Thank you all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. SHEFFIELD: The next committee to be reviewed is the
Productivity Committee.
MR. BARLOW: Good afternoon, Commissioners. How are you?
My name is John Barlow, for the record, and I guess you've read our
report. And if you have any questions, I'm -- would love to answer
them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just for the benefit of our audience,
the Productivity Committee is the one committee that every
commissioner looks forward to be able to work with. And some of us
reluctantly give up the position.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Didn't want to give it up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't want to give up the position. I
know Commissioner Coyle went through withdrawal, as I did myself
and -- but it's only right that each commissioner gets to be able to
sample this wonderful board and the thought process that takes place
in there.
I have often felt that if we could have the Productivity
Committee run the county, we'd be better off. But, of course, that's
not a possibility, the way it's laid out. And I'm not trying to give you
accolades just to make you feel good, it's just, I want you to realize the
reason you're not getting paid is because we're going to be real nice to
you.
But thank you very much for what you do, and Commissioner
Coyle would like to add his own two cents.
Page 118
March 13,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have you received adequate
answers to your questions under paragraph J of your report about the
parking and the ID tag?
MR. BARLOW: We have, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So everything's worked out?
MR. BARLOW: Everything is just perfect.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, good,
MR. BARLOW: And I appreciate the support that you give us. I
would never ever want to be in your position. I watch your television
shows every two weeks, and sometimes they last a long time on one
subject, and so I give you have a lot of credit for being as prepared as
you do and keeping our county as forward as it is. You do a great job,
and we can do better.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We make it look a lot worse than it
really is.
MR. BARLOW: Sometimes it comes through. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, John.
MR. SHEFFIELD: And the last committee to be reviewed is the
Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Gee, we could be sitting at Dairy
Queen right now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Bill Arthur does work at Dairy
Queen. That's what DQ stands for, but we're not going to give you a
plug for your business on Golden Gate Parkway. It's not going to
happen here because we're a government agency and we're not
allowed to do such things.
MR. ARTHUR: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's
Bill Arthur, and I'm with the Golden Gate Community Advisory
Board.
You've got a copy of what we've put together. Took us three
months to get it done, to get through all the little quirks in it. It hadn't
Page 119
March 13, 2007
been done for probably four years. Not too much I can add to it
except if you have any questions, I'll try and answer them for you.
But I think it's pretty self-explanatory, and I think you can all read
pretty well, I hope. Other than that, if you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I hate to think you stayed
through the lunch hour not to get a question or two, Bill, so I'm going
to ask you, have the recommendations that you've been coming up
with, have they, in your mind, given the commission guidance? Have
we been following the suggestions that are coming forward?
MR. ARTHUR: You haven't heard me get on your tail, have
you, about it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's true, you haven't. So I
guess I should count myself very fortunate. I do believe that there is
no questions, so that must mean that this commission is extremely
happy with what you're doing with the advisory board.
So please send our best wishes back to everyone, and we'll see
you back in, what is it, five years?
MR. MUDD: Four, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Four years.
MR. ARTHUR: Four years, maybe if you reelect me again after
a couple of years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you're a commodity we don't
want to lose. But before you do go, Commissioner Halas would like
to ask you something.
MR. ARTHUR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm looking forward to
going down to your Dairy Queen, but I'm sure that all of us couldn't
go down there at one time because we'd be in violation of the sunshine
laws.
MR. ARTHUR: Well, you can come in one at a time. We can
feed one through the drive through and one through the front door.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe you could tell us where this
Page 120
March 13, 2007
is, where is it we'd be meeting?
MR. ARTHUR: Do you know the metropolis called City of
Golden Gate? We're right on the Parkway. You can't miss it.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if we could get a motion to accept
the reports --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
MR. MUDD: -- for these five, and then we'll come forward --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a motion to accept by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you
very much.
MR. MUDD: Thanks, Mike.
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2007-63/DEVELOPMENT ORDER NUMBER
2007-01: PETITION DOA-2005-AR-8543, AIRPORT ROAD
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, REPRESENTED BY KAREN BISHOP,
OF PMS, INC., AND RICHARD YOV ANOVICH, OF
GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, REQUESTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE PINE AIR LAKES DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO
Page 121
March 13, 2007
ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT
AREA OF 957,000 SQUARE FOOTAGE (FURTHER LIMITED
TO 707,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND 250,000 SQUARE
FEET OF OFFICE), TO A MAXIMUM TOTAL OF 1,075,000
SQUARE FEET (FURTHER LIMITED TO 1,000,000 SQUARE
FEET OF RETAIL SPACE AND 75,000 SQUARE FEET OF
OFFICE USE); EXTEND THE BUILD-OUT DATE FROM
OCTOBER 15,2005 TO OCTOBER 15,2010. THE SUBJECT
148.99 ACRES, IS LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF
AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD, PARALLEL TO AND
APPROXIMATELY 1,600 FEET NORTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD;
AND ALONG BOTH SIDES OF NAPLES BOULEVARD, IN
SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (COMPANION TO PETITION
PUDZ-A-AR-8550) - ADOPTED W/STIPULA TIONS
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2007-32: PETITION PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550,
AIRPORT ROAD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, REPRESENTED BY
KAREN BISHOP, OF PMS INC., OF NAPLES AND RICHARD
YOV ANOVICH, OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON,
REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT OF THE PINE AIR LAKES
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) LAST REVISED IN
ORDINANCE NO. 94-25, TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA OF 957,000 SQUARE
FOOTAGE (FURTHER LIMITED TO 707,000 SQUARE FEET OF
RET AIL AND 250,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE), TO A
MAXIMUM TOTAL OF 1,075,000 SQUARE FEET (FURTHER
LIMITED TO 1,000,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE AND
75,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USE); EXTEND THE BUILD-
OUT DATE FROM OCTOBER 15, 2005 TO OCTOBER 15,2010.
Page 122
March 13, 2007
THE SUBJECT 148.99 ACRES, IS LOCATED ALONG THE
WEST SIDE OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD (CR 31),
PARALLEL TO AND APPROXIMATELY 1,600 FEET NORTH
OF PINE RIDGE ROAD (CR 896); AND ALONG BOTH SIDES
OF NAPLES BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(COMP ANION TO PETITION DRIDOA-2005-AR-8543) -
ADOPTED W/STIPULA TIONS
Commissioner, that brings us to our advertised public hearings,
and this is basically two items, A and B, both connected to the same
project.
This item was continued from the January 23rd, 2007 BCC item.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's DOA-2005-AR-8543, Airport Road Limited Partnership
represented by Karen Bishop ofPMS, Inc., and Richard Yovanovich
of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, requesting an amendment to the
Pine Air Lakes development of regional impact, DRI development
order, to allow an increase in the maximum development area of
957,000 square foot, further limited to 707,000 square feet of retail,
and 250,000 square feet of office, to a maximum total of one thousand
__ 1,075,000 square feet, further limited to one million square feet of
retail 75,000 square feet of office use; extend the build-out date from
October 15,2005, to October 15, 2010.
The subject 148.99 acres is located along the west side of
Airport-Pulling Road parallel to and approximately 1,600 feet north of
Pine Ridge Road and along both sides of Naples Boulevard in Section
11, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
This is a companion to the next item, which is 8B, which is
PUDZ-A-AR-8550 (sic).
And with the board's indulgence, I'll also read that PUD.
Page 123
March 13, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please. We can hear both of these at
the same time, right, Mr. Weigel?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and then you can take a vote on them
independently, and we're good to go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good.
MR. MUDD: This item, which is the companion item, requires,
again, that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members. It's PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550.
Airport Road Limited Partnership represented by Karen Bishop of
PMS, Inc., of Naples, and Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman
& Johnson, requesting an amendment to the Pine Air Lakes planned
unit development, PUD, last revised in ordinance number 94-25, to
allow an increase in the maximum development area of957,000
square foot, further limited to 707,000 square foot of retail and
250,000 square feet of office, to a maximum total of 1,075,000, square
feet, further limited to one million square feet of retail space and
75,000 square feet of office use; extend the build-out date from
October 15,2005, to October 15,2010.
The subject 148.99 acres is located along the west side of
Airport-Pulling Road, County Road 31, parallel to and approximately
1,600 feet north of Pine Ridge Road, County Road 896, and along
both sides of Naples Boulevard in Section 11, Township 49 south,
Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
Again, this is a companion to the previous item, 8A, which was
DRI DOA-2005-AR-8543.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And all those wishing to
participate, please stand at this time to be sworn in. This is both for
8A and 88. We'll do one swearing in for both of them.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And for ex parte we're
going to started with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Briefly talked to Mr.
Page 124
March 13,2007
Y ovanovich. He showed me the site plan. I would imagine all this
stuff that was in the commissioners' office came from the firm or the
petitioner; received an email from Connie Hickey supporting a new
group of citizens in District 2; Mr. Jones, the citizens committee, and
that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I received a couple emails,
I've spoken to Richard Y ovanovich and the petitioner and the owner.
I've spoken to Rich a couple times on this. I spoke with staff at great
lengths about this issue as well, and that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And I, myself, have met
with Rich Yovanovich, Harold Fried (phonetic), Landon Company,
Dan Trescott of the Southwest Regional Planning Council, Russ
Wimer (sic), Karen Bishop, Donald Arthrup, Cormac Giblin, Jason
Rangier, Ken Kuyler and staff. I received emails and have had some
phone conversations on this subject and, of course, met with staff
several times on it.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. On both
these items, I've had meetings, a couple of meetings, with the
petitioner and his representative, I've had correspondence by
constituents in my district, and also had email and some phone calls,
and I believe that's the area of concern in all my ex parte.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, for both items 8A
and 8B I have had meetings with the petitioner and the petitioner's
agent, including Mr. Y ovanovich. I have also received email in
opposition to the expansion of this PUD, and I think that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Mr. Y ovanovich?
Page 125
March 13, 2007
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. And good afternoon. For
the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me
today are Harold Fried and Jason Wagner with the Landon
Companies; Ted Treesh, our traffic consultant; Karen Bishop and Russ
Weyer with Fishkind & Associates to be here if you have any
questions regarding their particular areas of expertise.
As Mr. Mudd indicated, the property is located about 1,600 feet
north of the Pine Ridge Road/Airport Road intersection. Since we're
advertising for various county constituents, I currently -- I refer to it as
the Costco project.
The project is currently approved for 957,000 square feet of retail
and office space, and our request is for 1,075,000 square feet ofretail
and office space.
We believe that the project as proposed today is a win-win
situation for the residents of Collier County as well as the property
owner.
My clients are prepared to make several improvements to the
transportation network that will address existing issues that are out
there today and which will more than offset the transportation impacts
from our requested increase to the project.
As you know, the project has developed into a regional retail
center. We believe, and your staff agrees, that the changes we request
are positive changes because the new retail will provide opportunities
for customers who are already shopping at Best Buy or Costco or
going to the Regal Cinema to stay and use the new retail options that
will occur.
We believe that if we were to put office at this location, it would
actually result in more destination trips and less recapture trips than
retail will provide.
I'm going to put on the visualizer the -- I'm going to take you
through the exhibit package that you've all seen that lists all of the
improvements that we are proposing to make as part of this project.
Page 126
March 13, 2007
Now, I apologize to the audience because I'm going to be going back
and forth, but the overall exhibit that shows all the improvements is up
here on the bulletin board, but I'm going to be going back and forth
when discussing the specifics of each of those improvements.
We -- based upon our hearing on January 23rd, we went back and
looked at what other transportation improvements we can make to
address transportation in the area as well as transportation related to
our project.
We first looked at what can be done at the Naples
Boulevard/Pine Ridge Road intersection, and Exhibit A that we're
going to put up now identifies two improvements that -- it's number
one and number two on the overall list -- that we can make to the
transportation system.
The first improvement is to lengthen the turn lane at Pine Ridge
Road as you're heading east and then turning into the project we can
lengthen the turn lane to increase stacking and get cars off of Pine
Ridge Road so the through lanes on Pine Ridge Road can continue to
operate appropriately.
The second improvement we can make is after meeting with
transportation staff, it was determined that we could add an additional
right-turn lane into the existing right-of-way. So as you're waiting at
the light on Naples Boulevard, there'll be two right-turn lanes heading
west and two left-turn lanes heading east.
And on Exhibit B, it's item number three on the -- okay, as we're
heading -- as we're heading around from the intersection of Naples
Boulevard, we're on the loop road now, and we're at the approximate
location of the NCH and Home Depot. That's item number three on
the overall list.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was that little red thing?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The little red thing is what we're going to
talk about in a little bit greater detail on Exhibit B.
And these are proposed changes. Nothing has been finally
Page 127
March 13, 2007
determined. We've met with your transportation staff. We've met
with your transportation staff -- I'm glad that wasn't me -- about
potential access management improvements in Naples Boulevard, and
we're looking at the possibility of addressing access and freeing up
some turning movements. Nothing's etched in stone. Your staff will
discuss this with affected property owners.
But those improvements will be at our expense, and it could be
making a directional entrance where there's currently a full entrance
and having the full median turns move a little bit further as you're
going on Naples Boulevard. That will be something that your
transportation staff is looking at. And if it's feasible to do that, we will
do it and it will be at our expense.
As we continue along on the exhibit, item number four on this list
is the improvements to landscaping in Naples Boulevard. We've
committed to do $400,000 worth of improvements to the landscaping
in Naples Boulevard, and that will be at our expense and we'll be
maintaining that landscaping as well.
Now, there's several pages to this exhibit. You've all seen them,
and they're quite detailed. Unless you need me to put them all up, we'll
move along onto the next substantive improvement which is -- I think
is -- it's item number five.
We don't have an exhibit for item number five because item
number five is the traffic light to serve the two vacant parcels, this
parcel and this parcel. That traffic signal will be installed if warranted
and when requested by your transportation staff. It's not something
that will be done immediately.
Item number six on the list is something we will be doing very
quickly, and that is the traffic signal at the movie theater and the
future interconnection that I'll describe later. We have worked with
your staff. They have signals and the control box that we can utilize
now. We will purchase the poles, and we'll put up a temporary traffic
light within 60 days, and that should bring immediate relief to one of
Page 128
March 13, 2007
the -- the major issues that we hear about is the Costco access, the
Costco and Best Buy access.
What that will allow us to do, Commissioners -- and you can see
it a little bit on the aerial, but if you've been out there, behind that
21 ,OOO-square- foot retail center, there already exists an
interconnection road. We'll open up that interconnection road
concurrent with the traffic signal so people leaving Costco and Best
Buy can go across that as Mr. Mudd is indicating; go behind that retail
center and get to a lighted intersection so they'll be able to head to the
east on Naples Boulevard without having to address the situation
they're currently addressing as far as traffic goes.
Item number seven, we do have an exhibit for, but that is the
interconnection to the industrial park to the north. And that will allow
people who are in the industrial park to come to the various restaurants
and other retail establishments without ever having to get onto Airport
Road.
This interconnection started out after discussions with your Start
Growth Committee. It was important to them that we provide
interconnection, but it had a little bit of interesting history, and we
should have seen this coming early on.
It originally started out with us providing an easement and the
county constructing the interconnect, but the county skillfully
renegotiated that deal, and now that construction of that
interconnection is at our expense to the tune of about $450,000.
The interconnection will be constructed as part of what is
currently proposed to be a Kohl's department store. Kohl's is anxious
to come to Collier County. Ifwe get approval today, they will submit
their Site Development Plan immediately. Their hope will be that
they'll be up and running within nine months, so that interconnection
will be up and running within nine months if Kohl's is successful.
If Kohl's is somehow delayed, we have committed to have that
interconnection constructed within one year of the approval of the
Page 129
March 13, 2007
PUD. So that interconnection will be done early part of this project.
Item number eight is shown on Airport Road but really what that
is, is that's two CAT bus stations that we will construct wherever the
county tells us is appropriate to construct those two CA T bus stations.
Originally at the last meeting we had committed to one bus station.
When we met with your transportation staff, they felt that a second
bus station was necessary, so we agreed to that commitment as well.
Item number nine is four permanent count stations in Naples
Boulevard that the transportation staff requested. And we'll contribute
$40,000 to that.
Item number 10 is two painted crosswalks at two lighted
intersections, and we'll install those crosswalks.
And finally, I'd like to take you through the improvements that
we're going to be making to the intersection of Naples Boulevard and
Airport Road, and those are items 11 and 12, and that's on Exhibit E.
The proposal is for us to construct an additional turn lane at
Naples Boulevard, a third left bound, heading north turn lane into
Airport Road as part of this proposal, and that was in our original
proposal.
And item number 12 is to extend the turn lanes that currently
exist on Airport Road to allow additional stacking, to allow -- to
assure that traffic won't back up into the through lanes on Airport
Road.
And finally, item number 13 is a $50,000 contribution to the
SCOOT system at Airport Road. The SCOOT system worked very
well on Pine Ridge Road and increased the efficiency on Pine Ridge.
We're looking forward to a similar increase in efficiency on Airport
Road, and I believe they're looking at possibly about a 10 percent
increase in traffic capacity as a result of the SCOOT system.
Not part of the transportation-related improvements, but
tangentially related to the transportation improvements, we had
previously agreed to make a contribution of $206,454 to the
Page 130
March 13, 2007
Affordable Housing Trust Fund. That is part of our list of
contributions.
And I think the best exhibit is the final exhibit, which is our PUD
Master Plan, and I think this PUD Master Plan really shows how the
smart growth provisions within the comprehensive plan can be
implemented in at least a retail project.
After meeting with the Smart Growth Committee and the
commissioners and your staff, we looked at, how can we make sure
that this all works and minimize the need to get onto Pine Ridge,
Airport, and even Naples Boulevard.
So we looked at that. We qualify and meet your policy 7.1 in
your comprehensive plan because we obviously collect to arterials.
We connect to Airport and Pine Ridge Road.
Your policy 7.2 of the comprehensive plan requires internal
interconnection, and we do that on both sides of the road. As we -- as
we are on the north side of Naples Boulevard, you can see through all
of these arrows that all of these Site Development Plans will link up
and create a reverse frontage road.
So if you're at Lowe's, which is right here, you'll be able to go all
the way across to whatever retail establishments are developed on this
parcel without ever getting on Naples Boulevard. So we have a
frontage road on the north side of the road.
As well, we have a frontage road on the south side of the road.
So if you want to go from Wild Oats over to whatever is developed
over here, you will not have to get on Naples Boulevard. You'll
simply go through this frontage road system. So we have
implemented a frontage road system in our project as encouraged by
your smart growth provisions.
And finally, as I previously discussed, we do interconnect with
our neighbor to the north, the industrial park, and we provide an
opportunity for interconnection to the industrial park to the west over
here. So we have complied with the smart growth provisions within
Page 131
March 13,2007
the comprehensive plan.
Commissioners, we believe that this is a model project and that
we are addressing the transportation needs generated not only from
our project but from the general overall traffic. As you know, when
this project first came through, it was probably the first -- well, it was
the first project to introduce a loop road in the first place, and that loop
road's been very successful. It has gotten traffic to avoid the
intersection of Airport Road and Pine Ridge Road, and we're dealing
with that traffic with the improvements that we're discussing today by
additional turn lanes at Naples Boulevard to allow that traffic to move
on as it's avoiding the intersection.
The commitments that we've outlined today total approximately
$2.8 million. That is, we believe, a substantial commitment on behalf
of this project to the community, and it will benefit both the
community and us. It's going to make our project as better project as
well.
With all of these improvements, we're requesting your approval
of the PUD amendment and the DRI Development Order Amendment,
and we're available to answer any questions you might have regarding
the project or any of the commitments we made today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to questions --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- I'm going to have the speakers
come forward first. We've got three of them, and that might help to
clarify some of the questions we want to ask.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Gary Eidson. He will be
followed by Allan Jones.
MR. EIDSON: Hi. Members of the commission and county
staff, my name is Gary Eidson. I am a North Naples resident and
chair of the newly organized Citizens Coalition of Collier County,
District 2. We represent the concerns of over 50 communities in
Page 132
March 13,2007
North Naples.
The -- we've seen a retail explosion here in Southwest Florida in
past -- just the past year; Coconut Point, Gulf Coast Town Center are
the largest examples. In North Naples on U.S. 41, there are numerous
new smaller strips and the new North Bay Center at Wiggins and U.S.
41 is underway. The shiny new Waterside with its parking garage and
expanded Coastland Mall all provide tourists, snowbirds and locals
alike abundant opportunities to shop till they drop, and my wife has
proven that to be true. The banker's are happy.
Now, you're being asked to change the rules and accommodate
more retail shopping, not only that, but in an area that for years
seemed so dormant and now is rife with congestion and abundant with
overtaxed egress and ingress points.
It would seem that the county would do well to step back and
take a long look at the traffic patterns created inside some of the
established parking areas along Naples Boulevard. Look at Home
Depot complex. It has two-lane entry and a one-lane exit in the
middle of their parking lot and nobody uses it because it's not properly
signed and people would rather go out through funnels into the Bed,
Bath and Beyond Plaza, which you can see jammed up here in the
picture. I think the picture's on. I don't -- yes, it is.
You can see how that is all jammed up on there, and that's typical
that comes out of Home Depot. These are feeding onto, guess where?
It feeds onto one of the two roads that we have.
Of course, this is the congestion that's going down, and there's
our new -- that's the new shopping center that was just put in right
there at the Promenade facing Tall Pines, and that has a Petco, fast
food, high traffic environment, Loehmann's -- which my wife, again,
is real excited about -- Wild Oats grocery.
And the other thing that's interesting in there, they have dead-end
traffic patterns where you can drive down thinking you're going to go
out, and where do you go? You go into a dead end. You have to back
Page 133
March 13, 2007
up because they don't sign it.
Again, I would think that the county would do well to put a little
bit more emphasis on figuring out how to get people routed once
they're inside of these places. We've got enough confusion out in the
road. Now we've got confusion in the parking lots.
Now, that's just accidents waiting to happen. Now, those are just
two examples of the high-density retail areas that feed into already
overtaxed intersections. Parking lots with tight parking, people
backing up blindly and narrow corners with blind turns such as we see
coming into Home Depot, all add up to a dangerous traffic pattern,
and they're not even part of the roadway system, but they certainly
have a major impact.
And with all this, the developer is asking that we fill it up even
more despite the rules to the contrary and common sense that says we
need to find a better way to manage the congested parking. No matter
what they do, the roads will empty onto only two other roads, Airport
and Pine Ridge. You can configure it any way you want. It's going to
be there and that's it.
So alii can ask you to do today is to say no to the expanded
retail that's available -- that they're asking for and get focused on
taking care of what's there.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Allan Jones. He'll be followed by Jim Burke.
MR. JONES: Good afternoon. Hi, my name is Allan Jones. I'm
a member of the Citizens Transportation Coalition of District 2.
You know, we're looking at too much traffic coming in and going
out of this development. I think the interior -- I mean, it's great to
have a lot of stores and everything and have a variety of stores, but
you can't get away from the fact that they come out -- as Gary said,
come out onto two major arteries.
And whatever you do, Pine Ridge Road is full, three lanes full all
Page 134
March 13,2007
the time, and configuring the traffic coming out of Naples Boulevard
onto Pine Ridge Road, even with the addition of another turn lane,
only means you're going to have two lanes going out there instead of
one. You still have this traffic backed up to come out.
And bearing in mind that this situation exists now when there's
only half the development. It's only half developed and already it's
clogged. So what's going to happen? We're going to add one more
lane going out of -- out of Naples Boulevard, but we're going to be
doubling the amount of traffic going out.
I would have to take exception to the fact that Naples Boulevard
is a roadway that eliminates the use of the intersection of Pine Ridge
and Airport. If you go down in there, you don't see too much traffic
coming from Airport Road onto Pine Ridge Road. It's coming off of
either one of those two roads going to this retail section.
I f people do learn by going in there to use that retail section that
there's a connection between Airport and Pine Ridge and begin to use
that to avoid that intersection, that's going to be even more traffic
coming through these two points.
I checked the intersection going out onto Airport Road. If you go
out there, you have two lanes, and it's going to be, I guess, three lanes
going to the left, going north on Airport. You still have one lane
sharing straight ahead and right turn. I went there. When I was going
there, I was going straight ahead. There was a line-up of traffic,
maybe 10, 12 cars behind me.
I said to my wife, I wonder how many of these people are waiting
to go to the right. Sure enough, I went straight, they were all wanting
to. So I know somebody was cussing me while they sat there.
But one lane to service straight ahead and to the right. That's not
good. It's all going to back up, and -- when this doubles.
Now, why is it doubling? I question -- the formula here says that
you can exchange office space for retail at 4.2-to-l ratio. You have to
give up 420 square feet of office for 100 square feet of retail. If we're
Page 135
March 13,2007
going to increase by 293,000 square feet of retail, that means we have
to surrender 1,172,000 feet of office. Where is it? It isn't there to
begin with, so that's a violation right off the bat. But we're having to
live with an additional mess from a violation.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Jim Burke.
MR. BURKE: Commissioners, Jim Burke, a North Naples
resident and a member of the newly formed Citizens Transportation
Coalition. For the sake of time, my concerns have been expressed by
the previous two speakers. I can't add anything to that. So I would
implore you to take a hard look at this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. I'm going to open the
questions first.
Mr. Feder, when we get down to it, it's the transportation element
that's going to probably be the most concern here.
MR. FEDER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, we have the petitioner coming
forward and offering to make improvements totaling 2.7 million plus
dollars. The improvements that are going to be made, when we get all
done, when we look at this, are we going to be better off than we are
today?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's--
MR. FEDER: Basically what we looked at on this project is two
things. One, our concern was obviously protection of traffic on
Airport and Pine Ridge, and then secondly was to make sure that on
Naples Boulevard, which is not going to be a good level of service,
but is a county road, that we had safety on that area.
And what hasn't been highlighted maybe as much is the fact that
that development of that frontage road system connecting up to a
signalized point, we're going to continue to look at our median
openings and issues within that area.
Today we have a very chaotic situation on Naples Boulevard.
Page 136
March 13,2007
That chaos is basically because you have people trying to come out,
go in at full openings, un-signalized areas. That's probably one of the
first things we said is we want to get a signal in there to the point that
we're willing to offer up some of the equipment to get a temporary as
they develop a permit.
And if you look at it, all of the development that basically exists
today can be accessed with those service roads now to that signal
location, including even the future extension to the north.
Weare going to go back and look at the median openings, as was
mentioned, just north of Pine Ridge, but all the way along that project
after we get a signalized intersection in place.
So the major concern within Naples Boulevard was making sure
that we had safety. That's why we wanted the crosswalks, we wanted
the signal.
The issue on Pine Ridge and Airport, we wanted to try to respond
as best we could to that demand that is out there and will be there
whether they go office park or commercial on the last of this
development.
We believe -- and I had Nick working with them very directly,
and he may want to add anything more to this, but that everything that
we could come up with that we thought was at all feasible, they have
basically agreed to under what you have here as a way to try to
respond to the traffic issues.
Again, what we wanted was two radial roads with development
oriented to it and not to the intersection. Unfortunately, I have a little
bit of it oriented to the intersection. I can't not take the opportunity to
agree with Gary on the design of some of the parking lots associated
with other development in this area.
I would love to think that we had some way to come in and
change those right now. They're not designed very well, but that's
what we were trying to address here and had the opportunity. And I
think with the loop road that's been established and with their final
Page 137
March 13,2007
development of those frontage road connections and to a signalized
area, we will succeed here on just those problems he's citing in some
of the other shopping centers that are on the four corners of Airport
and Pine Ridge.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When will those frontage roads be
completed? That's been my strong contention, by the way, is the
frontage road.
MR. FEDER: The first and foremost in concern -- the first and
foremost of concern here was the connection, as I mentioned. Right
now the biggest problem we have today is coming out of Best Buy
and Costco.
They have most of this service road and back here developed.
They have some buildings in front, but it's not all connected. We told
them we need that connection to a temporary signal, and they've
committed here today to have that by 60 days. We're going to do
everything we can on our end to make sure that can happen earlier, or
at least by 60 days. As I said, we're very concerned the way this
operation has gone.
That allows these areas to then access it. Lowe's can access it.
All of this development can come across here. Always has the access
across here, and out in front of the theater, and the theater can access
it. The theater isn't a lot of traffic when a lot of this is going, and so
there's good access through.
So that one signal is critical to the internal circulation problems
that were being laid in some of our others parking areas, if you will,
utilizing the radial road.
Did that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it did. I just wanted to make
Page 138
March 13, 2007
sure all those frontage roads get in as quickly -- or access roads, if you
want to call them that -- you know, even more quickly than anything
else is put in there because I think that they're vital to the success of
the transportation moving in that area, especially with the design of
some of the parking lots.
MR. FEDER: We agree. That signal and the crosswalks and that
__ and you might want to ask the applicant before you finish to speak
directly to when they expect those access roads. But that one access
road needs to go in there with that signal, otherwise we haven't
accomplished anything.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I want to ask you another
question. I asked you this in my office, but just for the record, again.
As I took a look at this, I, myself, when I go to that shopping center, I
don't ever go to just go to Costco's. I have to plan to go to a few
places. If I'm going to go that far and if I'm going to be dealing with
the traffic, I might as well get all of my shopping done at one time.
MR. FEDER: It is a destination, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I figured if! -- if you add an office
complex, now you're adding a different type of traffic than the shopper
traffic. And to me, that -- I felt that that would add more of a
complication to the traffic rather than less because now you're adding
a different element of traffic, not only just shoppers, but now you've
got people that are going and coming from office buildings.
MR. FEDER: That other element is not all that bad. Very
honestly, a move to commercial will increase overall trip generation,
at least theoretically. Once you get to this big an area and a
destination and you have that many commercial in one spot, there's a
question of how much a new square foot of commercial will bring.
It's not -- it's not a situation where you have one large box, you
put a second one in, and since they're close to each other, the second
one and the first one won't individually generate on their own twice as
much. It will be 1.9 or something. As you get bigger, that gets
Page 139
March 13,2007
reduced down some.
But even using the fact of basic generation with the commercial
being greater than office park, office park would hit you more in the
morning. So if anything your a.m. peak, which is probably one of the
heaviest on Pine Ridge -- it's pretty heavy in the p.m. as well. But the
a.m. peak would probably be less if you went commercial rather than
office park. P.M. peak probably a little bit greater.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. And also, last question.
Will there be any problem with getting more internal signs? It seems
that that's been a complaint here, and I don't know if we have a sign
ordinance that prevents that or if they just haven't done that, and if
they haven't done it, can we demand it?
MR. FEDER: I can defer a little bit to CDES to Joe's shop. They
do the internal circulation patterns on commercial. We do it as it
approaches the arterial, although we've gotten involved in this because
I'm working with an arterial, which is Naples Boulevard.
In answer to that, I think you need to ask this developer to make
sure that they will respond to any signage issues and the like that are
brought up, and I'm sure they're ready to try and assist. So far they've
been willing to do what's necessary to try to make this work for them
and for the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Before you go, Norm, I've got
some transportation questions to ask you.
MR. FEDER: By all means, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Number one, right now what's the
load of traffic on Pine Ridge from Airport to Goodlette-Frank?
MR. FEDER: We're at a level of service E. The AUIR give you
specific numbers.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're at level of service E with the
capacity of about 3,000 trips. And you've got a capacity remaining of
Page 140
March 13, 2007
about 130 trips on that section.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Really? A hundred and thirty trips
left. Okay. And this is with the advent of adding SCOOT into that
system; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No?
MR. FEDER: No. That doesn't include the SCOOT, and you've
got the 10 percent there. And it all assumes all the vested trips that
basically are already in this development.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then tell me what the level of
service is with SCOOT as it is today.
MR. FEDER: It's probably still a level of service E. You've got
a bit of improvement there, but it's still a level of service E, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we've got a level of service E on
Pine Ridge.
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And--
MR. FEDER: The improvement hopefully will happen at about
two or three today; however, it will probably be mitigated a little bit
because we don't have the overpass completed. But when you open
up the new interchange at Golden Gate, you should see some
diversion both off of Pine Ridge and lmmokalee through the new
interchange, and that'll be a leveling over time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That poses another
question. What is the build-out today, what's the population in Golden
Gate Estates today, would you estimate?
MR. FEDER: Forty?
MR. MUDD: Golden Gate Estates.
MR. FEDER: Forty thousand.
MR. MUDD: That's household. It's about a hundred thousand
people.
MR. FEDER: Yeah, about a hundred thousand people, about
Page 141
March 13, 2007
40,000 households.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And where are we at as far
as build-out of Golden Gate Estates?
MR. FEDER: You're not -- you're not nearly built out. About
half, is that what we figured?
MR. MUDD: Little less than half, sir.
MR. FEDER: Little less than half.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What concerns me is that
there was a couple of items that was brought up for the planning board
to look at, and that was GMP amendments to the Golden Gate
program whereby they didn't want any commercial out there.
So what we're going to do is we're going to add that intensity as it
builds out into this shopping center already on top of the stuff that was
going to be built out in this particular area; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: I understand your concern, sir. I'm not sure one
necessarily equates to not doing the other. There is some commercial
coming on and is moving forward on Oil Well and some other areas,
but I understand your concern. We, too, feel that we need some
commercial to move some of the trips in opposite direction out in the
Estates and further out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying is, with the
system that we presently have employed n let me just make sure that I
understand. With the system that we presently have employed on Pine
Ridge, that it's a level of E service, and that we've basically addressed
every issue that we can as far as moving traffic at this point in time; is
that correct?
MR. FEDER: Other than other road projects like the new
interchange and its development, and there will be a diversion of
traffic, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And that -- right now with
the amount of traffic and also the amount of traffic that -- or that's
already been looked at in the future, that we're about 130 units from
Page 142
March 13, 2007
failing; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: That is without the SCOOT improvements as pure
numbers, because you can't take that into account in operation when
you're doing your concurrency, and that is without the diversion that is
expected.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute. Don't we have
SCOOT on Pine Ridge right now?
MR. FEDER: You have SCOOT on Pine Ridge right now, but
when you're doing numbers as to your capacity and those figures --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. FEDER: -- that's really not an item. It's an operational
feature to make your level of service operate as best it can --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. FEDER: -- at the intersections. You're talking about the
main line volumes there. And in our concurrency system right now, if
nothing was being done in any other areas beyond what is vested and
out there, about 136 is what we're showing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And what is your level of
service on Airport? I know that's dropped since we've opened up
Livingston.
MR. FEDER: I think it's probably right now at a low D or a high
E. Remember that our acceptable level of service for Collier County,
unfortunately, is level of service E on our six-lane facilities, and so
you're close to that; that's why we're continuing to make other
improvements and add lanes to other facilities around the county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One other question I have. What is
your opinion of the traffic that would be generated for a 50,000-foot
store?
MR. FEDER: How much traffic should be generated from it on
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A 50,000-square-foot store.
MR. FEDER: We'll have to get you that number, sir.
Page 143
March 13,2007
Don, do you have a figure on that from IT, trip generation? We'll
try to get you that number, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because what we really have here
is, we've got an increase in the retail of -- overall increase of about
118,000 square feet. And when you look at where they want to change
the retail, expand that, and also to take away some of the office square
footage that's already been permitted and put this into retail, when you
look at 293,000 square feet, it's almost the equivalent of six 50,000
square foot -- or, yeah, 50 thou -- or six 50,000 foot square (sic)
buildings that are going to be in there, and it's commercial.
So that's why I'm trying to figure out -- ifllook at that aspect of
it, what is the traffic generated roughly for a 50,000-square-foot
building?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me answer that question in a
couple parts. Nick Casalanguida with Transportation Planning.
First of all, your trip generation on a commercial center is not
linear. In other words, as it becomes bigger, it's a curve. It's not a one
for one per square foot additional trips as you would see on something
on a smaller project. So you have to take that into account.
And there's also a reduction for pass-by and capture of what goes
in there with a project as well, too. Like we talked about, if you had
just Lowe's over there and you compared the trips to a Lowe's and
then compared to Home Depot on the other side of town that were
independent, you'd have a certain trip generation, but when you put
them together, it's reduced. People go to one, then they go to the other
because they're in that same general shopping center.
Overall when we looked at this project, it's about a 10 percent
increase in trips in the p.m. peak hour from what you would have
already approved in office. Daily it's a slight increase; a.m. it's a
decrease.
When we did the initial review of this, we said, we need to at
least offset that 10 percent, and we did that with the intersection with
Page 144
March 13, 2007
the improvements of SCOOT on both Airport and existing on Pine
Ridge.
During the last meeting you had some concerns. We were
concerned that we were right-of-way constrained on Pine Ridge and
Naples. We went back and said, well, if we do certain things, we can
do improvements in the right-of-way consistent with some of the
questions and concerns that you have.
So we looked at this in a couple different areas. First of all, when
you look at office as it's strictly a generator itself, when you look at
office combined with pass-by and capture with commercial and when
you look at commercial alone, and we took a conservative view and
said, it's 10 percent, and that 10 percent would be increased in the p.m.
peak hour.
So to give you a rough number, it's roughly 270 additional trips
in the p.m. peak hours. 207 or 270; 70 -- 270.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then we've got room for another
130.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, no. That's in and out and that's
directionally split as well, too. That's not all coming in one direction.
Keep in mind we had a five to 10 percent reduction internally from the
connection to the industrial park, so that offset a bunch of that already
as well, too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Move to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's get to the bottom line. You're
recommending approval of this project because you say that there is
not a transportation problem with the improvements that are being
proposed. Is that essentially what you're saying?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's essentially correct. You
wouldn't increase the problem. You are actually making it better with
the improvements proposed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, how much have you
Page 145
March 13,2007
factored in here for a reduction when Golden Gate Parkway and the
overpass is completed?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We haven't factored it in at all almost.
We looked at today's trips and we didn't even consider that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But do you believe that
there will be a reduction of traffic on Pine Ridge Road when Golden
Gate Parkway is fully operating?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If there isn't, I'm going to be looking
for a different job.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the farther you get away from
the interstate, the reduction will decrease.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we should try
community development.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. The farther away you get from
the interchange, the reduction would decrease. But yes, we are
expecting a reduction on Pine Ridge Road.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, what is your estimate of the
reduction in traffic on Pine Ridge Road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The modeling numbers show 10 to 15
percent closer to the interstate.
Now, I want to touch on one of -- is it Gary? I hope that -- yes.
You get -- when we looked at this, we looked at build-out including
the office. So keep in mind --I mean, you're going to say, oh, my God,
and say six months from now if this was all developed, you'll say,
God, there's a lot of traffic out there.
Well, it's only 10 percent more when you look at the total build-
out with the office. So, you know, you've got to look at apples to
apples in terms of total build-out of the project. Understanding your
concerns -- and they're legitimate when we're looking at that access
management. But when we compare numbers, we're comparing build-
out of the entire project.
Page 146
March 13, 2007
So for a 10 percent increase in the p.m. peak hour we get a
decrease in the a.m. hour, daily a little bit higher, but we're getting a
considerable amount of improvements that are above and beyond what
they're proposing. So we're looking at it in twofold.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, let's go to the other
issue that was raised, and that is, what's happening in Golden Gate.
It's my recollection that people in Golden Gate are saying, don't mess
with the master plan, go with the master plan. Don't start revising it
right now.
The master plan provides for activity centers and commercial
development already. What they're concerned about is developers
coming in now and starting to change the master plan to create more
of those pockets of commercial.
The more we build to service the so-called bedroom communities
to the east, the less traffic we will have in this area, and we have seen
the effects of that over the past four or five years as we have moved
commercial, retail, office, further east. So we want to continue doing
that.
Now, the -- and what I'm really getting to is that if we're going to
vote this project down because of traffic, you have to tell us that
there's a traffic concurrency problem, and you're not telling us that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're telling us that there is
adequate capacity and there will be adequate capacity that you haven't
even taken into consideration yet when Golden Gate Parkway is fully
opened?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I can't legally say to the
petitioner, you can't do this because of traffic?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. And one other
comment I'll make, sir, is Mr. Feder had mentioned that they're vested.
They are still subject to concurrency. So if I was wrong about
Page 147
March 13, 2007
something and the parkway interchange opens up and I'm looking for
a new job, they're still subject to concurrency when each individual
development order comes in, under your new TIS guidelines.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we can stop the construction at
any point in time that concurrency figures are exceeded?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, sir,
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Except when the state legislature
decides to step in and permit people to do what they want to do.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's out of my hands.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is -- you know, for those
who object to this, there is one self-correcting factor when we're
dealing with commercial. People are not going to come there if they
can't drive around and get to it easily, if they stay in traffic for a very,
very long time. So they just won't come there. Commercial just won't
get built and, consequently, you won't have the traffic. That's what
will happen if it gets bad.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're touching on something that
may -- I'd like to bring up as well, too. When meeting with the
developer to talk about this project, they have a self-serving interest to
make their project viable and easily accessible to their patrons, and so
they didn't have as much of a hard time as we pointed out
improvements saying, well, that makes sense.
And even in the PUD language, we're allowed to make median
changes. And if that makes their project more viable, they're going to
spend the money to do that, and that's the plus for us, that they have a
vested interest in making a successful project.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the interconnect is something
I've been fighting for for years, and I think it's a big improvement. It
will help a lot with respect to circulation of traffic. But I have one
final question.
Down near Home Depot you're planning on closing a median cut.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a possibility. One of the
Page 148
March 13, 2007
exhibits they've shown--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- we will vet that, we will review the
design of that, and we'll make that decision after we've done that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So whatever action is taken
today, I would suggest we keep that one contingent. But the
developer would still agree to pay for that improvement --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- but we would keep it contingent
upon proper coordination with the other property owners who are
involved in this process. I don't think they've been adequately
informed or consulted with respect to this proposal.
So with that, I think you've answered all of my questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Was that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it wasn't a motion. But I'm just
suggesting that if you -- ifthere is sufficient support to approve it, that
they approve it as -- that as a contingency.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Don't go too far. There's a
couple of observations that I've made. We've had on the record the
fact that what's going to take place is going to be a plus as far as the
traffic flow goes. I don't think anybody disagrees with that.
If we do nothing and we vote it down, they've still got the right to
be able to go in there and build the business part of it, and we have no
right to be able to come down on them. At least if they can go
forward without the amenities we're looking for, the $2.7 million; is
that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Some of the improvements we would
get are as part of site development plan review, but you're correct, a
lot of the improvements we couldn't warrant on them. They've offered
that up as part of this proposal.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So if we walk away from this, the end
result would be negative as far as the road capacity goes and as far as
Page 149
March 13, 2007
handling traffic in the developments that exist now and then on Pine
Ridge Road and on Airport Road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. As Mr. Feder pointed out, or
some of the costs fall back on the county. And I'd hate to lose that
interconnection because I can tell you in talking to some of the people
in the industrial park, they're anxious to get in there and shop and use
those services without having to go on Airport Road.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One of the comments, too, I heard
Golden Gate brought up quite a bit about -- of course, there's always
the effort to try to expand commercial and it's well accepted, you
know, that some commercial's going to be needed.
We're seeing a tremendous amount of commercial that's going to
be coming aboard on the periphery of Golden Gate. People from
Wilson going to the east will be traveling to the east rather than the
west in the future when they open up at Orangetree and on Oil Well
Road, the commercial areas that are there. Ave Maria's going to be a
tremendous magnet, and so will some of the new developments going
in just outside of Immokalee.
So I see all these things coming together in the long run, and I see
probably some more commercial infill as we get going around Golden
Gate Estates itself, so I don't think that's going to be a factor.
And with that, I'm going to make a motion for approval with the
recommendations also with Commissioner Fiala's suggestion as far as
signage goes, that we have adequate signage in there so that people
can identify where they're going to go and how they're going to go
there in a meaningful manner. I'm not even going to begin to suggest
how you do that, but I'm sorry. Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, I'd also say, I believe
Commissioner Fiala was saying not only the signage, but also to try to
get some commitment on the date for all of that internal circulation
roadway --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I include that in the motion.
Page 150
March 13, 2007
And, of course, all this with the understanding that if something is
terrible wrong in the methodology that was used to do this and
concurrency isn't coming about like it should, that there's mechanisms
in there to bring this to a stop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And let's go to Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a question I was going to
ask if you were going to put in your motion. We haven't discussed it.
It says the possible future connection. Who's going to pay for that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not a possible.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The one to the west?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: One of the reasons we threw that on
there, there's a vacant lot over there and there's a connection to Yahl
Street. It's one of those where I understand through the requirements
through the code, if I don't show an arrow in a PUD document, for me
to ever get that in the future because the development's there and
allows me to do that, I have to come back and do a PUD amendment.
So one of the things I've got in the habit of doing is, to all
developers, to say, it doesn't hurt you in your master plan to show an
arrow and to throw in a possible future interconnection. It allows me
the ability if, in the future, I'm reviewing a project, I can say, let's
make that connection if it's reasonable.
I f I don't throw that arrow on there, I'm bound by that lack of it,
and I can't, you know, get someone to address that issue.
So you're going to see in a lot of PUD master plans arrows
everywhere saying possible connection so in the back I'm not in front
of this board doing an expensive PUD amendment just to get an arrow
on a map.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? Before we
do though, I'm going to close the public hearing.
Page 151
March 13,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I want to assist you
on your motion. Would you include the stipulations by Commissioner
Coyle about the median access changes, that they would have a public
vetting or -- was it a public vetting or stakeholders?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Probably stakeholders, but that's
probably going to be pretty public anyway, but it's related to those __
that median closure on Naples Boulevard near Home Depot.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Public vetting meaning they get a
chance to be able to exercise their opinion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I can say, if number three
is changed like it's presented, I will not shop there. I'll go to East
Naples to the Home Depot, but I will not shop there, because I have a
choice, East Naples or this one. This one being closer, but you're
making it far and more inconvenient for me to do it, go shopping
there. But you know, that's your job.
The other thing is, we need to have time frames of when the
traffic light is going to be installed. We need to have time frames of
when the interconnection is going to be installed and all these other
commitments, when it's going to happen. So we need to have that
commitment on the record so it will be included in the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you want me to address that,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The PUD document provides that we will
make all of these improvements within a year of the approval of the
PUD amendment. The traffic signal, the temporary signal we
committed to 60 days, at which time we'll be able to open up the
frontage road between Costco and Lowe's to get you to that light. So
we can do that, the temporary light within 60 days.
The interconnection road to the industrial park will be within a
Page 152
March 13, 2007
year. We hope to do it sooner if we can get the permits for Kohl's
sooner, but it will be no later than a year. And all the other
improvements that we've listed will be no later than a year from
approval of the PUD amendment except for the one traffic light. That
one traffic light right there, Commissioner, will be when we -- when
it's warranted and we develop those two vacant parcels.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that part of your motion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's part of your motion, but Coyle
-- Commissioner Coyle, I believe you were next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a question about what you're
going to put into the motion. Under the PUD amendment 8B, there
was also a recommendation by staff that deviation number one be
denied. I believe that's been changed in the PUD document.
MR. MUDD: Kay? Deviation number one has been changed in
the PUD document, hasn't it?
MS. DESELEM: Yes. Good afternoon. For the record, Kay
Deselem, Principal Planner, Zoning.
We have come to an agreement that we will put the information
into the PUD document as it's already been adopted as an LDC
change. So deviation's no longer necessary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so the motion would include
all of the other recommendations of staff and the improvements to be
funded by the petitioner, right?
MS.DESELEM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's included in the motion. How
about in the second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That will be included in my second.
I do have another question. Norm?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I don't -- before you,
Commissioner Halas, and then we'll come right back to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm so sorry. Okay.
Page 153
March 13,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's okay. Commissioner Halas,
then you, Donna.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The possible future connection,
how can we make that really be a reality later on so that we don't end
up with someone coming in here and telling us, oh, it might have been
on the chart, but I don't have any knowledge of having to take care of
that? Is that going to be done by the county, or is that going to be
done by the developer in due time?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner -- Mr. Chairman, if
I could, could I answer that since I was the one that negotiated that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you think you have the answer, go
ahead, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The problem is, that this
petitioner does not own the vacant lot across the canal. If the county
were to want to build this interconnect, we would somehow have to
gain control, either purchase or negotiate with the owner of that lot to
build an interconnect over to Yahl Street.
We haven't taken any action on that, so Nick and the staff have
done the right thing to provide the capability to do it for this
petitioner, but we haven't taken the second step to decide how we're
going to get the property owner to the west to participate. And if
you're interested in that, perhaps we should give staff direction to
evaluate how we can make that happen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would almost be separate from
what --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would be separate from this,
yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I think that would be good
direction to give in the future. And I agree with you.
Is there another person who might agree?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's just direction for them to start
Page 154
March 13, 2007
working on it when they're doing their planning. Okay, fine.
Any other comments? Commissioner Fiala? I'm sorry.
You were through, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I'm finished. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Norm, they said that they would
provide this interconnect between here and the industrial section
within a year. Does that -- does that agree with you or do you feel that
it should be built much sooner?
MR. FEDER: The interconnecting road they said that they'll
build sooner if they can get issues through Kohl's, and I understand
they have issues there. The fact that they're committing that within a
year even if Kohl's doesn't go, I think, is appropriate.
The one I was most critically concerned about was the
continuation of what they're calling that frontage road. And I need to
make sure this board understands. It's not a road per se. It is a travel
lane within a parking area, so it's very good access, but I didn't want
you to have this vision of road per se, okay?
But that frontage access, that connection between what is today
Costco's, Best Buy, over to where Lowe's is and across from the
signal, that one they committed to within the 60 days along with the
signal, and that's the most critical one, because then all the other ones
can connect up to that signal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And that will be done in the
right time frame?
MR. FEDER: What they just told you, as I heard it, was 60 days
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right.
MR. FEDER: -- within that, the temporary signal, and that
connection.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Good. Well, I don't see any
Page 155
March 13,2007
more lights on, so we have a motion by myself, a second by
Commissioner Fiala. We've got all the additions added on this. We're
both in agreement on it, and with that, we'll call the question.
All those in favor, indicated by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. And I'm opposed because of
the fact that we're going to add an additional new 1 18,000 square feet
for development.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then let the record show that
it was 4-1, with Commissioner Halas being the opposing vote.
We got--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we need some clarification. Was
that on A or B?
David, do you want to?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, thank you, Jim. It would appear your vote
is appropriately on A, the PUD. And then you will need, with a little
assistance from staff, will then take another motion and vote in regard
to B, the DR!.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So that first motion was to
cover A.
MR. MUDD: A is the DRI --
MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. A is the DRI, pardon me.
MR. MUDD: -- and B is the PUD.
MR. WEIGEL: This is the PUD.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion to approve item B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With the same --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With the same stipulation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I'll second the motion.
Page 156
March 13,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually just the opposite.
We're approving B, the DR!.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm corrected there. It is B, not A.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, we're approving the DR!.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I correct my motion to be item --
MR. WEIGEL: No.
MR. MUDD: Let's make sure we get this straight. 8A is the
DRI, 8B is the PUD amendment, okay. The first -- the first motion
that was made I can only assume was on 8A, the DRI, okay. So we
need a motion for the PUD, which is 8B.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We just did that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Commissioner Coletta,
may I assist you, in his motion, is approving, DOA-2005-AR-8543,
and that's in my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's make sure we're fine. So
I'm the motion maker, you're the second. I thought it was
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. He can be the
second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're -- okay. We'll give you the
second, fine. So we're all clear on where we are?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So the same thing, 4-1, with
Commissioner Halas being the dissenting vote.
Page 157
March 13, 2007
Okay. We started at 1 :30, it's three o'clock now, so we're going
to take a 10-minute break and then right back at it again at five
minutes after three.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Item #10B
TO SEEK BOARD APPROVAL OF A FISCAL YEAR 2007
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $625,000,
INCREASING THE LOAN AMOUNT FROM COLLIER COUNTY
TO THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY
FROM $150,000 TO $775,000 - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO
THE MARCH 27, 2007 BCC MEETING - APPROVED
Commissioner, I believe that brings us to -- we have a three
o'clock, that's right. That brings us to lOB, and that's to seek board
approval of fiscal year 2007 budget amendment in the amount of
$625,000, increasing the loan amount from Collier County to the
Southwest Florida Expressway Authority from 150,000 to 775,000.
And Mr. Don Scott, your director of transportation planning, and
Mr. Bill Barton, will present.
MR. SCOTT: This item is a follow-up to last July when the
original 150,000 was approved by the board. This increase to the total
budget is consistent with what Lee County has currently done to date.
And Bill Barton will present the item.
MR. BARTON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Bill Barton. I'm here today in my capacity as chairman of
the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority.
The item before you is pretty straightforward, and I won't spend
Page 158
March 13, 2007
your time trying to go through that again, but there are several things
that I'd like to make mention and -- as an aside to your consideration
today.
Firstly, let me tell you that I personally am very pleased with the
progress that the Expressway Authority has made. It's hard for me to
believe that we have not yet been in business for a full year. Our
organizational meeting was in May of 2006. And I think we got a
great deal done in that period of time, but we have only scratched the
surface.
Our objective, as you, I think, are well aware, is to see that our
highway, that is 1-75, is improved in Collier and Lee County far
beyond the six-laning that FDOT is about to undertake.
As we have mentioned to you before and as you have read, I'm
sure, when we finish that in the year 2010, that highway will be at
level of service F in its most congested segments, and by 2015, the
entire 35-mile stretch -- I have to rephrase that now. That 35 is no
longer 35, it's 30, because FDOT required five miles to be eliminated.
But our job as the Expressway Authority is to see that road
improved beyond that. And if we haven't got that in place by 2015,
then I personally will consider the Expressway Authority's efforts to
have failed the objective that I certainly, and I think I can speak for the
Authority, have in place. In order for us to do that, obviously, we have
to have this initial seed funding to do that.
I've had several commissioners ask me a question, and I think it's
a very good question, and that is, if this is a loan, when might we
expect it to be repaid? Ifwe move forward with our objective of
having that highway improved to 10 lanes through the congested
segments by 2015, that tells us we have to start that construction
probably in 2011.
If we're to start that in 2011, we've got to be in a position to know
precisely what we're going to do and how we're going to do it by
2009, and that means that we're going to need to find a flow of money
Page 159
March 13,2007
in 2009 to get that accomplished because that will be the point in time
when the design of that segment, those segments of highway, must be
moving forward and, of course, the design and environmental
permitting and other things will cost tens of millions of dollars.
So we're going to need initial funding in probably the 2009
period to cause this all to happen, and it would be out of that initial
funding that I would expect to be able to repay these loans to both
Collier and Lee County.
Where might those initial funds come from? Several sources. As
a for instance, we may find it appropriate to enter into an agreement
with Florida Turnpike Enterprise. If we do, then we would expect
them to come to the table with funds in the 2009 time frame, or we
may find it more appropriate for -- to enter into an agreement with a
private consortium, a concessionaire, if you will.
Historically and typically, those kinds of agreements also will
bring funds to the table early -- long before tolling might go into
place. So there -- we see opportunity to be in a position to repay you
hopefully in 2009.
Finally I want to tell you that what you're considering today has
no bearing and should not have any bearing on any considerations of
tolling lane five and six. That's a totally separate issue. And I will tell
you that our ability to move forward with the 1O-laning is not, I repeat,
is not contingent on tolling lane five and six.
Both our consultants have told us, no, you don't have to have that
revenue to still be able to have 10 lanes in place by the 2014/2015
period. Now, does that suggest I'm taking tolling of lane five and six
off the table? No, it doesn't. I think it's still a valid thing for us to
look at.
But this commission can be assured of one thing -- and I've said
this before, and I'll reemphasize it -- this whole process is a
three-legged stool. The Expressway Authority is one leg, the Collier
County Commission is one leg, and the Lee County Commission is
Page 160
March 13, 2007
one leg.
And we're not going to -- we have no desire or intent -- in fact,
we can't do something such as tolling lane five and six without coming
back to you with a very legitimate reason why that should happen.
And there are those legitimate reasons out there, but I would also
hasten to say that there are also some legitimate concerns that
constrain us from wanting to do that.
So this community will have to come to grips with that, but that's
not an issue today and it shouldn't a part of your concern because that
is an issue we will address in the future, and all of us will have a
chance to look at a lot of pros and cons between now and then.
With that, I would be pleased to try to answer any questions you
may have, and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Bill, we thank you for being here
today. We're going to start off -- we've got one speaker. We're going
to do the one speaker first, then we'll go to discussion with the
. .
commiSSioners.
MS. FILSON: The speaker's Tammie Nemecek.
MS. NEMECEK: Good afternoon. Tammie Nemecek, president
of the Economic Development Council of Collier County. Thank you
for the opportunity to speak today.
Transportation is a huge issue with economic development and
our ability to be able to grow jobs here in Collier County, not only
from a people standpoint -- we know that we have a significant
number of people that commute into our county from Lee County and
do that on 1-75 -- but 12,000 residents actually, according to the last
census number, commute in and use that road as the access point for
the jobs here in Collier County.
In addition to that, one of the targeted clusters that we're working
to grow here in Collier County is distribution, not only from within the
coastal area, but also out in eastern Collier County, and 1-75, again,
becomes a critical point for us to be able to move products in and out
Page 161
March 13,2007
of the community.
So any help that you can provide to help move this item along,
bring it forward in a much more timely manner. We know that we're
probably behind the eight-ball a little bit as we're talking right now
today. Anybody who tries to travel up to Fort Myers can tell you that,
from Collier County.
And so in support of this, knowing that it will be money that will
be repaid to the county at a future point in time, as our chairman has
expressed, I think is a good catalyst from our community standpoint as
well as it being a regional project.
We look for opportunities to leverage dollars not only on a
regional basis that benefit both in order to make this a regional
program and have equal support from the communities that are
participating and being involved in this.
So, again, thank you for your time and consideration of this item
today and expressing the importance from an economic diversification
standpoint to be able to support businesses here in Collier County.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And I think I might have
lost the order here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Halas.
Did you have your light on?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I asked for some information
about -- since 951 wasn't a part of the trip calculations. I asked for
that information thinking it may be an alternative, and until I get that
information, I'm not going to support spending any more money if I
believe there's another alternative besides taking the responsibility of
the federal government to -- oh, you have that, Don? Do I need to do
Page 162
March 13,2007
a public records request to get that?
MR. SCOTT: I just got this in. In our discussion I previously
gave you what was from the PD&E study, and then I gave you a copy
of that bill last week, too. After looking at that it didn't -- it showed
1-75 as an eight-lane facility with a four-lane frontage road, essentially
eight plus four. So it didn't really tell whether -- you know, if you
take -- took -- first of all, it didn't tell you you're taking out 1-75 if you
could get away with, you know, a reduced 1-75.
So separately -- and I just got this in, and that's why I've got
chicken scratch at the top of it -- is a comparison between 1-75 and the
cost feasible plan just by itself, then 1-75 in the cost feasible plan with
four-lane 951 in the second column, and then 1-75 with multiple--
with the four -- essentially the six plus four, and 951 in the third
column, and then without 951 in the fourth column.
And if you look at the difference between the traffic in those
different levels --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you blow it up a little bit,
please? Some of us have got old eyes.
MR. SCOTT: -- it induces a lot of traffic. Essentially, you need
both of them. It doesn't -- it's almost -- in some respects, it takes off of
41, Livingston, some of the other areas like that, but you're still
showing a tremendous amount of traffic on 1-75 even with 951 in
there. It's still showing a need for something wider on 1-75 beyond the
six lanes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, once I view that
information, I may change my stance, but I don't have enough
information right now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, let's move on to
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Barton, I just want to get some
clarification -- that presently FOOT is going to be in the construction
process of adding two additional lanes. That's going to give us six
Page 163
March 13,2007
lanes. Is there any thought of tolling those two lanes that are presently
going to be built?
MR. BARTON: Five and six?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir.
MR. BARTON: Yes. That is under consideration. This was
what I was speaking of earlier, Commissioner, that that's a decision
that is yet to be made and will ultimately be made by this county
commission, the Lee County Commission and finally the Expressway
Authority.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got some real strong
reservations in regards to doing that.
MR. BARTON: Oh, so do we.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let me tell you why. We went to
Washington about three years ago and fought for transportation
dollars, and our Congressman Mack went to the wall for us. And I
don't believe that he was under the impression that we were getting
those funds to build that because it was already taxpayers' dollars that
paid for this, and now we're going to turn around and tax them.
Again. So I would hope that that taxing authority would take that
off the table in regards to the two lanes that are going to be presently
built.
MR. BARTON: First of all, let me -- without sounding smart
aleck or anything, oh, please don't call us a taxing authority. We're an
expressway authority, and our job and idea and concept is to get
highways built, and we -- it would appear to us right now that tolls is
the only way that that's going to happen.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that if we go forward that
there has to be a mechanism that the four lanes to make up the total
count of 10, some way or another that needs -- those four lanes need to
be tolled, but I'm very reluctant in regards to taking the two lanes that
are going to be started in getting built this summer and turning around
and saying now we're going to take those two lanes and put a toll on
Page 164
March 13, 2007
them to start garnering support.
I would hope that there would be another alternative because I
cannot support tolling the two lanes that were fought so desperately
for the citizens here, so --
MR. BARTON: And we share that concern, Commissioner, I
promise you we do. And I personally have spoken to Congressman
Mack, and I can tell you that he has concerns there as well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, he does.
MR. BAR TON: And I know that. I didn't want to take a lot of
your time, but let me tell why you we have not just arbitrarily taken it
off the table.
We have been advised by both of our consultants that tolling four
lanes, and only four lanes, of the 10 does not work. Simply will not
work and we won't build the highway, bottom line. It will get built
sometime in 2030 or later. There simply is not sufficient revenue
coming from those four lanes to build that system.
All right. Having said that, then we are faced with the next
alternative, which is to leave four lanes as general purpose lanes and
toll six. Then it will work. And we -- and it will work under those
conditions as early as 2014, perhaps 2015.
If we are to toll six lanes, then that means that we ultimately,
when we open the 10 lanes, must put tolls on the six lanes that are at
that point in time existing. In other words, the four lanes would be the
-- the four new ones that we would build.
Currently, Florida law prohibits placing a toll on any existing
capacity on interstate highways within the State of Florida. That's
state law, not federal law. That tells us that when we open lane five
and six in 2010, if they are opened as general purpose lanes, then they
immediately become excess capacity, existing capacity, which means
we can't toll them, which means we can't build the road.
Now, how do we -- is there a way to overcome that? Perhaps we
can go to the state legislature and change that legislation. That's a
Page 165
March 13,2007
huge perhaps. That's one of the primary reasons that we have not
taken tolling lane five and six and discarded it as a -- as an undesirable
feature, because when we do that under today's law, we kill the project
dead in its tracks.
Then -- if we're going to do that and ignore that, then don't give
them any more money because we just ought to hang up the
Expressway Authority and say, this can't get done, and quit wasting
my time and quit wasting your time. It just goes away.
So there's some ways that we hope we can get around that, and
we're going to try to do that, but it's going to take some serious state
lobbying because we're going to have to change state law to get that
accomplished.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. BARTON: Or -- and there's some other possibilities, but I
can tell that you that they are grasping at straws a bit. It was
recommended by Secretary Stan Cann, that maybe if we designate
lane five and six as -- as remedial lanes during the construction of
lanes seven through 10, that they might not then be considered as
existing capacity and we might be able to toll them later.
So we are very concerned with the same thing you're concerned
about, and we're not just saying that's the way it is. We're looking for
alternatives.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. BARTON: And we will continue do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess where I'm going with this --
when I look at the amount of money that you're asking for, and rightly
so, my concern also leads us up to Tallahassee and the air that's being
generated up there at the present time, and I'm really not sure how
that's going to fit into the equation, and I hope that County Manager
Mudd, or maybe transportation director, can give me some guidance
in regards to this request of money.
County Manager Mudd, can you elaborate on this?
Page 166
March 13, 2007
MR. MUDD: Are you talking about the request of money for
this half a million dollars?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Uh-huh.
MR. MUDD: Well, it's obvious to me, that if they don't get the
half million dollars, that they're pretty much dead in the water.
They've got half the -- half the pie, so to speak, in what they need in
order to go forward.
I don't envy the predicament that they're in, okay, with state law
and the realities of what they need to have for tolls in order to expand
the six lanes that are -- that are going to be there soon, to 10 lanes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I was getting at is what's on
the -- on the legislative floor at the present time up in Tallahassee.
What kind of effect are we going to be able to meet these obligations
ifthere's some stringent requirements come down in regards to
taxation?
MR. MUDD: Are you asking me if Speaker Rubio's platform
gets approved or a state platform gets approved or the governor's
platform gets approved? I mean, you're asking me to predict in the
future. But I will be -- there will be tax cuts that are mandated by the
state legislatures on the counties and cities and all the other taxing
districts except for the school, as I see it right now.
And I can't tell you if the state legislature is going to give this
authority a grant to help them with the seed money that they need in
order to go forward. That part I can't predict.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But I guess what I'm trying
to get at is where it's going to put us financially. Are we going to give
them this money today or is this going to be in our next budget
process?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I -- from what I see on this agenda
item, they're asking for the monies now to come out of your preserves.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to chime in here for a
Page 167
March 13,2007
moment, being part of this Expressway Authority. It's very simple.
When this first came to us, we'd asked for the full amount. We said,
we'll give you a hundred thousand, come back when you need the rest.
Lee County stepped right up to the plate. They put their full amount
m.
Now, the simple matter is, is that if we do not get approval of this
today and we go back to the Expressway Authority meeting, Lee
County's going to want to know why they're paying the bill for
everyone else.
This Expressway Authority that was founded by Mike Davis to
be able to look at the opportunities that are out there, it will probably
grind to a halt; an opportunity that presents itself is going to be gone.
This will be a problem we'll leave for the next generation. The two
lanes will build -- they'll build it out, they'll be free lanes, and they fail
the day they open. Nothing will change on 75.
This consortium we're talking about putting together, if we get it
going and if we're able to get the toll lanes in there to be able to justity
it, at the point in time three years from now that they complete
construction of the free lanes, we'd be able to start construction on the
remainder or the lane five and six. We'd be able to start construction
following that with the other lanes that are going to be needed to be
able to meet the need.
So effectively, to refuse this request for money today, we'll put
the Expressway Authority, most likely, out of business. I can't picture
Lee County willing to stay with it with just their money riding on it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, Commissioner. The only
problem I have is, as I said, is where the money was -- we were able to
get that out of committee three years ago, transportation committee, to
address this. And I believe that most of the constituents here believe
that those are going to be free lanes, and I have a problem where this
is going to be a toll lane.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're very right to have a problem,
Page 168
March 13,2007
but let me remind you of something. You're not going to see any
more money for 20 to 30 years for any more free lanes, if ever. The
revenue source is dropping off. Gas tax money's falling apart. There's
people in line now waiting for machine money; they've been waiting
for 20 years. It took us 20 years to get the Golden Gate interchange.
You will not see any more money.
So if we aren't going to go forward with it, I'm going to -- I'll
personally recommend we take the whole Expressway Authority and
ask them to disband because it will be fruitless to go any farther. And
then we'll tell the people that are there, you just have to live with this
probably because we're not going to do anything about it. Your
children can figure it out in another 20,30 years from now. We're
nothing -- we're not going to be able to interact.
This is a way to be able to keep it going forward. So, I mean,
today's kind of a water monk. You're either going to carry it forward
and try to find a solution or you're just going to say -- throw up your
hands and hopelessly say, that's it. We can't do anything about it. It's
beyond our control.
Let's go to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are a lot of issues to be
considered here and there are a lot of uncertainties in our future. Not
only do we have the potential improvements which might result from
any Immokalee bypasses that we might some day get funded, but there
is talk of a Heartland Expressway which certainly would be an
alternate route for 1-75 for many people but certainly not the locals.
And since we know that four toll lanes won't work and we're
going to have to go to six toll lanes, there are uncertainties about state
law as to whether or not we can actually even do that.
We have a bill in the Senate which will restrict our ability to
collect impact fees early which means that we're going to have to step
up to the plate and find some way of getting more money to allocate to
roads to meet the requirements of our current construction plans, and
Page 169
March 13,2007
then when you throw in the extreme uncertainty of property tax
reforms being discussed in Tallahassee, I think we are put in a position
where there's no way that we can even begin to provide funding for
this.
I -- I'm sad to admit it, but I think the Tollway Authority's dead.
I think we may as well just abandon it and say we've tried. There are
just too many things in the works that create uncertainties. We're
beginning to talk about real money here, and we're talking about,
County Manager, a reduction of, what, 50 percent in our revenues if
these property tax reform measures go through as currently proposed.
We don't think they will, but I think we can all bet there's going to be
a reduction, a substantial reduction, in our revenues.
And to go ahead and begin funding something like this when we
do not have a termination strategy -- we don't know if we even
proceed with this, if we'll be able to do it. So without a firmer grasp
of what we're going to achieve and when, I simply cannot support any
more funding for the toll authority, and I would strongly recommend
we just kill the whole thing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. As you know, I
was the one that voted against it originally, and I was hoping that you
could find another way to do this. I think if you were telling us you
definitely wouldn't be tolling five and six, I think you'd get a different
reaction up here. Maybe ifthere was a way for us to request dollars.
All of the toll money that's now being collected on Alligator
Alley and sent off to other areas, maybe it should be staying right here
in our own area right in Collier County. They're collecting it in
Collier County. And it could be used to start to build those toll roads,
the two -- rather the four lanes that needs to be built, but these two, I
don't think, should ever be tolled.
And by us allocating money for you to move ahead when I know
I couldn't even vote for it, I could never vote for tolling these free
Page 170
March 13,2007
lanes that we already have the money for, it seems like a waste of
dollars unless you can find another way. I know we're hearing doom
and gloom, but a lot of times when you get down to the bottom of the
pits, you come up with some inspirations of other ways to find that toll
dollar. And maybe by looking at the Alligator Alley dollars and
requesting those, you can do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, would you comment on
the Alligator Alley dollars. It's not exactly a local revenue source.
MR. FEDER: You've got tolls on the alley. A lot of that's
converted to save the Everglades or Everglades Forever Act, a lot of
the tolls coming off the alley other than operations and maintenance.
Commissioners, I'll just throw out to you for consideration.
Right now I'm squeezing the pennies together to try and figure out
how I'm going to respond to a shortfall that I mentioned to you already
in my work program.
Having said that and knowing that impact fees probably won't
increase enough, that I'll have to be addressing other issues to try and
respond when I get back to you with that information, the amount of
dollars you're talking about to try and keep this effort going, I'm very
concerned about us pulling away from at this point, and I'll tell you
why.
When we mentioned 29 in those options, and we mentioned some
of the other issues that mayor may not come about, they are going to
require a level of funding that doesn't exist. We're going to have to be
looking at tolls.
If the state goes the route that we're worried, it's going to be even
more so. They're going to have to find a way to make tolls work with
transportation in Florida and in Collier County even.
So what I'm telling you is right now the prospects are, I can't
make the system work if 1-75 continues to fail, and it's been failing,
and six lanes won't make it work.
Do I think it's a good idea to talk about tolling the fifth and sixth?
Page 171
March 13,2007
No, I do not. But at the same time, if you come forward with
information and you show that tolling six lanes, including tolling fifth
and sixth, is something that the public supports, that may be the only
way we're going to get the 10-lane cross section anywhere near the
time that the demand and that need is there, and I'm not sure how you
toll 29. I'm not sure that 951 is going to get tolled anytime soon with
all the environmental issues and the sort.
So what I'm saying to you is, it's still a lot of money. But in the
scheme of things, it's very few dollars to take the effort to continue.
This group started much too late. I think we all know what
happened and the like. There's a lot of options that probably got
knocked off the table from them. I think they're continuing to move.
Now, that's just my own personal opinion, but I do want to make
sure that we're aware that while these dollars are significant, I'd like to
tell you some things I could do with it, including a few things I think
people on the board are waiting for me to get an answer to so they get
done.
But having said that, I think disbanding the Expressway
Authority, abandoning this issue at this point in time, doesn't leave us
with any answers. And if all of the things you're worried about start to
come to fruition, the only answer is going to be tolls.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I may, yesterday I met with
Mr. Berman from the U.S. Department of Transportation, and I got
into a deep discussion with him about tolls and how it's going, and
they expect that more and more of our interstates are going to be tolled
in the future, simple reason is is they can't come up with the money to
be able to cover the cost of doing it.
So this is not something that's brand new. It's being done in other
parts of the country. There is not a revenue stream. As strapped as we
are for money, the federal government and the state government, when
it comes for roads, are strapped for money. We're not going to see any
more funds for another 20, 30 years. The competition out there is
Page 172
March 13, 2007
tremendous.
We don't have the ability to do it in-house. Now, ifthere's some
level of un-comfort with how the people are going to feel out there,
my suggestion would be is to finance the authority until November
with the idea being, that when November comes, the state's going to
have a couple of initiatives on the ballots and we can ask for that to be
put on the ballot for Lee County and Collier County so the voters out
there can make the choice whether this happens or doesn't happen.
I've been already talking to numerous groups out there, small
groups of people, in some cases as much as 50 or 60. And when they
are -- you explain the situation to them and exactly what they are
going to be up against, the predominant opinion is, is do what you
have to do to make sure those lanes are going to be ready for travel
and that you're going to meet our needs now and in the future.
If we stop now, the only thing you're going to see is three years
of construction with nothing that's going to continue past that point,
and we'll be sitting back and we'll be talking about all the great glory
stories about how Washington's going to come up with the money in
about another five, six years or 10 years and who's seen so and so and
how the study's going to done. It's going to be so far off in the future
that the next generation's just about going to lose the ability to be able
to enjoy it. This generation for sure.
That's a suggestion. Keep that in mind as we go through this
deliberation today, because from what I'm hearing now, there isn't
enough support to give them the money. Ifwe go back to the meeting
on Thursday and we tell them Collier County's out of this, they're not
going to give you another dime. Lee County has no reason to stay with
it.
So maybe something in the way of an interim budget to get us to
November, put it to the voters, and then they can make the choice, and
I'll have no problem living with it if they say they don't want to do it.
But I can almost tell you, when they get through weighing all the
Page 173
March 13, 2007
consequences, you're going to find the public very supportive to be
sure of the fact that they're going to have a transportation corridor on
1-75 that will work.
And this is just the beginning. From here they're probably going
to pick this up and continue it all the way up to Sarasota in future
years as time goes by. It's about the only way you're going to be able
to meet the demand.
And if you've got this tolling authority in place, the revenue that
comes from that, we can use it to do such things as 951, to be able to
do that expansion from Immokalee Road even though at the moment
in time it's not part of the enabling ordinance. That could be changed.
There's a lot of possibilities of what we can do with what we have
together with the authority.
Mind you, it took three years to get this authority together. So if
we give it a sudden death and you want to resurrect it next year, you're
going to have to wait three more years before that happens. By that
time, 1-75 will be done, and then the opportunity for tolling will be
gone.
So the decision's yours. It's mighty quiet around here.
Questions? Suggestions?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, again, I understand the
dilemma we're in, but just because the federal government has failed
doesn't mean that the burden needs to be put on -- all the burden needs
to be put on the taxpayers in Southwest Florida.
I believe that the federal government has an obligation to figure
out how they're going to work with refurbishing the federal highway
transportation network and to make sure that there's money there.
Obviously, they were able to accomplish a huge undertaking up in the
northeast.
And I'm concerned that when I look at the transportation dollars
coming back here to Florida, we're only getting 92 cents on the dollar.
Page 174
March 13, 2007
And I'm surprised that with the growth rate that this state is
experiencing throughout the whole state, that we don't get at least a
buck and a quarter back, and I'm surprised that the State of Florida
hasn't been up in Washington hammering on this possibility.
So here we are. We've been giving a number of dollars to the
national transportation authority and we finally were able to procure
those funds that were long needed here, and now those are tax dollars
that people have paid for a number of years, and now we want to turn
around and toll it. And it just -- I got a problem with it.
I would hope that the Expressway Authority would look at other
options, and I can't believe that if you toll four lanes, it's not -- it's not
cost feasible. With the rapid growth that we're experiencing here in
Southwest Florida, I got to believe that just tolling those four lanes
would, in due time -- it would take a little bit longer, but I would think
tolling of just those four lanes they want to build, that in due time they
would pay off the obligations in regards to that.
And I hate to put two lanes that the people here are pretty much
under the impression that they paid for already -- and they should have
access to it, so maybe your plan would be, Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- Coyle -- or Coletta, that, you
know, we put this on the ballot. But in the meantime, I'm not sure
whether we ought to table this item until about six, eight weeks after
we find out what the ramifications are going to be up in Tallahassee.
I would feel a lot -- I'll tell you, I'd have a warm and fuzzy
feeling when I'd find out that a lot of the things that are being
discussed now would go -- fall off the -- off to the wayside, and
hopefully then we can resume business as normal and address the
transportation issues that are coming before us in the future here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And if! may, I'm going to
comment on this. I have no problem with putting it off. I think
possibly what we're lacking here is education. Bill and I have been
Page 175
March 13,2007
through the educational process with the consultants. We've seen all
the numbers in the graph. Not only our consultants, but the
Throughway Authority, who came up with, independently, the same
conclusions that can be arrived at. I'm sorry that you're not made
privilege of that here today. It's something that's out there.
But what I'd like to do -- and this is just so we don't make a rash
decision that we're going to regret forever -- and I know we will. And
one of the things I'm going to do is carve on my tombstone, I told you
so. But that's not going to serve anybody any good.
We can blame the federal government, we can blame the state
government, but here you've got a chance to do something yourself to
be able to make a difference. The investment's another $650,000.
Money you can probably get back when we can get this thing going.
You already got $100,000 in it that you're just going to toss to the
wayside and say, well, that was a nice idea but we're not going to go
any farther because we don't know what they're going to do up in
Tallahassee.
Let's catch our breath on this. Let's continue it. Let's have a --
either a workshop or bring it back to the next meeting when we can
have a presentation to show you the logic that's behind it. And if --
failing that, then let's take a vote.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought maybe we should
continue this till we find out what the final vote is going to take place
up in Tallahassee before we continue on with this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, yeah. Help me with this,
Commissioner Halas, because I'm having a terrible time trying to find
out how Tallahassee figures in something as big as 75, ajob that's
going to be $2 billion that's not going to come from Tallahassee. It's
either going to come from private providers or the Throughway
Authority, money that they're going to bring forward and bring in
there and get paid back over a period of time through the tolls.
So I'm a little bit lost on it. Now, I understand about how much
Page 176
March 13,2007
that 750- or in this case $650,000 means to us with our budget now.
But, you know, we're at a junction now. We have to make a decision.
I'm going to make a motion to move this to the next meeting, to
continue this to the next meeting for more information to become
available. And I sure hope that my fellow commissioners support this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right. I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Commissioner
Fiala.
Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor of continuing this
item to the next meeting, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING. (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show that the
vote was 4-1 ( sic) with Commissioner Coy Ie being -- dissenting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 3-1.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry, 3-1. Okay. I'm sorry.
It's normally not that quiet. I should have realized he was gone.
Bill, you've got your work cut out for you.
MR. BARTON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But at least it's still got a kicking
chance.
MR. BARTON: Tell me where to start.
MR. SCOTT: I will mention the first discussion that we -- later
on this week at the joint MPO, we'll also be discussing the
Expressway Authority issues, so.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is a time certain, and
Page 177
March 13, 2007
may I make a recommendation because you have a lot of people.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you do, Bill's got some
closing comments.
MR. BARTON: If! may--
MR. MUDD: Absolutely.
MR. BARTON: -- interrupt just a moment. I'm going to need
some help on trying to know precisely -- I know I think most of your
questions. But if we can pinpoint them so that we can make
information more available to you then apparently we have up to this
point.
But my closing comment is this, you know, we are concerned
about tolling and the monies that Southwest Floridians may have to
pay for expanding this highway. But I can tell you this,
Commissioners, the amount of money this community is going to have
to pay over the next two decades if we don't do something will dwarf
the tolls beyond all recognition.
The monies that it will cost us in economics, in kids trying to get
to college, in workers trying to get back and forth between Fort Myers
and Naples, those dollars are going to dwarf whatever the tolls might
be more than I can possibly imagine. We will -- if we fail, we will
have done this community a real disservice.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, Bill. Thank you so much.
Commissioner Fiala, and then we're going to get on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Although that's a doom and
gloom statement there, I also feel if we didn't do -- if we went ahead
and just did this, we might -- and toll them, we might never get any
more appropriation from our federal government. Right now I think
they're watching very closely. They've given us, what was it, $81
million towards this thing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ninety-two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: $82 million.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ninety-two.
Page 178
March 13,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ninety-two toward this road, and if
we then toll their money, I don't think we'd ever see any more.
Speaking of doom and bloom.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Bill, may I suggest that you try to
reach out to Connie Mac and Mario Diaz Balart and see if they would
like to make some comments for the next meeting? Thank you very
much. Appreciate it.
Mr. Mudd, before we go to the next item, can we jump ahead a
little bit? We've got one item we can get up and over with real quick,
and it's the Goodland issue. I believe they want to continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They want to come up and just
make a statement and then -- well, they'll tell you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're going to go to 10F.
Item #10F
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS (BCC) BY MR. GREG BELLO, A MEMBER
OF THE GOODLAND PRESERVATION COALITION (GPC),
PERTAINING TO THE COALITIONS RECOMMENDED
AMENDMENTS TO THE GOOD LAND ZONING OVERLAY
(GZO) ALONG WITH OTHER ASSOCIATED COMMUNITY
DATA - MOTION TO CONTINUE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: That's a presentation to the Board of County
Commissioners by Mr. Greg Bello, a member of the Goodland
Preservation Coalition pertaining to the conditions recommended that
-- to the coalition's recommended amendments to the Goodland zoning
overlay along with other associated community data.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. BELLO: Thank you. For the record, my name is Greg
Bello. Thank you, Chairman Coletta, fellow commissioners and staff.
Page 1 79
March 13, 2007
Just a quick note. There's a correction to the agenda. I'm here
actually to address you as a member of the Goodland Zoning Overlay
Amendment Committee. We're made up of five individuals, Mike
Hagera (phonetic), who's the president of Drop Anchor Trailer Co-op;
Cleave Smith, who's the president of the Calusa Island Village; Emily
Lake, who's vice-president of the Goodland Preservation Coalition;
Matt Fin; and myself, Greg Bello, who's the treasurer of the Goodland
Civic Association.
We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to appear before you
today. Our intention was to present to you today a final wording
submittal for an amendment to the Goodland zoning overlay.
Upon receipt of 161 surveys to date, 48 percent of the 333
surveys distributed in consideration of the variety of answers chosen,
we are very encouraged by our community's desire to address issues
such as side setbacks for combining lots, maximum air-conditioned
square feet, formulation of a Goodland advisory board, future building
standards, and grandfathering, if necessary, for our 49 property
owners who may be considered to be non-conforming and possibly
unable to rebuild following a disaster.
We feel there is strong support from our fellow Goodlanders for
continuing this process and proceeding with an even more definitive
survey in a less hurried manner.
This survey can be performed in a manner that would allow for
more time for thoughts and responses to very specific questions
formulated by the information we've gained from our most recent
survey.
Our committee on a vote 5-0 would like to have the opportunity
to submit our amendment language during the next LDC cycle,
starting August 15th of2007, if that's acceptable with the
commissioners and Mr. Schmitt.
Our committee's goal for August 15th, LDC cycle, is to have all
surveys to have full signatures, handwritten names and current phone
Page 180
March 13,2007
numbers. We hope to obtain very specific answers to very specific
questions, eliminating any ambiguity in the interpretation of the
responses.
We're going to attempt to get a larger percent of the population
response from the property owners since decision making and
response time will be increased; however, we're very pleased with the
48 percent response that we were able to get on this last survey.
By continuing this until the August 15th LDC cycle, this brief
delay in the process would allow our committee to present a strong
community-supported GZO amendments language that the board
would be very satisfied with and willing to support.
Our intention is to show clearly the support of our community for
our GZO amendment request, thus alleviating any apprehension for
the commissioners.
Commissioner Fiala attended our community meeting last night
and has offered her staff to assist us with the mailings and tabulations
of the future survey. This was very well received by the majority of
the attendees and will alleviate any apprehension in the community
regarding the validity of this process.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Greg. I just have to
jump in and say, I offered my staff if! get permission from the
commissioners to do that, as I mentioned to you guys last night.
MR. BELLO: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And also what they were asking.
They've gotten some very, very good responses, but one of the things
they noted -- this is why they want to continue it to a later meeting.
They were hoping to get in on this cycle --
MR. BELLO: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but they're going to put it off till
the next cycle because they feel that there was some ambiguity. That's
what was mentioned. Like, for instance, when it was talking about
Page 181
March 13,2007
green space and people didn't know what green space was, so they
didn't know what to answer.
They were talking about building heights but they weren't sure
where they were measured from. They really needed more help in
forming the questions. They felt they needed to make it a clearer
survey. And also they mentioned that they would like the county to
send the surveys out rather than them so there's no question about
who's getting them.
I said, who's going to pay for it? They said, they'll pay for it. I
said, taxpayers aren't going to pay it? They said, no, no. We'll pay for
you to send out the surveys. And if you could help us to form the
words, that would help us a lot, too.
So what they're actually doing here today is just asking to
continue this to a later date and maybe for some help from the county,
but they'll pay us to send these things out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I'm going to make a
motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But, Commissioner, I
don't -- you have different size lots, and they need to be equal in how
they can use their property. So if we're shifting a burden, I don't think
I could support that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, actually they're not. They're
really --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. That's fine. I mean,
what I -- the correspondence that I seen was something like 13,000
square feet or something on these double lots or whatever. But
anyways, that's what I'll be looking for, and Commissioner Coyle
wants to speak after me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. Okay. I have to admit I
am really confused. Never in the history of mankind has a community
so small been represented by so many different associations. I see a
Page 182
March 13, 2007
different group of people here every time we discuss this issue.
Is -- do you represent all of the associations and preservation
society and everything else and -- you're speaking for them, all of
those organizations?
MR. BELLO: Right. Can I clarity something? This is a
community that's diversified. We have a group of people that live in a
trailer co-op. We have a group of people that live in a condominium
which is the Calusa Island Village. We had -- we wanted to formulate
a committee of people that weren't of one group, okay.
And intentionally we tried to get people from these different
groups. These groups are small. And when we bring up these groups,
it's not like -- there's only, you know, how many residents on this
whole little island; however, we understand in the past there's been
contention and there's been division and there's been a lot of anxiety
on this island from different previous issues.
This time around we want to alleviate that. We're trying to show
and demonstrate to you guys and to our community that this is a group
of people that don't have an agenda. This is about the betterment of
this little island.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You mean this group right here?
MS. LAKE: May I speak?
MR. BELLO: She's on our committee. Emily's on our
committee.
MS. LAKE: May I speak?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How many people are there from
your group today? Two people.
MS. LAKE: Because not everybody in Goodland is retired.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask, if you're going to
address us, to come up to the podium because they can't pick it up for
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: State your name for the record first.
Page 183
March 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's not an important issue.
It's just confusing to me because I see different people coming here, in
here talking about the same thing, taking sometimes the same position,
sometimes opposite positions on what you ought to do.
Let me just tell you. I know that Commissioner Fiala has gone --
went through this with you at the last meeting, but this is a process
that is very, very tricky.
Just the format of the surveys and the format of the questions that
you send out can lead to confusion and controversy at the end. People
will then say, well, you misinterpreted my answer or the question was
worded in a misleading fashion.
Other people will say they never received the mailings. That's
why you've got to send them out registered mail so that you get a
receipt that shows that you sent them all out.
So the wording of these questionnaires must be -- should be
vetted with county staff who have had experience going through these
things before. They should be sent to the owner of record, not just to
whoever's living in the house.
And then when you get the responses back, you've got to
development some kind of plan or statement on which they can vote
then. As I understand it, now you're collecting information about what
they'd like to see in this overlay or this Growth Management Plan
amendment.
So you're wise to -- you're wise to delay it, postpone it, because a
lot of work has to be done here. And I would -- I would try to
discourage you from coming back until you've got all those things laid
out and you're sure you've got 50 plus one -- 50 percent plus one vote
of all of the property owners affected by this.
And at that point in time, we can do something. And I think we'd
feel comfortable doing it then, but without that, I don't want to get
involved in another one of these controversies about whether or not
the survey was misleading, the questions were properly written, they
Page 184
March 13,2007
weren't mailed to the right address and so on and so on. We've heard
this time and time again, and it just -- it hurts the community and it
really messes us up too.
So anyway, I'm going to vote for the continuance, but I think
what you -- I don't know if August will give you enough time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: State your name for the record.
MS. LAKE: Sorry. My name is Emily Lake. I live at 425
Mango. We do have a very wide buy-in in the community. As Greg
said, we have people from Calusa Village, the brand-new
half-million-dollar condos when you first come into Goodland. There
are over 60 units at the Drop Anchor Trailer Co-op. Very small units,
very modest homes, but very important to the people who live there.
There are people in the Goodland Preservation Coalition, people
from the civic association, and we also have a member at large. The
five committee members represent those five areas.
We have had discussions with Mr. Weigel and have also received
some assistance from his assistant, Marjorie Student-Stirling. We've
had three public meetings so far, well attended, February 8th,
February 12th and February 15th to gather information from people.
We sent out surveys using the county tax rolls on February 20th.
Now, realizing that the address on many of the tax rolls are people's
northern address because the taxes get sent out in the fall, the mail has
had to go to their northern address. They've had big snowstorms and
the mail hashadtobeforwardedtotheirresidenceinGoodland.So
the surveys that were tabulated were as of eight a.m. yesterday
mornmg.
All the surveys were counted and tabulated by myself with two
other people and have already been turned into Ms. Student-Stirling's
staff last Thursday and Monday. At that time they started calling to
verity that the people had filled out the surveys.
What the surveys have enabled us to do -- the questions were
broad because we're looking basically for a yes or no answer down the
Page 185
March 13, 2007
road. First, we wanted to determine interest. For instance, one
question was, as Mr. Coletta had said, he would support an advisory
board. Well, we did ask.
Sixty-four percent support an advisory board, 36 do not. The
next question that we would send out in the survey, we would have
different options, different things that the advisory board could
address. But first it was important to determine whether or not there
was any support for an advisory board. And after watching --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we just get this in writing,
please?
MS. LAKE: Oh, yes, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. We're going
to move on.
MS. LAKE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a motion and a second,
just like you wanted.
MS. LAKE: Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And just put it in writing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do have two other commissioners
that want to speak very briefly, if you're through, Commissioner
Henning.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll just be brief. I've had the same
concerns as my fellow commissioner, Commissioner Coyle, and that
is, I get mixed messages daily, email messages in regards to what the
community wants, and I can assure you I had baptism by fire in
regards to a community that thought that they wanted to go ahead and
do some reconstruction of their community, and 10 and behold we
didn't get enough. And we sent out surveys and we sent out -- and the
surveys come back, they said that we fixed the surveys, that the
county was here and had a conspiracy going on. I just don't want to
get involved in that. So I hope that you can get even more than 50
Page 186
March 13,2007
percent of the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- of the people.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to remove my motion,
okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't remove your motion. I just
want to ask --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Be patient. This is very
important to some people.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: County Attorney, is it 50 percent
plus one of the votes received or 50 percent plus one of the property
owners, and then we can go away?
MR. WEIGEL: It's whatever standard that you set, because the
50 percent plus one is, in essence, a minimum threshold. As stated
earlier, Mr. Coyle indicated, 50 percent plus one of the property
owners, but it can be 50 percent and more of other standards if you
wish to apply them.
But just because any group coming forward hits that threshold of
50 percent plus one does not mean anything automatic in regard to
approvals or procedures by the board to advance their cause that they
bring forward. But at this point it would appear to be 50 percent plus
one of the property owners.
Ms. Lake has indicated that during the 1999 work that the county
did relating to the overlay that it ultimately was 50 percent plus one or
more than 50 percent of those who responded that were owners.
That's yet to be confirmed. But as of this point right now, as you
stated today and as you stated previously, it was 50 percent plus one
of the owners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, you'll probably get a better
response if it's of the votes because owners, of course, those are going
out of town now because many are going to be leaving town, it will be
hard to reach them, and then you're going to have a problem, and then
Page 187
March 13,2007
there was a little movement by a couple little radical groups there who
said, don't answer anything and then we won't have to be worried
about any percentage.
And, of course, if that movement goes on, that really destroys it.
On top of that, they're trying to reach some of the owners that live out
of state and can't find them. So I don't know how you derive that --
and I don't want to belabor this any longer, but maybe we can meet
and discuss this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. A motion to continue?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion to continue from
Commissioner Coletta, second from Commissioner Fiala. 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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And they ayes have it, 5-0. Thank
you very much for being here.
MS. LAKE: Thank you.
Item #100
RECOMMENDA TION TO ENDORSE THE DESIGN AND
Page 188
March 13,2007
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE OF THE LEL Y AREA
STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP) PHASE lA;
PROJECT NO. 511011-APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have a 1330 time certain. It's
a recommendation to endorse the design and construction scheduled
with Lely --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's 1530, right?
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 1530.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, that's 3:30. I'm sorry, ma'am. I had a--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, you said 1330, so I'm just
telling you it's 1530.
MR. MUDD: 1530, you're right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Military time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I figured we might as well
correct a military guy.
MR. MUDD: I had a lapse. The -- and may I make a
recommendation that after we hear this item that we get to the 12B,
because I believe you have a lot of people that want to talk about the
boat speeds, if that's what the board would like to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
MR. MUDD: This is 100.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 10 what?
MR. MUDD: 100.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: David, okay.
MR. MUDD: David.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Delta.
MR. MUDD: This is -- this is a recommendation to endorse the
design and construction schedule of the Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project, LASIP, phase lA, project number 511011, and
Page 189
March 13, 2007
Mr. Gene Calvert, your director of stormwater from transportation
division, will present.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right now at this time we have a
motion for approval from Commissioner Henning and a second from
Commissioner Coyle. So let's do this. Let's go right to the questions
we may have, unless you want to hear a presentation. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, we have speakers.
MS. FILSON: We have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Some people want to talk us out of
doing this, okay.
MS. FILSON: Would you like me to call them now, sir?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, why don't we go ahead.
MS. FILSON: Angela Miller. She'll be followed by Michael
Marsh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll ask you to state your name for the
record, please.
MS. MILLER: Angela Miller. Queens Park resident. Good
afternoon, Commissioners, and thank you for hearing me.
I am sad and very frustrated to have to be here today. This
should not have been necessary had the storm water staff been honest
and forthcoming with information and had worked to arrive at a
compromise with the homeowners of Queens Park.
Instead, Queens Park homeowners have met with a lack of
flexibility, empathy, and frankly the runaround.
The staffs presentation mentioned that three public meetings to
discuss this matter with affected homeowners have been held. This is
not true. The first meeting the staff refers to for this project was the
meeting at St. Peters Church for the FP&L greenway project where
the LASIP project was a last-minute add-on and not legally noticed. I
don't know the -- any of the affected homeowners who went to this
meeting.
Page 190
March 13,2007
The second meeting staff refers to was right here in the chambers
and came after several of my neighbors called Commissioner Fiala to
ask for more information.
I received a letter of notice for the meeting three days before it
was to happen, while other neighbors received their letters one day
before the meeting.
The meeting was presented at 100 percent design plan. Near the
end of the meeting, Commissioner Fiala told staff they should address
our major concerns, which were narrowing the profile of the canal and
providing a protective barrier in the form of a fence.
A couple days after that, an informal meeting was held at one of
neighbors' homes, and I assumed this is the third meeting the staff
refers to. If the stormwater staff cannot be honest with you on a
simple subject like how many meetings were held, how can we or you
trust them to be forthcoming about anything else?
I know that this project is badly needed and has been many years
in the making. I'm not interested in stopping or slowing down this
project. Aside from reporting the total lack of cooperation from the
staff, I have three concerns. First, the profile of the canal should be as
narrow as possible.
At the meeting for homeowners by staff in these chambers, we
were shown several profiles or widths of canal cross-sections. When
we asked why we could not have the more narrow sections, we were
told it was simply a matter of cost.
The stormwater staff has -- story changed since then. Something
about percolation rates. But at that time it was just about the money,
and Commissioner Fiala directed the staff to look into a compromise
on the width.
Secondly, we need protection from the increased vulnerability
that we will face from animals and humans.
County code dictates several rules regarding the safety of pools
in the county. Most noticeably are the requirement for pool cages and
Page 191
March 13, 2007
elevated door latches. These are good rules and are in place for
families with small children, obviously, but some of my neighbors
will be able to take six or seven steps outside their pool cage and fall
into a canal. That is why we are requesting some type of protective
barrier in the form of a fence or a wall.
Commissioner Fiala, again, I ask -- asked staff to look into
making this happen. The next communication we received from staff,
which were completed plans, stated there would be no change in the
width of the canal and there would be no fence, as we only wanted it
for aesthetic reasons.
Can I -- I believe that we wanted to -- they believe that we
wanted a fence to make things look pretty. That's actually more
disturbing than them just misrepresenting the desires of the
homeowners.
Lastly, we've been trying to get a straight answer on the land we
will be losing. The easement does give the county the right to use that
land, but in this case they are physically taking the dirt that is ours.
First we were told we would not be compensated for the fill --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I need for you to wrap it up, ma'am.
MS. MILLER: Yeah, I'm done. At the end of the last
commission meeting Mr. Feder advised resident Mr. Marsh that he
would help us find a buyer for our fill. Certainly with the extreme
shortage offill for Collier County projects and the current rate of$430
per truckload, there is need and compensation for our fill due to the
homeowners who have been paying taxes on this dirt for years. Surely
it's earmarked for continuing and future projects. Don't you agree we
should be compensated for the taking and use of our dirt?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Michael Marsh. He will be
followed by Dick Tilley.
MR. MARSH: Okay. My name is Michael Marsh. I'm a Queens
Park resident on 5351 Berkeley Drive, and I spoke to you a couple
Page 192
March 13,2007
weeks ago at the last meeting.
And I just want to comment again that there are no canals or
stormwater ditches that come this close to homes in Collier County.
I've flown numerous flights in this county and haven't seen it.
And the homeowners are asking for a simple request. We're not
-- again, we're not asking to stop the project or even reroute the
stormwater ditch. But we're just asking to make it narrower.
Half of the ditch is already narrow down by the church. Why
can't they continue to narrow the ditch with the 30 extra homes that
are affected by the project?
If the project is 2-1 grade, again, why can't the rest of it have the
same grade? The project was presented to us with three options. It
was 2-1 grade to 3- I grade with the stormwater culvert, which is
completely buried, which would actually eliminate all of this.
If you had a culvert in there, there would be no safety issues,
there would be no homeowners up here talking, it would just be a
done-deal.
Also there's the issue with our fill. And at the last meeting Norm
Feder admitted to me that it was our fill and he was trying to find a
buyer for it. So, you know, there are issues that are not resolved that
need to be worked out before they start digging. That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dick Tilley.
MR. TILLEY: Good afternoon, and thanks for the opportunity to
come before you.
Some of the speakers ahead of me have already expressed a lot of
my concerns, the same as the rest of my neighbors'. There's things
that I would like to address, is simply that I'm new to the
neighborhood since June. My understanding is that people that have
lived there for 18 to 20 years have never seen the existing canal that is
there now ever come to the banks other than very close, but twice in
maybe 18, 20 years.
Page 193
March 13, 2007
Again, I feel that the narrowing of the grade would take less of
our property, take the construction a little bit further away from our
homes, which would then lessen the chance of damage to our pools,
walls, which, of course, I believe the county would be responsible for
should any damage take place from the vibration of the heavy
equipment.
I'm just asking the council, the commission, please, to consider
giving us a little give -- let's have a little give and take here. Basically
go ahead and take what you need to get this project done and get what
you need from it, but don't take it all. Don't take more than you need
to take.
So if narrowing the canal means taking less, it's going to please
the rest of us in the neighborhood, and the give part is, just -- I ask that
you give us a little consideration, all of the homeowners a little
consideration, the same consideration that you would probably give to
a similar project if it was taking place in your own back yard. And
thanks again for letting me speak.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the easement -- we're not
take the whole easement over there. That's been laid out since the
previous storm water director was there and developing the Lely
drainage basin.
But I -- let me just clarity my motion, that you proceed as the
board directed prior. But here's the caveat of the motion, is you get a
signed release from the property owners on that easement on whether
they want the dirt or whether they want you to haul it off for them,
okay? You understand? If they want that dirt, put it on their property.
If they don't want to retain that dirt, haul it off. But we want
something in writing to make sure that there's a clear understanding,
Page 194
March 13,2007
okay?
MR. CALVERT: For the record, Gene Calvert. Commissioner,
if I could clarity that. I just need to find the proper method to do this.
If they refuse to sign anything, how do we handle that? Do we do it
through registered mail, I suspect?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's ask Mr. Teach, because I
think we need something that doesn't cause the county a problem in
the future. But Mr. Teach is right behind you and maybe he can
assist.
MR. TEACH: Commissioners, this is a subject that we've been
looking at not only in relation to this project, but for others for quite a
while now here in the county.
In Florida there's really -- we looked at cases to see ifthere's any
analogous situation covering this situation, and really there's a split of
authority. Nothing really definite whether the landowner owns that
excavated material or whether the agency removing it is the owner.
I found cases that cut both ways. Most recently I found one very
analogous, an out-of-state jurisdiction that said that if the agency, such
as county in this case, uses the -- removes the excavated material
because it's reasonable and necessary to enjoy the easement that was
granted, then the agency is the owner of that fill, as long as they don't
go beyond the easement.
In this case the easement that has been dedicated was dedicated
by plat. We don't have specific language they says they convey the
dirt. We do have some easements along this project where it says that
the excavated material belongs to the agency. So it's a little bit
different situation.
We explored and viewed the possibility of a release such as
you're describing. It's something that I've looked at, something that I
considered and that we considered in this situation.
The contract for this states that the agency, the county, is the
owner of the excavated material and that we would take it off
Page 195
March 13,2007
premises. I think Mr. Feder and the transportation division was trying
to make some sort of accommodation as to whether they could assist
or, as a compromise means, to possibly selling off the fill.
I don't know whether this is -- and the engineers and whatnot
could tell you whether this is a grade of fill that could even be sold;
however, the contract does provide that it can be reused where
necessary along the project.
And the case -- most of the case law says that as long as you're
reusing the fill on another portion of the project, it doesn't have to go
-- be removed from homeowner A and be replaced on homeowner A.
It could be homeowner Z, then that's a proper use of the fill. And we
are going to be re-circulating and reusing some of the material that we
excavate in this case.
So it wouldn't be difficult to identity how much we're removing,
but it may be more difficult because some of it may subsequently be
used elsewhere in the project. I mean, I'd be happy to look into your
concerns if, you know, the board's direction is such.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it sounds like you looked
into it.
MR. TEACH: We did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know the law.
MR. TEACH: We did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think you assisted me, so
I'm going to remove my stip.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Gene, kind of refresh my
memory if you can a little bit. Is this land -- does it belong to the
people, the residents, or does it belong to the county?
MR. CAL VERT: The strip of land that we're discussing here in
Queens Park is actually part of the subdivision, so it's part of their lot
in their descriptions. The easement is 80-foot wide easement on the
back side of their lot. Their lot's 170 feet wide or deep, and this is an
Page 196
March 13,2007
easement that's 80 feet on the back side of it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. This was -- this easement
was given to the county; is that correct?
MR. CALVERT: That's correct. This is part of the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: At the time that this was being
built, this subdivision; is that correct?
MR. CAL VERT: At the time the plat was dedicated, it was
given to the county for a drainage easement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Did the residents realize
that this land, if they planted something on it, belonged to the county?
MR. CALVERT: I've heard varying stories, depending on their
realtors they dealt with. Some of them said, Gee, I didn't know about
it. Others said, yeah, it was on the plat. I guess I knew about it. But
my realtor told me that the county was never going to do anything
with it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Where I'm going with this
is, I had a situation a couple years ago that propped up in my district.
It was a homeowners' association that was developed along Vanderbilt
Drive -- or Vanderbilt Beach Road, and the developer was pretty coy.
What he did is he encroached in the area that it was an easement
for the county, and then when the county came back to take this
easement to start the widening of the road, there was a lot of people
that were upset because they said that, well, we thought that this was
part of our property, and it was -- sometimes it got contentious, but I
think overall we had the County Attorney involved in this, we also
had Norm Feder involved in this.
But the end result was that that belonged to the county or to the
taxpayers here in Collier County. And so we had -- the end result was
that we ended up using that right-of-way as prescribed that was given
to the county years ago in regards to widening the road.
The other concern that I have is that there was talk about a 2-1
slope versus a 3-1 slope. A 2-1 slope obviously would cause us --
Page 197
March 13,2007
would cause me a little duress in the fact that if somebody fell in that
canal at a 2-1 slope, wouldn't they have a difficult time possibly
getting out of there?
MR. CALVERT: Certainly would. The 2-1 slope is certainly a
safety factor. It's a major factor of our consideration.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I would really think that we
should probably look at a 3-1 slope.
The other thing that I'm concerned about, one of the speakers
talked about, we need to narrow the canal. Ifwe did that, isn't that
going to affect the -- be restrictive to the flow of water, and what we're
trying to do is make sure that we have a good flow of water down
through this whole canal?
MR. CALVERT: Yes, it is. The only way that we could
effectively narrow the top of the canal is to steepen the slopes. We
need to -- we made the canal cross-section just as small as we could
still to accommodate the 25-year storm.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. CALVERT: So in order to narrow it any more, we would
have to steepen the side slopes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Well, that's -- I think you've
answered my questions. I just want to make sure we got it on the
record that if this was part of a PUD that was dedicated to the county
some years ago -- and I feel bad that the people that live there now -- I
believe that they feel that's part of their back yard, and I understand
where they're coming from.
But I think we've got a lot of these cases that are going to
probably pop up as we build out in the county of easements that were
dedicated to the county in regards to roads, canals, or whatever we
might run into, or even power lines for that matter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Commissioners, I just want
Page 198
March 13,2007
to explain maybe what wasn't really said here. As you can see,
nobody's trying to stop this thing at all. What they were saying is,
they were -- they were told that possibly a 2-1 slope could be done. I
was there. I heard that and -- because they were doing it in two other
sections of the canal, one of them right behind the condominium,
where there's a lot of rental units there, and the other one by a church.
And so -- and although it doesn't seem like six feet is a whole
heck of a lot on your yard, when you've only got 10 feet left, six feet
is almost like the rest of your back yard. And this thing comes so
close. It comes within 10 feet of their back door of their pool. And
when you -- when you once had 90 feet in your yard and now you
have 10, it's a big drop. It's not that they're even complaining, but if
they get an extra six feet so that they can, you know, move just a little
bit more.
And when they were -- it was said to them, well, it's a safety
feature, and then they said, but if it isn't a safety feature over there by
the church and it isn't a safety feature by the rental apartments, how
come it's a safety feature here?
And so then they were saying, well, it would cost too much
money, so then the people said, well, you could take the fill. We
already bought that with our land, and you can use it, sell it off
someplace to pay for making the slope less, and that's all they were
doing.
They didn't ask for the money, they didn't ask for the dirt. They
just were trying to respond because staff said, well, it would be too
much money. And they said, use that money to give us just six more
feet of their back yard.
So I hope -- does that help make you understand a little bit more
what their plight really was? It wasn't -- it wasn't anything more than
that.
In fact, they had to -- our staff had to actually move the canal
because it was going through somebody's pool, and so they've had to
Page 199
March 13, 2007
actually move the canal around one place so that they could avoid the
pool that was permitted there, by the way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, there's a couple issues here.
One's the slope, the other one's the dirt. The idea that -- the dirt, I
don't know -- is that something that staff suggested to the people
there?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, it was them. They just felt --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When staff said it was too
expensive, they said, well, maybe you could take the dirt.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, the dirt has some value, but I
don't think it's anywhere near that. I don't know. Help me with this,
Gene. I mean, it sounds logical, but -- I know dirt is expensive. Once
it's in the truck, it's not worth as much as when it was on the land.
MR. CALVERT: Well, certainly. And we were -- we actually
looked quite hard to find some uses for this dirt. Quite frankly, we're
not taking a lot of users because the dirt has to be processed. You
know, when you buy the material out of a pit, they run it through a
screen, they process it, get the vegetation out of it, screen it to the
appropriate size.
When we're taking it out of the canal, it's all jumbled, and so it
needs to be taken someplace to process or use it as is. One of the
takers that we've got some interest in is the landfill, and they would
use it just for a cap on their landfill. There's no value there to speak of.
Weare going to be paying the contractor an extra $4 a yard just to
haul it to the landfill.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in other words -- still, we have to
put dirt on the landfill. What do we pay for dirt that goes on the
landfill? Maybe Mr. DeLony knows that. Just mentioned your name,
Mr. DeLony.
We're going to get this done pretty soon, but we're going to work
through this. It's the people's business.
Page 200
March 13, 2007
Mr. DeLony, the dirt on your landfill, how much you paying for
it?
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony. I really don't
know. We have a cap on the landfill, cost that we work with Waste
Management, and they pay the market rate for it, so I really am not
aware right now what the market rate is. It has been as much as
20-something dollars a ton -- I mean a yard, coming in there, and as
low as $5 a yard through the time that I've been here as the
administrator. I can get that information to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right here. Whatever it is, it doesn't
amount to an awful lot of money, and I don't want somebody to try to
compute it out at this point in time.
The dirt we're going to be taking out of these back yards, that
we're going to be hauling to use to cap off the landfill because it
doesn't quite meet the qualifications for road or for other fill, whatever
the value of that is, wouldn't it make sense to be able to come up with
some fund that we could give -- send a check to the homeowners?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, they don't want that. They just
wanted the six feet on their yard.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to
drag you all the way up here.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought I was coming up with a
good idea, but obviously it wasn't.
MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So -- okay, here we are. We've got
three commissioners left on the dais. We need three commissioners to
be able to pass something. I'll tell you what we're going to do, since
we're missing two, rather than push this, we're going to bring a vote
back after a short break when we get everybody here.
Ten-minute break and back here at it.
(A brief recess was had.)
Page 201
March 13,2007
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Y eah. We're going to -- let's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There he comes. He's here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What we're going to do is go directly
to a couple of slides to show us the difference between a --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You haven't gotten off this yet?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- what, a 2-1 slope and a 3-1 slope.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I left -- you should have been
finished with this thing.
MR. CALVERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
show a couple slides real briefly and show what we've really tried to
do to accommodate some of the people that live out there in the back
yards.
As we looked at the canal cross-sections, as I mentioned, we
made it as small as possible. We moved the canal as far away from
their homes as possible. We installed -- or we have designed a
maintenance road on their side but we used a geo web reinforced sod
roadway, so it really effectively extends their yard even where the
road is.
These two slides that you see here, this is -- the one on the left is
a concrete slope up along Goodlette-Frank Road. That's a 2-1 slope
that we had to reinforce to accommodate a little bit wider so we could
get a pathway through there and some more vegetation on the top.
The one on the right is a sod covered slope of 3-1, and you can
tell the difference, you know. It's -- certainly safety's an issue, a big
issue. Environment is a big issue. You know, with the concrete you
just don't get any water treatment through there. The sod slopes you
will get some water quality treatment. Safety is an issue.
The aesthetics alone, strictly from quality of life, certainly the
one on the right is certainly a little better than the one on the left.
A couple other pictures I want to just briefly run through real
Page 202
March 13, 2007
quickly. We talked about lots in that subdivision. As I mentioned, the
lots along the canal are 170 feet wide. The majority of those lots in
that particular subdivision -- this is Queens Park, is 65 feet wide by
100 feet deep. The lots along the canal are 170 by 65.
We're going to only utilize 52 feet for our canal. So that's going
to leave 118 feet of lot from the front lot to the canal. That's 18 feet
more than all the other lots in the subdivision have.
This is what the maintenance road will look like. This is out by
Heron's Place up on Tamiami Trail looking south on it. It's a
reinforced geo web. It really extends the yard. If they want to
incorporate that into the yard and sprinkle it, they have that
opportunity .
Talked about some of the areas that we got a little close. Well,
you know, we had to steepen it up. This is one in lot 17 in Queens
Park where actually the pool was encroaching upon our amount by six
feet. In fact, years ago Board of County Commissioners vacated six
feet of our easement so -- to accommodate that pool, and so we've
actually moved that structure away from the pool area from the edge
of the pool to the roadway 17 feet.
That is the closest that we have on any of our structures, any of
the homes in the area. Majority of them are further than 20 feet. And
like I said, we've got a minimum of 18 feet from our easement to our
roadway. You add another 10 feet through there, you're talking about
20 to 30 feet.
This is just a couple of the areas that were closer than the --
couldn't get by with the 3-1. We have a wetland to get through, get
around, so we had to steepen that up through. Some of the other areas
we actually only had 62 foot of right-of-way, so we had to squeeze
what we could do in there to get through there, and that's up closer to
Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
We certainly -- when we looked at our cross-section, we went,
you know, exceedingly well as far as looking at a flood protection to
Page 203
March 13, 2007
get that 25-year storm event, looked at safety, trying to preserve that
3-to-l slope. We even steepened it from 3-to-l to our conventional
4-1, so we did steepen it from 4-1 to 3-1.
The environmental, from the water quality treatment end of it,
preservation of the yard area -- so we have a minimum of 28 feet
setback from our canal. That's from our easement line. That's not just
from the homes. The homes will be beyond that.
So you can say that we've got in excess of 30 feet from the
homes, in a lot of cases 40 feet from the homes to the canal bank.
Cost is certainly an item that we did consider. We have to be
diligent with the taxpayers' money. We have an existing easement
that was obtained in 1989 and we utilized that easement. We looked at
the most cost effective canal that we could come up with.
As far as landscaping and fencing, it was addressed through that.
We're certainly not opposed to putting in fencing and landscaping
within portions of our easement, up to 15 feet into that easement.
Certainly that will take approval from the homeowners' association.
The homeowners' association currently does not allow any fences in
their subdivision, and they will need to get a CDES permit to install
the fence just in conformance with the LDC. But we're not opposed to
that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I ask a question on that? When
you say you're not opposed, is that something you automatically do, or
we'd have to direct you?
MR. CALVERT: You mean as far as allowing them to put a
fence in there?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, them putting it in.
MR. CALVERT: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that --
MR. CALVERT: Now, ifit comes back to maybe the county,
they want us to put it in, the county, that will then have to come back
to the board.
Page 204
March 13,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I understand.
MR. CALVERT: Incidentally, just to let -- the funding
components of this project, we have received $1.19 million from BCB
and South Florida Water Management utilizing 1.269 for ad valorem
taxes and right-of-way easement considerations that was part of the
dedications when we received some of the lands that have a value of
around 730,000. Just to give you an idea where the funding is for this
particular project.
Certainly our recommendation is to endorse proceeding with the
construction of the project. The project was bid, Mitchell & Stark
Construction Incorporated is the low bidder. That contract has been
awarded in the amount of $2.4 million. They're ready to get started.
In fact, if the board approves this action today, we will give them a
notice to proceed tomorrow where they can start clearing and
grubbing and start the excavation.
They're wanting to complete this project by mid summer.
They're wanting to get in there before the rains come, so that's what
we're really shooting for. Be able to answer any more questions.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There is a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There is a motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh. I thought you pulled it. Maybe I
misunderstand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that was the last one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. It gets confusing after a while.
Okay . We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning.
Who was the second, Commissioner Halas, was it?
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. And -- okay.
Now, discussion? Commissioner Fiala?
Page 205
March 13,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast one. You've just said
that, no, we'd have to come back for the fence, but I remember us
voting on a fence included with this a while back when we even
discussed what kind of a fence, and we said not a -- not a chain link
fence but a vinyl fence. And so I thought that was already approved.
MR. CALVERT: No. The board has not taken formal action on
approval of paying for a fence.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments,
questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, if! understand correctly,
this -- they can come back if they want to talk to us about a fence on
our property?
MR. CALVERT: Absolutely. And we'll bring that forward if
they bring it -- as a group. Now, individually, we'd like to have a
group together rather than 30 individuals.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They even said we had the money
when they were in this meeting here, and I said, certainly you have the
money to do that? He said, yes, we do. So they already have the
money to do that. And I had -- I had understood -- and you all were
sitting there. Didn't he say that they would put a fence in? Yes, so --
MR. CALVERT: Well, we're ready to bring it back before the
board though.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Get together with the residents
Page 206
March 13, 2007
there. Commissioner Fiala will help you with that, and then come
back with a suggestion.
MR. CAL VERT: Absolutely. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you so much.
Appreciate it.
Next item, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd make a recommendation that
you go to l2B because you have people that have been sitting here to
talk about Naples Bay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, let's do that.
Item #12B
AMENDMENT PROVISIONS TO COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 79-8, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER
COUNTY VESSEL CONTROL ORDINANCE; BY AMENDING
SECTION FIVE, SPEED LIMIT IN CERTAIN AREAS, TO
EST ABLISH THE SPEED ZONES IN NAPLES BAY AND TO
DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A WATERWAY PERMIT
APPLICATION - MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO ADVERTISE
ORDINANCE AND BRING BACK WIAPPLICATION FROM
FWC - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: And that is a board consideration of amendment
provision to Collier County ordinance number 79-8 as amended to
Collier County vessel control ordinance; by amending section five,
speed limit in certain areas, to establish the speed zones in Naples Bay
and to direct staff to prepare a waterway permit application.
And I believe Mr. Jeff Klatzkow from the County Attorney's
Office will present.
MR. KLATZKOW: With me is Colleen Green who's co-counsel
with me on this Naples boat litigation. I have somebody -- that's Allen
Page 207
March 13, 2007
Walburn's boat on the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that your boat?
MR. KLA TZKOW: No, it's Captain Walburn's boat.
Just to give the board some background on this, this is the speed
zones along Naples Bay as they currently exist during the weekdays,
and you'll note that there are very few restrictions. The portions in
yellow are idle zones. On the rest of the bay is 30 mile per hour, so
that's largely cleared.
During the weekends currently -- weekends and holidays, there
are two areas of the bay where you need to slow down.
What the City of Naples is proposing in the ordinance they
passed back in November 2004 is to take that bluish area, and for
seven days a week, make that a slow speed zone, and this is where the
crux of the dispute is.
They -- in order to implement the ordinance, you have to put up
signs. These signs have to be uniform under the statute; and to get the
uniform signs, you need a permit; and to get the permit, you've got to
go to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, and they go through
an application. And after a while, if they view your application to be
sufficient, they will issue permits so you can put up the uniform
markers.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife reviewed the City of Naples
petition, after about a half a year of experience that the city had with
them, and gave a notice of intent to issue the permit. We then had the
statutory right to bring an administrative hearing there of why it
shouldn't be issued, and we fairly recently had an order from the
administrative law judge. I'll be showing you portions of that order
saying that in his recommendations that the city should not be issued
the permits. At this point in time Florida Fish and Wildlife
Commission has the ability to either accept that recommended order
or to reject that recommended order and proceed as they would wish
to proceed, and we're still waiting on that.
Page 208
March 13, 2007
The majority of the slides come right out of the recommended
order, and the reason for that is I don't want to be considered to be
biased on this, so these are not my words; these are the -- Judge Ruffs
findings in his order.
This is the one exception. This is the statute that would give
Collier County the right to regulate Naples Bay. This statute basically
says that any jurisdiction that spends money to enforce speeds can
regulate the bay.
The statute curiously says that any county or municipality that is
located within the county may jointly regulate vessels. So it would
seem to me that the statutory scheme would be to have both Naples
and Collier County voluntarily do this together. That's obviously
something, unfortunately, that's not happening today.
The Court found that Collier County has concurrent jurisdiction
over Naples Bay. In other words, this board has the power to create
and enforce an ordinance on Naples Bay should it so choose.
One of the issues in the case of the City of Naples said that
everybody who objected had no standing to object so that the Court
had to go through and make findings as to what everybody's standing
was. By standing I mean, what dog did they have in the fight. I mean,
what was their real interest in here.
So the Court found that one of the petitioners, Captain
Alexander, he established that his business would be substantially
affected by the slow speed zones.
The Court found that a petitioner, Douglas Finlay, was that the
slow speed zone will adversely impact his safe boating operations.
Curiously, the slower you go, the more dangerous you can get
while you're boating, because you need a certain speed to safely get
through the waters as you get to currents.
Petitioner James Pergola, the Court found that it would adversely
affect his recreational boating use and the trips by increasing his
transit times on the waters of the bay, a restriction he deems
Page 209
March 13,2007
unnecessary from a safety standpoint.
Court found that Captain Walburn, licensed boat captain to
operate a charter business in this area for many, many years, that they
would affect his business, that he not be -- that he would not be able to
operate two charters in one day, which would substantially reduce his
revenue.
Additionally, his charter boat customers over time would tend to
migrate to charter boat businesses that operate in areas other than
Naples Bay and which don't have the attendant long transit times in
reaching fishing grounds caused by the proposed speed zones.
Another petitioner here is the Marine Industry of Collier County.
They're a non-profit trade association. Members made up of
businesses in the marine industry. And the Court had a couple
findings with them. The court found that they'd lost business and
potential sales of boats and boat slip rentals due to this proposed speed
zone.
The Court found that it would affect the members by increasing
the risk of dangerous weather conditions because obviously the slower
you go, the bad weather's coming in, the more you have to actually
stay there and take it.
The Court also found that the interest of MIACC's members in
both commercial and recreational boating pursuit will be substantially
affected if the relevant slow speed zones are enacted, which impose a
significant restriction beyond the limitation already prescribed by the
state and local law. This is because access to fishing and recreational
areas will require longer traffic time and more areas of interested
boating public eliminated from reasonable use.
This will have a negative effect on the manufacture, sale,
chartering, docking, equipping, servicing, maintenance and operation
of boats on the bay and adjacent waters.
So the question comes, if so many people are being so negatively
impacted in their businesses and their recreation time, why are we
Page 210
March 13,2007
doing this? Well, the reason the city gave was they were concerned
about the safety on the bay.
Court found that the preponderant persuasive evidence
culminated in its findings established Naples Bay as not subject to an
unsafe place for vessel traffic congestion.
And this is what's happening on the bay. One accident for every
67,500 boat trips. That's what's currently happening on the bay.
Court found that that represents a significant rate of collision. I just
wish this was the same truth with cars, quite frankly.
Anyhow, at this point in time we've prepared an ordinance for the
board's review and for feedback. The ordinance would basically try to
keep what's currently on the bay current. We're not changing anything
that's not already there. It would be the current speed zones both
weekdays and weekends.
Should the board choose to pass this ordinance, we could then
make application to Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission for the
necessary permits that it would take to put up the necessary signs.
I will tell you that this process will take at least half a year
dealing with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. And I cannot
tell you that they will issue a permit because they have been very
difficult for the county to deal with throughout this entire proceeding,
to be quite frank.
In fact, they'll tell you one thing and do something else. It's just
been a very, very difficult relationship we've had with the
commiSSiOn.
And I know you have a number of speakers here. You might
want to ask questions, or Colleen and I are here to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go to the speakers.
How many speakers do we have, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Six.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Six speakers, okay.
Oh, Mr. Price, I appreciate you being here; Gary Price from the
Page 211
March 13, 2007
City of Naples Council, I'm going to ask you to be the first speaker.
MR. PRICE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. I don't
want to address the Naples speed issue. I want to address the way that
we handle business within the county and the city. And I'm here
today to be adamantly opposed to the way this is being handled.
I understand past history. I know we've had some bumpy roads
in the past. I, for one, have been trying to repair some of that, and I
know it's going to take some time. But I am not convinced that this is
the way that we handle the business going back and forth.
And so respectfully, I'm here to stand as one member. I don't
speak for our city council. I just stand as one member that says that
I'm willing to try to do the best we can to open and continue to --
continue our communication and -- at the level that we've been doing
as of late, which I think has been pretty powerful.
But I'm not convinced that, based on your executive summary,
that the Florida Constitution supports the ability of the county to have
any jurisdiction over the Naples Bay, and I've heard otherwise today,
and so those are some issues that I have based on your legal
considerations under the executive summary that talk about, an
ordinance in conflict with a municipal ordinance shall be -- shall not
be effective within the municipality to the extent of such conflicts.
I understand Judge Ruffs order may be different from that, but
I'm just looking at the Florida Constitution. If there are things that are
different to that or that can explain away that issue, I'm all ears, but I
appreciate the opportunity.
I am going to continue to fight to help support our relationship no
matter what you all decide because I think our taxpayers deserve more
than the way these things are being handled and the expenses that are
going -- that we're spending towards fighting each other about these
things.
And I respect the people who have fought on the marine industry
Page 212
March 13,2007
side, and I don't want to take anything away from that process. I'm
talking about our communication and how we handle our issues, and I
think we can do a better job in that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Price.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask the commissioners to
wait till we finish all of the speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to address the
councilman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask you to keep it brief,
sir. I don't want a large dialogue going on. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I just -- the
councilman needs to be recognized for trying to work with the board
collectively and individually and -- because he has done a great job,
but I can tell you one of your colleagues this morning on talk radio
said, the Board of Commissioners are silly. Okay. So I recognize
what your efforts are. Thank you.
MR. PRICE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Henry Kennedy. He'll be
followed by Frank Donohue.
MR. KENNEDY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, County Manager, City Attorney. For the record,
Henry Kennedy, City of Naples.
I did not hear that broadcast that Commissioner Henning
referenced, but I would respectfully ask that you not hold all council
members or everyone in the city for one person's ill remark on a radio
station. I respectfully ask that you do that, please.
We deal with that all the time, and it's an ongoing battle for us in
the city.
On the matter that's before you, I'm not going to speak either in
pro or con or for or against it. I'm going to say that I don't think this is
Page 213
March 13, 2007
the avenue that this commission really should take.
I think you're far above this, because who is going to be the end
-- end user that it's going to cause confusion to? It's going to be the
boater. Because if the city is allowed to put up their markers and
you're allowed to put up your markers, what are the people going to
do? And that can very well happen.
I think this belongs in court, but I think that it should be
extremely limited. I think everything should be done between this
commission and the city council to resolve this matter before it goes to
court. If it has to go to court, put it in a court.
But I would respectfully ask you not to do this because I think
you're far above this. This is almost a, well, then I'll do this type of a
thing, and I think you're above it.
And I would ask you to give that serious, serious consideration
because you're going to be looked at for what you do here by the
whole county, not just the city, but the whole county. And with all
due respect to you and all the petitioners, both sides of the aisle, I ask
you not to do this. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Frank Donohue. He'll be
followed by Philip Osborne.
MR. OSBORNE: And I'll defer since Frank is going to speak.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Then he'll be followed by Eric Alexander.
MR. DONOHUE: Good afternoon. Frank Donohue. I'm here
today to speak for the Marine Industries Association of Collier County
and the Recreational Boaters of Collier County considering the speed
limits on Naples Bay.
This Board of County Commissioners has, two times in the past,
supported the position that the City of Naples stance in regards to
speed limits on the Naples Bay is incorrect. I would hope that board is
still steadfast in its decision to continue to support the boaters in
Collier County.
The recent decision by the administrative law judge was that the
Page 214
March 13,2007
City of Naples case was entirely without merit. It also ruled that the
county had concurrent jurisdiction in this matter.
We're presently awaiting decision on the speed limit signs that
would be needed to be placed in the bay from the FWC. If this
decision is not favorable for the county, boaters, the marine industries,
the Board of County Commissioners, I would hope this board will
allow the County Attorney to continue his work on appeal in this
matter.
Presently, the Board of County Commissioners is being asked
today to apply for its own sign permit for Naples Bay under the
concurrent jurisdiction decision by the administrative law judge that
was recently brought down.
I would hope the City of Naples, the city err in its way, abide by
the administrative law judge decisions, withdraw its petition, and then
we could have a constructive meeting to sit down and see if we can
settle this issue before it gets any further.
Marine Industry Association stands ready to do this so we don't
get into the situation like Mr. Kennedy just expounded about,
confusing signs. I mean, we need to solve this issue and get on with
our lives here and get doing something nice for boating in Collier
County instead of squabbling over this thing for the last two and a half
years.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Eric Alexander. He'll be followed by Allen
Walburn.
MR. ALEXANDER: Commissioners, thanks for hearing this
issue. The city -- or when you asked the city when this first came
about to discuss it, they thumbed their nose at you. I don't know what
else I can say to that point except that they didn't care that you had an
issue with it and went ahead and proceeded with it.
I think you should ask them to withdraw their permit and sit
Page 215
March 13, 2007
down and talk again at the least. I mean, don't stop with the process
we've gone through already.
The administrative law judge has made it perfectly clear that the
city had no case whatsoever. All the findings of fact were that the city
has no case, these poor guys are having to fight them over nothing,
and thanks to you, you know, we have some backing and some avenue
to pursue this.
It's going to really directly affect all of us in the charter industry,
and I hope that you proceed with this.
The FWC isn't going to let you put up signs that are going to be
different than the signs in place. They're just not going to do it. But
they are going to have to recognize you. And what we have there now
is sufficient. Weekends and holidays, they extend these idle zones.
It's worked fine for a long time.
The only thing that has happened in the past was that the city
didn't have the signs placed properly, in the right place and the right
sizes and so on, and there were numerous speeding tickets in existing
idle zones, and that's what they used for the basis of their application
were all these speeding tickets because they didn't erect the things
properly.
Don't drop the ball on this. Continue with it. I appreciate
everything you've done, and thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Allen Walburn.
MR. WALBURN: Thank you, Commissioners, for having me
here today. I just want to make a couple points.
Number one, you're not asking to do any more than what is
presently on the books in the City of Naples. I mean, you're just
basically asking to codify or ratify an ordinance that's currently in
place, it's been in place, I think, since 1991.
So all you're doing is ratifying or substantiating what's in place.
If the city, for whatever reason, decides to change speed zones in
Naples Bay, your ordinance will probably be superseded by a new
Page 216
March 13,2007
ordinance.
But right now the city made an application to seek an entitlement
to restrict vessel speeds in Naples Bay citing vessel congestion and
safety. They were challenged on that at an administrative hearing by a
number of matters. And after the hearing, there was a finding of fact
that there, in fact, were no safety or congestion issues that warranted
the imposition of vessel speed controls in Naples Bay pursuant to
Florida Administrative Codes and Florida Statutes.
There was also a finding of fact by the judge that the FWC has
statutory authority to look under the permit applications of
municipalities that make these application. FWC has rejected that
unofficially. Whether they accept it or reject it or not, officially we'll
find out on the 22nd.
But the fact is, Florida Statutes gives the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Commission the authority to regulate vessel speeds pursuant
to their own rules and regulations that are currently on the books.
Now, once again, I want you to understand that the city had the
opportunity to deal with us on a number of issues, so we're talking
about one vote, and none of this would have ever happened. It was a
4-3 vote, I think, at some point in time to leave things the way they
were.
We asked repeatedly to negotiate a compromise to address the
issues. We were dismissed out of hand repeatedly. If the city is
sincere and genuine in trying to rectify this situation, I suggest that
they withdraw their application for permit, gather facts if they want to
get the entitlement that they're seeking, have some material evidence
to substantiate their case, which they were not able to produce at a
hearing, but in the meantime, leave Naples Bay alone, stop this
acrimony that's going back and forth between the city and the county
and all the various interested parties, and let's do something that's
meaningful for this town.
These vessel speed controls are a sham. Everybody in this room
Page 217
March 13, 2007
knows why they're trying to push this in, and it's wrong for three or
four or five people to take boating rights away from everybody in
Collier County, and I'm asking you folks to continue and stay the
course until this is resolved, and it can be resolved with the simple
stroke of a pen, withdraw the permit application, and let's get down to
brass tacks and do what's right for the community instead of what's
right for the selected few.
I just want to reiterate that we're not asking you to ratify anything
that's not currently in place and being -- being enforced on a daily
basis right now. All we're asking you to do is just to stay the course.
And if the city at some point in time wants to stay that course, let them
prove up their case.
Thank you very much for having me here today.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I find this quite interesting where, I
guess, the vote was 4-3. Obviously the people that sit on the council
speak in behalf of the citizens of Naples.
The question is -- I think what I need to find out to get my mind
clear in what direction we're going here, we know that Port Royal
belongs to the City of Naples. What about Royal Harbor; does that
belong to the city?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it seems to me that those
residents that live along that waterway, obviously there must be
concerns about destruction of property, seawalls, lawns and possibly
docks.
If we -- and I look at this as the Board of County Commissioners,
the city is trying to protect their citizens. It's almost like we're sitting
in judgment as some of our legislators up in Tallahassee are, and we
have difficulty when they come down on us in regards to not knowing
Page 218
March 13, 2007
what really is the betterment of the community because the
community at large is the people that have the problem.
And I don't feel at this point in time that I need to be the king at
the thrown telling the city what I feel is the best for a certain group of
people. I want to make sure that the property owners there are taken
care of. And I'm sure that however the vote went with the city
council, they were representing their constituents in regards to a
problem.
So that's where I stand, and I feel that the city should have the
jurisdiction over what's taking place in the bay since the majority of
land around that bay belongs to the City of Naples.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the Florida rules are on
boat speeds, either -- to regulate it, it has to be life or limb or manatee.
It has nothing to do with property. It has nothing to do with sea grass.
That's what the -- that's what the rule said -- says.
But if we was going to take that approach of hands off for the
citizens in Collier County for a Naples Bay issue, then we ought to
lower the speed on every road in Collier County to 15 miles an hour
because we have a lot of residents that live on -- next to those
highways that are concerned about noise, and the faster you go, the
more noise you're going to get.
So that's what we ought to do with all the roads in Collier
County; 15 miles an hour on every county road. But we're not going
to do that, and I think we need to be responsible and reactive to the
citizens of Collier County whether it be their pleasure, their safety, of
whatever the issue is.
And the facts prove it, that's why we have studies, whether it be
designated a road speed, whether they get noise abatement or what it
is. It's based upon facts, not emotion.
And therefore, I'm going to make a motion to direct staff to
advertise this ordinance and then apply for the marker speed
Page 219
March 13,2007
application. But when you bring it back -- this is part of my motion.
When you bring it back, the staff must bring back the application if
approved by FWC before making it applicable, you know what I
mean?
But I also want to tell the board that I had an employee in my
office probably a year and a half ago, and stated to me, he says, well,
we really want the county to challenge this. We don't feel that the city
is correct in their application. If you challenge it and -- in the courts,
then we need -- then we'll have to force whatever the judge says. That
happened. I felt that it was quite deceiving coming from an employee
that, here's the application -- Jeff, were you in that meeting with me
that day?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you can attest to those -- that
statement is true.
MR. KLATZKOW: Sir, my view of the commission is very,
very low, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. So this is an emotional
issue and it's not based upon the facts. That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Coyle? Let's go to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd just like to support a couple of
things that both Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Henning
have said.
It is true that there are property owners in Naples who are having
problems with respect to the speed limits now, and some of them are
suffering property damage, erosion around seawalls and riprap, and
also recently at a homeowners' meeting, a homeowner related a story
that he was putting a boat up in a lift and a big wave came in from a
passing large boat and washed the boat completely off the lift, causing
damage.
Now, at the same homeowners' association, another homeowner
Page 220
March 13,2007
said, but that's a problem of enforcement. It's not a problem of speed
zones. And every boater is responsible for what his or her wake does.
So there is an enforcement issue on Naples Bay that could very
well mitigate any concerns relating to property damages for the
property owners.
And so I have a question of the county manager. Does the
Collier County Marine Patrol, the Sheriffs Department, have
enforcement action on Naples Bay?
MR. MUDD: I believe they do, but they share that enforcement
with the Naples Marine Patrol, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, that's my point. If the
sheriff and the City of Naples can share enforcement of the speed zone
in Naples Bay, why can't we share the determination of the laws
which should be enforced?
And so we might be able to help the City of Naples if we were to
get together and work with the marine patrol and provide some
supplemental enforcement there to make sure that these situations that
result -- that cause property damage and irritate some of the property
owners, that there are some bad actors out there on the water.
And I think that if we both had -- the city and the county both
had better enforcement, we could mitigate these concerns and we
could work a lot closer together in solving the problem.
But I am going to support the motion that is on the table, and I'm
going to support it for this reason. I believe that the city and the
county should work together as Councilman Price has stated. I believe
there are other council members on the council who feel the same
way.
Given an opportunity to negotiate or sit down at the table and
work out an arrangement, I think we can come to a reasonable
accommodation on this. But along with this, I am supporting joint
discussions on the regulation of speeds and other things in Naples
Bay, but I will also be advocating the same joint relationship on Clam
Page 221
March 13,2007
Bay.
We can't take one position one place and another position in
another place. If we're going to demand joint administration and
decision making on Naples Bay, then we have to permit the city to
participate in the decision-making process in Clam Bay, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is Clam Bay?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's the northern part of the city
right near Seagate, okay? And it has been a source of irritation to the
city for some time that it is administered by the Pelican Bay
Foundation and the county, and they feel that they have been shut out
of the process. They cannot get involved in decision-making
procedures and that sort of thing.
So I'm going to take a consistent position on this. I'm going to
say that all of the waters in Naples Bay and Clam Bay are subject to
coordination between the two governmental bodies, and that's why I
will support Commissioner Henning's motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the vote is 4-1 with
Commissioner Halas being the dissenting vote. Thank you.
Item #9H
Page 222
March 13,2007
RESOLUTION 2007-64: TO URGE THE 2007 FLORIDA
LEGISLA TURE TO RENEW THEIR COMMITMENT TO
TRAFFIC SAFETY AND DO ALL THEY CAN TO STOP RED
LIGHT RUNNING - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9H, and it's
the last item in 9. This is a resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to urge the 2007 Florida
legislature to renew their commitment to traffic safety and do all they
can do to stop red-light running.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I couldn't hear you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whatever he said --
MR. MUDD: This is 9H and it has to do with red light running
and the resolution that the board asked Ms. Filson and Ms. Wight to
come back with. Ms. Filson has done most of the yeoman's work on
this one so that you could reaffirm your support for cameras on red
lights so we can stop people going through them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I support red light running.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, this is an attempt to -- this is an
attempt to reign you and your relatives out.
Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Henning, a second
by Commissioner Fiala (sic).
MS. FILSON: Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any discussion?
Commissioner Coyle, I see your light's still on, or is that from
before?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's from before.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor, indicate by
Page 223
March 13,2007
saymg 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 #10C
RESOLUTION 2007-65: A SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF FEE SIMPLE
INTERESTS AND/OR THOSE PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY
EASEMENT INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE SIX-LANE
EXPANSION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD FROM U.S. 41 TO
DAVIS BOULEV ARD. (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT
NO. 86, PROJECT NO. 60001). ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT:
$5,000,000 - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us back into 10, 10C.
This is a recommendation to adopt a superseding resolution
authorizing condemnation of fee simple interest and/or those perpetual
or temporary easement interests necessary for the construction of
roadway, drainage and utility improvements required for the six-lane
expansion of Collier Boulevard from U.S. 41 to Davis Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
Page 224
March 13, 2007
second by Commissioner Henning.
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: And opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #10G
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA CONSORTIUM 2007 LEGISLATIVE
PRIORITIES, WHICH WILL BE PRESENTED BY
PARTICIPATING COMMISSIONERS IN THE SIX-COUNTY
CONSORTIUM TO THEIR RESPECTIVE LEGISLATIVE
DELEGATION IN MEETINGS IN TALLAHASSEE ON MARCH
22,2007 - APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS; COUNTY
MANAGER TO DRAFT A LETTER TO LEGISLATURES
REQUESTING A FUTURE MEETING WITH BCC
MR. MUDD: That brings us to our next item, which is lOG. It's
a recommendation to approve the Southwest Florida Consortium,
2007 legislative priorities which will be presented by --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I support it but I just want
to add some things.
CHAIRMAN COLETT A: Well, you just got a motion. Do you
Page 225
March 13, 2007
want to be the second and ask them?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it if we can -- I want
some discussion. Ifwe can modify the motion and maybe add a
couple things.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we're open for that kind of
discussion, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. I'll put on my -- press
my light.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Two things. One is, as you
know, the -- some fire districts have approached Senator Bennett and
gotten him to include in a bill the right to develop or to place a fire
EMS facility in any zoning category they wish; in other words, they're
bypassing our decision by going to Bennett.
So that change has been submitted by Senator Bennett, which
will give them the right to put a fire department next door to your
house in any residential neighborhood without, without approval by
local government and probably without any public hearing at all.
So I would like to add that to our list of legislative issues and at
least inform our legislative delegation that we want them to oppose
that. Ifwe don't tell them to oppose it, it's going to get passed. It
might be passed anyway. But we have to tell them to oppose it, and
then we have to watch what they do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the second thing is a
broader issue that involves this whole problem of erosion of home
rule. We've talked about it independently and with the growth
management thing and at even this most recent proposal by Bennett,
but we need to impress upon our legislators how our home rule is
being eroded and get them to commit to being on the lookout for
things like this, and to oppose them wherever they find them.
Now, the last thing is that I am appalled at the lack of
Page 226
March 13,2007
understanding and knowledge possessed by many of the legislators
who are talking about property tax revision or overhaul. I'm appalled
at their lack of knowledge of how a county operates.
And, in fact, the information put out by the Majority Whip's
office just in the last week is so erroneous that there's no way you can
rationalize it. It is flat wrong.
And when they're trying to tell everybody what effect it will have
to the average county in Collier, it just simply is not correct. It's
mathematically wrong, it is philosophically wrong, and it's wrong
because they don't have the slightest idea how a county works.
They don't understand the idea of enterprise funds. They don't
understand what's covered, what expenses are covered by property
taxes and which ones are not, and so they reach incorrect conclusions
about how we are gathering in huge amounts of money and wasting
them.
So my point is this briefly. So if we haven't told them, we can't
blame them for not knowing, I guess. But can we get legislators
together? Invite them down -- and our legislators primarily. I don't
think we're going to draw a big bunch of people from Tallahassee to
come down here, but if we could get our legislators, and even do it on
a weekend, a Saturday. You know, they're out of session at that time,
on weekends, in most cases, and if we can get them back in here and
sit them down and go through the chart that the county manager gave
me to make a presentation at a homeowners' association recently, just
go through that chart, talk with them about the sources and use of
funds, and then describe to them our budgeting processes and what we
try to do to spend the taxpayers' dollars wisely and how we have tried
to keep taxes down. In fact, we have reduced taxes.
And they have never heard this before. And every time I've been
in Tallahassee, I hear the same thing and I try to tell people, but I'm
only doing it one on one in most cases. And if we could get to our
delegation and show them why the information they're being given to
Page 227
March 13, 2007
support this property tax overhaul proposal is absolutely wrong -- it
doesn't mean the property tax overhaul is wrong, but the information
they've got to develop it is flat wrong, and so we need to clarify that if
we can.
And I'm just suggesting that if we can carve out some time and
encourage our legislative delegation to come here and sit down with
us for a day and become familiar with our budgeting process and our
funding requirements, I think they'll be far better qualified to fight the
battle in Tallahassee on our behalf.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Commissioner, now that--
to get all -- right down to the point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I just -- the motion --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Your light's not on. You can't talk.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Commissioner Fiala, then we'll
come right back to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's all right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let him respond.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala said it's okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All I'm trying to do is -- what do
you want me to put -- add to the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, yes, okay. The motion is
already -- motion's already complete.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you wanted me to add
something.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I wanted you to add those
two things, and then --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got the one thing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The one thing was the fire --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I got that one on the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the second thing was the
Page 228
March 13, 2007
general erosion of home rule rights, okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's in my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, that's the motion, but now ifI
could just get a reaction from you as to whether or not we could get
them together down here and talk with them about this other thing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. I think it's an excellent idea.
Do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to add something, and
I'm the vice-chair. The chair's gone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I would be happy to do that
because I haven't supported the budget in the past few years, and I
want to show them my feelings about what Collier County does. So
you might not like it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I like it. I think the idea of
trying to cut budgets to the extent possible is a good idea. Cutting it
by 50 percent is absolute lunacy. But you know, we need to
understand what it is we have to give up, and I don't think we
understand that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I don't agree with you,
but I just want to tell you that's my feelings and I would want the same
right to talk to the legislators on my feelings. So we're going to be
opposed to this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing wrong with differences of
opmIOn.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just get a direction, get a second on it.
Let's get going with this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, we've got two things
here. We've got the motion, and then I've just got a request for your
reaction to see if we can get the county manager to try to arrange --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So that's separate from the motion?
Page 229
March 13, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's separate, that's separate, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, and I agree. I'd like to see a
day when we could talk to the legislators.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if Commissioner Henning's got a
different opinion, we'll just plan it on the day he can't be there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's good for me. I would prefer
it that way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion on the
floor, and we're going to be talking about -- Commissioner Fiala,
forgive me. Motion--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that was all right. Was it one of
our own Collier County fire departments that approached --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two of them, am I right, County
Manager?
MR. MUDD: East and north.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They approached Senator Bennett?
MR. MUDD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. That's because -- that's
because Bennett is the order taker. I mean, he just sits there and you
tell him what to do and he does it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I got to get a picture of Senator
Bennett --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow. And the other thing I wanted,
I just wanted to stress, you know, we've been criticized in the
newspaper because we're going to go up and fight for our community,
for our taxpayers' rights up there, and of course it's been mentioned in
previous newspaper articles how much of an impact we've made as
we've gone up as a consortium because -- especially when we work
with the other counties to all give them a unified voice, and now we're
being criticized because we're trying to protect our taxpayers and,
Commissioner Coy Ie, everything you've just said about how many
Page 230
March 13,2007
rule and so forth. And, my goodness, if we all go up together, we
might be doing something criminal according to the newspaper, and it
just -- it's just so disgusting that they would cast aspersions like that on
us.
And I even got a phone call that said, well, you should drive up
rather than go up on the airplane just because it will look bad. You
know what? I'm above that, so is everybody else on here. I would
never do anything like that. And quite frankly, I just think, if anybody
wants to cast aspersions on my integrity, well, then so be it. I would
never do that. And I just had to express that.
It's just -- it's just so upsetting when you see a newspaper trying
to undermine what we're trying to do for the taxpayers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We don't -- we're not going to include
that in the motion though.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just had to express my feelings.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good, and you did a wonderful
job of it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got the motion, we've got a
second. What, I've got two more lights on?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. You're going to call the
question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you have something else to say?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was going to vote aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you have something to say?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. All I just want to add in, I
believe that this is one of the big agenda items for the Florida
Association of Counties realizing that home rule is being eroded and
Page 231
March 13,2007
that they're going after this in big terms, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- you do have support on that, and
if that wasn't in the motion, it's already in the motion, and I think we're
ready to call the question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wonderful, wonderful.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. May I, ladies and gentlemen?
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: Done.
Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, could I get just one detail? Can I
draft a letter for the chairman's signature that basically tells our
legislative delegation that we're going to try to set up this meeting and
that the county manager would be doing that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: That would be a whole lot better to do, and then I
can try to make the arrangements with their staff. And if that's the
board's desire, we'll do it that way. I appreciate it.
Item #10H
CHANGE ORDER NO.2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
AGREEMENT NO. 03-3553 IN THE AMOUNT OF $995,500.00
WITH CH2MHILL, INC., FOR THE DESIGN OF COLLIER
BOULEV ARD ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FROM DAVIS
Page 232
March 13,2007
BOULEVARD TO GOLDEN GATE MAIN CANAL, COMBINING
THIS PROJECT WITH FDOT DA VIS BOULEVARD
IMPROVEMENTS AND POST DESIGN SERVICES, PROJECT
NO. 60001 - APPROVED
Next item -- brings us to 10H, which used to be 16B3, and it
reads, a recommendation to approve a change order number to the
Professional Service Agreement number 03-3553 in the amount of
$995,500 with CH2MHill, Inc., for the design of Collier Boulevard
road improvements from Davis Boulevard to Golden Gate Main
Canal, combining this project FDOT Davis Boulevard improvement
and Post Design Services, project number 60001, and this item was
moved at staffs request because it has some clarification that needs to
be made.
Mr. Norman Feder, your Administrator for your Transportation
Division, will present.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, I'll try to be brief. I know it's
getting late, but it was important to bring this onto the regular agenda.
I know that the commissioners had some issues, as did I, and I wanted
to make sure that all that gets aired out on this and that you understand
fully what we're trying to do and how it came about.
I'm going to very briefly give you some of that background. I'm
going to ask Nick to give you a little bit more feel as to why we feel
it's urgent to get this issue addressed.
Essentially, as you remember back in the good old days when
Florida DOT had Davis Boulevard fully programmed and we thought
we're going down the path with them doing that project, they were
doing some significant improvements as part of that project also to
County Road 951. Actually I should say they were going to do it to
State Road 951.
The section of 951 from basically pretty close to Davis up to
north of the interstate itself within that limited access line at about that
Page 233
March 13,2007
mile section there is, in fact, on the state road system because it's
within the limited access rights ofI-75.
So when they had their Davis project, they had a number of
dollars in there. They're actually doing some of the implementation of
the future, at least providing for the future interchange improvements,
and those were the days when we were programmed.
It was during those days that we let a design contract gearing
close to construction for a section of 951 we call the south section,
between 41 up to Davis, and the reason our project went to south of
Davis was to combine in with what was supposed to be that state
project on Davis and on County Road 951, or State Road 951, I should
say.
Later we did let a contract for 30, and then we went to 60 percent
design plans to define what to do in the middle section of 951. As
you're aware, we're constructing the north and the south towards the
middle.
In that middle section by Golden Gate City, there's a lot of
question with the canal and the like. And, again, that was done by the
Consultant Competitive Negotiation Act, CCNA, and that effort
brought forward, again, CH2MHill as the designer.
So essentially CH2MHill has project design down to just north of
the Golden Gate Canal, just north ofI-75 and from 41 all the way up
to Davis Boulevard but not that mile section.
As the state pulled their money out of Davis Boulevard, you
asked us to try and find a way to work with the state to get them to
reinstate. The first efforts were try to get them to put their money
back in and not change anything. It became quite evident that that
wasn't about to happen.
And so Nick did a lot of work working with the state with their
designer, with the developers in that area to come up with a concept to
define what we do within that one mile and how we get the one mile
on Davis over to Radio and then get a commitment for that section
Page 234
March 13, 2007
from Radio over to Santa Barbara, back into the program. That was
done.
This represents the follow-up to that L he was talking about in
the first construction, which would be the one mile on Davis, the one
mile on 951.
The vehicle being used to get to this design is a change order to
the CCNA project of CH2MHill on the south end. As I said, they
have the north end, the south end, without this gap in the middle.
Some of that was because, obviously, they had both ends. The
feeling was, it would be very difficult for anyone else with their
knowledge of it, their coordination already with the state's consultant,
to be effective on it.
But it needs to be pointed out that this is an eight-lane section
that they're designing and it needs to be pointed out that neither the
south project nor the north project specifically anticipated adding this
section to the design.
As I said, what you had is a situation where the state was going
to be doing that section of roadway and design.
So essentially what we're asking now is that you consider, first of
all, understanding why we're proceeding on this. I'm going to ask
Nick to go through why some of the urgency. We're going to tell you
that, for the following reasons, we're going to ask you, in an
abundance of caution -- and I say that because we've gone to our legal,
we've gone to our procurement. In both cases they've said they felt
that we're covered under CCNA, even if we don't take this action.
But I feel more comfortable with an eight-lane, with one that
wasn't in either scope. You've noted the one-mile missing gap in
between the corridor fully being covered by the same design
consultant -- is that you understand that we have an urgency in time
because we want to get this done with the agreement that we made to
move with the state's project, that we're put in this situation basically
because of the state's action to pull out of this section, that's why it
Page 235
March 13,2007
wasn't in either of the contracts previously, and that we face real loss
in ability to respond to our system needs and to have significant
constraints and issues in the TCMA in our system if we don't move
forward to get this design and let the contract.
I'm going to ask Nick to give you a little bit better feel for why
we feel it's that urgent. Ifwe try to go out to the process through
CCNA to get this one mile section addressed, we're told it's at least
four months, and the prospects are we'd end up with the same
consultant, so that's why we're asking you to look at this situation in
this manner.
We're wanting to make sure we answer any questions you have
and you fully understand what we're doing.
Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida,
your Planning Manager for Transportation.
Part of what I do is development review as well, too. When I
have a planning contract, that I can use anybody on my planning list.
I went with the consultant that was working on both sides of the road
as I'm reviewing that corridor because I'm working with the
developers to actually take in water management, take in right-of-way
and help build those intersections and pay their fair share.
As part of the coordination for Davis, I'm also looking at 951. I
was here before you with the Davis project, and I explained it's a
one-mile by one-mile L-shaped project.
The urgency is, we want to get this ready by spring. There is no
way I felt I could go outside and use somebody else in that short a
time frame going through the RFP process. I already had a consultant
that was doing the project to the south, the same consultant was doing
the project to the north. They also were helping review the planning
conceptual studies of intersections, drainage basins and everything
else that was involved in that project.
We're extremely aggressive with what we're doing. We want to
Page 236
March 13,2007
meet that deadline. I think the synergy of having that one mile and
one mile at the same time bid as one project, that will be a cost savings
to the county. And I stressed to my boss, Mr. Feder, and Don, that it's
urgent that we make that deadline for spring and bid those two
projects at the same time, as one project.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, I am recommending a slightly
modified recommendation on this. Obviously we're seeking your
approval. I don't use the word emergency lightly. In this case, I think
the real key issue is that first of all it's an abundance of caution that
I'm even raising that to you in that sense, because again -- and I'll let
legal or purchasing talk to you -- but the feeling is that we would not
necessarily be out of CCNA in any event, but this is on an abundance
of caution, and the other is that we're brought here both most
predominantly because we had no way to anticipate that the state was
going to pull out of this project and leave us in this position.
It's critical to us, and it's a critical part of the network, as we
discussed with you as we brought forward the developer contribution
agreements in the effort to move forward and to get at least DOT
committing to some payback and their commitment to the other
section from Radio over to Santa Barbara.
We're open for any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I did have some questions. I
talked with you about them. I talked with Crystal Kinzel at the Clerk's
Office. I wanted to make sure that we didn't run into any stumbling
blocks. She said, no, they had thoroughly discussed it with you and
that they had vetted it themselves and, quite frankly, I see that it is an
emergency, and I think we need to move forward, so I make a motion
to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas.
Page 237
March 13,2007
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by sayings 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, 5-1 (sic). And I'm
sorry, you're signaling to me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 5-1?
MR. FEDER: Chairman, I think your general counsel may have
something that he wanted to share with you, but that went rather
quickly, I think.
MR. PETTIT: I just want to -- Mike Pettit, for the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hi, Mike.
MR. PETTIT: I just wanted to clarify that your motion included
a determination that these were emergency circumstances.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I said that in my motion. Yes,
thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Now how did the vote go?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 5-0.
MR. MUDD: Okay, good. Because you said 5-1.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You said 5-1.
MR. MUDD: I was just trying to figure out --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did I?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're just trying to figure out who
the other person was up here.
Page 238
March 13,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought you had a vote, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: No, sir. Absolutely not.
Item #101
RESOLUTION 2007-66/CWS RESOLUTION 2007-01:
AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF A STATE REVOLVING
FUND LOW INTEREST CONSTRUCTION LOAN
APPLICATION AND AUTHORIZING THE LOAN AGREEMENT
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION FOR COLLIER COUNTY'S SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT (SCRWTP) 12
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY (MGD) REVERSE OSMOSIS
(RO) EXPANSION, (PROJECT NO. 700971, 710221) - ADOPTED
W/CHANGES
That brings us to our next item, which is 101. 101 is a request by
Commissioner Henning to move 16C I forward, and that's a
recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing the submission of
a state revolving fund low-interest construction loan application and
authorizing the loan agreement with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection for Collier County South County Regional
Water Treatment Plant, to 12 million gallons per day reverse osmosis
expansion. Project number 700971, and Mr. Gary Gramatges (sic)--
MR. GRAMA TGES: Phil.
MR. MUDD: Phil.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to that, let's see if
Commissioner Henning might be able to identify why he pulled it and
maybe we can get right to it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Those who wait (sic) for
the resolution in section four giving the division administrator of
public utilities certain powers, and we've been told -- and, in fact, I've
Page 239
March 13, 2007
got a state's attorney general opinion if anybody wants this -- that the
Board of Commissioners or any public officer cannot delegate his
discretionary power, and it states that the administrator, county
administrator, administrates -- or ministerial in nature and does not --
and not to delegate any government power given by the people. And I
don't have a --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What page --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- problem with that. It's 3 of 16,
section four.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Designates the division
administrator to apply for. B, authorize to execute the loan
agreements with amendments, slash amendments. I have a big
problem with that. That's our authority. And then D, authorize to
delegate responsibilities to the appropriate staff to carry out technical
and financial and administrative activities in association to the loan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can I ask Mr. Weigel-- I think Mr.
Weigel would be the right one. Can you respond to this, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe so. Excuse me. The issue in regard to
delegation of board power, Mr. Henning is correct, that the functions
of staff are ministerial. If the parameters of the board's delegation are
clear enough, then it becomes a ministerial act for the staff. If for
instance -- when I say parameter, that is, that there is not discretion
beyond the limitations that are provided by the Board of County
Commissioners to the -- to the staff person in that particular respect.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: It's a fine line.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And why -- I think it's a clear
line. And when you say to a county employee that you can execute a
loan and then amend it, that's the board's power.
So I'm going to move to approve the resolution with the
following amendments in section four: Remove section B altogether.
D, strike the words, to delegate responsibility.
Page 240
March 13,2007
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator. Commissioner, I understand your concerns here, and if
I understood what Mr. Weigel said, that any activities that I would
undertake as a part of this resolution would be administrative only in
nature in carrying out the -- essentially carrying through the board's
intent.
This particular action that you have in front of you is a request by
the division to go forward and go to the state to apply for these loans.
We would be -- once this -- once that's done, we would be back in
here with that loan application, and you would -- actually would
approve that loan before I execute it as per these duties.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: I would not step outside of any of that direct
approval or that direction from the board just like Mr. Weigel has
outlined, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then you have the same
understanding I do.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that isn't what it says.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, again, I'll leave it to the County Attorney's
Office to provide the interpretation beyond my understanding, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Or we can continue this
and let the --
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I recommend we do not continue. We're at
real -- we're almost -- we're in a competition for these very low
interest dollars, and it is very much advantageous that we work this
through so we can move forward and get them. Because if we don't
get up there, somebody else will take them before we get to them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- on D, what do you
interpret delegate responsibility?
MR. DeLONY: I have a loan agreement that once you approve
the actual loan itself, this will be the next step. That will come to me
Page 241
March 13,2007
and I'll actually sign that as the administrator. That's essentially it. I
also will make sure that any information that is requested by the state
in the instance of the loan or in the maintenance of the loan is carried
out under my duties.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's not a delegation.
Ministerial actions is not a delegation.
MR. WEIGEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay? And those words really
don't need to be in there.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, again, I'll defer to the County Attorney's
Office.
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner Henning's correct about that.
Now, if the board wishes to approve the resolution with the
understanding stated by -- and of clarification by Mr. DeLony to the
board, that's one way to go because Mr. DeLony has indicated that he
is bringing things back to the board and not making -- doing decision
making on his own there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or, you know, we could just
remove all that number four.
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm going to amend my
motion to remove section four.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Coyle.
Okay. And we have Commissioner Halas, then we'll come back
to you, sir.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Who wrote this resolution
up?
Page 242
March 13, 2007
MR. WEIGEL: One moment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Somebody probably copied it from
one that exists.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Was the attorney's office, were
they the one that wrote this up?
MR. WEIGEL: We review it for legal sufficiency, and we'll
determine in a moment, indicate in a moment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It says resolution. I just wondered
who put all the wording together.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas brings up a good
point. Doesn't this go to the County Attorney's Office to have them
sign off on it?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's signed off.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, it did.
MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think that somebody in the
County Attorney's Office would then scrutinize this to make sure
everything is -- all the I's are dotted and all the T's are crossed, and
then we wouldn't have this discussion.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it is reviewed by County Attorney's
Office, and assistant County Attorney reviewed it. The intent is to
have uniformity of review and application and not an overstatement of
delegation, and it appears to have been crafted following the
application material that's included with the item.
Now, back to that section four. Mr. DeLony, in regard to --
okay, just there, okay.
Do you understand then that the motion is to approve the
resolution without section four, at that point?
MR. DeLONY: I understand that this -- the resolution, absent
section four, is what is being considered for approval. The only
Page 243
March 13,2007
caveat, problem that I may have, is that the intent, I believe, in section
four, ifI may, Commissioner, is to make sure that there's not undo
administrative burden placed on just processing what has been given
to me as board intent.
And I assume from board intent, once -- because first of all,
apply for the loans, Mr. DeLony, do all you can to get this money.
Once you procure the approvals from the state, that you're going to get
this money, come back to the board for a subsequent approval of those
loans, which is our process, and then from that board direction, go to
consummation and administration of those loans.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. But the chairman should
sign the loan application on behalf --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, he does, he does. As part of the piece he
will do that. And to that -- again, he will -- all that's pretty much
ironed out in the dozen or more that I've done since I've been here. I
mean, we're really -- what you're seeing here is a repeat of past
practices that were done before. And certainly, Commissioner, with all
due respect, I would never step outside the bounds of your intent or
your direction in any of these matters.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just the law.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a law.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. I'm not arguing that point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good catch, Commissioner Henning.
So we have those changes that are going to be noted in there. That
covers what we need to do; is that correct, Mr. Weigel, as it's been
suggested?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think so, and I think that really what
we've come down to is the fact that the execution of any document
that comes back that is an amendment or otherwise will come to the
board because although the chairman would be signing, the chairman
doesn't unilaterally sign. He acts on behalf of the board.
Page 244
March 13, 2007
So it would mean that any agreements that come back that are
altered or different from the initial as an amendment, would come to
the board for its review, probably consent agenda item.
MR. DeLONY: Absolutely. And again, Commissioner, should
-- and we'll get back in touch with the state revolving fund folks. If it
appears somehow that we need to come back to you and clarify
section four different than what this deletion has provided, we
certainly will do that with the next roundup as I bring these forward to
you.
So I see no harm in proceeding as outlined in the motion with the
omission of section four to this resolution. And then, like I said -- I'll
let you finish -- it causes some problems as we would go through
further application process with the state.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I don't think the change
meets the requirement. I am iri agreement with the fact that we
eliminate those things under section four, but there's some things we
have to add.
The application requires that we provide a certified resolution or
other documentation of the formal action taken by the applicant that,
number one, authorizes this application, and number two, designates
the authorized representative to file the application, provide
assurances, execute the loan agreement and represent the applicant in
carrying out responsibilities under the loan agreement.
Now, we're not doing this in this resolution, but that is required.
So what I would suggest we do is designate the chairman as the person
who will authorize -- we'll have a resolution which authorizes the
application and then designates the chairman to file the application,
provide assurances, execute the loan agreement and request the -- and
represent the applicant in carrying out responsibilities under the loan
agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's a part of my motion.
Page 245
March 13,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And that's what we do in the
MPO because the MPO chairman has to sign all of those
acknowledgements.
MR. DeLONY: Again, sir, I have -- everything is well within the
ability to do this first step, get the application up. With the
administration of the loan, working with the county manager or the
Clerk's Office and the County Attorney's Office, as we get into
administration of these, if I need to come back to get an amendment to
what you've given me, I certainly will come back and request that
further process. Jim?
MR. MUDD: IfI can interrupt for just a second. Commissioner
Coyle basically said, section four, take out the public utilities
administrator, put down the chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners, does these four things, and you're done. Section four
is in there and you've got the right guy on the sign line. Simple
enough.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got an amended second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're there. Any other
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got it. All those in favor -- Mr.
DeLony?
MR. DeLONY: I was going to ask, did you look for both -- all
the resolutions, because there's another one that deals with the next
one as well, but include it in all these in the future.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, they're both the same.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those favor, indicate by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 246
March 13,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it.
Good catch, Commissioner Henning.
Was the next one similar?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Same.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The same thing. Did you want
the AGO? Anybody want the attorney general's opinion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I believe you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We believe you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's a nice read.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I wish the County Attorney would
catch this stuff so it doesn't get to this point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sure he'll catch every one in the
future.
MR. WEIGEL: I'll provide you a memo on this later.
Item #IOJ
RESOLUTION 2007-67/CWS RESOLUTION 2007-02:
AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF A STATE REVOLVING
FUND LOW INTEREST CONSTRUCTION LOAN
APPLICATION AND AUTHORIZING THE LOAN AGREEMENT
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION FOR COLLIER COUNTYS SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT (SCRWTP) 20
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY (MGD) WELLFIELD
EXPANSION (PROJECT NO. 708921) - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
Page 247
March 13,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
approve 16C, the correct -- the corrected amended section four,
remove the word division administrator and put chairman of the Board
of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's 16C2.
MR. MUDD: 16C2. It's 10J.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
No discussion, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Commissioner.
MR. MUDD: That brings us to our next item, which is 12A, and
this is a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
instruct staff --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Public comments, there is
none?
MR. MUDD: Oh, I'm sorry, sir.
MS. FILSON: Actually, I have no public comments today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Just making sure it was on the
record that we asked.
MR. MUDD: I was reading her mind, I'm sorry. No problem.
Page 248
March 13,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Thompson already got me in
the Wal-Mart store the other day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, good.
Item #12A
TO INSTRUCT STAFF TO PRESENT A PROPOSED
ORDINANCE FOR THE BOARDS' CONSIDERATION AT A
FUTURE DATE CONSOLIDATING ORDINANCE NO. 2005-55
(COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AND
PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDINANCE),
ORDINANCE NO. 1997-35 (COLLIER COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT CITATION ORDINANCE), AND ORDINANCE
2004-46 (COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL
MASTER ORDINANCE), IN ORDER TO SIMPLIFY THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT PROCESS, AND ESTABLISHING
AFFIRMA TIVE DEFENSES TO CERTAIN ALLEGED CODE
VIOLATIONS - APPROVED; DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK
W/ADVERTISED ORDINANCE
MR. MUDD: Next item on the agenda is 12A. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners instruct
staff to present a proposed ordinance for the board's consideration at a
future date, consolidating ordinance number 2005-55, Collier County
Code Enforcement Board and public nuisance abatement ordinance,
ordinance number 197 -- excuse me -- 1997-35, the Collier County
code enforcement citation ordinance and ordinance 2004-46, the
Collier County code enforcement special master ordinance, in order to
simplify the code enforcement process in establishing affirmative
defenses to certain alleged code violation.
I believe Mr. Jeff Klatzkow from the County Attorney's Office
will present.
Page 249
March 13,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Motion by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala, and a question by
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want the board to be aware
that we're going to affirm, again, the penalties are up to $1,000 per
day, not to exceed $15,000. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if nobody has a problem with
that. The next one, I think we need a clarification in section 14. Oh,
I'm sorry, affirmative defense. How is that -- how is that going to be
interpreted and how is that going to be administered?
MR. KLA TZKOW: It gives the property owner the ability to
prove that the property would have then met the building code in
existence at the time in order to get rid of any notice of violation.
Property owner's going to have to prove the case, probably with a --
some sort of engineer or inspector of his own.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. They have that ability
now according to a public records that I seen. The community -- code
enforcement director stated, if the owner can prove on an old
improvement that it is certified by an engineer, that the county will
accept it, so we have that now.
Am I -- do you remember seeing a correspondence like that,
County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Sir, off the top of my head, I think a certified
engineer can state that it was built per --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Per the code per that time.
MR. MUDD: Per the code per that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Personally I would like to have
something that kind of lays that out in the language here to -- and it's
Page 250
March 13,2007
really, I believe, that the government's responsibility is to prove
beyond a shadow of a doubt that a resident has an un-permitted
structure instead of what it says here.
So I mean, it's -- being that we have lost records and that, I think
it's -- we need to have a date in here where we say that from that past
on, that affirmative defense can be applied and here's how it works is,
the property owner provide a certified engineer or a building
contractor to certify that the work that was performed complies with
the law of that time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I -- I'm a
little bit -- having a little bit of a problem with it. Right now what it
says is basically we make that determination, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we ask for the -- we ask for these
particular documents.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So how do we come to the conclusion
that they got to where they need to be? My understanding was -- is
that they have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there isn't a
safety, health or welfare issue involved with it -- that it was built
according to what it was at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. They have to prove it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The resident --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, isn't that--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- needs to attest --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- what it already says?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that is how it is being
applied. If it is a health, safety and welfare issue, that the county will
taking it to the nuisance -- no, the code enforcement or special master.
In the cases of, you know, additions to houses -- and I think that's
what we used in the description before that -- the correspondence that
Page 251
March 13, 2007
I seen, as long as they have a certified -- an engineer certify that it was
-- that it is built to the code of that time, that it could be identified.
So let's say in 1981 an addition to the house was done and then
somebody complains about it two decades later. The property owner
has the ability to hire a professional to affirm and attest that it is safe.
That's what I'm saying. And that's what they do today as far as the
correspondence. And I can -- I can see if the person that showed it to
me can be here when we bring it back, but this doesn't say that; am I
correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: I must be missing it, sir. I thought that's
exactly what this said.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well--
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just not following you. I apologize.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If it's saying exactly what I said,
how it's going to be applied, I don't have a problem with it.
MR. KLA TZKOW: The way this is applied is if -- usually what
happens is you get one neighbor complaining with another neighbor;
Michelle then looks for a permit. If she couldn't find any permit, then
she starts bringing the action here, because we assume that they didn't
pull the permit if we can't find a permit.
What this affirmative defense does is it says, okay, well, if you
can -- even if we can't find a permit on this, if this goes back from
1997 or before, just hire yourself a professional who can attest that it
would have met the then current building code and would not --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm going to shut up and
vote for it if that's your interpretation.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, fine.
MR. WEIGEL: And Mr. Chairman, Mr. Henning, ifI may add, I
would just say, this is putting into law what has been staff policy so it
puts some, you know, teeth and measure into it that will stay there
until you change it.
MR. KLATZKOW: We will bring back a -- we will advertise
Page 252
March 13, 2007
this then and bring it back for a final vote.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So a building -- a
contractor or a certified engineer or an engineer can certify.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you need to be a licensed
professional. I mean, Joe?
MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt. They
would have to be a registered professional engineering certifying that
the plans meet the code of then, at that time, when it was alleged to
have been built, and then the building official would issue a building
permit for that structure ifthere was no building permit.
A contractor -- in some instances, a contractor may be able to
attest. Electrical connections or some other aspect that fall under the
-- under the licensing of the contractor. But it is situation-dependent.
What we say is a licensed professional, licensed engineer here. If
we're talking about actual structures, there are certain things that a
contractor cannot attest to. It has to be a professional, a registered
professional engineer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it could be a --
MR. SCHMITT: I would have to come back here in the
ordinance, we'll have to come back and clarify that, make sure the
building official -- whatever the building official would need in order
to issue a permit. Again, if we're just talking about electrical work --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Like hanging a ceiling fan?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. You could do that yourself without a
permit if you're an owner/builder. You don't --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you buy an expensive ceiling
fan.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, right, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: We'll come back when we discuss it. We'll
make sure that is very clear, this aspect of what can be done. We'll
make sure it's very clearly spelled out.
Page 253
March 13,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for your patience.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are we there?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: The board's going to vote and basically direct staff
to bring this combined ordinance back, okay, to be advertised. Did I
get that motion and approval from the board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Motion and a second.
MS. FILSON: Motion and a second.
MR. MUDD: We haven't had a vote yet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Haven't voted.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think you've killed the agenda,
and I think we're now on staff and commissioner comment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go too far, I want to try to
find out how long it's going to take because we are past that hour and a
half that we agreed we would take a break. I don't think we're going
to be able to finish in 10 minutes, I really don't. I never seen us finish
m --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I only have one item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. We're going to take a
Page 254
March 13, 2007
10-minute break, come right back.
(A brief recess was had.)
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're at what, manager--
County Manager, comments?
MR. MUDD: I have none. I have none, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: None.
MR. MUDD: None.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: County Attorney?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, that's fantastic.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the first time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think I've ever seen that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's never happened.
MR. WEIGEL: I have less to say than the county manager.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's see if the commissioners
can equal what you just did.
Let's start off with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I added two. The one thing I
want to report to the board is I gave that information to the
air-conditioning industry on the safety caps and asked them to do a
presentation in the future on what their recommendations are and why,
most definitely.
And talking about delegating authority, there was two resolutions
that the board passed, one in '05 and one in '06, where we delegated
the authority of the community development administrator or his
designee to enter into agreements, okay, and I think the board ought to
Page 255
March 13, 2007
correct those actions. I think it's -- anytime, I mean, it's clearly in the
statutes that that's not a ministerial or administrative procedure, and
we need to correct that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Henning had provided that information to
me, and I'm working on it. They are past actions, so what has
happened has happened, but it would appear that those fall into kind of
the same discussions that we just had on 16C 1 and 16C2.
The facts in regard to what staff may have done relative to the
purported delegation in the resolution is yet to be known, but that can
be determined hopefully fairly quickly, although the staffing for the
housing department has scattered and left the employ of the county, so
it's been a bit difficult.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we can direct the county
manager or County Attorney to bring back a resolution on any further
action --
MR. WEIGEL: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- within those departments.
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that would be more
appropriate, but moreover, it would be appropriate for the board to
look at those agreements and take action on them, correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I think that's what we
should do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we're going to have the
County Attorney bring this back?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got enough nods?
So that's direction.
Page 256
March 13, 2007
Your second item?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is my second item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, good.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have one thing very briefly. I
have a constituent who has raised a question about newspapers and
other publications being thrown into his driveway. He does not
subscribe to these, but many of the newspapers that are distributed to
residences throughout the county are free, and a lot of people get their
news from these.
He has objected to this and he believes it is littering. And he
recalls a time when we used to have an anti-littering law which
prohibited newspapers from being thrown into your yard or -- not just
newspapers, but any other kinds of publications unless you have
subscribed to them.
Now, I am reluctant to sponsor an ordinance because of a single
complaint by a single constituent, and I'm trying to determine if any of
the commissioners have had any concerns expressed to them. If you
think it is a significant issue, then maybe we could task staff to take a
look at it and see ifthere's something we should be doing.
The balance essentially is this. You're going to deprive a lot of
people from getting information because they get it from these
publications. And there is a law, there is a rule in our code
enforcement department which permits this to be solved by an
individual. All they have do is notify the newspaper by registered
mail that they have -- that they don't want to receive their publication.
Then they present that evidence to code enforcement people. If it -- if
the publication appears there again, then code enforcement can take
action against the publication for littering because they're throwing it
somewhere where they were specifically told not to throw it.
Page 257
March 13,2007
This individual does not want to go through that procedure. He
just wants a blanket ordinance which prohibits them to be distributed
at all.
So that's where we are with this and it has -- it's something that
code enforcement has been dealing with for a long time now
apparently. So I'd like to, you know, just make an inquiry. Do you
think it's something you want to do or not?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to make a comment real
quick because I've dealt with the same situation, and it's probably one
of the publications that's in script. There's one gentleman that
produces the majority of them in the area, contains quite a bit of news,
some advertising.
What they've been doing, when they receive a complaint, they
cut out that whole street. And it's -- and it does, it's a news medium in
Golden Gate Estates that's very much accepted. A lot of people don't
get the local newspaper, and this is all they get. And so when one
person complains on a street, they can't sort it out. They just cancel a
whole street, one mile of houses.
So it is a problem. And if he puts a complaint in, they'll probably
stop delivering it to all his neighbors. That's the way they've been
working it. They have no other way to be able to handle it.
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've had numerous emails in
regards to a publication that has just started up in the North Naples
area where citizens have called the newspaper and told them to stop
delivering it, and they continue to deliver it. And I've also sent that to
Joe Schmitt's area.
And there's been people that are not at that residence, and it ends
up littering their driveway because they're not there. They only
maybe live down here three or four months of the year and they've got
a single family residence in a -- not in a gated community, and the
neighbors go around and pick up the litter. So it is a problem.
Page 258
March 13, 2007
I've gotten numerous complaints that they want this stopped. So
I think it is a concern. It's not just one constituent in your area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then could we just ask staff
to take a look at it and see if they can come up with a reasonable
proposal that we can consider at some future date?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner -- I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As long as it is -- if people want to
stop, all they should have to do is call and say, I want this thing
stopped because I don't want it on my driveway, and that should be the
end of it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the problem is that that's going
to result in some sort of fine for that company if they throw it out
again, and code enforcement has to have some proof that they have
been told not to deliver it. And absent proof, they can't -- they cannot
substantiate the fine.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about an email?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, registered mail is the
preferred way right now. That's the way it's supposed to be done
under our procedures right now. You send it registered mail, return
receipt requested, and then that gives you a receipt that shows that you
sent it to them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the publication's free to start
with, and then you're requiring the citizen to go out and pay the
postage to get a registered mail envelope and to get the thing
registered, go to the post office, go through all these hoops to just stop
the publication that's free that he's not even requested.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I suggest we follow
Commissioner Coyle's suggestion, let staff see what the options are,
then come back? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I'm concerned about
freedom of speech, freedom of press. Besides, on my street I use those
Page 259
March 13,2007
papers for the kitty litter box.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you want as many as you can
get, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I don't want it to stop on
my street.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Took care of my problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETT A: You've got direction for staff?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll get a report back from them.
Did you have something else, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nothing else.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, believe it or not, I have nothing
except to say we're adjourned.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm out of here.
***Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner Coyle
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ***
Item #16Al
RELEASE AND SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR PAYMENTS
RECEIVED FOR THE FOLLOWING CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS: WILMA BRITTON AND GORDON & KAY
SCHULTZ, AND LYJAC PROPERTIES, LLC AND THE
FOLLOWING SPECIAL MASTER ACTION: FRVG, LLC. - AT A
COST OF $40 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item #16A2
Page 260
March 13,2007
RESOLUTION 2007-52: DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH
THE REQUIREMENT FOR OPEN SP ACE/NA TURAL HABIT A T
PRESERVE AREA AS IT RELATES TO ORDINANCE NO. 97-36,
THE CYPRESS WOOD'S GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
Item # 16A3
RESOLUTION 2007-53: 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.
FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF
"FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE 2A, UNIT TWO". THE ROADWAY
AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y
MAINTAINED - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A4
COMMERCIAL EXCA V A TION PERMIT NO. 59.835
"LIVINGSTON LAKES COMMERCIAL EXCA VA TION",
LOCATED IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST TO ALLOW FOR THE REMOVAL OF AN ADDITIONAL
30,000 CUBIC YARDS OF EXCA V A TED MATERIAL FROM
THE SITE - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A5
THE TERMINATION OF THE CABLE FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Page 261
March 13, 2007
AND COLLIER COUNTY - BECAUSE OF INCREASED
COMPETITION AND THE COMPANY'S DESIRE TO FOCUS
ON BUILDING HOMES
Item #16Bl
AWARD BID NO. 07-4094 - "LEL Y STORMW A TER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MITIGATION AREA: INVASIVE
VEGET A TION REMOVAL" TO ALL FLORIDA TREE AND
LANDSCAPING, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $668,764-
FOR A 109.3 ACRE CONSERVATION AREA LOCATED NORTH
OF NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB AND WEST OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD
Item #16B2 - Continued to the March 27,2007 BCC Meeting
THE PURCHASE OF IMPROVED PROPERTY (PARCEL NO.
130) WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT. NO.
60168 (FISCAL IMPACT: $563,500) - FOR A 2.55 ACRE
PARCEL (PARCEL #130) BETWEEN COLLIER BOULEVARD
AND WILSON BOULEVARD
Item #16B3 - Moved to Item #10H
Item # 16C 1 - Moved to Item # 101
Item #16C2 - Moved to Item #IOJ
Item # 16C3
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $459,250 AND
Page 262
March 13,2007
AWARD BID NO. 06-3946R TO D.N. HIGGINS, INC. FOR THE
NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
(NCRWTP) WATER CHEMISTRY LABORATORY
VENTILA TION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$683,000; PROJECT 700952 - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C4
ACCEPTANCE OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BIG CYPRESS BASIN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT NO. 4600000654 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $900,000 AS PARTIAL FUNDING FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT 20-MGD WELLFIELD
EXPANSION, PROJECT 70892, AND APPROVE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT
Item #16Dl
RESCIND PREVIOUS A WARD TO WELLER POOLS AND
AWARD THE INSTALLATION OF A 32" AQUATUBE SLIDE
AT NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK TO VARIAN
CONSTRUCTION AT A COST OF $76,059 - FOR USE AT THE
SUN-N-FUN LAGOON; PRICE QUOTES OBTAINED UNDER
CONTRACT #06-3971 "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR GENERAL
CONTRACTOR'S SERVICES"
Item # 16D2
RESOLUTION 2007-54: DECLARING A PUBLIC PURPOSE
AND FOR THE SOLICITATION, RECEIPT AND SUBSEQUENT
Page 263
March 13, 2007
DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY DONATIONS TO COLLIER
COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES - ON THE
OCCASION THAT DAS CANNOT USE THESE DONATIONS
THEY ARE DISTRIBUTED TO NON-PROFIT GROUPS AND
NEW PET OWNERS
Item #16E I
SUBMITTAL OF AN AWARD APPLICATION FOR THE
GENERAL KNOWLEDGE DATABASE EMERGENCY PHONE
BANK RESPONSE SYSTEM TO THE MITRETEK
INNOV A TIONS A WARD IN HOMELAND SECURITY
PROGRAM - TO IDENTIFY, EXPLORE AND HIGHLIGHT
CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS IN
REGARDS TO HOMELAND SECURITY CONCERNS
Item #16E2
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD - APPROVED
CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 24, 2007
THROUGH FEBRUARY 20,2007
Item #16Fl
SUBMITTAL OF A VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE
(MA TCHING 50/50) GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA
DIVISION OF FORESTRY FOR THE PURCHASE OF WILD
LAND FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT AND APPROVE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE AND
APPROPRIATE REVENUE OF $1670.49 FROM DOF - TO
IMPROVE FIREFIGHTER SAFETY AND FlREFIGHTING
Page 264
March 13, 2007
CAPABILITIES ON THE ISLE'S OF CAPRI
Item #16F2
SUBMITTAL OF A VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE
MATCHING (50/50) GRANT OFFERED BY THE FLORIDA
DIVISION OF FORESTRY, AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE AND
APPROPRIATE REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1675.25
FROM DOF - FOR THE PURCHASE OF VHF RADIOS TO BE
USED FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
Item #16F3
BAR RESOLUTION 2007-01: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2006-07
ADOPTED BUDGET - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16F4
AWARD BID #07-4114 IN THE AMOUNT OF $176,425.00 FOR
PELICAN BAY STREETS CAPE IRRIGATION SYSTEM PHASE
VI TO STAHLMAN-ENGLAND IRRIGATION, INC.
Item #16G 1
CRA RESOLUTION 2007-55: AMENDING THE BA YSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT
PROGRAM TO ALLOW FOR NEW SHORELINE
ST ABlLIZA TION IMPROVEMENT GRANT AND SWEAT
Page 265
March 13,2007
EQUITY GRANT PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2008 AND
2009; APPROVE THE GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS;
APPROVE THE FORM OF THE GRANT AGREEMENT
LETTERS; AND DECLARE THE GRANTS AS SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16G2
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF A
V ACANT RESIDENTIAL (MOBILE HOME) LOT IN THE
BA YSHORE AREA OF THE CRA AS PART OF A CRA
RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT; TO APPROVE PAYMENT
FROM AND AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN TO MAKE A
DRA W FROM THE BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE CRA
W ACHOVIA BANK LINE OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$90,000 PLUS COST AND EXPENSES TO COMPLETE THE
SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES; AND APPROVE ANY AND
ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. SITE ADDRESS:
FOLIO # 52700840000 - TO ADDRESS BLIGHTED AREAS IN
THE BA YSHORE AREA; VAN BUREN AVENUE - KELLY
PLAZA LOT 23
Item #I6Hl
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE MARINE
INDUSTRY MEMBERS MEETING, WHERE HE WAS A
SPEAKER ON FEBRUARY 20, 2007; $25.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL FUND - HELD AT THE
ELKS CLUB ON RADIO ROAD, NAPLES
Page 266
March 13,2007
Item #16H2 -Withdrawn
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING THE THIRD ANNUAL "HONOR THE FREE
PRESS DAY" ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14,2007, AT 11:00
A.M. THE HILTON NAPLES; $25.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE
HILTON OF NAPLES, 5111 T AMIAMI TRAIL NORTH
Item # 16H3
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE VETERAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT LUNCHEON HONORING
VOLUNTEER DRIVERS ON MARCH 7, 2007 AT THE ELKS
LODGE ON RADIO ROAD; $16.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL FUND
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE BREAKFAST
ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION AT MOORINGS PARK ON
MARCH 5, 2007; $10.97 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT 120 MOORINGS
PARK DRIVE
Item #I6H5
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE 3RD ANNUAL
Page 267
March 13,2007
MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS FESTIVAL ON FEBRUARY
20,2007, WHERE HE WAS A SPEAKER; $5.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET-
HONORING HER WORK WITH THE ECOSYSTEM OF THE
EVERGLADES
Item #16H6
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE RIGHT ANGLE
CLUB AT QUAIL CREEK LUNCHEON ON MARCH 9, 2007
WHERE HE WAS A SPEAKER; $11.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H7
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING THE TREVISO BAY "NEXT BEST THING"
CELEBRATION ON MARCH 2, 2007, AT TREVISO BAY; $10.00
TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET
Item # 16H8
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING THE MARCO ISLAND ALUMNI CLUB
MONTHL Y LUNCHEON ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28,
2007 AT THE OLD MARCO INN; $22.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT 100
PALM STREET, MARCO ISLAND
Page 268
March 13, 2007
Item # 16 I 1
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 269
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
March 13, 2007
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
(1) Ave Maria Community Development District: Proposed Budget FY
2006-2007.
(2) Port of the Islands Community Development District: Minutes of
November 10, 2006; Agenda for November 10, 2006; Minutes of
January 12, 2007; Agenda for January 12, 2007; Minutes of
January 22, 2007 Special Meeting.
(3) Cedar Hammock Community Development District: Minutes of
August 14, 2006; Agenda for August 14, 2006.
B: Minutes:
(1) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board: Minutes of
December 11, 2006.
(2) Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority: Minutes of
November 26, 2006.
C: Other:
(1) Collier County Government/City of Naples Government/East
Naples Fire Control and Rescue District: Agenda for February 5,
2007; Minutes of February 5,2007.
H:\DA T A \FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondence\031307 _ misc_corr.doc
March 13,2007
Item # 1611
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 17,2007
THROUGH FEBRUARY 23, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 24, 2007
THROUGH MARCH 02, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 1613
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO FILE AN
AMENDED INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 8038-G FORM
FOR COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN A-25-1- COMPLETED FOR
ALL ISSUED TAX EXEMPT GOVERNMENTAL OBLIGATION
DEBTS
Item # 16J4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO FILE A NOTICE
OF MATERIAL EVENTS PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 15C2-12-
FILED THROUGH THE CLERK'S FINANCE AND
ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT AS A REQUIREMENT FOR
DISCLOSING OUTSTANDING COUNTY DEBT TO THE
MUNICIPAL SECURITIES SECONDARY MARKET
Item #16KI
AN AGREED ORDER FOR EXPERT FEES IN CONNECTION
Page 270
March 13, 2007
WITH PARCELS 136,836 AND 936 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V DA VID J FREY, ET AI., CASE NO. 03-
2353-CA (GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y, PROJECT #60027)
FISCAL IMPACT: $2,500.00
Item #16K2
OFFER OF JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,950.00 AS TO
PARCEL 134 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V
TREESOURCE, INC., ET AI., CASE NO. 02-5167-CA
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 60018). (FISCAL IMPACT
$5,857.50)
Item #16K3
AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,500.00 AS
TO PARCEL 803 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY
V JAMES M BROWN, ET AI., CASE NO. 06-0525-CA (SANTA
BARBARA BLVD. PROJECT NO. 62081). (FISCAL IMPACT IF
ACCEPTED: $3,066.91)
Item # 17 A - Continued Indefinitely
PETITION A VROW-2005-AR-780I, 12TH STREET NORTH
DISCLAIMING, RENOUNCING AND VACATING THE
COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLICS INTEREST IN A 60 FOOT
WIDE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT, KNOWN AS 12TH
STREET NORTH (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN BY RECORD PLAT
AS SECOND AVENUE) AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3,
PAGE 12, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AND MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN
EXHIBIT A AND TO ACCEPT A DRAINAGE EASEMENT
Page 271
March 13,2007
OVER THE ENTIRE V ACA TED AREA COMPRISED OF THREE
SEP ARA TE AND SEGMENTED DRAINAGE EASEMENTS, AS
DEPICTED AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C AND
EXHIBIT D AND A 20 FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT
ALONG THE WEST 20 FEET OF THE EAST 30 FEET OF THE
PROPOSED V ACA TION AREA, AS DEPICTED AND
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT E.
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2007-31: PETITION RZ-2005-AR-7445 (THIS IS
THE SECOND HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AS REQUIRED BY
SUBSECTION 10.03.05 E.4. OF THE LDC WHICH REQUIRES
TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS BY THE BCC FOR REZONE
APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE COUNTY. THE FIRST
OF THE TWO REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THIS
REZONING PETITION WAS HELD ON FEBRUARY 27, 2007)
D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP, Q. GRADY MINOR AND
ASSOCIATES, P.A. REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE
CONSERV ATION ZONING DISTRICT WITH AN AREA OF
CRITICAL STATE CONCERN AND A SPECIAL TREATMENT
OVERLA Y (CON-ACSC/ST) AND THE VILLAGE
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH AN AREA OF
CRITICAL STATE CONCERN AND A SPECIAL TREATMENT
OVERLA Y (VR-ACSC/ST) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH AN AREA
OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN AND A SPECIAL
TREATMENT OVERLAY (VR-ACSC/ST-4) ZONING DISTRICT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTIONS 12 AND 13,
TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. (COPELAND)
Page 272
March 13, 2007
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:29 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
~~~
JIM Cdi:TT A, Chairman
ATTEST:
."[
DWIGHT ~.'EROCK, CLERK
" .
','I)
These minutes approved by the Board on 1Jpnl 10. a-001-, as
presented ~ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 273