BCC Minutes 10/23-24/2007 R
October 23-24, 2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 23-24,2007
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
Frank Halas
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
"01..'\\1/1";,
! I~.o,:
~ II'
(^!l . "....~ ""
AGENDA
October 23, 2007
9:00 AM
Jim Coletta, BCC Chairman, District 5; CRAB Vice-Chairman
Tom Henning, BCC Vice- Chairman, District 3
Donna Fiala, BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner, District 2
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Commissioner, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 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 EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
Page 1
October 23, 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 IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. September 20, 2007 - BCC/Budget Hearings
C. September 25, 2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting
D. October 1,2007 - Value Adjustment Board Minutes
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 25 Year Attendees
1) Jane McDonald, Veterans Services
2) Keith Magero, Water
B. 35 Year Attendees
Page 2
October 23, 2007
1) Bonnie Fauls, Housing and Human Services
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating October 26,2007 as The Day of the Red Walk in
Collier County. To be accepted by Ms. Nina Ribinski, Safe and Drug Free
Schools Coordinator, Collier County Schools.
B. Proclamation designating October 23 - 31, 2007 as Red Ribbon Week in
Collier County. To be accepted by Undersheriff Kevin Rambosk, Collier
County Sheriff's Office and Judge Lauren Brodie, 20th Judicial Circuit
Court, Collier County.
C. Proclamation for United Way of Collier County Agency to be accepted by
Ernie Bretzmann, Executive Director of the United Way, Rose Branda and
Craig Bamberg.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Sustainable Florida Promising Practice Award to be presented to the Board
of County Commissioners by Steve Preston, Project Manager, Stormwater.
B. Presentation for the Design/Build ofImmokalee Road (1-75 to CR 951),
converting a 4 lane road to 6 lanes.
C. Recommendation to recognize Fred Sexton, Field Engineering Inspector,
Public Utilities Engineering Department, as Employee of the Month for
October 2007.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by Kenneth Thompson to address lack of
communication between Code Enforcement and the public.
B. Public petition request by Jennifer Rogers to discuss the Marine Resource
Conservation Partnership (MRCP).
C. Public petition request by Steve Olivera to discuss purchase agreement of
property located along the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Corridor.
Page 3
October 23, 2007
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 to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. This item continued from the
October 9. 2007 meetinl!:. This item reauires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members.
Petition: CU-2005-AR-8748, Ashraf Fawzy, represented by Wayne Arnold,
AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting approval of a
Conditional Use in the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to excavate in
excess of 4,000 cubic yards of earth for an aquaculture facility in the
Agricultural (A) zoning district, per Section 2.04.03 Table 2 of the Land
Development Code (LOC). The subject property, consisting of
approximately 15.08 acres, is located at 2060 Tobias Street, in Section 22,
Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Petition: HD-2007-AR-
11828, The Collier County Historical and Archaeological Preservation
Board, requests a Historical Designation for the Dr. Nehrling Tropical
Garden located on Collier County property and leased by the Naples Zoo.
The subject property current zoning of the parcel is C-3 and "A" Rural
Agricultural, consist of 13.35 acre and is located at 1590 Goodlette Road
North, Section 27, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida
C. This item to be continued to the November 13. 2007 BCC meetinl!: due to
meetinl!: the advertisinl!: deadline. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners adopt an Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 2004-
58 relating to Establishing A Property Maintenance Code For The
Unincorporated Area Of Collier County, Florida; Providing A Title;
Providing For Purpose And Scope; Providing For General Provisions;
Providing Definitions; Providing For Rules Of Construction; Providing For
Compliance With Housing Standards; Providing For Rental Registration
Requirements And Procedures; Designating The Housing Official Powers
And Duties; Providing For Inspection Of Structures And Premises;
Providing For Notice Of Violation Procedures; Providing A Method For
Designating Hazardous Buildings; Providing For Standards For The Repair
Page 4
October 23, 2007
Or Demolition Of Hazardous Buildings By The County; Providing For The
Assessment Of Costs Of Repair Or Oemolition To Be Assessed To The
Owner When Abatement Executed By The County; Providing For The
Vacation Of Hazardous Buildings; Providing The Responsibility For
Property Maintenance; Providing The Responsibilities Of Owners Of
Nonresidential Structures, Vacant Buildings, Vacant Structures, And Vacant
Or Unimproved Lots; Requiring A Certificate For A Boarded Building;
Providing For Nuisances; Providing Standards For Securing Building;
Providing For Exceptions To Boarding Requirements; Providing For Costs
Incurred By The County And Assessment Of A Lien; Providing For A
Notice Of Hearing For Revocation Of Boarding Renewal Certificate;
Providing For Penalties; Providing For Liberal Construction; Providing For
Inclusion In The Code Of Laws And Ordinances; Providing For Conflict
And Severability; And Effective Date.
D. Approve an Ordinance amending the provisions of the Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 98, Parks and Recreation, also known as
Ordinance No. 76-48, as amended, pertaining to park use; providing for
additional definitions in Article III, Section 98-57; and adding an exception
to Section 98-58, Prohibited Acts. (Fiscal Impact: None) (Companion to
Item ION.)
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Recommendation to award contract 07 -4170 for County Attorney
Recruitment Services to Waters Consulting Group, Inc. for $28,000.
B. Appointment of members to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review
Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Collier County Citizens Corps.
D. Appointment of member to the Affordable Housing Commission.
E. Appointment of members to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council.
F. Appointment of member to the Historical/Archaeological Preservation
Board.
Page 5
October 23, 2007
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to approve and adopt the Collier County Water-Sewer
Oistricts Irrigation Quality (IQ) Water Policy and on the basis of that policy
to authorize staff to develop an IQ Water Master Plan and perform an IQ
Water Rate Study. (Beth Johnssen, Wastewater Irrigation Quality Manager.)
B. Recommendation to approve for discussion at the upcoming joint Board of
County Commissioners and Collier County Legislative Delegation Pre 2008
Legislative Session Workshop the attached list of proposed issues. (Debbie
Wight, Assistant to the County Manager.)
C. A report to the Board of County Commissioners concerning a possible
change in the County's Ordinance to reflect an amendment to Florida
Statutes regarding the use of All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) on certain
unpaved roads in the County. (Bob Tipton, Traffic Operations Manager.)
D. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or
purchase of right-of-way and related easements necessary for the
construction ofroadway, drainage and utility improvements required for the
expansion of Golden Gate Boulevard from west of Wilson boulevard to east
of Everglades Boulevard (Phase One project limits), and authorizing the
acquisition of lands necessary for the construction of stormwater retention
and treatment ponds for both Phases One and Two (from west of Wilson
Boulevard to east of Desoto Boulevard.) Project No. 60040. Estimated fiscal
impact: $18,411,297.00. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services
Administrator.)
E. Recommendation to approve Contract Amendment No.7, Exhibit E, for a
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of$7,0l2,302 under Contract No. 04-
3576, Construction Manager at Risk Services for the Courthouse Annex and
Parking Garage, with Kraft Construction Company, Inc. for the interior
finishing (Build-Out) of the Courthouse Annex floors 4 through 7, Project
Number 52533. (Hank Jones, Sr. Project Manager.)
F. 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 ofroadway, drainage and
utility improvements required for the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard
from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock Road. (Capital
Page 6
October 23, 2007
Improvement Element No. 32, Project No. 60091). Estimated fiscal impact:
$3,750,000.00. (Jay Ahmad, Director, Transportation ECM.)
G. Recommendation to accept Fiscal Year 2007 Grant Report providing an
annual update of grant activity. (Marlene Foord, Grants Coordinator.)
H. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation to: (a) award the
contract for RFP #07-4138 (Reclamation of Collier County Landfill Cells I
and 2) to Waste Management Inc. of Florida (WM1F) for a contract amount
of$7,597,900.82; Base proposal of $5,9 10,460.82 and allowances of
$1,687,440; (b) approve a necessary budget amendment for the project in the
amount of $6,232,067.06 from the Capital Improvement Fund and Reserves
for Closure Fund; and (c) authorize the Chairman to execute the contract
with WMIF. (Dan Rodriguez, Solid Waste Director.)
I. Recommendation to award Contract 07-4183 - Gateway Triangle
Stormwater Improvements Project Phase 1 Construction to D.N. Higgins,
Inc. in the amount of$I,048,565.50. (Stormwater Management Department
Project #51803) (Gene Calvert, Director, Stormwater Management.)
J. Obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners as to the viability
of using TDC funds to engineer, permit and install additional erosion control
structures on Hideaway Beach. (Companion Item to 10K) (Gary McAlpin,
Coastal Zone Management Director.)
K. Authorize the expenditure of $25,000 to perform preliminary engineering
and permit investigation to determine; the number and extent of additional
erosion control structures on Hideaway Beach; specific permitting
requirements; related schedule implications and; projects cost. (Companion
item to 10J)
L. A Resolution superseding Resolution 2003-195 and establishing the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners' Purchasing Policy for the
acquisiton of lands by the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program.
(Alex Sulecki, Senior Environmental Specialist.)
M. To Amend Collier County Community Development & Environmental
Services Fee Schedule pertaining to Rental Registration pending approval of
the Rental Registration Ordinance. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Page 7
October 23, 2007
Community Development & Environmental Services Division)
N. Recommendation to approve lease agreement with LeHill Partners LLC (dba
Naples Grande) to provide food, beverage, beach equipment rentals, and
water recreational rentals at Clam Pass Beach Park and approve all
necessary budget amendments. (Companion to Item 8D.) (Marla Ramsey,
Public Services Administrator.)
O. This item to be heard at 10:30 a.m. To initiate a discussion with the Board
of County Commissioners to review the history and chain of events resulting
from a platting omission for the Olde Cypress Units Two and Three plats, in
the Olde Cypress Planned Unit Development (PUD) and to discuss the
potential means to resolve the resulting encroachments into the setback
requirement for preserve areas for 18 existing single family residential
structures in Units Two and Three. (Susan Istenes, AICP,Director, Zoning &
Land Development Review)
P. Recommendation to approve the FY 08 contract between Collier County and
the State of Florida Department of Health for operation of the Collier
County Health Department in the amount of $1 ,481 ,000.
Q. Recommendation that Collier County Board of County Commissioners
authorize the preparation of an ordinance amending Section Six of
Ordinance No. 2004-62 by providing for a two-year extension ofthe term of
the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee from December 31,
2007 to December 31, 2009. (Thomas Greenwood, Principal Planner,
Comprehensive Planning.)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Discussion and direction regarding Collier County Public Records Policy.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
Page 8
October 23, 2007
A. This item to be heard on or after 3:00 p.m. Recommendation that the
Community Redevelopment Agency approve and execute the Immokalee
Redevelopment Area Executive Director Employment Agreement between
the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and Penny Phillippi.
(Thomas Greenwood, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning.)
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 to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Reflection Lakes, Phase IA.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Lely High School/Lely Resort 7 & 8.
4) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility
facility for Tollgate Business Park II.
5) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility
facility for Tollgate Business Park III.
6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for The Majors, Phase II.
7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facility for The Majors, Phase Ill.
Page 9
October 23, 2007
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Mustang Island.
9) Recommendation to authorize staff use ofa Developer's Version of
the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FlAM) as a supplemental planning
tool for internal use only to review proposed Developments of
Regional Impact (DRls), projects within the Rural Land Stewardship
Area (RLSA), projects within the Rural Land Mixed Use Overlay, and
other major developments in order to assess projected revenue and
expenditure impacts upon Collier County services.
10) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment to transfer funds
from Fund (131) Reserves to Community Development Admin Fund
(131) totaling $147,972 for the update and rewrite of portions of the
Collier County Land Development Code.
11) Approve a budget amendment to provide funding for the County's
CRS Program activities by utilizing available Fund III reserves.
($51,400)
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a budget amendment to transfer project funds in the amount of
$395,493.67 to the Golden Gate Parkway Grade Separated Overpass
Landscape Installation. (Fund 112, Project #600067)
2) Recommendation to approve submittal of a Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) Water Quality Restoration Grant proposal to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection for Freedom Park
(rk.a. Gordon River Water Quality Park) in the amount of
$1,000,000.00 and approve that the project manager will
electronically submit the grant application.
3) Recommendation to approve the Roadway Maintenance Agreement
with Lodge/Abbott Associates LLC for the golf cart overpass on
Vanderbilt Drive.
4) This item continued from the September 25. 2007 BCC Meetinl!:.
Recommendation to approve a Developer's Contribution Agreement
Page 10
October 23, 2007
with MAC Builders, Inc. (Developer) and Collier County (County) to
design, permit and construct the intersection improvements on US41
and Barefoot Williams Road. (Project # 600451 and #600231)
5) Recommendation to approve a declaration setting aside county-owned
lands for a public access easement. (Fiscal Impact: $10.00)
6) Recommendation to award Bid No. 08-5001, Queens Park
Neighborhood Fencing Installation to Commercial Fence Contractors,
Inc. in the amount of $60,073.52; Project #511012.
7) Recommendation to award Bid #07-4185 "US 41 (Tamiami Trail)
East (Rattlesnake-Hammock to Collier Blvd.) Annual Maintenance"
to Vila & Son Landscaping in the amount of $339,542.80.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve the Satisfaction for a certain Water
and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreement. Fiscal Impact is
$18.50 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
2) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1991,
1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $108.50 to
record the Satisfactions of Lien.
3) Recommendation to approve an Interlocal Agreement for
reconstruction of the existing interconnect between the Collier County
Water-Sewer District and Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc., to provide for
reverse potable water flows at Bonita Springs Utilities expense, to
provide for the design and construction of a second interconnect, at a
location to be determined, at the expense of the Collier County Water-
Sewer District, and to establish rates for usage of potable water.
(Fiscal Impact: $300,000)
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
Page 11
October 23, 2007
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes its Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement
providing a Community Development Block Grant in the amount of
$116,079.00 to the City of Naples to fund improvements to the
George Washington Carver and River Park communities and the Fun
Time Early Childhood Academy.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Rosa
Mendez Olivero (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at
Lot 122, Trail Ridge.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Elixer
Oossous and Veolene Dossous (Owners) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 203, Trail Ridge Naples.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Marise
Vii saint (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 2,
Liberty Landing.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Sheila
Destine (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 3,
Liberty Landing.
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Zoublette
Bien Aime (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact
fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 27,
Block 6, Naples Manor Lakes.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Amancio
Rubio and Ana Rubio (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
Page 12
October 23, 2007
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 28, Block 6, Naples Manor Lakes.
8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Raul Frias
Almanza and Rosa Perez Frias (Owners) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 154, Independence Phase II.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Ertha
Fabien (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 9,
Liberty Landing.
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Elias
Bustamante Vera and Maria Bustamante (Owners) for deferral of
100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable
housing unit located at Lot I, Liberty Landing.
11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Evelyne
Belance (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 120,
Trail Ridge, Naples.
12) Recommendation to approve the submittal of an Aquatic Habitat
Restoration Project Proposal grant application for water quality,
seagrass monitoring and implement an educational program for Clam
Bay in the amount of $55,000 to the Southeast Aquatic Resources
Partnership.
13) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jean
Claude Exceus and Antida Exceus (Owners) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 6, Liberty Landing, Immokalee.
Page 13
October 23, 2007
14) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement
between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the
Area Agency on Aging of Southwest Florida, Inc. and approve a
budget amendment to reflect the transfer of funds from Title III-Cl to
Title III-B in the amount of$35,000 in the 2007 Older Americans Act
grant program.
15) Recommendation to approve budget amendments totaling $6,746.08
to recognize additional revenue received in the Services for Seniors
program from the Area Agency on Aging for the State of Florida
General Revenue programs.
16) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$21,510.94 to recognize revenue received from the collection of co-
payments and anticipated revenue from the Collier County Services
for Seniors Program.
17) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of a 2005
Round Two Disaster Recovery Initiative (OR!) grant to the
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to fund disaster relief and
the restoration of housing and infrastructure related to the effects of
the 2005 hurricane season.
18) To present to the Board of County Commissioners a summary of the
Impact Fee Deferral Agreements recommended for approval in FY08,
including the total number of Agreements approved, the total dollar
amount deferred and the balance remaining for additional deferrals in
FY08.
19) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Marco Bay
Homes, LLC (BUILDER) and James Obrochta (DEVELOPER) for
deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied
affordable housing unit located at East 75 of the West 180 of Tract
115, Unit 79, Golden Gate Estates.
20) Recommendation to award Contract(s) #07-4153 Professional
Engineering for Coastal Zone Management Projects to the following
firms: Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc.; Johnson Engineering,
Inc.; Corzo Castella Carballo Thompson Salman, P.A. (C3TS); Q.
Page 14
October 23, 2007
Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.; Post Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan,
Inc, (PBS&J).
21) Recommendation to reject all bids received under Bid 07-4162,
Veterinary Medicines and Drugs and Expendable Supplies and
Equipment for Domestic Animal Services Department.
22) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept a
donation of $1 ,500.00 for Marine Science Program development from
the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection-MFMP
as part of sponsorship of the Marine Resource Conservation
Partnership of Collier County into the Collier County University
Extension Trust fund.
23) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes its Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement
providing a Community Development Block Grant in the amount of
$250,000 to Fun Time Early Childhood Academy, Inc., for site
development in preparation for construction of a new Fun Time Early
Childhood Academy within the George Washington Carver and River
Park communities in the City of Naples.
24) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes its Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement
providing Disaster Recovery Initiative (DR!) funding in the amount of
$124,923.00 to the Collier County Housing Development Corporation
for purchase and installation of two back-up generators for the sewer
lift station and the water treatment plant in Copeland.
25) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes its Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement
providing Disaster Recovery Initiative(DR!) funding in the amount of
$293,934.00 to St. Matthews House, Inc. for hurricane hardening of
its shelter.
26) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes its Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement
providing a Community Development Block Grant in the amount of
$1,000,000 to Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., for
installation of infrastructure to support 204 home sites for Kaicasa
Page 15
October 23, 2007
Phase I in Immokalee.
27) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes its Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement
providing Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI) funding in the amount of
$374,545.00 to The Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida,
Inc., for infrastructure to support construction of 15 single-family
homes in Immokalee, to be known as Hatchers Preserve, intended for
low income, first time homebuyers and families displaced by
Hurricane Wilma.
28) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes its Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement
providing Disaster Recovery Initiative(DRI) funding in the amount of
$415,000.00 to One by One Leadership Foundation for infill in order
to support the construction of housing units.
29) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes its Chairman to sign, a Home Investment Partnership
Program (HOME) Subrecipient Agreement with Big Cypress Housing
Corporation providing for a grant in the total amount of$250,000.00
for the construction and/or installation of fire sprinklers for a 55-unit,
multi-family rental housing complex (The Reserve at Eden Gardens)
for legal migrant and seasonal farm workers in Immokalee.
30) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes its Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement
providing for a $442,000 State Housing Initiative Program (SHIP)
loan to Eden Gardens Apartments, Limited Partnership, A Florida
Limited Partnership to assist in funding the construction of a 55 unit,
multi-family rental housing complex for legal migrant and seasonal
farmworkers in Immokalee.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Richard F. Berman as Trustee under an unrecorded Trust
Agreement and known as the Richard F. Berman Revocable Trust of
1998 dated July 27, 1998 for 1.14 acres under the Conservation
Page 16
October 23, 2007
Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $33,170.
2) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with William C. Armes for 1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $27,820.
3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Alfredo Medina for 1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $27,820.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award Bid
07-4188 Long Distance Services to TQC Communications at an
estimated annual cost of $51 ,000.
5) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Wanda E. Rickard as Trustee of the Wanda E. Rickard Trust
dated 4/12/90 for 1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $27,820.
6) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Peggy S. Cisko, and John Cisko, who is the Personal
Representative of the Estate of Frederick Anthony Cisko, deceased,
for 1.59 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program, at a cost not to exceed $38,170.
7) Recommendation to award Bid #07-4194 for the purchase of Paint &
Related Items to Sunshine Ace Hardware, Inc. and Scott Paint
Company.
8) Recommendation to award Bid #07-4140 File Retrieval/Retention
Service to Robert Flinn Records Center.
9) Recommendation to adopt the budget amendment appropriating
$581,660,415.18 carry forward and expenditure budgets for open
purchase orders for non-project funds and for unexpended budget for
project funds at the end of Fiscal Year 2007.
10) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$250,000 to transfer funds from the Design Study for Inland Data
Center Capital Project 500521 to the Data Center Expansion Capital
Page 17
October 23, 2007
Project No. 500511.
11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
an inter-local agreement with the City of Naples for mutual sales and
purchases of motor fuels between the City and County, and authorizes
the Chairman to execute the same.
12) Recommendation to authorize and consent to the re-assignment of
Contract No. 06-3983, "Third Party Administrator for Group
Insurance Benefits".
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2006-07 Adopted Budget.
2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving a Disaster Worksite
Agreement providing Federal funds under a National Emergency
Grant to cover the pre-screening costs, wages and required safety
equipment for temporary workers due to the effects of a disaster such
as a hurricane.
3) Approve budget amendments.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve
and Ratify the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Professional
Firefighters of the Everglades Intemational Association of
Firefighters, Local 3670. The Agreement is available for public
viewing at the Collier County Manager's Office or the Bureau of
Emergency Services Office, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, W. Harmon
Turner Bldg ., Naples, FL.
5) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment and payment of an
invoice from Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) in the
amount of$342,093, which is the Collier County portion of the cost
sharing project for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit for FY06/07.
Page 18
October 23, 2007
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
Adopt a Resolution amending CRA Resolution 2001-98 as it relates to
the Bylaws of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment
Advisory Board.
2) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve demolition ofCRA-owned residential property (mobile
homes); approve a Request for Proposals (RFP) scope of work to
build single-family homes on CRA owned land; approve the
Executive Oirector to advertise the RFP through the Purchasing
Department and return with recommendations.
3) Recommendation for the Collier County CRA to approve a CRA
Resolution amending the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Site
Improvement Grant Program to modify the matching fund
requirement for recipients and declare the grant program as serving a
valid public purpose.
4) Recommendation to Ratify Collier County Airport Authority
Resolution No. 07-33, Adopted on October 8, 2007, Approving an 8.0
percent ($8,363.79) Merit increase for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 for the
Authority's Executive Director, Theresa M. Cook.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended the Southwest Florida Federated Republican Women's
Luncheon on October 8,2007 at Arbor Trace. $15.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending the Everglades Coalition Annual Conference on January
10-13,2008 at South Seas Island Resort. $598.77 to be paid for
accommodations from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
Page 19
October 23, 2007
3) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce Banquet - Chamber
Silent Auction & Steak Dinner on October 27, 2007 at the PACE
Center for Girls. $100.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's
travel budget.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending luncheon honoring former Sheriff Aubrey Rogers on
October 26, 2007 at the Naples Elks Lodge. $20.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending the Blue Chip Recognition Breakfast on November 8, 2007
at the Hilton Naples and Towers. $10.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
1. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
Stipulated Final Judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms
and conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the amount
of $119,500 for the acquisition of Parcel 134 in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. First National Bank of Naples, Inc., et a!., Case No.
04-3587-CA (Immokalee Road Project No. 66042). Fiscal Impact:
$73,033 (Companion to Item 17 A, Wendy's Variance Petition V A-
2007-AR-11577)
2) Recommendation to approve the Stipulated Order of Taking and Final
Judgment for Parcel 181RDUE in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Armando Yzaguirre, etal., Case No. 07-2746-CA (Oil Well Road
Page 20
October 23, 2007
Project No. 60044). (Fiscal Impact $234,635)
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes its Chairman to sign, a Tri-Party Developer
Contribution Agreement which will implement Resolution 05-235
(Development Order 05-01) by providing for the Developer's (Ave
Maria Development, LLLP) dedication of 46 acres within Ave Maria
for Collier County public school sites in exchange for credits against
educational impact fees.
4) Recommendation to approve the Stipulated Order of Taking and Final
Judgment for Parcel I 77RDUE in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Jorge A. Romero, etal., Case No. 07-2681-CA (Oil Well Road Project
No. 60044). (Fiscal Impact $240,630.65)
5) Recommendation to authorize an Offer of Judgment for Parcels 838A
and 838B by Collier County to property owner, Nancy L. Johnson
Perry, and reject the Offer of Judgment/Proposal for Settlement by
Nancy L. Johnson Perry to the County in the lawsuit styled CC v.
Nancy L. Johnson Perry, Individually and as Successor Trustee, et a!.,
Case No. 03-2373-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project No. 60027)
(Fiscal Impact: If accepted, $2,000)
6) Approve and have Chairman sign a Consent to Assignment
Agreement for solid waste, recyclable materials, and yard trash
collection services in Solid Waste District II with Choice
Environmental Services of Collier, Inc.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
Page 21
October 23, 2007
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. V A-2007-AR-11577
(WB) B F Ft. Myers, Inc., represented by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, RWA,
Inc. and working in conjunction with the Collier County Attorney's office,
requests a variance for an outparcel (presently improved with a Wendy's
Restaurant), in order to reduce severance damages resulting from the
"taking" of a +/- 15.0 foot road easement for the expansion ofImmokalee
Road. The variance will allow for parking within 11 feet of the property line
along Immokalee Road frontage. The site does comply with the PUD
requirement for a 15 foot building setback for this front yard. In addition, a
variance of 9 feet is requested from the required 20 foot wide landscape
buffer width per LDC section 4.06.02C.4, to allow for an 11 foot wide
landscape buffer. The subject property is located at 10941 Airport Road
North, which is at the northwest corner ofImmokalee Road and Airport
Road, within the Green Tree PUD (Ordinance 81-58), Green Tree Center
Tract "C", Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Companion to Item 16Kl)
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2005-AR-7883,
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., represented by Dwight
Nadeau, ofRW A, Inc., is requesting a rezone to the Habitat-Woodcrest
RPUD on 11.2 acres ofland from the Agricultural (A) Zoning District, to
allow for a maximum 66 residential units. The subject property is located on
the west side of Wood crest Drive, south ofImmokalee,just north of
Acremaker Road, in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
C. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the
Human Resources Department to amend the Collier County Fingerprinting
Ordinance No. 04-52 to require fingerprinting for all Collier County
employees and certain County contract employees as defined by 125.5801,
Florida Statutes.
D. An ordinance amending ordinance No. 2002-63, which established the
Conservation Collier Program, by revising section six: Creation of the
conservation Collier Acquisition Fund; Section eight: Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee; Section ten: Criteria for evaluating Lands for
Page 22
October 23, 2007
Acquisition and Management; Section eleven: Acquisition List: Section
twelve: Nomination of acquisition Proposals and Candidate Sites; Section
thirteen: Procedures for Selection of Acquisition Proposals for Placement of
the Active Acquisition List and Subsequent Purchase Procedures; Section
fourteen: Management Plans and Use of Environmentally Sensitive Lands;
Section fifteen: Responsibilities of the County Manager; Providing for
Conflict and Severability; Providing for inclusion in Code oflaws and
Ordinances; and Providing for an effective date.
E. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2006-07 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 23
October 23, 2007
October 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Collier County Board of
Commissioners meeting of October 23,2007.
We'll begin this meeting as we begin all meetings, with an
invocation, and today it will be given by Jim Mudd. Please stand.
MR. MUDD: Let us pray. Oh Heavenly Father, we ask your
blessings on these proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask
a special blessing on this Board of County Commissioners, guide them
in their deliberations, grant them the wisdom and visions to meet the
trials of this day and the days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight.
Your will be done, amen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, would you lead
us in the Pledge of Allegiance?
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS
AMENDED - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, changes to today's agenda
and time certains.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners, October 23,2007.
Item 2D should read October 1, 2007, Value Adjustment Board
Special Magistrate Good Cause Hearing, and that clarification is at
Page 2
October 23-24, 2007
staffs request.
Item 3, service awards. Jane McDonald, Veterans Services, and
Keith Mangero of the water department will be receiving their 20-year
service award rather than the 25 years, as noted on the agenda, and
Bonnie Fauls from the housing and human services will receive her
30-year award rather than her 35-year award as it says on the agenda.
And that clarification's at staffs request.
Item 101 will be presented by Jerry Kurtz, your principal project
manager for stormwater, and Shane Cox, the senior project manager
for stormwater, instead of Gene Calvert.
Next item is item 10J, continued indefinitely. It's to obtain
direction from the Board of County Commissioners as to the viability
of using TDC funds to engineer, permit, and install additional erosion
control structures on Hideaway Beach, and that item is being asked to
be continued indefinitely at Commissioner Fiala's request, as is the
next item, which is item 10K, to be continued indefinitely, as that's to
authorize the expenditure of $25,000 to perform preliminary
engineering and permit investigation to determine the number and
extent of additional erosion control structures on Hideaway Beach;
specific permitting requirements and related schedule implications,
and project costs. Again, to be continued indefinitely at
Commissioner Fiala's request.
Items 8A, 17 A, and 17B, these items should have included
following the statement at the top of the agenda item: This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commissioner members, and that clarification's at staffs
request.
Next item is to move item 16A9 to lOR, and it's a
recommendation to authorize staff use of a developer's version of the
fiscal impact analysis model, FlAM, as a supplemental planning tool
for internal use only to review proposed developments of regional
impact, DRIs, projects within the rural land stewardship area, the
Page 3
October 23-24, 2007
RLSA. Projects within the rural lands mixed-use overlay and other
major developments in order to assess projected revenue and
expenditure impacts upon Collier County services. That item is being
moved at Commissioner Henning's request.
The next item is item 16B5. The declaration attachment title
should have read and will read: This declaration is made this blank
day of blank, 2007, rather than 2006, and should have had a signature
block for the chairman, Jim Coletta, rather than Commissioner Frank
Halas. A corrected copy has been made available for review and
execution, and that clarification's at staffs request.
The next item -- and we've clumped them all together because to
try to read them, it might take us 15 minutes. The following items
dealing with housing and human services, and I will say contracts,
either CDBG or DRI contracts -- we're asking that they be continued
until November 13, 2007, BCC meeting, and that's -- and these items
are 16Dl, 16D23, 16D24, 16D25, 16D26, 16D27, 16D28, 16D29 and
16D30.
The items are being asked to be continued so that we can add
some more specificity into contracts as far as payment schedules are
concerned, and there was a late conference yesterday with housing,
the clerk's office, and our purchasing, and a unanimous opinion by all
three, they asked that these items be continued so that we can get
those specifics into those contracts.
The next item is item 16Gl. Page 13, section 4, parens A should
read, Bayshore resident, rather than residents, and parens B should
read, Gateway Triangle resident, rather than residents, and that
correction is at Commissioner Fiala's request.
Item 17B, page 2, paragraph 2 of the final version has low and
very low units in parentheses after the words, 66 affordable units in
line 2. The Novus version has no such clarification.
Page 3, paragraph 3 of the final version, has low and very low
income in parentheses after level of income in line 4. The Novus
Page 4
October 23-24, 2007
version has moderate income in parentheses here. Copies of the
corrected version have been distributed, and that clarification is at
staffs request. Again, two items just to make sure that we've got low
and very low income in the -- and very -- low and very low unit
income into the particular agenda item on 17B.
Next item is 17D, and that's to correct a typographical error in the
ordinance. Section 13, paragraph 11, should read: "Real estate
services staff shall proceed to close on the," and that correction and
clarification is at Commissioner Coyle's request.
We have four time certain items today. The first is item 8A, and
that's to be heard at one p.m., and this item was continued from the
October 9,2007, BCC meeting. It's petition CU-2005-AR-8748,
Ashraf Fawzy, represented by Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady
Minor & Associates, P.A. requesting a conditional use in the rural
agricultural zoning district to excavate in excess of 4,000 cubic yards
of earth for an aquaculture -- for an aquaculture facility in the
agricultural zoning district.
The next item with a time certain is item 10H, and that's to be
heard at 10 a.m., and that's a recommendation to award the contract
for RFP #07-4138, reclamation of the Collier County Landfill, cells
one and two, to Waste Management, Inc., of Florida.
Next time certain item is item 100 to be heard at 10:30 a.m., and
that item is to initiate a discussion with the Board of County
Commissioners to review the history and chain of events resulting
from a platting omission from the Old Cypress units two and three and
the Olde Cypress planned unit development, PUD, and to discuss the
potential means to resolve the resulting encroachments into the
setback requirement.
The next item is item 14A, and that's to be heard at three p.m.,
and that's a recommendation that the Community Redevelopment
Agency approve and execute the Immokalee Redevelopment Area
Executive Director Employment Agreement between the CommunityÞ
Page 5
October 23-24, 2007
Redevelopment Agency and Penny Phillippi.
That's all the changes I have, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're going to start off with
Commissioner Coyle for any changes to the agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a question first.
County Manager, with respect to item 8A, in the summary you
just provided us, it says to excavate in excess of 4,000 cubic yards of
earth. Wouldn't it be better to say that it includes the excavation of
300,000 cubic yards of --
MR. MUDD: Sir, that is, indeed, what the petitioner is asking
for. The reason it talks about over 4,000 is that's when that basically
comes before the county commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Comes before the board.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it's 300,000 cubic yards of total
excavation, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, with respect to any further
changes of the -- to the agenda, I have none, but as far as disclosures
are concerned, I have a disclosure for agenda item 17B. I did speak
with Dwight Nadeau and Sam Durso on January 13, 2004, at 2:30 in
the afternoon concerning this particular item, and they described to me
what their plans were and how many units they were planning on
building and that sort of thing.
And that concludes my ex parte disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. County Manager, we had
some discussion yesterday about 16D26, and I wanted -- wondered if I
could ask the clerk if that was taken care of, that's 16D --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's being continued until the
13th of November.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay.
Page 6
October 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: It's one of the items that are there because it has a
contractual --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry. You're absolutely
right. Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- obligation. It just needs specificity, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. As far as
any disclosures, I have one, and that's on 17B. I did have some
meetings with Sam Durso, and I believe I also had some meetings
with some other people, but other than that, we're ready to go. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No changes to today's agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Halas.
I have no changes to the agenda, and the only thing I have to
declare on the summary or -- summary agenda is item 17B. I had
meetings, correspondence, emails, and phone calls.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. On 17 A I have no disclosures,
and 17B I met with Dwight Nadeau. And let's see. And I also had
some emails.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That concludes it?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have ex parte
communication disclosures on today's summary agenda of 17B. I did
talk to staff, or receive some information from staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was also wondering if you
had pulled off all these housing and human services items just to be
continued till November. I was wondering if we could also pull off
16D 17 to the same time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, would you read 16 what,
D7, did you say?
Page 7
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: D17.
MR. MUDD: D17.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: D17, as to what that item is, and--
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. We can do that. D 17 is a
recommendation to approve an after-the-fact submittal of the 2005,
round two, disaster recovery initiative DRI grants to the Department
of Community Affairs, DCA, to fund disaster relief and the restoration
of housing and infrastructure related to the effects of the 2005
hurricane season.
We can continue it, but I need to ask Marla if we've got a time --
a time limit on when this next round of grants needs to be input.
MS. KRUMBINE: For the record, Marcy Krumbine, Director of
Housing and Human Services. This grant application has already been
submitted, and this is an after-the-fact approval of it.
MR. MUDD: So we can continue it, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. That's just also maybe
to talk, along with the rest of these things, with the clerk's office.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My question would be is, ifthe grant
has already been submitted and the only thing we're doing is getting a
briefing on it, is there any harm in continuing it, or is there something
that would indicate that it's not approved, then we might be no longer
eligible for it?
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, it's not a competitive grant. This is
money that Collier County has already been awarded. And what we
did is we submitted our action plan and the actual proposal for it, and
so this is an after-the-fact approval of it. It's already been submitted.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. KRUMBINE: The next opportunity that you would have to
discuss it is when the contract comes back, and I would think that
maybe that might be a better time to discuss what the application is
funding and then any changes you would want to make to that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, let me ask, if -- would
Page 8
October 23-24, 2007
you like to just -- it's just a little housekeeping item, you know, or two,
just to make sure that it's all-- you know, the clerk can pay it easily.
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or receive it.
MR. MUDD: This is--
MS. KRUMBINE: This has nothing to do with payments. This
is strictly an approval for the grant application. There are no contracts
associated with this at all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Clerk?
MS. KINZEL: For the record, Crystal Kinzel with the Clerk's
Office.
Commissioner Fiala, I think this does relate to some of the
housing issues that they've removed under the other contractual items.
If they've already submitted it but she is bringing back the contract
before we would have any payment issues, we can get together
between now and then and make sure that that contract is payable and
maybe alleviate your fears at that time, if that's okay with you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. That would be -- okay,
fine.
MS. KINZEL: We'll work with them between now and contract
and make sure that the payment can be made.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then we'll leave it on the consent
agenda?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine.
Commissioner Henning, did I cut you off or did you have
anything else to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, do I hear--
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry. The commissioners
can scratch 10S off of their new index that I made for them because
Page 9
October 23-24, 2007
that's been continued now, and also I believe staff has to put
something in the record on 17B.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: No, I think I just did when I read it into the change
sheet. That was on the record.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, do I--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve today's agenda
with the corrections as noted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion by Commissioner
Halas and a second by Commissioner Fiala to approve today's agenda
with the changes that were noted.
With that, any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, unanimously.
Page 10
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
October 23. 2007
Item 20 should read: October 1, 2007 - Value Adjustment Board - Special Magistrate Good
Cause Hearings. (Staffs request.)
Item 3 Service Awards: Jane McDonald, Veterans Services and Keith Magero, Water Department
will be receiving their 20-year service award (rather than 25). Bonnie Fauls, Housing and Human
Services will be receiving her 30-year award (rather than 35-year). (Staff's request.)
Item 101: To be presented by Jerry Kurtz, Principal Project Manager, Stormwater, and Shane Cox,
Senior Project Manager, Stormwater. (Staff's request.)
Item 10J continued indefinitelv: Obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners as to
the viability of using TDC funds to engineer, permit and install additional erosion control
structures on Hideaway Beach. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Item 10K continued indefinitelv: Authorize the expenditure of $25,000 to perform preliminary
engineering and permit investigation to determine the number and extent of additional erosion
control structures on Hideaway Beach; specific permitting requirements; related schedule
implications, and projects cost. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Items 8A. 17A and 17B: These items should have included the following: "This item requires that
all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members."
(Staff's request.)
Move Item 16A9 to 10R: Recommendation to authorize staff use of a Developers Version of the
Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FlAM) as a supplemental planning tool for internal use only to
review proposed Developments of Regional Impact (ORis), projects within the Rural Land
Stewardship Area (RLSA), projects within the Rural Land Mixed Use Overlay, and other major
developments in order to assess projected revenue and expenditure impacts upon Collier County
services. (Commissioner Henning's request.)
Item 16B5: The "Declaration" attachment title should have read, "This Declaration is made this
day of , 2007 (rather than 2006), and should have had a signature block for
Chairman Jim Coletta, rather than Frank Halas. A corrected copy has been made available for
review and execution. (Staff's request.)
The followina items dealina with Housina and Human Services are continued to the November 13.
2007 BCC meetina: 1601,16023,16024,16025,16026,16027,16028,16029, 16030. (Staff's
request.)
Item 16G1: Page 13, Section 4, (a) should read: "Bayshore resident" (rather than "residents").
(b) should read: "Gateway Triangle resident" (rather than "residents"). (Commissioner Fiala's
request.)
Item 17B: Page 2, paragraph 2 of the final version has "low and very low units" in parenthesis
after the words" . . . 66 affordable Units. . ." in line 2. The Novus version has no such
clarification. Page 3, paragraph 3 of the final version has "low and very low income" in
parenthesis after" . . . level of income. . ." in line 4. The Novus version has "moderate income"
in parenthesis here. Corrected copies of the correct version have been distributed. (Staffs
request.)
Item 170: To correct a typographical error in the ordinance: Section 13, paragraph 11 should
read" . . . Real Estate Services staff shall proceed to close on the. . . ". (Commissioner Coyle's
request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 8A to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. This item continued from the October 9, 2007 BCC meeting. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commissioners. Petition: CU-2005-AR-8748, Ashraf Fawzy, represented by Wayne Arnold, AICP,
of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting approval of a Conditional Use in the Rural
Agricultural (A) zoning district to excavate in excess of 4,000 cubic yards of earth for an
aquaculture facility in the Agricultural (A) zoning district, per Section 2.04.03 Table 2 of the Land
Development Code (LDC). The subject property consisting of approximately 15.08 acres is
located at 2060 Tobias Street, Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida.
Item 10H to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation to: (a) award the contract for RFP #07-4138
(Reclamation of Collier County Landfill Cells 1 and 2) to Waste Management, Inc. of Florida
(WMIF) for contract amount of $7,597,900.82; Base proposal of $5,910.460.82 and allowances of
$1,687,440; (b) approve a necessary budget amendment for the project in the amount of
$6,232,067.06 from the Capital Improvement Fund and Reserves for Closure Fund; and (c)
authorize the Chairman to execute the contract with WMIF.
Item 100 to be heard at 10:30 a.m. To initiate a discussion with the Board of County
Commissioners to review the history and chain of events resulting from a platting omission for
the Olde Cypress Units Two and Three plats, in the Olde Cypress Planned Unit Development
(PUD) and to discuss the potential means to resolve the resulting encroachments into the setback
requirement for preserve areas for 18 existing single family residential structures in Units Two
and Three.
Item 14A to be heard on or after 3:00 p.m. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment
Agency approve and execute the Immokalee Redevelopment Area Executive Director
Employment Agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and Penny
Phillippi.
October 23-24, 2007
Item #2B, #2C and #2D
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 BCC-BUDGET HEARINGS,
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25,2007 BCC-REGULAR MEETING,
AND MINUTES OF OCTOBER 1, 2007 V AB SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE "GOOD CAUSE" HEARINGS - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
Do I hear a motion for approval of the September 20th
BCClbudget hearing minutes, the September 25th regular meeting,
and the October 1st Value Adjustment Board minutes?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Halas and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it unanimously.
Now service awards. Mr. Mudd?
Item #3
SERVICE AWARDS: EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
Page 11
October 23-24, 2007
MEMBERS-PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: We have two -- we have three services awards
today. We have two 20-year attendees that we're celebrating their
service to Collier County, the first is Jane McDonald from veterans
servIce.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Congratulations.
MS. McDONALD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Must seem like yesterday when you
started.
MS. McDONALD: Not really.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all your years of
service.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take a minute and get a picture, if
you don't mind.
MS. McDONALD: Okay, hold on.
MR.OCHS: Congratulations.
MR. MUDD: Congratulations.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 20-year awardee is Keith Magero from
the water department.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hey, Keith, next 20 years will be a lot
eaSier.
MR. MAGERO: I hope so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Man after my own heart. You dress
casual.
MR. MAGERO: Yeah. Actually, that's my uniform.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations.
Page 12
October 23-24, 2007
MR. MAGERO: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Congratulations.
MR. MAGERO: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Keith, congratulations.
MR. MAGERO: Thank you.
MR. MAGERO: COLETTA: Keith, let's get a picture.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: And we have one 30-year awardee, and that's
Bonnie Fauls from housing and human service.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not too sure what it is, but it's --
whatever it is, it's -- there you go.
MS. FAULS: Oh, beautiful. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Isn't that nice?
MS. FAULS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thanks so much for your service.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to see what's inside.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's good to see you again.
Congratulations.
MR. OCHS: Thank you so much.
MR. MUDD: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A little jewelry box possibly?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, isn't that nice!
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Proverbial gold watch.
MS. FAULS: It's worth the wait.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, Bonnie. We go back a lot of
years, don't we?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 13
-~-_._. ..-"-.-"
October 23-24, 2007
Item #4A
PROCLAMA nON DESIGNATING OCTOBER 26, 2007 AS THE
DAY OF THE RED WALK IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to proclamations on
our agenda, and the first proclamation is designating October 26,
2007, as the Day of the Red Walk in Collier County, to be accepted by
Ms. Nina Ribinski, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Coordinator, Collier
County schools.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, you're not Nina.
MS. STEWART: I'm not Nina, but I'm Cary Stewart, principal at
Lely Elementary School where the Red Walk will be held, so that's
why I'm here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great, thank you. You need to face
the audience, as embarrassing as it is, Cary.
MS. STEWART: Should I tell them that, too?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, you can.
MS. STEWART: I'm Cary Stewart. I am the principal at Lely
Elementary School where the Red Walk will be held, and so that's
why I'm here to receive the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whereas, the Red Walk is an
established provider of one-to-one youth involvement addressing the
importance of drug awareness for the past seven years; and,
Whereas, the Red Walk provides adult mentors to thousands of
children in Collier County's public and private schools; and,
Whereas, the Red Walk was developed as part of the Red Ribbon
activities established by the Substance Abuse Coalition of Collier
County as well as the Collier County Public School system in
association with the National Drug Awareness campaign presented
between October 23rd and 31st, 2007; and,
Whereas, national research has shown that the positive messages
Page 14
October 23-24, 2007
supported by drug-free activities help form strong bonds between
youth and their communities, leading to a direct, measurable and
lasting impact on children's lives, and that these children are more
likely to improve their grades and relationships with their families and
piers while being less likely to skip school, use illegal drugs or
alcohol, or become involved in criminal activity; and,
Whereas, locally the Red Walk has been bringing caring adults
and community organizations into the lives of children for eight years
and is the only drug awareness walking program in Southwest Florida;
and,
Whereas, supporting the Red Walk's message of total community
involvement in using the arts as a positive outlet for healthy and
drug-free lifestyle in Florida's ongoing effort to recruit and match
caring adult mentors with children in our community is an investment
that will pay immediate dividends as well as dividends in the future;
and,
Whereas, on Friday, October 26th, the Red Walk will host its
annual trek on the campus of Lely Elementary School from 8:30 a.m.
till!! :30 a.m.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October 26, 2007, be
designated as the Day of the Red Walk in Collier County.
Done and ordered this 23rd day of October, 2007, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James Coletta,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval by
Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?)
Page 15
October 23-24, 2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
MS. STEWART: Aye.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was unanimous.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you so much for being here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hey, Cary, are you going to do the
same thing as you did you last year with that whole campus outside?
MS. STEWART: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The singing and everything?
MS. STEWART: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'd love to have you take the
podium, too, to give us a little more detail.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no. Leave the podium where it
IS. You can make some remarks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take Commissioner Coyle with you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Cary, if -- we're going to need your
picture, and then if you'd like to give us a message.
MS. STEWART: Which one of these?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Whichever one you're more
comfortable at. Whether you're right-handed or left-handed.
MS. STEWART: I am the proud principal at Lely Elementary
School. And each year we involve our children in a school-wide Red
Ribbon Walk that involves community members all across the arts.
The police, the fire, our emergency vehicles, all come to our school
from 8:30 to 11 :30 where our children wander the campus and enjoy
all of the various art, music, and various safety features that are
displayed throughout the campus.
And you're all welcome and -- we gladly welcome all of you to
this Red Walk that we have every year, and it's a -- really a wonderful
Page 16
October 23-24, 2007
presentation, a wonderful chance for our children to see what it really
means to be health and safe free from drugs.
In the afternoon then our music teacher has written a play that
involves "So you want to be redder than a fifth grader" and teaches
our children with all of us as administrators and teachers who take part
in the play for our children, and they get a chance to see us all have
fun and say no to drugs.
So please, feel free to come. We'd love to have you. Lely
Elementary School is very, very proud to provide this for our children
every year. And thank you very much for this proclamation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. STEWART: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, before we go to the next
proclamation, I was informed this morning that we have a check that
needs to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners from our
tax collector, and Mr. Larry Ray from the Tax Collector Office has a
check for the Board of County Commissioners. And I would have --
and for a while there I was looking around to see if he escaped or not.
So I figured it'd be a good time to get the money before we continue.
MR. RAY: Excellent idea.
Good morning, Commissioners. I'm here standing in for Mr.
Guy Carlton, the Collier County Tax Collector, so this will be
obviously less humorous, but I still think it will be good news for you
guys.
On behalf of Mr. Carlton and the staff of the Collier County Tax
Collector's Office that provides the services and collects taxes, motor
vehicles, vessels, hunting and fishing license, business tax receipts,
which you all remember as occupational license, tourist development
taxes, property tax, and driver's license and the staff that support them
in accounting and information technology. I'm proud to present to you
this morning a check for $9,750,322.39, which represents the unused
Page 17
October 23-24, 2007
portion of the fees that we collected while administering those taxes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's hear it for nine million plus.
(Applause.)
MR. RAY: So I guess I'm going to walk down here and give it to
the chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, yeah. I'll be more than happy to
take it, then I have to hand it over to the clerk.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're going to buy coffee, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. If you would be so kind
after we get -- why don't we -- if you'll hold up the check for
everybody to see, but I want it back. Watch it, watch it.
MR. RAY: It never touched the ground.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Easy come, easy go.
MR. RAY: It never touched the ground.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please stand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Picture?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nine million dollars, you stand.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. And we do
appreciate the clerk and the staff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. Good seeing you.
MR. RAY: Good to see you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hi, Larry. A lot of years.
MR. RAY: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: See, that's a good lesson. We don't
get to keep any of that money. It goes to -- her. So if we're spending
too much money, blame this lady here.
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 23 - 31, 2007 AS
Page 18
October 23-24, 2007
RED RIBBON WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation is designating October 23rd
through the 31 st, 2007, as Red Ribbon Week in Collier County to be
accepted by Undersheriff Kevin Rambosk, Collier County Sheriffs
Office, and Judge Lauren Brodie from the 20th Judicial Circuit Court
of Collier County.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Of which we're none.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. It's a pleasure to read this proclamation. It's very
important to our community.
Whereas, the Substance Abuse Coalition of Collier County
recognizes that alcohol, tobacco, and other drug abuse in this nation
has reached epidemic proportions; and,
Whereas, it is imperative that visual (sic), unified prevention
education efforts by community members be launched to eliminate the
demand for drugs; and,
Whereas, the Substance Abuse Coalition is offering citizens the
opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to a drug-free lifestyle,
no use of illegal drugs, no illegal drugs, and no illegal use of legal
drugs; and,
Whereas, the National Red Ribbon Campaign will be celebrated
in every community in America during Red Ribbon Week October
23rd through the 31st, 2007; and,
Whereas, business, government, parents, law enforcement,
media, medical, religious institutions, schools, senior citizens, service
organizations, and youth will demonstrate their commitment to a
healthy drug-free lifestyle by wearing and displaying red ribbons
during the week-long campaign; and,
Whereas, the State of Florida further commits its resources to
ensure the success of the Red Ribbon Campaign.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Page 19
October 23-24, 2007
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that October 23rd through
the 31st, 2007, be designated as Red Ribbon Week in Collier County.
Done and ordered this 23rd day of October, 2007, Board of
County Commissioners, Jim Coletta, Chairman.
And, Chairman, I make a motion that we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe the judge and sheriffs
deputies here would like to say a few words. Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, and you've even got a red
ribbon on. That is so neat.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hey, that's cool. She's got a ribbon
on. That's cool.
MS. RAMSEY: I'll say a couple words.
MR. MUDD: The proclamation is upside down. The other way.
Turn it over.
(Applause.)
DEPUTY SELL Y: May I say a few words?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're counting on it.
DEPUTY SELL Y: I just want to say, this is a very special event
Page 20
October 23-24, 2007
for us, but I really have a message for everyone. One is that the
substance abuse, the Collier County -- the Coalition of Collier County,
it's available for you, parents, for your children.
I'm here not as a cop. I'm here not representing law enforcement,
but as a parent who has lost a son from substance abuse about five
years ago, five-and-a-halfyears ago. It can destroy a family.
And if you do know someone, a child or a grandchild or friend or
whatever, reach out. And the Substance Abuse Coalition of Collier
County is there waiting for you, is waiting for your call. So take
advantage of it. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioners, one other thing, in could. We
are encouraging the community, the business community, to be
involved in Red Ribbon Week. And one of the posters that we're
asking the businesses to display in their agencies is this flier. If
anyone's interested in having a copy this, they can email me at
marlaramsey@colliergov.net and I will send this out so they can
display it in their agencies.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll tell you what I'd like to see you do
is post that right on the front here so we can remind people during the
whole meeting about the effort that's taking place. And I think we all
fully -- I know we all fully support it.
Commissioner Fiala?
MS RAMSEY: And if they're interested in more information, we
do have a drug-free website. It's drugfreecollier.org.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you tell me how to get red
ribbons?
MS. RAMSEY: We'll get you a red ribbon. Yes, we will.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about for everybody in case
they want to wear them too, but I'd like to wear one all week.
MS. RAMSEY: Okay. Very good. What we're asking the
community to do is basically -- is just to get a strip of red and turn it
Page 21
October 23-24, 2007
like you would for the fliers that you see on the cars and whatnot, and
then just pin it to your lapel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION FOR UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY
AGENCY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is for the
United Way of Collier County Agency, to be accepted by Ernie
Bretzmann, executive director of United Way, Rose Branda, and Craig
Bamberg. Come on up, anyone with United Way.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that it?
MR. BRETZMANN: We'd like everyone who's affiliated with
United Way, our member agencies, and the various Collier County
government employees, employees of the different elective offices
who are involved in the United Way campaign, please come forward
for this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's everybody here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Or anyone that's ever contributed to
United Way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That includes me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, let's stand up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We may as well stand up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. We're members of this.
Turned out to be a nice social event.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Here we go.
Whereas, since 1957, United Way of Collier County has
Page 22
October 23-24, 2007
sponsored and funded qualified not-for-profit community agents (sic)
which provides essential social and health services to our citizens;
and,
Whereas, throughout the 50-year history of United Way of
Collier County, the organization has demonstrated continuing growth
and has currently funded 32 community agencies providing services to
all areas of our county; and,
Whereas, the Board of Commissioners are grateful,
acknowledges the support of the fine work of the United Way Collier
County and its members agencies.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners that United Way of Collier County Agency is
formally recognized for the outstanding contributions to the
community and wishes them yet another year of great success as they
kick off the 2007/2008 season.
Done in this order, the 23rd day of October, 2007.
Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to make a motion to move this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning and a second by the other four commissioners.
With that, anything 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.)
Page 23
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to shake everybody's hand.
It's so good to see you. Ernie?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations. Fifty years,
wow.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Short ones up front.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm shorter than the people standing
in front of me. How you doing, Kathy?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, how you doing? I
like your uniform, man.
MR. BRETZMANN: The chairman said I could say a few
words. I think he meant I have a few minutes. But on behalf of Rose
Branda and Craig Bamberg, our campaign chairs, and everybody
affiliated with United Way, the member agencies, and all those who
benefit from United Way, I want to thank the board for this honor, for
this proclamation. It means a lot to us. And the banner looks great up
there, by the way.
I'm very proud of the good working relationship, outstanding
working relationship United Way has established with Collier County
government. And I think there's great power in collaboration and
working together; we've accomplished so much.
And a good example of that was our second Annual Walk for the
Way, which was conducted on September 29th at the North Collier
Regional Park. Over a thousand people participated. Everyone
survived. And it was just a great event.
And one of the functions of that event was to bring teams
together from all different companies and different workplaces to
participate in the walk and to raise money. And we had a little
competition among the various teams to see who could raise the mosto
Page 24
October 23-24, 2007
money.
And there was one team that raised considerably more than any
other one, and I'm trying to remember which team that was. And
Melissa, do you know which raised the most money?
MS. BLAZER: Collier County local government team.
MR. BRETZMANN: Collier County local government team,
right.
Melissa Blazer works for the Supervisor of Elections Office and
kind of headed up the walk. And I'd like to present you with this token
of our appreciation, a plaque, for the team that raised the most money,
Collier County local government team 2007. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. BRETZMANN: There's more. Melissa did a really great
job. She went above and beyond the call of duty. I was at all of those
very-early, before-work-hours meetings that Melissa attended, and she
did a -- just incredible effort, super-human effort in bringing together
this team and working on the bake sales and book sale, so we have a
special plaque for you, Melissa, that you get to keep in recognition for
your extraordinary efforts on behalf of the United Way of Collier
County Walk for the Way, September 29, 2007.
(Applause.)
MS. BLAZER: Thank you.
MR. BRETZMANN: And once again, I just want to thank
everybody. It's an exciting year. It's an exciting campaign. And
Collier County government is now in the process of establishing their
campaign team, and there are about 30 folks that work for the
government and work for the various elected officials' offices who are
campaign coordinators. I really appreciate your efforts.
We're all here for the same thing really, it's to improve lives and
the quality of life of all of the residents of Collier County.
So let me finish by saying the same thing I said as I began, thank
you very much.
Page 25
October 23-24, 2007
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Nothing for the group, but as
long as we're giving proclamations and presentations, I'd just like to
announce that today is the 42nd wedding anniversary for Jim and
Maryann Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where's the proclamation? We
should have one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We should have one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Here we go.
MR. BRETZMANN: If Larry Ray has any more of those
checks, I'll see you out in the hallway.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. You serve a function that
government could never fill in. I tell you, nothing like nonprofits to
be able to make this world work. Thank you very much for all that
you do.
MR. BRETZMANN: Thank you.
Item #5A
SUSTAINABLE FLORIDA PROMISING PRACTICE AWARD
PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the presentations
section of our agenda, and the first presentation is Sustainable Florida
Promising Practice Award to be presented to the Board of County
Commissioners by Steve Preston. He's the Project Manager and your
Stormwater Director.
MR. PRESTON: That's Stormwater Project Manager, not
Director.
Page 26
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you manager?
MR. PRESTON: I wanted to take a moment to make you aware
that the increased support for stormwater management that this board
has demonstrated --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just a little closer to the mike, sir.
MR. PRESTON: I wanted to take a moment to make you aware
that the increased support for the stormwater management department
this board has demonstrated by creating a dedicated funding source for
stormwater in 2004 is responsible not only for the physical
improvements to the stormwater management infrastructure, but also
for making it possible for us to meet the growing requirements to
address water quality issues in the county.
The funding has allowed the county to be among the very first
agencies in Florida to have all maintenance supervisors and crew
leaders trained as certified stormwater operators. It has also allowed
us to become partners with Rookery Bay in sponsoring the first project
greenscape training and certification program in Florida.
This program addresses the subjects of irrigation and landscape
fertilizer, which is expected to make a difference in water quality
preservation in the county.
Soon we will apply for a million-dollar grant from the Florida
Department of Environmental Protections TMDL grant program to be
used for construction of the Freedom Park, which is the
state-of-the-art stormwater treatment and education facility. Grant
funding is made possible by matching county funds.
But the occasion that brings me here today is that the county
recently received an award for another project that is water quality
related and that was directly attributable to this board's dedication to
issues of stormwater management.
Collier County was recently -- or was recognized recently for
being the first government agency in Florida to install a solar-powered
lake water circulator as part of an evaluation program to identify ways
Page 27
October 23-24, 2007
to improve the quality of surface water in the county.
A water quality monitoring program was implemented by the
county's pollution control and prevention department to measure its
effects. This solar-powered unit does the work of an equivalent mixer
or aerator that would normally be hooked up to the FP&L grid system
and would use 220,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. Instead,
we're getting it free from the sun. That's enough electricity for 20
homes.
To generate that amount of electricity using fossil fuel would
produce 148 tons of greenhouse gases per year, or the exhaust of 25
passenger cars per year.
For this project Collier County was selected to receive a
Promising Practice Award by the Collins Center for a Sustainable
Florida. The Collins Center is respected by state legislators as an
influential advocate for creating a sustainable and economic
environmental and social future for Florida.
Since use of this technology began in the county, it's been used
most notably by the City of Tallahassee and Disney Wodd.
So in acknowledgement of your commitment and support for
creating a sustainable economic and environmental social future for
Florida, I'd like to give you this Promising Practice Award.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We appreciate the
wonderful work you do.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sorry. Still trying to get caught
up. Late information.
Item #5B
PRESENT AnON FOR THE DESIGN/BUILD OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD (1-75 TO CR 951), CONVERTING A 4-LANE ROAD TO 6
LANES - PRESENTED
Page 28
October 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: The next presentation, Commissioners, is one for
the design-build ofImmokalee Road/I-75 to County Road 951,
converting a four-lane road to a six-lane road. And Mr. Jay Ahmad,
your director of transportation construction, will present.
MR. AHMAD: Close. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. I'm Jay Ahmad, your Director of Transportation
Engineering and Construction Management Department.
With me this morning is Jack Morgan with Astaldi Construction.
They are the company that are building the Immokalee Road section
contract between 1-75 and 951.
I'm pleased to inform you that the project is way ahead of
schedule. Approximately 80 percent of the project is completed with
about 56 percent of the time. And I'll let Jack Morgan give you a few
details.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow.
MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Jay.
Good morning, Commissioners. Well, it's the update for
Immokalee Road. Of course you all know the location of it. It's 1-75
to Collier Boulevard.
We've went ahead and opened up approximately 2.5 miles of
six-lane roads at this point. We've entered into phase two
construction, which is adding a turn lane from Valwood to 1-75, and so
we'll have a little congestion there for a while, but please bear with us;
about two months.
Part two, the design has been priced and been accepted by Collier
County and it's within the original budget. The construction part has
been priced at 75 percent and it also is within the original budget.
That's about all I have. Oh, I'd like to recognize my staff for such
a great job they've done. Office Manager, Penny Summers; Project
Superintendent, Tim Site; Project Engineer, Clayton Cross; Roadway
Foreman, Jack Voltz; Inventory Clerk, Etsio (sic); Erosion Control,
Page 29
October 23-24, 2007
Carlton Cook; and that fine MOT you see performed out there is by
John Kinchin (phonetic).
And I'll answer any questions if you have them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Henning has a
question, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not just a question, just want to
report to the board that I did receive a complaint about this contractor
working on Saturday.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good for you.
MR. MORGAN: We'll try to work that out for you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good for you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if that's a problem.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could you do it on Sunday, too?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I've heard nothing but great
things that you've been doing out there from all the residents up there.
And if we get a complaint that a contractor is working on weekends,
wow, we should be jumping up and down, right?
MR. MORGAN: Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MORGAN: I'd like to report also that the third week in
November we're going to go ahead and do a little community service.
And we're headed out to Liberty Landing, Habitat for Humanity. And
the crew from Immokalee Road was -- actually promoted this, and
Santa Barbara got wind of it, and all of sudden all the bridge crews
went ahead there also. So it might be a pretty big event out there. So
we'll be heading out there the third week in November.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great, wonderful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's really nice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the kind of community
feedback we like to hear.
(Applause.)
Page 30
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Us Board of County
Commissioners, we took a lot of heat when we were looking at trying
to figure out who we were going to award the contract to, and I want
to say that it's been a pleasure to be working with you, and I
understand that you're working -- you're somewhat ahead of schedule
also, I believe, on the Santa Barbara project so --
MR. MORGAN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- we -- hats off to you and your
company and we really appreciate the work that you're doing here in
Collier County in regards to addressing roads here and making sure
that the citizens here can move from point A to point B with the least
amount of friction. Thank you so much.
MR. MORGAN: Thank you. And we like to say at Astaldi,
we're working for you drug free and safe.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can tell you, I can share with you,
that I can remember as short of time as two years ago the amount of
complaints you'd get in anyone particular day on roads and the
transportation element were numerous. I mean, it wasn't unusual to
see 20 phone calls or emails in a day. In some cases where there was
major tie-ups, you'd just be flooded with them, and people calling on
their cell phone from the middle of a tie-up and want to talk to you,
you know. It's a disaster made to -- in the making. But I haven't
received a real complaint on roads as far as transportation element
goes in over three months. I think it's absolutely remarkable what's
taking place.
MR. MORGAN: Good. Excellent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for your efforts.
MR. MORGAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd?
Page 3 1
October 23-24, 2007
Item #5C
RECOGNIZING FRED SEXTON, FIELD ENGINEERING
INSPECTOR, PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR
OCTOBER 2007 - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next presentation is a
recommendation to recognize Fred Sexton, your Field Engineering
Inspector for Public Utilities Engineering Department, as Employee of
the Month for October 2007. And, Fred, could you come forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fred, we really appreciate it.
MR. MUDD: Fred is a dedicated professional who is always
willing to do more than his share. He consistently exceeds the
expectations of his customers and often is recognized for his -- the
services that he provides.
He is instrumental in job site overview, coordination and quality
control. He is especially successful in dealing with contractors to
ensure that the county gets the final product that meets our standards.
His effectiveness has saved the county thousands of dollars in
utilities infrastructure repairs and replacements by assuring that
installations are done right the first time.
He unconditionally takes ownership of every project that he is
involved in and always keeps an eye out for construction and
operational safety.
In sum, Fred is a positive and responsive employee who is truly
deserving of this honor.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, Fred Sexton Employee of
the Month of October, 2007.
(Applause.)
Page 32
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fred, thank you very much. Good
job.
MR. SEXTON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We really do appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do it one more time.
MR.OCHS: Well done, appreciate it.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION BY KENNETH THOMPSON ADDRESSING
LACK OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN CODE
ENFORCEMENT AND THE PUBLIC - DISCUSSED ISSUES
REGARDING VIOLATIONS IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to the public
petitions section of your agenda. The first public petition is a request
by Kenneth Thompson to address the lack of communication between
code enforcement and the public.
Mr. Thompson?
MR. THOMPSON: I'm Kenneth Thompson. I live at 2831
Becca Avenue. First I want you to give EMS -- I can't think of his
name. Boy, they got me so drugged up. But I told him I wanted you
to give him a raise. Will you give him a raise? He's an awful nice
guy. I've known him as long as I've been in Naples.
And these pictures here is how it got started. You know, Mrs.
Arnold come to work, this -- behind that right there, that's a fence.
There's a big dumpster behind it. And as you go on, there's a dock.
I've been -- there's a big dock going down behind that. And then you
will see a seawall, and you'll see the back of the boathouse.
You got that boathouse set up, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Okay. I'm going to bring them up just like you
Page 33
October 23-24, 2007
gave them to me, Ken.
MR. THOMPSON: That's the back ofa boathouse right there.
And going down the back of that boathouse, I want you to see the
shape that this swimming pool is in. The dock is out in the bay. All of
the deck went out into the bay, and this is the people that started
building this thing, see. He parked on my yard, and ifhe hadn't of
parked on my yard, I wouldn't have said nothing about it. But I've
been constantly going out to Mrs. Arnold. This was happening -- you
can go -- just keep on showing them, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MR. THOMPSON: And this guy is carrying the stuff back there
when they did all of this without a permit, every bit of it. And man,
there's nobody hates a scab worse than I do. It's like driving a car
without a damn license, and drunk at that. All the stuff is in their
truck. This is all gone on a Sunday, every bit of it.
Now, if you want to see where the swimming pool is at -- see,
that's the side of the dock going down to the east side of the house.
And if you go on around the back of that house, you're going to --
you're going to see where the dock goes down by -- the swimming
pool's over to the right, and then now you're going to see where the
swimming pool and the dock and everything is out in the bay. Look at
that. This is all done without permits. And since then, since these
pictures were taken, it's got worse.
And Mr. McNecer's (phonetic) here at one time, and he tried this
fellow. Ain't nobody in the world that knows him no better than this
town does. And I don't recall his name, but I imagine you know, Mr.
Coyle, who he is.
But this is the worst mess I have ever seen for somebody to
leave, and you've got a brand new owner there that owns this place. I
feel so sorry for this fellow, and he's practically the best person you
want to meet.
And I hope he don't -- I told him I was going to do this. But this
Page 34
October 23-24, 2007
is wrong. This is wrong to do somebody like this. So he hasn't got it
fixed. He's trying to find somebody to fix it, and he will not do it
without -- I told him, don't do it around me. If you're not going to get
a permit, don't do it.
But all this was happening because of Mrs. Ar -- I hate to do her
this way. She's an awful nice person. But just so you know, she had
Dave Hendricks here working for her at one time, and Michael
Ossorio, and they've had -- remember some time back I showed you
this limousine, driving this limousine all night long, and they wanted
me to give them $1,800 to take a trip to North Carolina and back. I
told them I didn't want to go to North Carolina and back. I'll fly. But
it's got a name on the back of it, Dave Hendricks driving it.
And this Michael Ossorio here, he came out. He's head of
contractor licensing now. He came out and he left his truck sitting
right in the middle of the road right in front of the house. All the
doors was open, everything. He grabbed a camera to go around to do
the Tipsy Seagull. Well, when he did, I told him, I said, you can't
leave it there. Somebody going to hit it. And he said he didn't care. It
was fully insured.
But he took the truck down. He pulled all the wires off the truck.
It wouldn't shut off. He tore that truck all to pieces, and he wanted
me to pay for it.
And Mrs. Arnold made a deal with me. If I will go ahead and
pay for it, she would see that I got the lot -- the lot -- I would get all
the pieces I need.
So I went -- a lawyer told me to go get the ID number off the
windshield and the tag number. So they brung -- I went to -- brung up
to the house and he threw it at me. And when he did, I told him, this
is not the way you are supposed to do it. You're supposed to take it to
her and then I'll bring you a check.
So they give me an '89 lock for a Ford, Chevrolet lock, ignition
lock for a Ford truck. That wasn't going to work.
Page 35
October 23-24, 2007
So I just don't know. It's just been going on and on and on, and I
just keep getting hit by this lady.
The other day she come over there and found me, told me I didn't
have no numbers on my mailbox, didn't have them on the house. And
it's -- her people that work for her will not answer their phones. They
tell me that they're not going to answer their phones. They don't have
to. One of them was working for you at one time, Mr. Mudd. He
works for Joe Schmitt now, and Tom was trained by him.
Don't do nothing to these two fellows. They're awful nice guys.
But they're just doing what they're told, not to answer them phones.
But it just goes on and on. And there's one more picture, I wish
you would show it there. The county came and put this thing in. It's
like, you know, where the tide comes in so fast.
Oh, there's the hedge I won't cut, and I've been trying to get her
to do it. You all cut it the last time. I kept complaining to you about
it, Mr. Mudd, until you changed it.
This thing has got out of hand. If you go on down that way, it's
growing clear out over the highway. And you can't get road and
bridge to do nothing. She went and told him that we had to cut from
the blacktop over to the -- to our property. I know better than that.
We don't take -- we pay taxes for that. And it just -- right there there's
another. And you know who that is, Ms. Donna Fiala, don't you,
ma'am? You know who that is? You don't? That's you, ma'am.
That's you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm the telephone pole.
MR. THOMPSON: See the camera up on that pole?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. THOMPSON: See the camera on the pole? That's you. I
didn't (sic) going to bother with you, ma'am. Mine -- your job was
saddled, you know, until one way day you -- I was sitting here and
you told -- you told a lady that was standing up here that buyer
beware. And that kind of made me mad.
Page 36
October 23-24, 2007
So you bought a house with a garage closed up, just like her. I
know the people real well, from Michigan. So what's good for her is
good for you.
So the day that you was at my house with the cops, see, you
asked him to call me. Scott Anderson, you know him? Yeah, you
was over there. And I was trying to -- I had sold that piece of property
on the end. My wife's cousin, he's an implant dentist from Germany.
They were going to buy that piece of property. This canal goes this
way and it goes on. He was -- he had the money to buy it, and he was
going to fly back here and buy it.
But I kept getting harassed so bad by that camera right there.
And this right here is another, 3200 Shoreview Drive and Bayshore
Drive. Look where the parking lot is, right out in the middle of the
street.
If you come around there at night, I don't know what would
happen to you. A drunk man would run into a car. So I was trying to
sell that piece of property.
And I fell the other night and drove my car up across my
esophagus here, and now I got to have an operation on that. They're
putting me on a morphine pump. So I don't know. It's just one thing
after another.
I'll be damned if I ain't getting tired of being harassed by code
enforcement, and it's just time and time. It ain't a person out there that
__ that's got things on their mail -- numbers on their mailboxes. I'm the
only one that she got, so more power to her.
But she was trying at that time to get money out of me, just like
you had her up here two weeks ago. I tried to make it then, but I
couldn't do it. Shouldn't be here now but I'm here.
But you people can do as you please if you work for the county,
but I can't do as I please. But I don't want to do it that way. I want to
__ I want to fix things and fix it right.
And I had the most beautiful place on that street. It don't belong
Page 37
October 23-24, 2007
to me. It belongs to my wife. And I have had enough of code
enforcement. I've had enough of people not answering their phones.
I've had to talk to this and talk to that. Thank God Donna (sic) I'd have
got out of here. That's one good thing we've got going.
So I love all of you. I'm going to move somewhere up in the
mountains one with sky hook, see if somebody will move next to me.
So I thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Did you want your
pictures that you gave Mr. Mudd?
MR. THOMPSON: Throw them in the garbage.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next public petition is a request
by Jennifer Rogers to discuss the Marine Resource Conservation
Partnership.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me. I didn't see
Commissioner Coyle's light on. Commissioner Coyle, did you have a
comment to make? I'm sorry for missing you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I do, and it's primarily for
the benefit of the listening public.
F or the six years I've been on this commission Mr. Thompson has
been at almost every meeting with complaints. He's complained about
the sheriffs department, he's complained about code enforcement, he's
complained about Waste Management, he's complained about
Emergency Management Services, he's complained about the fire
department, he's complained about local businesses, his neighbors,
individual staff members, he's complained about commissioners and
has, in most cases, directly insulted every one of us, along with our
aides, who spend a lot of time on the telephone with Mr. Thompson
trying to deal with his concerns.
He has gotten very abusive with some of our aides. Mr.
Thompson has taken up more staff time than any other single citizen
of Collier County. And I think everyone needs to understand that there
Page 38
October 23-24, 2007
is nothing that we have been able to do to address any of Mr.
Thompson's concerns. Anything we do is not acceptable to him.
His imagined violations of the law turn out not to be violations at
all. We've told him this time and time and time again, and there just is
no solution to that. So for him to come in here and criticize staff
members for not listening to him and not talking to him is, first, it is
false and, secondly, it is unfair.
My aide has spent hours talking on the telephone with Mr.
Thompson, in some cases every day. She will get telephone calls
from him five or 10 minutes apart about the same issue. He takes up a
lot of time. We do our best, I think, to deal with his concerns.
But we have to understand, we're never going to solve his
problems. It's just not going to happen. So it's part of our service to
the community, and we'll keep trying to respond, but we'll never make
Mr. Thompson happy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd?
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION BY JENNIFER ROGERS DISCUSSING THE
MARINE RESOURCE CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP
(MRCP) - DISCUSSED AND RECOMMENDED MEETING WITH
ADVISORY BOARD/COMMITTEES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next public petition is from
Jennifer Rogers to discuss the Marine Resource Conservation
Partnership, MRCP.
MS. ROGERS: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Jennifer Rogers. I am a resident of Collier County and coordinator for
a new outreach in education program related to marine resources here
in Collier County, and it's being brought to Collier County through the
efforts of a partnership known as the Marine Resource Conservation
Page 39
October 23-24, 2007
Partnership. And I'm here today to briefly introduce this partnership
and the education outreach program and respectfully request the
commissioners consider joining the partnership.
An informal partnership was initiated a little over a year ago by
local managers in the marine industry to address issues of growing
concern including increased impacts to our coastal resources by an
increasing boating community and visitors. Impacts have included
increased volume oflitter, improper disposal of human wastes,
picking and trampling of gene vegetation and other degradation to our
marine habitats.
Although on the surface these impacts may all seem resource
impacts, they also have a potential negative economic impact as
visitors' and residents' enjoyment diminishes and they decide to take
their recreation dollars elsewhere.
Based on the efforts of the local partnership that has been here in
Collier County, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
created a formal partnership by signing a memorandum of
understanding with the mutual goal to manage the marine resources of
the State of Florida for the public and future generations through
nonregulatory, nonthreatening education and outreach programs.
And other stockholders are welcome to join this partnership by
signing an addendum to the memorandum of understanding.
The partnership will be local -- will continue to be active locally
through county partnerships, and our local partnership is the Marine
Resource Conservation Partnership of Collier County, and our local
partnership has been working to develop a new outreach in education
program here in Collier County that will be known as Team OCEAN,
and OCEAN stands for, Ocean Conservation Education Action
Network. It's based on a Team OCEAN program that has been active
in the Florida Keys for over 10 years and is considered very successful
down there.
Page 40
October 23-24, 2007
The program is volunteer based. It includes one-on-one outreach
in education where the volunteers are actually out in the users'
element, on the water, on the beaches, at the piers, at the docks, at boat
ramps, and this is how we will also implement this program here in
Collier County.
The goal of the program is to promote continued enjoyment of
our resources, but through conservation practices. And we believe the
success of the program is based on community support, and part of
raising that community support and awareness is through our partners.
With the public petition request, I included a copy of the
memorandum of understanding and the addenda. And I'd like to
indicate that the partnership does require a commitment to provide
staff services, equipment, and/or funding to the extent deemed
appropriate by each partner.
And I highlight this because there is no defined minimum
commitment or requirement to provide funding. Provision of staff
time is sufficient, and this is something the county has already
informally been doing over the past year.
Staff from the Coastal Zone Management Environmental
Services have already been working with the informal partnership, or
the formal partnership, to address local concerns and work together to
determine how we might bring this outreach into Collier County.
We understand staff time is very valuable, and we would like to
see the staff time continue with the partnership by a -- the formal
commitment by the commissioners to join the partnership. I also
included slides of a presentation I gave to the Environmental Advisory
Council and am able to give that to the commissioners at a later date if
desired.
And I thank you for your time and consideration, and I'll take any
questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think it's a worthwhile
Page 41
October 23-24, 2007
organization, but obviously, you hit -- hit something that's kind of near
and dear to all of us right now and that is, you're requesting staff time
and funds. And I feel that if you need this type of commitment, that
you need to maybe talk to some of our legislators up in Tallahassee.
As you know, they've really cut our taxes. We, at this point in
time, aren't going to take on any additional expenses.
MS. ROGERS: I highlighted that there's no minimum
commitment for funding, so funding doesn't need to be provided. But
I do understand there is value to your staff time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, staff time is funding.
Anytime you use people's time, you're talking about using government
dollars. And Commissioner Halas is absolutely correct, it's a
worthwhile goal.
What I don't understand is, why is it necessary for a volunteer
effort to proceed to get Collier County government's participation?
MS. ROGERS: I'm not sure I understand the question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a volunteer effort, right?
MS. ROGERS: Well, actually my position is funded by Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and Florida Department
of Environmental Protection.
The outreach in education program itself is a volunteer program.
Volunteers will be doing the outreach. The partnership is -- includes
like City of Marco Island, City of Naples. We've been working with
them as well as I mentioned the members of different departments in
the county.
It's usually them just talking with me about what the concerns
are, attending our staff -- or our -- the Marine Resource Conservation
Partnership meetings that we have once a month or every other month
Page 42
October 23-24, 2007
to talk about the issues and how to implement this program here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I guess I don't understand
why it makes much difference whether we participate or not. You get
your funding from Fish and Wildlife Service. You have volunteers to
do the work.
MS. ROGERS: Well, the -- the importance of having the county
involved is to understand what the county's issues are and also to talk
about how this is being implemented here in Collier County since we
will be at county boat ramps and at county parks, or we hope to be.
We hope to utilize those resources to do the outreach.
So the volunteers will be at county boat ramps and county parks
providing the education, and we'd just like to coordinate with staff to
make sure we have that approval to be at those boat ramps and to
perform that education and outreach, and to hit upon the issues that the
county may have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I would have a question of
the county manager. Do you have -- do you have the staff that you
can allocate to do these kinds of things or not?
MR. MUDD: Well, I'm -- I don't want to say I'm a little
confused, but I believe last year, or the year prior in your budget, you
paid half the cost of an FTE for a marine agent from the University--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Florida.
MR. MUDD: -- from the University of Florida, and I believe that
marine agent is doing that outreach right now. So I would ask that the
petitioner talk to our marine agent, okay, that's located in Rookery
Bay, has an office there, and let's see how we can merge and tie those
efforts together, and maybe we can expand those.
And I believe that's probably the place that she needs to go in
order to get that done. And I believe he will open his arms to any
volunteers that they have in order to do that, because he works with,
you know, fish lines that are tied up, boating safety, all of that
particular issue, and I believe we're pretty much on the same sheet of
Page 43
October 23-24, 2007
music there. So I believe that's the person to coordinate with.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. ROGERS: May I respond that I actually sit in the same
office as your sea grant agent, and he helped to bring about this
partnership and actually create the position that I fill. So I do
coordinate with your sea grant agent to do these outreach in education
programs. I'm sort of an extension of what he does.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. ROGERS: He doesn't actually manage the outreach in
education program.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One of the things I would encourage
you to do, too, is work very closely with advisory boards when the
meetings take place. That's the time to interact, rather than just try to
work with staff and then it goes back to the advisory boards. So
there's many ways that we can cooperate together.
Let's go back to Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It sounds to me like you're looking
for funding, and I think that where this needs to go is right back up to
Tallahassee and that the governor increase the budgets of Fish and
Wildlife to take care of these concerns.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. ROGERS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who is it that you work for?
MS. ROGERS: I work for the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission. They actually cover my salary, but the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection covers my office in
Rookery Bay and admin.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you a registered lobbyist?
Page 44
October 23-24, 2007
MS. ROGERS: A registered lobbyist? No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What I would recommend is that
when you finish here, check with the clerk's office upstairs. If you're
going to be coming before us again, you really need to be registered if
you're paid for what you do. If you're a volunteer, it's a little different
story .
MS. ROGERS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's a $25 fee. It's nothing much
involved, but the public wants to know who's representing who. It's a
way of declaring out front, you know. When you walk through the
door, we know who you are and who you represent. If you would take
care of that, I'd appreciate it very much.
MS. ROGERS: Okay. I was unaware. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll, it's one of those things, you
know, it's the letter of the law and we have to follow it.
And with that, Commissioner Coyle, and then we have to move
it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I was just going to raise a
quick question. Does that really apply to governmental agencies, the
lobbyist restriction?
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioners, that's your policy. It's
ultimately your call. I don't know that it was originally put in effect in
place for that, but it's your call to determine the breadth of the policy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If that's the case, I don't think we
should be charging other government agencies. I mean, this is
ridiculous to be trading dollars back and forth. You know, when
someone comes in here from a government agency, it's absolutely
clear and plain who they represent. Well, most of the time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's my own thought. But listen,
we could spend all day on this particular item. I think you covered it
Page 45
October 23-24, 2007
very well. I do believe that you have some cooperation walking out
the door that you didn't have coming in, and we thank you very much
for being here.
MS. ROGERS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, let's see. We're--
MR. MUDD: We have a time certain item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How long will that take?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Days.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have one public petitioner that I
really would like to get out of the way since we've already heard three
of them. We've got just one left. Let's go with it. I'm pretty sure we'll
be able to move it along. I apologize to those people that had a time
certain that it's getting delayed slightly, also, too, people on the public
petition end of it, we told them that we would be taking care of them
first thing in the morning and move them forward, and I'd like to stay
with that particular format as much as possible.
Item #6C
STEVE OLIVERA DISCUSSING PURCHASE AGREEMENT OF
PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH
ROAD EXTENSION CORRIDOR - WOULD LIKE THE
BOARD'S HELP WITH EXPEDITING THE PURCHASE OF HIS
PROPERTY; BOARD RECOMMENDS THIS ISSUE TO BE
BROUGHT BACK AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM AT A
FUTURE MEETING - CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: You have a public -- the next public petition is a
request by Steve Oliver--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Olivera.
MR. MUDD: Olivera. Okay, I'm sorry -- to discuss a purchase
agreement of property located along the Vanderbilt Beach Road
Page 46
October 23-24, 2007
extension corridor.
MR. OLIVERA: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you.
Because of time, I'll make it brief.
I have a home that's in the path of the Vanderbilt Beach
extension, which we've already voted on. I have two structures,
basically, that are very close proximity to the -- will be to the road. So
I'm looking for -- to follow through with -- we've been working on a
potential purchase of that property, so that's basically why I'm here
today to try to expedite that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Olivera, do I understand
from what you've said in your petition here that the agreement has
been pretty much worked out with the staff?
MR. OLIVERA: We have talked, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And do you feel that the
staff is in agreement with the terms?
MR. OLIVERA: I believe they are, yes. I mean --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I certainly wouldn't have any
reason to object to that whenever it gets to us. It just has to go through
the process and --
MR. OLIVERA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I don't -- is it -- my only
question is, is there a concern from our standpoint? And I don't think
there is, is there?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator.
Commissioner, this needs to be brought to you under public
petition because your policy was to identify the whole takes based on
the corridor study, which is essentially where we're going to hit the
principal residence, or be within 50 feet under that 200-foot-wide
corridor that we're trying to design smaller.
In this case, the principal residence is 98 feet from that 200- foot
Page 47
October 23-24, 2007
corridor. There is a structure that's about seven feet from that. It's a
little bit unique. We have statistics that show you that there are not
many homes within that 100 feet, and there were some other issues
that were brought to our attention.
With that, we made it clear from the start in this discussion that
this is an item that would require an exception established by the
board for a whole take because it was outside the limits of what had
been decided and given to -- direction to us by this board. And so,
therefore, you do have an exception that you're looking at.
Now, again, that exception is not one that's seen more than five
other places along the corridor, not all of which would want a whole
take necessarily, but they could, if you take this action, just to bring
that to your attention.
We do have a situation where the remainder could be sold, and
depending upon what was obtained from that, possibly reduce the cost
of the overall take that we would have even in a partial with a -- the
remainder being impacted.
And so in that sense, it may be a good item based on the fact that
the appraisal by the county, our appraisal is at 370-. The offer that
we've worked towards with the understanding that it had to come to
this board and had to be addressed as an exception to be a whole take,
was 403-. That reflects moving expenses and some of Save Our
Home and the like.
So with that in mind, we're not adverse to this, but we do want to
make sure the board understands it from the start. We raised the issue
that this is an exception for whole take, and that exception will have to
be approved by this board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me just clarify. I
understand, then, that the staff is in agreement with the terms of the
purchase?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the petitioner is in agreement
Page 48
October 23-24, 2007
with the terms of the purchase. The only thing that needs to be
determined is whether or not we will grant an exception to our normal
policy.
MR. FEDER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And speaking for myself, I have
absolutely no concern with it at all, okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's where I'm at. I believe that
transportation staff has worked diligently with this idea from what I
can see that was presented to me, and I don't think we're in the mood
to have the whole take. I think we'll pay you for what is needed in
regards to the right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Would you explain that
again?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The whole -- the proposal is
to do the whole take.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not in favor of taking the whole
take.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. It was a little confusing there.
Couple questions, in can, Mr. Feder.
If I understand correctly, if we just purchase the amount of land
that we need, we have a given cost for that in the fact that we would
be taking a particular building there that could have multiple uses for
it, so we would incur an expense.
Now, the difference is almost negligible between taking the
whole thing to determining what the property would be valued at.
How would this work out? I mean, dollar-wise for the --
MR. FEDER: First of all, the property owner, based on the
direction received, would have to wait until I have 60 percent design
plans, about June of next year. That's first.
Second, we would then evaluate the exact take, which may not be
Page 49
October 23-24, 2007
the whole 100 feet off of his property. We would have to pay for any
property we're acquiring. He might argue, we may have to discuss
issues of severance damage. But he is at least 98 feet away from the
100- foot line in his residence today.
The take of a partial would be less expensive obviously than the
whole take. The only thing I'm throwing out to you, if you consider a
whole take on this, and that's the board's determination, is I could then
take the remainder, which I would say would be some distance away
from the structure, at least the main structure, and if that's resold, try
to recoup some of that 403- and possibly be in a position of where it's
favorable to us relative to the partial acquisition cost and possible
severance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I realize that our direction that we
gave before was, is to, as soon as possible, to take those particular
parcels where we're directly impacting them with the road going right
through them.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You try to make these people whole
as fast as possible.
MR. FEDER: Which is within 50 feet, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then -- right. And we've been
going in that direction. Now, if we were to change our direction, of
course, we'd have to make it uniform not only in this case, but across
the whole corridor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whoa.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now -- yeah. And this is something
that everyone has to consider. Now, we have an unusual circumstance
with this particular corridor. It's not the same as some of the other
roads that we have in Collier County where we're taking them from
two lanes to four lanes or six lanes where we're going to impact
residents that are there. In most cases those roads were there, people
have known about it, and it's one of those things that you come to live
Page 50
October 23-24, 2007
with.
In this particular case we have an unusual hardship that's befallen
some of the residents out there where it's never been anticipated in the
past, and it's one of those things, you know, that we're trying to work
through.
And by the way, I want to compliment staff. I can tell you that
I've had nothing but compliments in how you've been handling the
negotiations for the land purchases out there. I've received some very
nice letters from a number of people after the fact when there was
absolutely no reason for them to write them unless they were writing
them from their heart, so that I want to thank you for writing.
But we do have that problem. How many other properties in this
corridor would fall within that same guideline, that 100- foot
guideline?
MR. FEDER: I asked staff the same question. And
Commissioner, I placed up on the overhead that information.
Essentially, as you know in this project, we're working it in two
phases. The first phase is from Wilson to the west, or 951. The
second phase would be then from Wilson to the east out to Everglades
and then DeSoto.
What we've found is within 100 feet besides this property at 98 --
that's why we looked at 100 feet -- I have one property that's about 75
feet. I have two others that are at 100 feet on that western portion, and
another one at 85 feet, which is Mr. Strakaluse's property, and I raise
that because the board is aware of that issue.
On the eastern end it appears that we only have one house within
a 100 feet, so basically what I'm looking at is a total of five besides
this, as I had mentioned previously, that might fall within any
precedent that was felt set on this corridor, and that's very important.
This corridor is being treated based on the policy direction
provided by this board. It is a new corridor. It's a new alignment. It
is not the same when we go through and expand two or four lanes,
Page 51
October 23-24, 2007
which we're doing throughout the county. We're not applying that
same 50-feet issue and the like.
So I present that to the board. You've got some people here that
might try to follow through on this and argue that if you did it here,
then they want that; in other words, some level of precedent. It
appears that exposure is only five potential, not all of which would
necessarily want to be a take.
You do have an unusual situation here in that you have a
structure that's within seven feet, and any other issues you may want
to take it, but it would be as an exception basis. I would hope we're
not setting policy to go to 100. It's still at 50. But you are setting a
level of precedent, unless you feel this is sufficiently unique to make
that exception.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess my concern is,
with set -- changing it to be a 100 feet, I'm concerned if we're going to
have enough money to actually construct the road, you know. And,
boy --
MR. FEDER: Again, Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I don't want to set new policy
based upon Commissioner Coletta's comments, because I mean, it's
just a -- it's just a real slippery slope.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, what I am recommending --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There are so many other needs
out there.
MR. FEDER: Excuse me, I'm sorry. What I am recommending
is you look at this if you deem such as an exception, not to change
your policy. I am recognizing that if you do deem an exception,
depending upon how you find that, that there are others -- and appears
only five -- that might declare precedent on this corridor, and that's
why I raise that to your attention, and the board needs to make that
decision.
Page 52
October 23-24, 2007
And we're not recommending that you change your policy as to
the 50 feet that we've been proceeding under, even if you find this
one, for some reason, to be an exception that you want us to proceed
with.
And then the bottom line, Commissioner, to your point is, in the
case of this one -- and I would assume would be the case in the others
-- if they are far enough back where we know we're not hitting them
directly as we are with some of the whole takes you originally
approve, and sufficiently far back that the remainder ought to provide
us the opportunity to recoup the added costs of whole take, especially
when we have to go through the process of partial take and the issues
associated with that if we negotiate to our, as we have in this case
essentially, to our appraised value.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now I'm going to, before I go
to my fellow commissioners here -- I want to be able to move this
along, either one or two things, we're going to bring this back for
consideration at a future meeting or we're not. I'm for bringing it
back, but -- and with that we're going to go to Commissioner Coyle,
then Commissioner Halas, and I think I got it in the right order.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to say that I agree
with Commissioner Henning. If we're going to take action here that is
going to try to establish a precedent for future purchases, then I'm not
in favor of it. I'm not in favor of bringing it back and I'm not in favor
of supporting it.
But if we are going to evaluate this as a single parcel with its
unique circumstances where we're having to take, a detached garage
and we're evaluating the economics of doing the entire take and that
we believe those economics are favorable to the county, then I am in
favor of it.
So we need to separate this particular -- this particular
consideration from any precedent. I am not in favor of just issuing a
Page 53
October 23-24, 2007
blanket change in policy that says, anything 100 feet or less will be
purchased. That's not a good policy. We're not doing that because
this is 100 feet or less. We're doing it because we've got a take a
detached garage seven feet from the right-of-way, and it makes
economic sense to do the whole thing, and it's fair to the owner to do it
that way.
Where's he going to put his garage if we take that one away?
And there are unique issues here. And I would just like to get this one
out of way. I'd like to say, yes, I support this. Let's proceed with it.
Give the homeowner an opportunity to get this thing resolved, the
staff can do what they've already done, which is evaluate it. Let's say,
yeah, this is a good thing to do.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me ask the county attorney if this
could go from a public petition, being recognized as an agenda item--
we did see the contract and everything in the beginning -- or does it
have to come back to us at another meeting?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It has to come back.
MR. WEIGEL: The policy is, under public petition, that the
boards give direction to staff for it to come back. And I'd like to hear
from the county manager and Mr. Feder, because I would expect that
they would prefer to be able to bring it back to you a little bit different
than this presentation today, which is more on the policy level.
Ultimately it's your policy though and you have taken action
directly from time to time.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just -- I need to set something
straight for the record. There were some statements that were made
about, you have to take that garage. You don't have to take that
garage. You need to take the 100 feet below the garage. That's the
only thing you're taking, okay?
This is a petition by the petitioner where he's saying, hey, the
Page 54
October 23-24, 2007
road's too close to my garage and therefore too close to my house and
I want you to take my house and the whole purchase, okay. I just
want to make sure that that's on the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas,
Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can go before me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think that Commissioner
Coyle hit the nail on the head. The only thing I'll add to this is that if
this person thinks that the garage is going to be a problem, then we
just negotiate and pay for the garage, not the rest of the property. It
might be a lot cheaper that way.
But I'm not going to -- I'm not in favor at all for the whole take,
I'll be honest with you, okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Commissioner Coyle said it
all, so I just echo what he said. I couldn't add anything more.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, here's something that's not
being told that Mr. Olivera explained to me and I verified it with
somebody else. He has elderly parents and he wants to create a
guesthouse for his elderly parents to take care of them; a very noble
thing to do.
And I could understand your concerns with that. If you're going
to be the caretaker of your parents in this type of situation, being what
it is, I agree with Commissioner Coyle's comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we can bring this back
again?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think we got direction on
that. We thank you very much for being here today.
MR. OLIVERA: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, we're going to take
Page 55
October 23-24, 2007
a 10-minute break, be back here, get to the time certain, 10 first, 10:30
second. Appreciate your patience.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please
take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Item #10H
TO: (A) AWARD THE CONTRACT FOR RFP #07-4138
(RECLAMA nON OF COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL CELLS 1
AND 2) TO WASTE MANAGEMENT INc. OF FLORIDA (WMIF)
FOR A CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $7,597,900.82; BASE
PROPOSAL OF $5,910,460.82 AND ALLOWANCES OF
$1,687,440; (B) APPROVE A NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT FOR THE PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$6,232,067.06 FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
AND RESERVES FOR CLOSURE FUND; AND (C) AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT WITH WMIF
- APPROVED
That brings us to our 10 o'clock time certain. It's a
recommendation to, number A, award the contract award for RFP
number 07-4138, reclamation of the Collier County Landfill cells one
and two to Waste Management, Inc., of Florida for a contract amount
of $7,597,900.82, base proposal of five million, 910 -- 5,910,460.82,
and allowances of$1,687,440.
Number B, to approve a necessary budget amendment for the
project in the amount of $6,238,067.06 from the capital improvement
fund and reserve for closure fund.
And C, authorize the chairman to execute the contract with
Waste Management, Inc., of Florida.
Page 56
October 23-24, 2007
And Mr. Dan Rodriguez, your Director of Solid Waste, will
present.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Management Department
Director.
Before I get started, I'd like to introduce our delivery team. It
includes Robert Zachary, your County Attorney Office; Steve Carnell,
your Director of Purchasing; Kumat Atkinson, your Project Manager
for public utilities engineering; John Ogle, your Operations Director
for Solid Waste; and David Dee, our Solid Waste Attorney; and Vic
Kamath, our PE with URS.
Commissioner, staff is recommending this morning the award of
RFP number 07-4138, reclamation of Collier County Landfill cells
one and two to Waste Management, Inc., of Florida in a contract
amount of $7,597.900.82, to approve the necessary budget
amendments for the project in the amount of$6,232,067.06, and
authorize the chairman to execute the contract with Waste
Management, Inc., of Florida.
The project purpose is to maximize the available landfill airspace
at the Collier County Landfill by reclaiming an old portion of the
landfill cells one and two. By reclaiming the old landfill cells, we will
extend the life of our landfill by allowing future cell construction at
the site.
We create a safer environment by removing waste from an
unlined landfill and disposing of it properly in a lined landfill cell.
We will reclaim materials that can be recycled and reused, such as
soils, metals, and concrete.
By reclaiming cells one and two, we comply with the landfill
operating agreement with Waste Management which specifically
states that the county has the responsibility to reclaim these cells and
pay for the cost.
Most importantly, we'll provide concurrency with our AUIR
Page 57
October 23-24, 2007
which requires us to maintain an inventory, two years oflined land
cell capacity and 10 years of permitted landfill cells.
Cells one and two were filled with solid waste between the years
of 1976 and 1979. The landfill cells were closed and covered with a
soil cap. The area to be reclaimed is about 22 acres. The average
depth of waste in these closed cells is about 10 feet.
The solid waste will be excavated and processed to separate the
soil from the excavated solid materials, the soil we used as cover
material at the landfill. The other excavated materials will be
processed and segregated.
Large pieces of metal, plastic, and concrete will be removed for
recycling. Waste, tires, and large pieces of wallboard will be taken off
site for proper disposal. The remaining materials will be disposed of
on site at the county's landfill. The project RFP process included the
development of an RFP for the reclamation of cells one and two.
Forty vendors request RFP packages; 13 vendors attended the
mandatory prep. proposal conference and site visit. Waste
Management, Inc., of Florida submitted the only proposal. The
selection committee concluded that Waste Management, Inc., of
Florida, was the qualified bidder.
Staff negotiated a contract for the reclamation of cells one and
two.
Total contract cost is estimated at $7,597,900.82, including
allowances of $878,000 for unforeseen conditions, including higher
than anticipated waste and increased amounts of leachate.
There's also an allowance of eight hundred nine thousand, four
hundred forty thousand dollars (sic) for extra manpower and
equipment to work the active cell at the landfill should additional
resources be needed to not interrupt current operations.
This is specifically allowed for in the landfill operating
agreement with Waste Management, Inc., of Florida.
In addition, staff has included $289,539.18 of funding to cover
Page 58
October 23-24, 2007
the costs associated with engineering review, inspections, survey
services, as outlined in your executive summary.
Total project cost is estimated to be $7,887,440.
Staff is recommending the award of the contract RFP number
07-4138 to Waste Management, Inc., of Florida for the reclamation of
cells one and two in the contract amount of seven million, five
hundred and ninety-seven dollars, nine hundred -- I'm sorry --
$7,597,900.82; approve the necessary budget amendments as outlined
in your executive summary for the project in the amount of
$6,232,067.06; authorize the chairman to execute the contract with
Waste Management, Inc., of Florida.
That concludes the presentation. We're prepared to answer your
questions, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's start with Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was only one respondent
to this RFP?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow. That's odd. What -- with
the declining growth in Collier County and the enhanced recycling in
Collier County, is this the proper time do this?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely, Commissioner. This is the
prudent thing to do. If I could bring your attention to the map here.
The red outlined area are your cells one and two location. This is the
closed cells here, three and four. This is your active cell here. Here's
where we're disposing waste.
The next phase is in this area here. We have a four-year window
to get this area prepared for the next cells. This is a two-year project.
We're anticipating getting it within the two years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was it in the original contract
that they were supposed to construct the -- this area at their cost?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: The new cells, that's correct,
Page 59
October 23-24, 2007
Commissioner, in the landfill operating agreement. Section 311
requires Waste Management to provide for the new cells that would
go in there. It specifically states that the county will pay for the
reclamation of the old cells.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What are you going to
do about the -- controlling the odor when you excavate this site?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, as part of the RFP process and in the
contract, we have a comprehensive odor control plan mandate from
Waste Management. County staff has planned pro actively to manage
the odor at the open phase. We've prescribed mandatory operating
procedures, standards for preventing odor, and the use of daily cover
as well as the new Posi-Shell to quickly cover the material in the event
of an odor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's the county's
responsibility to control the odor?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, sir. That's Waste Management's
responsibility.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Waste Management's, okay. It's
just kind of backwards from what I understood you to say.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're going to control the
odor. They're going to control the dust. And the varmints. I think
you call them varmints, right?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: They are -- right, and the county is going to
monitor them, as well as they will also have their own trained odor
control monitoring staff on site.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just find it kind of odd that you
only had one response for a request for proposal. It went out all over
the nation?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: It sure did. It was advertised and there were
40 package requested.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there was only one
Page 60
October 23-24, 2007
responded out of the 40?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Great, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. No other comments? Do I
hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval by
Commissioner Halas, second by 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: The ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you very much.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #100
A DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS (BCC) TO REVIEW THE HISTORY AND
CHAIN OF EVENTS RESULTING FROM A PLATTING
OMISSION FOR THE OLDE CYPRESS UNITS TWO AND
THREE PLATS, IN THE OLDE CYPRESS PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND TO DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL
Page 61
October 23-24, 2007
MEANS TO RESOLVE THE RESULTING ENCROACHMENTS
INTO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR PRESERVE AREAS
FOR 18 EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES IN UNITS TWO AND THREE - STAFF WILL
CONTACT THE HOMEOWNERS W/SETBACKS OF UNDER
THE 25% DISCREPANCY TO APPLY FOR AN
"ADMINISTRA TIVE VARIANCE" WITH A REDUCED GROUP
APPLICATION FEE - APPROVED; SECOND MOTION WAS
MADE TO INCLUDE AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION BY
OUTSIDE COUNCIL (CONTRACTED THROUGH THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE) OF THE
REVIEW/APPROVAL PROCESS AT CDES AND ANY STAFF
INVOLVEMENT; REMAINING HOMEOWNERS IN VIOLATION
WILL BE ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NOV) AND
WILL NEED TO APPLY FOR A PROPER VARIANCE -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next time
certain item, and that is 100, and it's to initiate a discussion with the
Board of County Commissioners to review the history and chain of
events resulting from platting omission for the Olde Cypress, units 2
and 3 plats, in the Olde Cypress planned unit development, PUD, and
to discuss the potential means to resolve the resulting encroachment
into the setback requirement for preserve areas for 18 existing
single-family residential structures in units 2 and 3.
Mr. Joseph Schmitt, your Administrator of Community
Development/Environmental Services, will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like all the participants
in this item to be sworn in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would all those people
Page 62
October 23-24, 2007
wishing to participate in this, please stand at this time and be sworn in
by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Mr. Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good morning. For the record,
Joe Schmitt, Administrator of Community Development and
Environmental Services division.
The purpose this morning is to advise the Board of County
Commissioners on a recently discovered omission which happened
during the platting of units 2 and 3 within the Olde Cypress
development which resulted in the issuance of building permits for
structures which now are believed to encroach into the required
setback from the platted preserves to varying degrees, and I provided
that information in Exhibit A.
The encroachment now encompasses 18 properties. The purpose
of this item is to provide the board an opportunity to discuss with staff
the findings for the board to evaluate the options and to resolve the
encroachment issues that are -- that I'm going to be discussion in
regards to this situation.
What I'd like to do now is kind of walk the board through this
process so you can understand how this evolved and basically
understand how we uncovered the problem.
This is a -- this is just a master showing Olde Cypress unit 1, and
I'm going to focus in on those tracts. I'm going to go to the next slide
basically, which will enlarge those tracts 3 and tracts 2.
Those are -- those are Olde Cypress unit 1. Those tracts 2 and 3
are then replatted, basically replatted, and this is the preliminary plat.
This is the north end. Note, again, tracts 2 and 3, and I'm going to
circle there the tract A noted as a conservation easement. This is the
preliminary plat. I'm going down to the south portion of that same
plat, preliminary plat, plats 2 and 3.
And I just want to zero in again, tract A, noted as a conservation
Page 63
October 23-24, 2007
easement. All this information was provided in your packet.
This is now when we get into tracts 2 and 3 being replatted
actually into a subdivision to become Wild Orchid Court and Treeline
Drive. This was in -- approved by the board in June of 1999.
And I flip again to the southern portion of those two
developments. I'm going to focus in and note that the preserve note no
longer exists. I'm not saying what was approved was illegal. It's just
that they dropped the notation of preserve and simply just noted in a
note the Olde Cypress unit 1, page 32, or at least the property -- the
book, and then the pages 1 through 11.
Note I circled in green -- also these plats now include a 10-foot
golf course easement and a 10- foot utility and drainage easement.
And again, this is the note that is adjacent to what was in the master
preserve and now is noted as simply more than a note referencing the
-- and John, what is that? That's the --
MR. HOULDSWORTH: The golf course.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Again, with tract 5 replatted, this
becomes Lone Pine Drive, similar situation. I'm focussing in on tract
5, focus in again, and that is, again, tract C, tracts A and C.
That is, again, replatted to Lone Pine Drive. This is the upper
portion of Lone Pine Drive. And I'm going to now focus in again on
the notes.
This is tract A, and these are -- is what was recorded. Instead of
noting it as a preserve, it notes simply just as Tract A, unit 1, and note,
again, they have platted or shown on the plat the golf course easement.
Understand that these plats then become the master when the
building permits come in and the site plans for the building permits.
This is what staff bases and evaluates to validate setbacks for the
respective homes that are built on these -- in these developments.
This is an aerial. Simply shows Loan Pine Drive, and certainly
you can see it's pretty evident that it is a preserve, at least from this
picture, but was not noted as such in the final plat.
Page 64
October 23-24, 2007
I'm going to flip through some slides to show you. These are the
properties. I want to stress here, again, that the -- these are
requirements of a 25- foot setback for the principal structure, 10- foot
setback for accessory structures.
I do -- what I -- the purpose of this is to show, this is not a serious
problem in regards to encroachments into the setback. It's a
dimensional encroachment, but you can clearly see by these pictures
where -- the property line and then the start of the preserve.
Similar picture here, as we go down and you can see again, and
this was the house that sort of brought everything to -- at least to life
as far as staff. This -- this house is a five-foot setback and note that
it's -- it's right up to the property line. And, again, this is a picture of
the back yard of that respective house.
These are the summary of the violations, and they range every __
from a maximum of 14.3 feet to less than a foot, and, again, on Tree
Line Drive and Wild Orchid.
The purpose today is to discuss with you the options, to amend
the PUD, and the pros and cons are listed. I think the most significant
pro is that it allows for public input and it allows for the public hearing
process. It would go before the Planning Commission and go before
the Board of County Commissioners, of course, or the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
The con, of course, is the high costs associated with it, and I'll get
into costs in my last slide.
The second option is require the property owners to come in and
obtain a separate variance for the encroachment. Again, this does
allow for the public hearing process, but it puts the burden on each
individual property owner.
Option three, administratively approve the encroachments. We
do believe we have an option that we can administratively approve
individual requests for administrative variances up to
six-and-a-quarter feet for the setback encroachment into the preserve.
Page 65
October 23-24, 2007
And the last option is replat. This is probably the least -- it
probably -- well, this would require an amendment to the district. It's
the South Florida Water Management District permit and probably the
most costly option because it would require all the engineering to be
redone, replatting of each of the developments, and a modification to
the district permit.
So there's your options. And some of those costs are laid out
because I did not in any way, shape, or form try and estimate what it
would cost for the private consulting fees.
Option 1, $6,000 for a strikethrough and underline amendment.
It would be a rather simple amendment to identify the preserve
setback and do a strikethrough and underline type of amendment,
which this board has approved to be done like we've done in the past
with other amendments, the advertising costs, that's the advertising
costs for both the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners, and then of course, if there are any outside consulting
fees. Staff is certainly willing to assist to get through this process.
The property owners, it would be a -- obtain a separate variance.
That's $2,000 per applicant. If it's deemed to be an after-the-fact
permit by the Board of County Commissioners, it would certainly be
up to almost $73,000 when you're looking at the properties involved,
plus the advertising costs.
Administrative appeal is a thousand dollars per property, and we
believe that the dimensions and the variances that are dealing with
these individual properties, all but two, most likely, could be dealt
with through the administrative variance process. And the replat could
be anywhere from $7,000 on up.
That pretty much covers my introduction. Subject to your
questions, that concludes my presentation. I have members of my
staff here to answer any questions that you wish to address in regards
to the platting process, the survey process, and the building review and
permitting process.
Page 66
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to lead off, in may.
Mr. Schmitt, this is a very complex issue in the fact that we have
innocent homeowners that have been greatly impacted by it, but it's
very troubling to see this issue and some of the names that are
attached to it coming forward. It looks very much like the system has
been manipulated beyond any kind of reasonable expectation, I think
mostly by the developer, but I can't be entirely sure that staff didn't
have some involvement in this.
What I'm going to do before I turn it over first to Commissioner
Henning, then Commissioner Halas, is I'd like the commissioners in
their deliberations here to consider having this item -- I mean, go
forward possibly with the action to be able to correct the error in
judgment that's been brought out on the landowners, but to possibly
consider rolling this into the issue that we have with the Pebblebrooke
PUD and having an investigation done by an outside firm to be able to
see exactly how this whole thing comes together. If not that firm,
maybe a hearing officer. I'm offering that as a point of discussion as
we go forward.
Commissioner Henning, we'll go to you next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, isn't it odd that both of
these issues are in my district?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's troubling, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any correlation there,
Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, no. This all came about on a
property at 2949 Lone Pine Road or Lone Pine Drive, which was
reported to be an encroachment. It was discovered that there was no
consideration for the setback of preserves.
I asked my staff if that was the case for that home, how many
other homes in that development were -- where preserves were not
considered? I think the problem here with this, and what happened
with this, is the -- and if I could back up when some of these came in.
Page 67
October 23-24, 2007
And you look at a platted subdivisions, and you see a lO-foot
golf course easement. I am not sure at one time they may have
considered this to be a golf course easement. Again, this is -- this was
platted and subdivided in the late '90s. And when staff looks at this as
the master, someone may conclude -- I can only assume once someone
may have concluded that the -- that what was behind there was a golf
course and not a preserve, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, how many other
communities do you feel that might have this same problem?
MR. SCHMITT: That I don't know, and I can't answer that
unless we look in every one of the platted subdivisions and find out if
there are other subdivisions that came in with the similar problems
dealing with setbacks or preserves.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's a determination by
staff, if a PUD is silent on a preserve setback, that the Land
Development Code kicks in.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can tell you that I haven't
remembered seeing a setback of preserves in any PUDs that came
before the Board of County Commissioners, so this could be a
countywide issue.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, there are -- there are PUDs in
this county that allow only five-foot setbacks from preserves.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is your recommendation
in this case?
MR. SCHMITT: My recommendation is that we amend the --
we amend the PUD. That's the staff recommendation. It's the cleanest
way. It's the most legal way.
The PUD -- by amending the PUD, they can ask to have the
preserve setbacks at least be equivalent or equal to the development
criteria, the 20-foot setback. And if anybody can't meet that, then
they'll probably have to come in for a separate variance. But our
Page 68
October 23-24, 2007
recommendation is that they amend the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is a DRI, correct?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you contacted South
Florida planning council on this issue?
MR. SCHMITT: No, Commissioner. This is -- it's a local issue.
We have not contacted the Regional Planning Council.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does this have any listed
species in the preserves?
MR. SCHMITT: There's a tremendous amount of preserves in
this -- in this PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you know that the Regional
Planning Council considers that a substantial deviation according to
the planner, Dan Trescott, in the Regional Planning Council?
MR. SCHMITT: I have not talked to Dan about this yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you talked to the district
that has the conservation easement in their name?
MR. SCHMITT: We've had the district out there on site, a
representative from the South Florida Water Management District,
along with my staff walking the entire preserve.
Frankly, the setback for the preserve is there to protect the
integrity of the preserve, and we've had vegetation and encroachment
into the preserve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you talked to them about
your recommendation to amend the PUD?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir, I have not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this could be a very large
issue. Now, who's supposed to pay for this PUD amendment that
you're recommending?
MR. SCHMITT: That's another option for this board. If you
deem that it was staff that was responsible, we're going to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is your recommendations?
Page 69
October 23-24, 2007
MR. SCHMITT: Well, Commissioner, I believe that the
developer ought to pay for it. It's a -- it's the developer -- ultimately
the developer is responsible for the development and the submittals,
and these are -- these are submittals done by professionals, and I
believe that the developer if -- should pay for it, and if not, we jointly
pay for it. If you believe that there's staff -- that staff made errors that
were involved in this and you believe it should be somehow jointly
paid for, then we'll move in that direction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you asking us to deviate
from the Growth Management Plan on a PUD amendment?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, there are -- that -- I am not
asking you right now with that. We're asking for guidance and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you know what the Growth
Management Plan says on this issue?
MR. SCHMITT: I'll defer to my staff on that. Bill?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: While Mr. Lorenz is coming up,
what started this issue?
MR. SCHMITT: This issue started with a property located at
2949 Lone Pine Drive, or Lone Pine Lane, had to do with an argument
over whether it was a corner lot or the setback, and that's the lot shown
right there, lot 28. And it was permitted as a corner lot. The building
permit came in to allow for setbacks on that corner lot. Now, that's an
argument for a different day because that decision was appealed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me ask you a question.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That house is under
construction, correct?
MR. SCHMITT: It's been issued a TCO.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When did the house start under
construction?
MR. SCHMITT: I don't have that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When did you -- when was you
Page 70
October 23-24, 2007
aware of -- there was a problem on this lot?
MR. SCHMITT: We were -- staff was made aware of that, and
I'm thinking either the Mayor June time frame of this year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Was it under
construction at that time?
MR. SCHMITT: It was 95 percent complete at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, in the past you
have come to the Board of County Commissioners and said,
Commissioners, we have a problem with a house being built on a lot.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In fact, I remember a lot, a
corner lot, in Golden Gate Estates.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that you was asking the
guidance of the Board of County Commissioners, Commissioners,
should we stop this project until he obtains a variance or should we
tell him to proceed at risk pending the outcome of a variance.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why wasn't that -- why wasn't
we informed of this?
MR. SCHMITT: In this case this was deemed to be a corner lot.
The setbacks met the requirements, and there was a lot line
adjustment that was an administrative process to validate that. There
was no requirement for a variance for that property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's no requirements today
for a variance on that property?
MR. SCHMITT: Other than the setback requirement for the
preserves.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So there is a variance problem
with this lot?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, that lot --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who is this person that is
October 23-24, 2007
getting this special consideration that didn't come to the Board of
County Commissioners to ask for -- to proceed at risk?
MR. SCHMITT: All I know is the property owner is Mr.
Greider, a Craig Greider.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there other cases that you
have not brought issues like this to the Board of County
Commissioners?
MR. SCHMITT: Not that I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: The situation you talked about that was brought
to your attention in Golden Gate Estates was an issue of a variance,
required variance, to either issue a stop work order or allow the
builder to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because of a setback issue?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct -- to proceed at his own risk.
There was no setback issue, at least from a staff perspective. And
reviewing the situation for lot 28, there was no setback requirement.
There's two side yards and two front yards. And, again, we're dealing
with an issue that's going to be appealed before this board that's
coming to you under a separate appeal.
That was an administrative -- it was a -- reviewed, deemed to be
-- meet the required setbacks. The only requirement or the only
setback problem was dealing with the 25- foot setback with the
preserves. And once we discovered that was a problem, I directed my
staff to go back and tell me how many other homes in that
development did not meet the 25-foot setback, and that's why we're
here today. We're here today to bring--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't you think after looking at
all this, this should have came to the Board of County
Commissioners? This single lot should have came to the Board of
County Commissioners so that we're aware of the problem? You gave
him a temporary CO, right?
Page 72
October 23-24, 2007
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the conditions on their
temporary CO?
MR. SCHMITT: Six months temporary CO.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For what? Why?
MR. SCHMITT: Because of the appeal that was filed against
that home. There's two appeals that were filed --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's only -- you gave him a
temporary CO because there's an appeal?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not because there's a setback
issue?
MR. SCHMITT: Nobody has been cited in this community yet
for any violation of a setback.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry to steal the floor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. You're dealing with this fine.
You know, what we may want to do in a moment though is -- you've
got more questions, I'm sure, and as we go through the deliberations
you're going to have even more. Let's go on to Commissioner Halas
and Commissioner Coyle, then we'll come back to you, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can staff tell me if this
development has been turned over to the homeowners association?
MR. SCHMITT: This development has not been turned over. I
believe it's at least been identified and beginning the process for
turnover from the developer to the homeowners association.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So ifthere's any cost to be
incurred in regards to setting -- to change the PUD to go back for an
amendment or anything of this nature, then there is the possibility that
this would be shouldered by the developer; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: That's at your direction. If you want to direct it
to the developer or you believe that staff should carry the burden on
Page 73
October 23-24, 2007
this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think the developer--
obviously we've got some problems because it wasn't defined as we
went through the process here. There wasn't anything defined that
said that it was a preserve. The first one said it was a preserve, but
then later on it was dropped from the evidence that you brought forth,
and it seems to me that -- I think that the developer's got an obligation
here. But I'll wait and listen to the whole situation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, let's -- excuse me. Let's deal
with this -- the document that's before us right now where it specifies
there's a 10- foot golf course easement here. That in fact, is untrue,
isn't it? There is no 10- foot golf course easement here?
MR. SCHMITT: There is on every property except that one
listed shown there on 28, but that dashed line along the whole plat is --
that golf course easement still exists. Lot 28, the applicant -- or the
builder asked to have that removed, and it was administratively
removed from that -- from that lot.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who is responsible for presenting
accurate documents to the staff for consideration and approval?
MR. SCHMITT: I hear your question, but I mean, that's up to
the applicant. The design professional is responsible for submitting
accurate information to the staff for the staff to review.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And is it customary for the staff to
verify what these easements or setbacks are? Wouldn't it be an
appropriate thing for the staff to look at what is adjoining this property
in order to determine what the setback requirements should be?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Every one of these go through -- goes
through extensive review through the departments, signed off by the
county attorney, and then approved by the board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And apparently no one really
looked at these adjoining properties because, as you earlier stated, that
Page 74 .
October 23-24, 2007
if anyone would have looked at the aerial photo, you would see that it
was some kind of preserve, right?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir, but I can't answer in regards to what
happened in '98 or '99 when this came in for review.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Is it now our common
practice to take a look at these things so that we understand what is
adjacent to the property we're reviewing? Are we doing that now?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, yes. Every home that comes in
now, ifthere's a note like this, we go back to the original plat to
ensure. I mean, it is -- we placed this in practice when we first learned
about this, and now we go through -- like I said -- when an individual
home permit comes in, we go back. If we don't understand what the
note says on the plat book and page number, we'll go back to that plat
book and page number and verify what that is, the adjacent property is
designated as.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. When was the Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy issued?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I don't have that information
with me on that specific property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we get that information?
MR. SCHMITT: Maybe Bob. Bob, you --
MR. DUNN: I don't have it with me.
MR. SCHMITT: It was sometime in August, and I just -- I don't
have the specific date on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sometime in August?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. I'll look that up. And again, that was
an issue dealing with the Greider residence and not with this issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there a staff member who was
involved in this approval that is related to an officer of Stock
Development Corporation, the developer?
MR. SCHMITT: I have that staff member John Houldsworth
whose spouse works for Stock Development, yes.
Page 75
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And was that staff member
involved in the review and approval process of this development?
MR. SCHMITT: It's one of the members in the engineering
department, yes, and signed off by the engineering director.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, you've listed the setback
encroachments for the properties but you've considered principal
structures only. How about accessory structures? What would that
list look like if we included accessories violations?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, we have not done an analysis
on the accessory structures. I doubt it would add many more. It--
maybe add one or two more, but we're still within the analysis to do
the accessory structures.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's -- we'll go to Commissioner
Fiala, then back to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I think Commissioner
Henning was first though.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He is, but I wanted to give you an
opportunity, because we're going to give Commissioner Henning quite
a bit of time --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ladies are always first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to probably wrap this up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Regarding the golf course easement.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are they issued for golf course?
MR. SCHMITT: No. Ma'am, that's just a designation on the
subdivision plat for a golf course easement. I believe at one time this
may have been considered to be a portion of the golf, but when they
got their district permit, they were told they could not go into that
portion of the preserve. But I don't know. We've not done that kind
of an investigation.
I have no idea, but that seems to be pretty standard, and every
Page 76
October 23-24, 2007
subdivision plat that you have in your book shows a golf course
easement as part of the plat.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did they ever apply for a golf
course easement?
MR. SCHMITT: No, ma'am. No, that's just part of the design.
They note it, and it's recorded as an easement in the final plat of
process. And it's -- on the cover sheet ofthe submittal that's signed
off, it's noted as a dedicated easement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So when you look at a plan and it
says golf course easement, is it supposed to show an SDP with a golf
course in it?
MR. SCHMITT: No, ma'am. It just -- not necessarily. It's just
something they would put on there to indicate possibly they would --
that this may be a platted -- join-in golf course easement, or golf
course.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? And
also, too, we do have several speakers --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll keep it short.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to give us guidance also. But go
ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The owner is to sign a -- owner
or builder is to sign a disclosure statement that the construction will
comply with laws and ordinances?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. That's part of the permit
process. I can -- my building director's here if you want any specifics
on the building process. Bob?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Lorenz needs to answer my
question, too. We'll take a coin and flip it.
MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Engineering
Environmental Services Director. Commissioner, I believe your
question was, what Growth Management Plan requirements could
Page 77
October 23-24, 2007
potentially impact the PUD amendment with regard to the setback?
The setback to preserves is a Land Development Code requirement.
There's no Growth Management Plan --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about --
MR. LORENZ: -- requirements for the setback.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- amending PUDs?
MR. LORENZ: That would -- that would -- from a standpoint of
amending the PUD to give a deviation to the setback would not be a
Growth Management Plan issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, when you amend a PUD
-- and I know that you deal with environmental issues and not -- you
don't know the future land use, but I'm sure you know the
conservation element of the Growth Management Plan. I'm concerned
that we're being asked to do something that hasn't been investigated
properly.
MR. LORENZ: If the amendment is solely to give a deviation to
the 25- foot setback, that would simply be a deviation of the Land
Development Code. The Growth -- that would not be any change or
violation of the Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just the LDC ordinance
violation.
MR. LORENZ: A deviation, which a PUD could allow for a
deviation to the Land Development Code requirements, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we being asked, Mr.
Schmitt, to -- just for these noncompliant lots for the PUD
amendment?
MR. SCHMITT: I would say no. It would be an amendment for
the entire PUD. And I need to correct the record also because when
you mentioned the DR!, the only way that the region -- RPC would be
involved in this, or the district, if it required a reduction in the
preserves. The setback change, as Bill just pointed out, is an
administrative process. It does not impact the district permit nor the
Page 78
.---- '""-
October 23-24, 2007
preserve calculations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe it was director of the
Regional Planning Council's mistake that he mentioned that to me
then.
MR. SCHMITT: We'll confirm that. I don't see any reason why
the DR -- why this would be involved in the RPC, but we can confirm
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what would you do to amend
the PUD? These would become in compliance, but what would --
how would that impact the other residents?
MR. SCHMITT: Everybody then would be eligible to go to the
reduced setback. And my recommendation would be -- and it's listed
in your packet, the development standards, and that's on your page 10
of 29. The rear yard setbacks and side yard setbacks is listed for the
setbacks, not for the preserves, that the amendment would basically
match, the preserve setback, so everybody would be -- have the option
then to -- if they wanted to go further into their back yard, they would
have the option to do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But here's the thing. Have you
drove in that community?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Played golf in there?
MR. SCHMITT: I've been in that community, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many single lots are left in
there?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, that I do not know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I mean, I didn't view
very many of them, so you've got -- from what I understand, there's
400 -- over 400 homes built in there, so people -- the majority, the
supermajority, or 80 percent -- no, I'm sorry -- 95 percent complied to
the setbacks, but yet you're only saying that 18 hasn't so far.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
Page 79
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you want to do a PUD
amendment for a chosen group when the others complied with the
ordinance? Wouldn't it be better to do a variance?
MR. SCHMITT: Each individual come in for a variance? We
could do that. That was an option.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what I heard you say is
that you playa part in this, correct?
MR. SCHMITT: I feel some responsibility. My -- the staff
review process, I believe there's responsibility from the staff in not
catching this, whether it's -- there's a legal aspect of that. From a
standpoint of saying the staff is responsible, we've not explored that
with the county attorney.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, being that everybody
signs an agreement that it would fall in the ordinance, this is a
financial burden on my residents that was caught on a house that was
being constructed. You have the ability to do a -- administrative
variances for a set amount, correct?
MR. SCHMITT: Correct, all but probably two properties listed
we could do an administrative variance, and those are the two
properties --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not sure if your
recommendations are well thought out. I'm concerned that this is
going to cost a lot more money than what you're anticipating because
there are other agencies. And would your recommendation -- is to the
majority of them that, within your means, is do a mass variance for
those that are in your means (sic)?
MR. SCHMITT: We would have to deal with each property
individually, but we could combine the entire request. And the reason
we came to you -- because, again, there's some perceptions that what
we did for the property that we discussed on Loan Pine
administratively, that it -- folks believe that we went beyond our
authority, and I told my staff we're not doing anything till we bring
Page 80
October 23-24, 2007
this to the board.
And that's why we're here today, because I was not going to
exercise something administratively that folks would perceive was not
fair for the residents or that it may have been deemed to be trying to
get around the situation.
But, Commissioner, I agree with your statement. I think if you
all approve the administrative process, is the easiest process. It will
leave out two properties, but then they can deal with it separately
through a request for a variance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the saying, that 90
percent -- if it's -- if it's a perception, 90 percent of it's true?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that right?
MR. SCHMITT: Perception -- people -- perception is reality.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Perception is reality, okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I just have a real
concern at how this came about. There are -- I'm sure there's some
residents here that their property address is on -- up here. I don't know
-- I think, you know, mistakes were made. You got the residents
signing a document saying that they're responsible for it, but yet here
we are discussing a lot of people's property that, you know, maybe be
in the news.
I'm not sure this is the proper way to handle this. I would hope
that you would have went to the residents first and explained the
situation.
MR. SCHMITT: I met with Ms. Ebert. We discussed the
situation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many homes does Ms.
Ebert own up there?
MR. SCHMITT: I met with the homeowners association
president, discussed it with her, said I wanted to set up a meeting with
Page 81
October 23-24, 2007
the residents to discuss this issue before we brought it to the board.
But I'm bringing it to the board based on the manager's direction. We
have this on the agenda.
I do need to correct the record though because I made a
statement. Commissioner Coyle, I looked at the date and these
plattings were done when this property was under the Hardy
development. It was -- Stock Development purchased the property. It
was already platted and subdivided.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's call the speakers at this point in
time.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Mr. Chairman, we have seven speakers.
Chuck Slaght.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When you come forward, I'll ask you
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Diane Ebert.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to state your name for the record,
please.
MR. SLAGHT: Yes. Charles C. Slaght, 2918 Lone Pine Lane.
When we came to Collier County, we looked at a number of
properties. This was one, specifically lot 28 because it was on the end
of a cul-de-sac, so I was very interested in that, and we were told that
you couldn't provide the square footage of house that we needed at
that time.
I'm on 2918, and I'm one feet, four inches on encroachment. Just
for your information, we were placed on that lot three different times
and they could never get it right, so obviously they did not get it right.
And that's pretty much all I wanted to say other than, the
architectural concept that we have in our community is also violated,
which I really have a hard time with, and I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Thank you for being here today.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Diane Ebert. She'll be
Page 82
October 23-24, 2007
followed by Tor Kolflat.
MS. EBERT: Tor is giving me his time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I may --
MS. EBERT: If! need to, I'll make it as short as possible,
because I want to get this over with, too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll tell you what, as long as no
commissioners object, you go ahead with your presentation.
MS. EBERT: Thank you kindly. For the record, my name is
Diane Ebert, and I am here as a very proud resident ofOlde Cypress,
and probably one of its best promoters. I have also had the
opportunity to meet and work with a lot of wonderful employees of
Collier County, from PUD monitoring to the transportation
department.
Unfortunately, there are a few rotten eggs in your mix. That
being said, Commissioners, I am here today to make some strong
statements for the betterment of Olde Cypress community and Collier
County .
We are here truthfully because Joe Schmitt and some of his staff
are trying to protect Craig Greider, who is a real estate attorney for
Goodlette, Coleman, & Johnson, who are also land use attorneys for
Stock Development.
A few residents went to the county in June to discuss the setback
and encroachment issues at the property in question, of which there
are many. We asked that they put a stop to the construction of this
house, red tag it, until the problems could be resolved.
The front door was not even on yet, and Joe Schmitt and his staff
put us off for a month before they met with us July 17th. At that
meeting staff said they would red tag the house, and they did so for
two days. But you can ask any builder and he'll tell you that the last
two to two-and-a-halfmonths is when 40 to 50 percent of the value is
put into a home.
Some of the first words out ofMr. Schmitt's mouth were that the
Page 83
October 23-24, 2007
county made a terrible mistake. We don't make many, he said, but this
is a big one. When asked how the county could have approved the
plans, Joe and his staff informed us that at the time they were not even
aware that the property adjoined a South Florida Water Management
wetlands preserve area.
He went on to say Mr. Greider's home isn't the only one to
encroach on the preserve. There were eight or nine other ones, and the
county was researching the rest of the properties on the preserve to see
how many more encroachments they might find.
Joe suggested at the time a mass variance would need to be done
to correct the issue. He also said that Greider could do an
administrative lot line adjustment so as to avoid the need to go in front
of the county commissioners.
Considering the other encroachments they found were only four
inches to five feet, these homes were completed with COs for over
two years. We couldn't help but wonder who this special person is,
they were trying to protect him, for a 14 -- 14-and-a-half-foot
encroachment.
At this point the staff listened to the injured parties' facts and
information and he stated that it sounded like a dope deal to him. He
said he would get back with us.
As we were leaving the meeting he stated that he was going to
call Stock Development and Rich, a lawyer in Mr. Greider's firm, to
discuss the ideas, and he was going to try and visit the property to see
it for himself.
He did visit the property and was heard on several occasions
saying, this is 10 pounds in a five-pound bag.
Commissioners, we wouldn't have to be in front of you today if
the developer would have followed his own conservation easement
which he created. The guidelines for this community of executive
homes consisting of villas from 2,200 to 3,000 square feet should have
been followed, and he should not have allowed a megahouse of 5,500
Page 84
October 23-24, 2007
square feet plus to be put on this postage stamp developer control lot,
which many of us were told was virtually unbuildable.
In order to get this megahouse on the lot, the developer gave
away a 10-foot conservation easement behind the house. In addition,
the county gave up 110 feet of sidewalk in the front of the house,
which they have since revoked, and that also belongs to the
homeowners association.
County staff has spent four months spending hundreds of
thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money in staff salary and over 1,100
emails on this property trying to cover it up for the person, and we
have spent four months trying to figure out why.
Tell me, Commissioners, have you ever heard of the county staff
spending this kind of time and money helping a John Doe citizen who
is not connected in the development business?
How dare you, Joe Schmitt, bring this before the county
commissioners and let the county do his work for him. You do not
care about the other residents ofOlde Cypress and their small
encroaches -- encroachments of four inches to five feet.
In closing, Commissioners, I would love to see an administrative
variance for the innocent people to be granted, especially considering
they have not even been notified by the county that they are
encroaching into the major encroachments; that the Greider property
of 14-and-a-halffeet needs to be heard in detail since they are so
severe in nature and affecting one of my fellow neighbors.
Commissioners, please take back this county for the sake of your
constituents. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Carol Kolflat.
MS. EBERT: She gave her time to me.
MS. FILSON: Oh, she did too, okay.
Rich Y ovanovich. He'll be followed by Clay Brooker.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of Stock Development, not Mr. Greider.
Page 85
October 23-24, 2007
There were some statements made by the previous speaker that I
will not address publicly, but I will talk to her privately.
First of all, I want you to know that I didn't know anything about
this house until the mess occurred and Craig came to me and said,
what do I do? And I said, you've got to work it out with staff. I have
played very little and have had no role in how we got here today.
Stock Development is the successor developer to Olde Cypress.
They did not do the original PUD; they did not do any of the original
platting. All of this was done when Paul Hardy was the developer.
So I don't want anybody to say it was Stock Development who
created this mess. This all was created before Stock took over the
development. Stock developer also didn't build any of the homes in
this subdivision. They were all built by individual builders.
So Stock Development didn't come in, didn't ask for any
variances, didn't come in with the wrong plans. This was all
individual builder issues, not Stock Development's issues, and the
record needs to be very clear on that.
The developer would like to do whatever it takes to keep all 18
people happy and satisfied. The developer didn't playa role in this, but
they're willing -- if the PUD needs to be amended because that's the
best fix, the developer will cooperate in having the PUD amended.
If there's another fix that the Board of County Commissioners
thinks is in the best interests of the people ofOlde Cypress, the
developer will support that.
I will -- I will tell you that one of the issues you have is, this is a
PUD that was adopted in the late 1990's, and there's a PUD provision
that clearly states -- under the environmental stipulations, it says,
buffer zones adjacent to the preserve areas shall be pursuant to the
South Florida Water Management District permit number 11-01232S.
So it says whatever the building -- whatever the Water
Management District permit says regarding buffers between the
preserve and the structures on the lot adjacent to it will be addressed
Page 86
October 23-24, 2007
by that district permit, and every one of these homes, all 18 of them,
comply with the district permit.
So maybe you don't have to do anything to fix this. Maybe they
are all consistent. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm not saying I'm wrong,
but I'm saying that that needs to be analyzed and discussed, because as
you all know, the district, when it permits a project, is concerned
about wetlands, and it preserves the wetlands, and there's an upland
buffer between the wetlands and any developable lot.
So as far as the district's concerned, they're protecting the
wetlands -- and I just need a minute or so, if that's okay. It's already
addressed.
Weare not asking -- Commissioner Henning, we're not asking
for any changes to the preserve requirements under the Land
Development Code or the Comprehensive Plan. We exceed -- if you
read the PUD, we exceed the 25 percent native vegetation
requirement. We also meet the district's requirements as far as
distances between the preserve that the district put in place and the
structures that are on the lot.
The district does look at what's going to be on that lot, and they
knew they were going to be platted lots. So as far as the district's
concerned, that buffer, that preserve is adequately protected.
So if you do grant the deviation -- and I don't know what process
you're going to put the 18 homeowners through -- including Mr.
Greider, who is in my firm and never discussed this with me -- if
they've got to go through this process of getting a variance, be assured
that the preserve is protected as far as the Water Management District
is concerned.
The county has an additional requirement because I guess they
don't feel the district's doing a good enough job of protecting the
district preserves. That's the deviation there will be a request from.
And if that creates a hardship for any of these property owners in
maintaining their home, they're going to have to suffer through that
Page 87
October 23-24, 2007
hardship because they're not going to be allowed to go in and disturb
the preserves.
So if they've got to maintain their home and they've only got five
feet to do it and it costs them a lot more money to do it because they
don't have the 25 feet, that's on the property owner. They're going to
have to deal with that.
And with that, again, I wanted to clarify the record as far as what
Stock Development did or did not do. They were not the developer
when all this started. They will cooperate if there needs to be a PUD
amendment to resolve this. If you want to make everybody go
through an individual variance, you know, that's their -- that's fine, but
-- and with that, I'll be able to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't go away just yet.
Commissioner Henning, did you have something?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I do. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then we'll go to Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Y ovanovich, you feel that
the setbacks from the preserves are addressed in the PUD now. With
the language, the buffers of the setbacks will be addressed in the South
Florida Water Management.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's verbatim from the PUD document.
That's different than most of the ones you see go through here,
because most of the ones you'll see an additional requirement, and it
says clearly in the PUD document that there will be a 25- foot setback
for principal structures and 10 feet for accessory structures from a
preserve. That's not in this PUD document. That's different.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But what does -- what
does it say in the district's agreement with Olde Cypress DR! as far as
the buffering?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The Water Management District permit
has a line, okay, that says, this is our preserve. This way of the line is
Page 88
October 23-24, 2007
an upland area, and then you get to the wetlands that are being
preserved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So as far as you're concerned,
you could build right up to that line?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely. There's no prohibition in the
Water Management District permit from building up to the preserve
boundary that I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I think we need to
get some clarification. Maybe this is premature. But you still have
setbacks that you need to comply to in the PUD.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely, and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's 20-foot principal,
correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. No, no. What I'm saying is, if I'm
correct -- and I'm not saying I am. I think we need to sit down and
analyze what happened when this thing got adopted in 1999 and to
understand what the provision in the PUD means.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it was amended.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that hasn't changed. That condition
is still in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's still in the current PUD. But let's just
say I'm right, that all you'd look at is the Water Management District
Permit conditions as far as what's the appropriate buffer between an
accessory or principal use and the district's preserve. And let's just say
-- and we meet that.
Now you go to the development standards table within the PUD
document. And the development standards table says, for a comer lot
you have two sides and you have two fronts. The side is a five-foot
setback, so you'd have to still meet that five-foot setback for the
principal structure, in which this home does, and I believe all the other
homes within there meet all of the PUD setbacks. They don't meet the
Page 89
October 23-24, 2007
LDC setback of 25 feet for principal structures or -- and maybe some
of them don't meet the lO-foot for accessory.
I don't know, but I believe all 18 of these -- they don't run afoul
of the development standards table in the PUD. They run afoul of
something that's not referred to in the PUD but you find in the LDC,
the Land Development Code.
That's my understanding of the facts as is being presented. And,
again, you know, Stock Development just wants to make it clear that
they're here to help do whatever you say is the right way to handle
this, but also keep in mind the context of when all this happened, and
it wasn't when they owned the development.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand where you're coming
from -- Rich, excuse me. You said this was under the jurisdiction of
Hardy when he bought this property and put together this DR!, this
development. Mr. Stock decided to buy into this, right? He now buys
this development. He owns this development.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: He's the successor developer, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. And my understanding, he
still has not -- he hasn't turned this over to the homeowners
association.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe you're correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You know, I had a bad
experience once in my life when I went out and bought a used car and
found out that, when I bought it, that there was a lot more problems
with it, and a lot of times I had to step up to the plate and fix
problems, and I think that's what we've got here.
I think Mr. Stock has got an obligation here, and I think Mr.
Stock maybe needs to go before the Planning Commission and have
an amendment to this PUD. I feel there's an obligation there.
Page 90
October 23-24, 2007
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I think Mr. Stock agreed that if the
process is to amend the PUD, that he'll cooperate in the amendment
process. He's saying if you want to go with staffs recommendation,
he's not going to get in the way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think there's -- there's an area
also that responsibly two properties need to take it on their own to get
the variances on this particular item also, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, whatever the commission thinks
is the appropriate fix, Stock Development will cooperate in
addressing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He may have to go to South
Florida Water Management to get some things rectified also if it
doesn't meet the criteria of what our --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we're comfortable that we meet
the South Florida Water management District permit requirements for
the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or the criteria of our LDC.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those are going to be -- individual lot
owners are going to have to address that issue. It's not going to be a
water -- I'm not -- there's going to be -- it needs to be addressed, but
not in front of Water.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's where I'm saying that
Stock Development needs to playa role in this thing. He inherited
this.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Anything else?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's it.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Clay Brooker. He'll be
followed by Melissa Showalter.
MR. BROOKER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Page 91
October 23-24, 2007
Clay Brooker with the law firm ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, &
Johnson. I'm here on behalf of the owners of the lot next to the
Greider home that's been mentioned many times here already. Those
owners are Carol Kolflat and Melissa Showalter.
I believe Melissa will be having a few comments to say right
when I'm finished. Her lot is in Ibis Landing on Lone Pine Lane. It's
one of the neighborhoods being discussed today. Melissa's home fully
complies with the preserve setback requirement.
I'd like to show you an illustration of the different
encroachments. Those are the homes that are at issue, and I believe
you should notice right away of the spike. The vast majority of these
encroachments less than or equal to five feet into the preserve setback.
All of those homes, again, those that are less than five feet, have
final COs and have been lived in for two, three, four, or five years.
The spike one in the middle is Melissa's neighbor, the Greider
home. This lot is obviously different. Not only is at this time most
egregious of all encroachments being discussed here today, it also
does not have a final Certificate of Occupancy.
The home was essentially a shell when the owners knew of the
preserve setback encroachment yet they continued to build and try to
get in the house just as fast as they could. This is Melissa's neighbor,
again, that I'm speaking about and why we are here today.
With regard to the process by which all of this should be cured or
dealt with, we suggest that you require a variance for each of the lots.
While this may seem expensive and burdensome, please remember
that your code allows staff to grant, administratively, minor
after-the-fact encroachments, and in that regard, minor means
anything up to 25 percent of the setback or, in this case, 25 percent of
a 25-foot setback is six-and-a-quarter feet.
So anything less than six-and-a-quarter feet can be just
administratively handled. The vast majority, as you see on the
visualizer, of the homes just go away.
Page 92
October 23-24, 2007
This method, of course, leaves the two most egregious
encroachments to file an after-the-fact public hearing as opposed to
administrative variance. We believe this is appropriate to allow these
two owners the public opportunity to explain their circumstances.
We favor this approach because it will also allow Melissa, my
client, the opportunity to layout all the advantages and beneficial staff
decisions her neighbor received resulting in construction of a home
nearly twice the size of the average home in the neighborhood.
A PUD amendment that's been discussed will not work. My
client objects to this approach because it simply whitewashes the
entire issue with no meaningful review of the impacts on her home.
Technically, also, I believe when you start changing the
development regulations for individual homes in a PUD, you'd have to
have each of those owners of those lots their consent. We don't
consent.
A final word about this talk about the upland buffer zones. It's
not true that the upland buffers exist all the way around this
neighborhood. There's some portions of it where the wetlands come
right up to the edge of the preserve. So the whole premise that this
preserve is already protected by an existing buffer zone is factually
untrue.
Moreover, the upland portion of the preserve is just that, it's
preserve. This land was included, and the requirement was that the
developer preserve a certain amount of the native vegetation and
create a preserve.
Finally, with regard to that -- this issue, I would think the South
Florida Water Management District would have a problem with a,
what I would consider, kind of a double dipping. Well, the upland
buffer's already there, so you don't need the typical setback.
And before going that route, I suggest that you hear from the
South Florida Water Management District first.
Bottom line, variance approach can make most of this go away
Page 93
October 23-24, 2007
and have a minor impact on, as a whole, when looked at the confusing
mess that's been created. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Melissa Showalter.
MS. SHOWALTER: My name is Melissa Showalter, and I am
the girl next door. My home is right next to the property that really
brings us here today, and I'm the one who is impacted the most by this
megahouse that was allowed to be built in a community of small
executive villa homes.
I purchased my home for several reasons, but one of the main
reasons was that I fell in love with the beautiful preserve that my
home backs up to. You see, I am a native Floridian who is truly a
swamp rat at heart, and I enjoy nothing more than the peace, beauty
and serenity of all that the preserve offers.
When I was writing the contract to build my home, I specifically
asked about the lot next door. I was told that it was virtually
unbuildable. I asked if my contract could be amended to state that if
anything ever was built, it was -- it would conform. I was told there
was no need to worry about this.
I had also asked if it would be possible to extend my own lanai
out a few feet closer to the preserve. My builder informed me very
firmly that this was impossible due to the fact that the setbacks
required -- it disallowed it due to the preserve lot. I immediately
dropped the subject in respect for the rules and regulations.
I'm a bit of a backwards person in that I mainly reside in Florida
during the summer months, and I have to tell you, this past summer
was one of the worst of my life.
When I got here in June, the house next door was under roof. I
was shocked to see that I had a two-story cement wall looming over
my entire lanai. I felt as if I was on the wrong side of a prison. All my
sunlight and air were missing, not to mention the view of the preserve
I had enjoyed from my lounge chair.
I also realized that I could no longer open the blinds in my
Page 94
October 23-24, 2007
bedroom. You see, rather than enjoying the sunrise over the preserve
from my bed as I had done before, I now have a two-story balcony
looming at me, as well as a first floor of pure cement wall. The
sunlight that I previously enjoyed is gone. It cannot shine through
cement.
All of my privacy has been stolen from me due to the northwest
wing of this house. This loss of privacy really hit me when I was
trying to enjoy a day at my pool. I had an odd sense of being
watched. I opened my eyes to see a group of workers on the balcony
peering down waving at me. I was absolutely devastated.
I also started to realize that even if I wanted to sell my home and
move somewhere else in the community, I could not do so, because
even in the best real estate market, who wants to buy a house with the
main living area stifling with lack of air, no light, and absolutely zero
privacy?
With the help of my parents, I was able to meet with Joe Schmitt
and his staff to discuss the impact this home is having on the
enjoyment, value, and livability of my home.
I just have a minute, a few more things, if that's all right.
They are now asking you today to advise them on how to deal
with the setback issues in my community. Please understand that the
vast majority of the homes before you have existed for years and have
relatively small encroachments.
My neighbor, on the other hand, knew of his encroachment
before the house was finished and was allowed to just keep building.
His house has, by far, the largest encroachment into the preserve
setback in all of Olde Cypress.
I am, therefore, asking, that you ensure my neighbor go through
the variance process so all the circumstances around this house can be
aired in a public hearing.
In closing, I feel the need to point out, this matter has resulted in
more than 1,100 emails amongst county staff in the past few months
Page 95
October 23-24, 2007
alone, yet not one mentions my property and the unfair situation I
have been placed in.
Remember, I respected the rules. Why should I be punished
because someone else hasn't? Thank you for listening.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ms. Showalter, don't go away. Can
I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, of course you can. Please
proceed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want to make sure I clearly
understand this.
MS. SHOWALTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're not a developer, are you?
MS. SHOW ALTER: No, sir, I'm not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you were fortunate enough to
find a builder who knew what the setbacks were; is that correct?
MS. SHOW ALTER: Yes. He absolutely made it clear to me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And there was no question about
what the setbacks were?
MS. SHOW ALTER: No. I was told very firmly that I could not
extend any more -- my lanai any more than 10 feet because I was on a
preserve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But an attorney who represents a
development company apparently couldn't find a developer who
understood what the setbacks were; is that -- does that make sense to
you?
MS. SHOWALTER: I can't say except that's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
MS. SHOWALTER: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, go
Page 96
October 23-24, 2007
back to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The word buffer, I'm not sure if
it means setback. I'm not convinced that that's covered under the
existing PUD. And from what I understand from the agencies, what
we're being asked can be extensive and expensive for the minority of
the properties that are in violation.
I just need to know, is -- what is your ability to do a -- mass
variances for the properties defined within a setback, administrative
setback, and that's 25 percent of the total setback? Do we have the
ability to lower fees or create one mass variance under one
administrative petition?
MR. SCHMITT: I would answer that, Commissioner, by, if you
so direct, absolutely. I'm going to turn to the county attorney from the
standpoint of the legal, but if you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I always like to be legal.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whether it's a PUD, whether it's
a setback, whether it's general law --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I always want the guidance of
our county attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. The cost for a variance petition is a
component of your fee policy; and that's a policy, not an ordinance.
So I believe that the board, in fact, can deviate from policy if it wishes
to do so, and obviously what you're talking about would be to provide
specific guidelines or limitations or identifications of property to be
handled such.
One thing I would mention in regard to this term mass variance,
and that is, we -- you might be talking about -- correct me, please, any
sector, if I'm wrong -- but you may be talking about handling the
variance to the individual parcels that are affected in a cumulative or
in an organized way.
Page 97
October 23-24, 2007
Remember that a variance attaches to an individual property. It
affects a specific property and not others. And we also know here
from the facts discussed just this morning that the variance needs of
one property may be different than the variance needs of another
because the encroachments differ to some degree.
Part of the discussion had to do with the potential authorization
from the board for the staff to do what it already is authorized to do
but has come to the board for further advice, and that is to administer
the administrative variance for those parcels where the encroachment
is up to or less than 25 percent of the setback, which I believe is a
25-foot criterion.
So it could be that part of your direction or at least the initiation
of your direction from the board today would be for the staff to go
forward with the administrative variances for those parcels. That does
not take into effect, however, the application fee, which was the initial
part of your question for me. And I do believe, as Joe had indicated as
well, that that is policy, and you can deviate from general policy with
the specific guidelines and authorization that you may wish to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I was talking about
the administrative variance, that the administer -- administrator of
community development may grant without coming to the Board of
County Commissioners. And I really think this issue is going to be
massive, not just within this community.
So we do have the ability to deviate from the fee policy and
direct the county manager to do a mass variance under the guidance of
the Land Development Code as one petition, but several properties?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I didn't go that far to say one petition for
several properties. What I did indicate was that you can reduce the fee
for any variance application and defining which properties this
deviation from fee policy would apply.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, see, we don't know yet.
The staff is still looking at -- to see if there's any accessory
Page 98
October 23-24, 2007
encroachments within this community that would need some type of a
vanance.
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, I see. Well, I would tend to advise you and
recommend that if you're too general and say a mass variance for,
perhaps, at this point, some unidentified parcels, that that is not -- it's
not the advice I'd like to give you and not the course I'd recommend
that you follow.
It did appear to me though, that of the 17 adjacent parcels --
parcels located within Olde Cypress other than the Greider property,
as it's been identified, that most, perhaps all but two of those, may
lend themselves to the administrative variance process and that you
could certainly refer to those to be handled in a cumulative way, but
the variance would apply to each parcel, because I think that the
standard of variance, the number, the footage figure, will vary from
parcel to parcel.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we -- under section 9 of the
Land Development Code, it gives the ability of the administrator to do
variances. Now those individuals, can we just apply one fee for all
those properties?
MR. WEIGEL: You have that authority, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, that--
MR. SCHMITT: Can I make a recommendation?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Mr. Schmitt, go ahead.
MR. SCHMITT: Waive the fee, direct us to deal with these
administratively, we'll combine them all, the ones -- it will be a
combined application. Those we can deal with administratively, we'll
deal with administratively. Those that we can't, we issue a Notice of
Violation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, in the past you've said,
you know, Commissioner -- Commissioners, if we don't -- somebody
has to pay the fee.
MR. SCHMITT: Understand.
Page 99
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It has to either come out of the
general fund or the owner has to pay.
MR. SCHMITT: Or I absorb it as a cost of doing business. I
choose not to do that, but in this case, it seems to be -- it's an
administrative process. I just need the homeowners to individually
apply. I gather all the information. To me that's the best approach. If
that's what the neighbors want and that's what the community wants, I
think it's the best approach.
I was just concerned about the administrative process, but we can
deal with that. The zoning director will take the applications. We'll
process them individually in a combined application.
I'll work with Ms. Ebert and the homeowners and work with
them in gathering the information, and we'll deal with the ones we can
deal with administratively. We'll provide the board a report back on
those we dealt with administratively. On those that we could not deal
with administratively, they'll have to come in for an individual
application for a variance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to make a motion, but
I still think that we're not dealing with this. And we need to -- after
we exalt this motion, is have a little bit further discussion and
guidance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead with your motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion that
we direct staff to diplomatically contact the owners of the -- for the
setbacks of 6.25 or less, explain the problem, and then my motion is,
that those properties in Olde Cypress will have one fee that's covered
in our fee resolution, which I believe it's a thousand dollars.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't believe -- and this is not
part of my motion. I don't believe that it should be scot-free. There is
going to be some sort of staff time on this. I think a lot of the staff
time has already completed it. That's my motion.
Page 100
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala. And
we're going to Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Coyle was -- Commissioner Coyle
was first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I -- it is a little confusing. I
think I know what you intend to do. You're not dealing with large
encroachments at 2968 and 2949 Lone Pine Lane because they can't
be approved administratively anyway. But for the others, we're really
talking about encroachments of five feet or less, not six something.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if the setback is 25 feet--
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and 25 percent of that, it's
more than five feet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I understand. But none of
these exceed five feet. Are you including others that, perhaps, we
haven't found yet; is that -- is that what we're talking about?
MR. SCHMITT: The code allows for 25 percent administrative
variance, so it's 25 percent of the 25- foot setback --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: -- which is six-and-a-quarter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you want to extend it beyond
just these that have been identified in the event there are some that go
over five feet?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, Commissioner. It allows us--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand.
MR. SCHMITT: It allows us to apply to code as written.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I understand what you want
to do then.
Page 10 1
October 23-24, 2007
But let's step back a minute and make sure that we appreciate the
fact that somebody has to be responsible for this, and it is ultimately
the homeowner who is responsible for an encroachment. They hired
the developer.
You just heard one homeowner say that they hired a builder and
the builder told her that she couldn't exceed that setback. Why should
other people who fail to abide by setbacks be given a variance free of
charge? They shouldn't.
I do not think that the cost associated with getting a variance
approved administratively is prohibitive for the people who own these
homes. If we do this, what we're essentially saying to people is, just
bring in all your violations, we don't really care. As long as they're
within 25 percent, you get them done free of charge and you don't
have to assume any responsibility.
That's a terrible message to send if what we're interested in doing
is making sure people start paying attention to the Land Development
Code, and I hope that's what we're trying to do in making these
decisions here.
So I would not support the motion if it is going to give these
violations to people at some reduced rate -- or give these variances to
people at some reduced rate or free and -- but I would support it if we
would say that the homeowners are responsible. If they want to
pursue the builders, that's exactly what they should do. We have to
get people accustomed to paying attention to our Land Development
Code, and the only way we do that is to make them pay for it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, do you want
to respond?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas. Yeah, I do
want to respond to that, if you don't mind. The--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, wait. I'm first.
Page 102
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll get -- I know, but it's
Commissioner Henning's district, he's been working with this for a
long time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll come right back to you, but I
want him -- he wants to respond to Commissioner Coyle, and I think
he has a right to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's the -- here's the problem
with that, is this was all brought up because the residents went to the
government and said, hey, you have a problem here, and government
said, hey, a lot of your neighbors have problems. I mean, this issue
wouldn't have come up if it wasn't for one house, and I'm sure we're
going to hear that later on. I'm not trying to pick on anybody, but it's
an issue of one house.
So government is creating this problem because of one house,
and that's why I feel it should be a reduced rate. And mind you, we're
going to have, in my opinion, several other communities. I mean, I
know of one right now that I question whether the proper information
was submitted for individual building lots.
But anyways, that's my opinion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much, Chairman.
I believe that there's a responsibility by the developer that took
on this -- this deal, and I also believe that the citizens shouldn't be held
totally accountable. And as Commissioner Coyle said, maybe it's time
for the citizens to go back to their builder.
Probably in this particular community -- I don't know this for a
fact -- but there could have been a builder that came in there and
bought a number of lots and built the homes and decided that he was
going to either build a home that was larger than needed to be put on
this property -- and, therefore, now we've put the responsibility onto
Page 103
October 23-24, 2007
the homeowner to take care of this.
I believe that since the developer owns this property, he needs to
find out who the builders are and the builders need to step up and take
care of this issue instead of putting this on the responsibility of the
homeowners who obviously don't have the time to research Land
Development Codes and so on.
So I feel that there's responsibility, and I don't feel that we need
to address this whereby we give something free. I believe there's other
people that are involved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Speaking of the motion at hand,
you're saying that you don't support the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nope.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. I just wanted to sum it
up.
Myself, I'll tell you, I -- there was -- there's concerns. I'm a little
bit concerned about the strength of the questions that were directed to
staff. I don't think that we have staff that's been -- what do you want
to call it -- in the pockets of the developers, as some people may have
tried to draw some parallels with during the discussions.
I do think that there is concerns over how everything comes
together. I did suggest at the beginning of this particular item that we
might want to consider having this item go to a special separate entity
out there, be it the one that the county attorney's putting together
through a private firm, to review issues on Pebblebrooke.
We may want to lump into that, but I heard nothing that __
nothing in that particular direction during our discussions, so I can
only assume that we have a comfort level with what took place as far
as staffs involvement that it's not necessary to do that. That's the only
assumption I can make, and I kind of thought I would draw a response
out of someone, and I did.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I strongly disagree. I think
Page 104
October 23-24, 2007
there's a lot of troubling things that I've heard about this process that
warrants a further investigation.
I am concerned about the fact that Mr. Schmitt says that the
reason that he's bringing this to our attention now is the perception
that staff exceeded their authority in permitting at 2949 Lone Pine
Lane. If that's the case, why didn't we have it brought to our attention
back before the temporary CO was issued?
There's -- there's more here than meets the eye. Whether it is
efficiency or something else still needs to be determined. But I think
any county member who has a relative working for the petitioner
should have been excluded from the review of this process and from
the involvement in approvals. I think that would just be a common
sense kind of thing.
I'm not saying that anything wrong was done. I'm merely saying
that if we're concerned about perceptions, then we don't have people
involved in the approval process whose family members are somehow
involved with the petition itself.
So, you know, there are things that need to be looked into here
and resolved. And it doesn't have to be part of this particular motion,
but I would make a motion that we do extend the investigation into the
process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's handle the motion at hand, then
we'll come back to you right after that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I was waiting to see what the interest
was.
Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Fiala. Just for the sake of everyone here, could we
have the motion restated?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Direct staff to contact the people
that fit the criteria of 25 percent or under that have violated the
setbacks for a one -- one fee of a thousand dollars.
Page 105
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And that agrees with your
second, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The motion passed, 3-2.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll support Commissioner
Coyle's motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait. Let me finish what I had to
say. The motion was successfully passed 3-2 with Commissioner
Halas, Commissioner Coyle, being in opposition.
Okay. Now, Commissioner Coyle, you wanted to make that into
a motion as far as direction?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know whether it has to be a
motion or just guidance to staff or the county manager, but I would
like to see our review and/or investigation into the practices into
community development services to include this approval process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I think that should be a motion,
if you don't mind, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's a motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I got a second from
Commissioner Henning; that's correct, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion on that?
Page 106
October 23-24, 2007
And I just want to comment. I think that's the best way to go. I
think it's going to -- we're going to find that we don't have anyone on
the staff end that has violated any laws, but how are we ever going to
know if we don't go through the process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMANCOLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously.
We're going to break.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nope, we've got one more issue
on this one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I agree with your
statement, if there's questions out there about any violation oflaw, I
think -- I think we need to clear it up.
But anyways, we have two other homes out there that we haven't
dealt with and how are we going to deal with them?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, my only option, identify -- or
notify those homeowners that they're in violation and issue a Notice of
Violation to both homeowners. That was one of the reasons for
coming today. And I will do that. That one home has been identified
as a TCO, Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, and we will notify the
homeowner that this is now a violation of that certificate as well.
They'll have to come through a private petition process to clarify
those.
Page 107
October 23-24, 2007
Now, there's also -- Mr. Brooker has two appeals pending for
private -- or for staff decisions based on this property as well, and I
think one will probably conflict with the other, or it should all come
together under one public hearing because there's a -- it has to deal
with whether that was a comer lot or a -- should have been -- should
not have been a comer lot, and that may be tied up as part of this
whole variance process. And I don't know if you want to hear that
situation separate from the variance process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it should stand on its
own. You have somebody that is contesting --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- what you have done.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Has the -- has the owner of that
home applied for a variance?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that wasn't a part of the
TCO, right?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. There's been no Notice of Violation
issued. The home was identified as a potential violation. There's been
no Notice of Violation issued regarding the setback issue. The TCO
was issued because the administrative process allows basically to cure
that problem through the administrative process, so the TCO was
issued.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Doesn't the Florida
Building Code state that no building or structure can be occupied if it
violates this code or local ordinance?
MR. SCHMITT: It's the paragraph there for the Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy. Basically the TCO was issued based on the
fact that there's no health, safety, welfare issue, that the violation
could be cured through the administrative petition process through the
local government. As a result, there was no justification to withhold
Page 108
October 23-24, 2007
the CO on this home. We've done this before. It's fairly common
practice. We issue a TCO.
If you remember, we had an issue up in District 2 where a
homeowner had the TCO for almost two years going through a
setback process with a pool cage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you -- can you slide that so
we can see what should be one -- there you go.
The use of occupancy, no building or structure shall be used or
occupied and no change to existing occupation (sic). The petitioner
shall be -- until the building official has issued a Certificate of
Occupancy, and issuance (sic) of occupancy shall be constructed in
violation of -- hum. Shall not be construed --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning, if I could
help.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's right there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Take a look at paragraph 110.4,
revocation, in the upper right-hand portion of that. It says, it can be
revoked when it is determined that the building or structure or portion
thereof is in violation of any ordinance or any regulation or any of the
provisions of this code.
MR. SCHMITT: And that code -- that comes from,
Commissioners, the Florida Building Code.
If the board wishes to direct us, we'll issue -- we'll revoke the
TCO.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I want you to clarify the
TCO. You know there's a violation.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm reading it as other
ordinance or -- I think that word is cut off.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or regulation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it needs to be clarified. We
need to resolve these issues.
Page 109
October 23-24, 2007
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think issuing a TCO
under whatever you did, is not resolving anything. There's -- I think
you need to further clarify, the temporary CO is, all issues need to be
addressed.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. This will be part of it now, since the
board ruled that the -- as far as the setback, and we will reissue the
TCO. I'll provide the board a copy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, wait. You haven't gotten
direction from the commission yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, see, you know, I don't
know if we have the ability to do that. We're not the building official,
and we were told at one time that we cannot interfere with the building
official. But I just think that they did not issue it under the right
citation.
Hi.
MR. DUNN: Hi. I'm Bob Dunn. I'm the interim building
director. Unfortunately I wasn't the guy that signed the TCO, but Mr.
Halt (phonetic) was here then.
And basically when you look at the Florida Building Code, the
TCO is temporary, you know. It deals with -- the house doesn't have
any violations like safety or welfare. The next step is the CO.
Now, the CO is the -- is the area that really locks in that every
ordinance has to be enforced, not only the Florida Building Code, but
all the codes and ordinances of Collier County. So a CO won't be
issued until the variances are issued.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But they could live in this place
forever?
MR. DUNN: We issue one--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe get a code enforcement
fine or violation.
MR. DUNN: Well, we have a limit on it for six months. I mean,
Page 110
October 23-24, 2007
that's based on Mr. Schmitt advising that, you know, a TCO was
issued for six months pending the outcome of meeting, and now
they're going to have to go forth and request a variance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You just said before that
somebody's been living with a TCO for two years; didn't I just hear
that?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. We had a situation -- what was
the gentleman's name?
MR. MUDD: Dowdy.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Dowdy, the Dowdy variance. We had a--
he was in the house for almost two years and went through the
vanance process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So actually it isn't only six months;
it can be extended?
MR. SCHMITT: Once they apply -- they have to apply. That
begins the process. Then it's -- it's staff doing the review and getting it
before you, and we'll expedite that and get that forward to you. Now
it's going to -- the burden's on the homeowner to submit -- submit for
the proper variances.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner, oh, Coyle.
No, that's from before. Okay. So--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're done, no other direction; is that
correct? Okay.
Mr. Weigel, you're looking very perplexed.
MR. WEIGEL: I do that a lot lately. Just to make sure, my
understanding is that the board's motion and approval for an
investigation was for county staff and/or the county manager to do that
investigation. Mr. Coyle, I think, made the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Y eah. You can't do the checks
and balances if -- you can't have the fox watching the hen hound (sic).
Page 111
October 23-24, 2007
It needs to be independent, and that's what the motion was. Motion
maker is shaking his head.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, shaking his head yes that--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: So that who is supposed to do the investigation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. All right. And to correct a prior
statement, outside counsel is not doing the investigation on the
Pebblebrooke matter. The county attorney was directed to do that
investigation, and we're working on it. We look to bring a report back
to the board prior to and ready for November 13th board meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, I thought the board
instructed you to hire private counsel, didn't they? I mean, help me
with this.
MR. WEIGEL: I don't believe so. I explained -- I explained the
uncomfort -- being uncomfortable in doing such an investigation, but I
didn't hear or note any authorization to have outside counsel do that,
so we're proceeding internally.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I believe it was
the assumption of the board, understanding, that it was going to be a
law firm hired under the purview of the county attorney to do it. That
was -- that was my understanding also.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. You were leading the particular
direction, and I remember that being the direction that we gave. Now,
maybe we didn't explicitly explain it, but I think we all understood it.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I apologize then.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, if! could, I wasn't
here at that point in time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I understand Mr. Weigel's
reluctance to do that, that is to do it himself, and I agree with you, I
Page 112
October 23-24, 2007
think it should be an impartial or independent review or investigation.
So that probably would give Mr. Weigel some additional comfort in
doing this, and it appears to coincide with the board's original intent
anyway.
So would you like to revise that guidance or make it clear that we
would like to have an independent review?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you're the
one that got the ball rolling on this before, so you want to restate it in
as clear as possible a way you can?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thank you. It was the
understanding from the Board of County Commissioners that the
county attorney use his outside counsel that has the ability to do this.
Since it's the understanding of the board, the board gave direction
through a motion to do so.
So whatever work that you've done so far with Pebblebrooke, I
wish you would confirm that with the outside counsel and also have
the outside counsel take a look at this issue within Olde Cypress and
that approval process.
MR. WEIGEL: I will be happy to do that. We mayor may not
be able to have the report on Pebblebrooke for the 13th, but we may
have at least a partial report to you or the individual commissioners
prior to the 13th in that regard.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may, Mr. Weigel, I'm concerned
about the report coming from your office. We were looking for
somebody that has hands off. Now you represent, through your office,
many of our own staff members.
MR. WEIGEL: The staff and the board, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So how can we take that up and hold
it up to public scrutiny saying we're also doing an investigation
through the County Attorney's Office, but by the way, he's also
representing other people within those departments. We need to keep
this completely separate. I really don't want to hear it come from the
Page 113
October 23-24,2007
County Attorney's Office. My own personal opinion.
MR. WEIGEL: That's fine, of course.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's no -- meant negative or
derogatory against you or your staff.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'm -- quite frankly, I'm not concerned
about internal ability to do it. The uncomfortable aspect is the fact
that we work with these people and we work in positions of trust, you
know, on a day-to-day basis for projects and everything else that
works for the -- ultimately under the direction of the board. So it
makes a difficult triangle there.
But I appreciate the clarification today that's come out of this
one, and we can provide what you're looking for, and we'll do it in as
short order as we can, I can assure you that of.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other instructions,
questions regarding this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think at this point we're
adjourned. Let's make it back here at -- let's see. 12:30, 1 :30, a
quarter to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Quarter to two.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: To one or two?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ifwe do it quarter of one, we've got
about seven minutes.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Welcome back. Mr. Mudd, I believe
our next item is our time certain for one o'clock.
Item #8A
Page 114
October 23-24, 2007
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2007-298 FOR PETITION CU-2005-
AR-8748, ASHRAF FAWZY, REPRESENTED BY WAYNE
ARNOLD, AICP, OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A.,
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE RURAL
AGRICUL TURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO EXCA V A TE IN
EXCESS OF 4,000 CUBIC YARDS OF EARTH FOR AN
AQUACUL TURE FACILITY IN THE AGRICULTURAL (A)
ZONING DISTRICT, PER SECTION 2.04.03 TABLE 2 OF THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC). THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 15.08 ACRES,
IS LOCATED AT 2060 TOBIAS STREET, IN SECTION 22,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - MOTION TO DENY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This is 8A. This item -- this item is
continued from the October 9,2007, meeting. This item requires that
all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's petition CU-2005-AR-8748, Ashraf Fawzy represented by
Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.,
requesting approval of a conditional use in the rural agricultural A
zoning district to excavate in excess of 4,000 cubic yards of earth for
an aquaculture facility in the agricultural A zoning district per section
2.04.03, table 2, of the Land Development Code.
The subject property, consisting of approximately 15.08 acres, is
located at 2060 Tobias Street in Section 22, Township 49 south,
Range 27 east, Collier County, Florida.
And for clarification -- as was stated by Commissioner Coyle this
morning, for clarification, yes, the excavation is in excess of 4,000
cubic yards, and I believe their total estimated amount is 300,000.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Page 115
October 23-24, 2007
Would all those wishing to participate on this item, please stand
at this time to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And now for ex parte
disclosures from our fellow commissioners, starting with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received an email from Lisa
Resnick, a phone call from Steve Hackney, and that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I met with the petitioner and
his representatives, and I received an email from Silvia Difalco and
from -- looks like Sharon Bumpinaur. And as I said, I met with the
petitioner and his representatives.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
I, myself, have received numerous emails, have had meetings and
phone calls, and way too many to be able to read off to you here.
And with that, we'll go to Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had one more. I'm so sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I spoke privately to staff a little
bit and also to a couple people in the environmental community.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I also spoke to staff, and my
file's up here for anyone that wishes to see it.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much, Chairman.
I met with the petitioner and also with the person that owns this
piece of property. I've also talked with staff and I've talked with legal
counsel in regards to this issue. It says I had received some emails,
but I didn't see those emails, so obviously I'll say that there was emails
that were also incorporated in this particular hearing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Page 116
October 23-24,2007
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I feel left out. Nobody's talked with
me, and I don't have any record of any emails.Idid talk with staff
about the issue. But other than that, that's the extent of my discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Yovanovich, are you representing the
petitioner?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. Good afternoon. For the record,
Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today is the
petitioner, Ashraf Fawzy; Wayne Arnold, of Grady Minor &
Associates; Mike Delate from Grady Minor & Associates; and Jeremy
Sterk from Davidson Engineering, right?
Before you today is a request to remove dirt from a piece of
property. Mr. Fawzy owns a 15-acre parcel out in the North Belle
Meade overlay area and is planning on building a fish farm, and
aquaculture is a permitted using on the property today.
And there's -- I think there's been some confusion about whether
or not we're asking for the ability to do the fish farm today, which
we're not because it's already a permitted use. We can dig the hole.
What we can't do is we cannot remove the dirt -- because it's greater
than 4,000 cubic yards per parcel-- without going through the
conditional use process.
And so we're here before you for a conditional use to remove dirt
from the ground to implement the fish farm.
The property, as I said, is in the North Belle Meade overlay. Mr.
Fawzy already has the required license he needs to construct and
operate the fish farm.
We have gone to the Environmental Advisory Council, and they
have recommended approval of the conditional use. We have met
with the Frangipani Association, which is the neighborhood that we
will be impacting while we remove the dirt from the land, and we
Page 117
October 23-24, 2007
have entered into an agreement -- and it's dated November 1, 2006 --
for the use of their private roads because where this property is
located, it's not on public roads.
And I'll take you through briefly where it is, but -- and I spoke to
Mr. Greg Bower yesterday, who was the person who signed this
document on behalf of the association. He says the association still
supports this.
And what I told him, to give the association additional comfort, I
would recommend that we attach this agreement to the conditional use
so not only do they as an association have the ability to enforce the
agreement, but the county would also have the ability to enforce the
agreement as well because it would become a condition of the
conditional use.
The request is to remove 300,000 cubic yards of dirt from this
property. And the way you get to the property -- do we have an
exhibit that shows the -- all right, here we go.
You would go down Golden Gate Boulevard to 10th Street
Southwest, and then you would head south on 10th Street. And for a
very brief period, you would get on Frangipani, and then you would
take Dove Street to what has been called Fawzy, but I guess Bautista
(phonetic) Agricultural Avenue, to another unnamed road that would
take you directly to the property.
Originally we had talked about using Tobias, which is -- it's a
private road, but it's much -- it's been improved by your county staff to
access utility well sites. But the neighbors didn't like the idea of us
using Tobias because there were more residences on Tobias, more
children on Tobias. So we worked out more access through the
Frangipani Association, and they are -- again, we entered into an
agreement with them for access.
We have not heard any objections from our neighbors. There
was -- recently Mr. Fawzy was out on site. The site is already cleared.
The 15 acres was cleared pursuant to an ago clearing permit.
Page 118
October 23-24, 2007
He was out there -- since he's allowed to remove 4,000 cubic
yards from the three individual parcels, he was in the process of trying
to get started. He -- because 4,000 cubic yards isn't very deep, he
never did actually hit any rocks to stabilize the roads. So he tried to
stabilize the roads through another means. That didn't work.
Some of the neighbors became upset by that. He has gone out
there and he has rectified that situation. He has stabilized the roads. I
think we've addressed the neighbors' concerns, and that's why I spoke
to Mr. Bower because he says we have an agreement. I said, Mr.
Bower, I want to make sure that that agreement is part of the
conditions so you'd never have to worry about having to enforce it
yourself. You'll have -- you'll have the county behind you to enforce
that agreement.
So I think we have rectified that -- that situation. I'm not aware
of any objections, other than one of the environmental representatives,
Nancy Payton, attended the Planning Commission and objected. I
don't think she's objecting to the aquaculture itself.
I know Nancy can speak for herself, but it's the removal of the
fill. I think she'd like to have the fill stay there in case the aquiculture
operation ever ceases.
There was some discussion about, were we going to be
improving the roads beyond what's already there. We're not
improving the roads beyond what's already there. We will stabilize
them for the people who are living on those roads anyway.
So the only objections I've heard really are, is the concern that we
were somehow going to expand the roads that are already out there
beyond what they currently are, and the removal of the dirt.
We have met all of the conditions of the conditional use
application. Your staff is recommending approval of the conditional
use. We deadlocked at the Planning Commission. We spent a lot of
time at the Planning Commission discussing the actual fish operations,
the digging of the lake. We spent very little time on the actual removal
Page 119
October 23-24, 2007
of the dirt.
I think we persuaded the Planning Commission that Mr. Fawzy
knows what he's doing. He does intend to operate this as a fish farm.
We have offered -- and I see it as one of your staff conditions --
that Mr. Fawzy not be allowed to withdraw any of the revenue from
the removal of the fill other than to reimburse himself for expenses
incurred in constructing the fish farm to show you all in good faith
that he really does want to be a fish farm.
I think there were some people on the Planning Commission and
there's some people in the general public that think this is a ruse. I've
heard people say to me, this is nothing but another Jesse Hardy
situation. This is nothing -- this isn't anything further from a Jesse
Hardy situation.
And when Wayne and I got involved in this, I said to Mr. Fawzy
-- because that was fresh in my mind -- how do I prove to the
commission that this is not just a fill pit? And we came to the thought
that if we put all the money in escrow, we reimburse him for expenses,
we get up and running, and then ifthere's any money left over at the
end of the day, he can have the money.
Ifthere's not any money left over at the day (sic), then he's
covered his expenses to build the fish farm, which is originally what
he intended to do anyway.
So I think we were able to persuade the Planning Commission
that this is really a fish farm and not a fill operation. Our neighbors
are not objecting to this. Fish farming is a use on the property.
We believe we've met all the criteria to be granted the conditional
use, and we're requesting that you follow your EAC's
recommendation, which was to recommend approval of the fish -- of
the conditional use.
And with that, I'll end my presentation. We're available to answer
any questions you may have regarding the operations of the removal
of the dirt for the fish farm, if the commission feels like we need to get
Page 120
October 23-24, 2007
into those discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before we go to the
commissioners, I just want to remind anyone that hasn't been through
this process before with us, if you wish to speak on the subject, there's
speaker slips out in the hallway. Normally we require you to have
them filled out to turn in before the subject is brought up, but I'll allow
you, if you still want to talk about the subject before the commission,
you have three minutes to do so.
If you go out and fill out one of those slips there and turn it in to
Sue Filson over here at the desk -- Sue, please raise your hand way up
so they can see you -- we'll be more than happy to put you on the
speaking agenda.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Chairman, you also have to have
them sworn in, too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct, if you haven't been
sworn in yet and you want to speak, just before that time that we call
up the speakers, we'll give you an opportunity to stand at that time and
be sworn in.
Thank you very much, Commissioner Halas.
And with that, we're going to go to Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Coyle for questions ofMr. Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Y ovanovich, what has taken
place on the property now? I'm unclear.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's closer in view. This is not -- this
is January '07. Since January of'07, we've gotten the ago clearing
permit for the property, so the 15 acres has, in fact, been cleared
pursuant to the ago clearing permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was those -- that was vegetation
hauled off site?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it was left on site, and it will be
burned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You know, I'm confused.
Page 121
October 23-24, 2007
Some of the residents down there seen a lot of extensive truck traffic
going in and out of the property. Is it going to this site for activities?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know what you're referring to as
far as extensive. We have had trucks going to the site to do the
clearing. We have also had the -- an excavator come out to the site
and remove a little bit of fill but also do some digging on site but not
removing beyond the legal limit of the 4,000 cubic yards.
There's three parcels, and we actually haven't removed all of
what we could because we realized we were having problems
stabilizing the road. So we stopped, we have since stabilized the road,
and will not remove anything further until we get through this process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Y ovanovich, you said
something about taking all the revenues and escrowing them.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The staff has mentioned the profits
from the excavation would be escrowed. Are we talking about
revenues or are we talking about profits?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We were going to put all of it, every
dime we received, all the revenue, in an escrow account; whoever the
escrow agent would be would then pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll volunteer.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was hoping you would because I didn't
want it. But they would then pay the costs for permitting to date from
those revenues and the costs to excavate the ponds to buy the cages
needed for the operation, and all the other operations out of that, we
would get up and running, and if there was any money left at the end
of the day, then that money could be released to Mr. Fawzy.
We didn't want people to think that he was just going to go ahead
and, you know, dig a hole and run away with the money and never
build the fish farm.
Page 122
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What happens if we get to that
point and all of the rock, or the excavation material, has been removed
from this site --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and the escrow agent is holding
all of the money associated with that and then something happens
beyond Mr. Fawzy's control that says, you know, you can't do this, or
you can't make a go of it, it's a failure, or there's no market or
something of that nature; what happens under those circumstances?
We've got a big hole in the ground, and we've got an escrow
agent holding Mr. Fawzy's money. How do you solve problems like
that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, presumably, ifhe's up and running,
he's got a business plan that shows he's going to make money. You're
right, it may happen that for whatever reason he doesn't make money,
but that's the same situation whether he removes the fill or not. You're
still going to have the hole in the ground.
It makes no sense to then pay someone else to come onto the dirt
and fill that hole in. That's just another expense that you would have
to pay to fill in the hole. Why would Mr. Fawzy then spend the
money to fill in the hole?
And in fact, the hole serves a purpose. It actually will help from
-- with water management out in the area because it will be another
place to hold water that you're having flooding issues out in that area
anyway. So that hole will actually serve a water management purpose
even if the fill is removed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have the same concerns as
Commissioner Coyle does if somebody's holding the proceeds for the
selling of this dirt and that's what's going to take place here, and the
fish farm fails, then are we going to take those proceeds and fill the
Page 123
October 23-24, 2007
hole back up? Because this is sending lands, is what we have here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. You see -- and we keep -- we're
getting back into the issue of, is the fish farm an allowed use under the
Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code, and the
answer's yes, okay.
So the digging of the hole can occur. We don't have enough area
to store the fill on site to make this a profitable venture. He's going to
have -- he needs enough lake area to have enough fish to make it
work, so he's got to remove the fill.
If he could store the fill on site, he could still dig the hole, so
you're still going to have the fish farm there regardless. And whether
it fails or not, there's no guarantees that any body's going to come
along and just push that dirt back into the hole.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How many fish farms do we have
like this in South Florida that are out in the middle of nowhere and
somebody has an aquaculture where it's a gravel pit?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No? Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have no idea. And what I'm trying to
do and what Mr. Fawzy's trying to do is provide assurance that you're
not getting a gravel pit. You're getting a fish farm, and that's why he's
willing to put all the money in an escrow account.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's interesting. I did some research
over the weekend, and it's kind of unusual that I do any research over
the weekend. But basically this is from the Southern Regional
Aquicultural Center, and they're basically saying that because of the
small size of five to 20 acres, many catfish farms, these businesses
have high production costs compared to the more efficient farms of 50
acres or greater located in leading catfish producing states.
The large efficient farms are in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas,
and Louisiana. It doesn't say anything about being in Florida. And
yet they're saying that anything under 20 acres is basically an area
Page 124
October 23-24, 2007
where there's high production costs, and I don't think he's got a market
that he can sell these to immediately, a clearinghouse or a fishing
place to sell his product.
The other thing that I'm concerned about is, this parcel is
basically located in a water area. It's a W3 groundwater protection
zone. And I think under policy 3.1.1.3, Conservation/Coastal
Management Element, states that such zones conditional uses shall be
granted only in extraordinary circumstances and where impacts of the
development will be isolated from the aquifers. I can't find where this
is an extraordinary circumstance here.
MR. ARNOLD: Hi. I'm Wayne Arnold. I'll try to take a shot at
answering that. That was brought up at the Planning Commission
hearing, and I think your executive summary mentions that as well in
the findings, and your staff concluded that, one, that the extraordinary
circumstances are for those uses that require conditional use under
your well field protection zone standards in the LDC, not general
conditional uses in the agricultural zoning district.
The other thing I would offer to that is that the other earth mines
that you have authorized in this area are within the same wellfield
protection zone, and those are much, much deeper and much larger
operations than we're proposing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But my concern is, the -- as you
raise fish in here, the effluent effect of what the fish leave behind may
have effect with our water -- with the groundwater table in this area,
and I have some real concerns about that, plus this is basically being
located in a NRP A area. And why do we want to dig another hole,
and if something fails, then all we have is a big open hole in a NRP A
area?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I guess the short answer to that is, your
Comprehensive Plan allows the farming operation to be there, and you
don't regulate -- if this were a cattle pond or some sort, you wouldn't
be regulating that.
Page 125
October 23-24, 2007
The real issue -- and this is something we've struggled with from
day one. The real issue is hauling more than 4,000 cubic yards of dirt
off of the property. It's a very unique conditional use that you have in
your code because you're allowed by right to take, in this case, 12,000
cubic yards off of the entire site. To do more than that, we need to ask
your permission to do that, and look at the impacts of the dirt removal
related to the criteria for conditional uses. And we believe we've
satisfied those.
I think the EAC had a very healthy and lengthy debate about the
same issues of water quality, et cetera, and they found there to be no
concerns due to the operational characteristics of the facility.
And I think, as Rich pointed out, we got into a lot of operational
discussions that really aren't germane to the conditional use request. I
understand they're obviously related, but the real request is the
removal of more than 4,000 cubic yards of dirt off the site.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And to get to water quality issues, there
are best management practices that we must follow that have been
adopted by the state that address every one of those concerns. There's
a limitation on the amount of fish we can have in the lake to make sure
that the quality is appropriate, it doesn't hurt the groundwater.
So all of that is regulated by the state through best management
practices, and we'll have to meet all of those, and we spent a lot of
time with the EAC addressing that, and they were all comfortable we
didn't pose any threat to the groundwater or anybody else.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Fiala, then
we'll come back to you, sir, if you should have more.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I had a number of questions,
one of them was in direct relationship to Commissioner Halas's. I
wanted to know how this would affect the wells in the area being that
everybody's on a well.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we don't -- the closest residence to
Page 126
October 23-24, 2007
us is 3,000 feet, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I know that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- we're not going to have any impact on
their wells and we're not going to have any issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No impact on the aquifer, you're
saying?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, nope.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It said in here that we were
supposed to get a report about the Big Cypress fox squirrel, and we
never saw a report, but now they've already cleared the land without a
report even coming here to us. Where is that report?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We cleared pursuant to the ago clearing
permit that was issued by your staff, so we got --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is the report?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was given to staff. Jeremy prepared it,
and he can tell you. He can address that.
MR. STERK: Jeremy Sterk, Davidson Engineering. Yes, a
preconstruction or pre-clearing fox squirrel survey was done, and the
results of that were given to the staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What were the results?
MR. STERK: None were found.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. There were -- it also
mentioned panthers and listed species, and we'll get into that later on,
I'm sure. But how deep are you digging?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Twenty feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twenty feet. How deep does the
lake need to be to grow native fish?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we're doing it in cages, and we're--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I know, and a thousand fish per
cage, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, the cage is 10 feet, okay. So with
the fluxation of the water during the dry season and the wet season,
Page 127
October 23-24, 2007
during the dry season we'd have about 12 feet of water in that 20-foot
lake. So we need -- that's why we need to go 20 feet because of the
lO-foot cage, to have adequate water within the -- within the cages for
the fish to grow and flourish.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, all of the stipulations that I
find in here, including the roads and no dust on them, et cetera, et
cetera, say, for instance, Mr. Fawzy decides he wants to sell the
property, whether it be halfway through or tomorrow, I would like to
state on the record that all of these stipulations must follow with the
land.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's why I suggested adding those
stipulations to the conditional use so there could be no questions that
someone says, well, that was Mr. Fawzy's agreement. I bought the
land and I don't have to live up to that. It's going to be part of the
conditional use so that nobody -- no successor can hide from those
obligations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And now -- thank you. I do
have some questions myself.
We've heard numerous discussions -- and I know the Planning
Commission, especially Mark Strain, was very, very concerned about
the possibility of fish feces -- I said that right -- contaminating --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's fish poo.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll use the -- Commissioner
Henning's description.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, fish feces. Okay, Commissioner
Fiala overruled him, which is good.
Going back to that, I know this has been really a bone of
contention, and I know that at some point in time in the past we talked
about a related subject, human waste and how it's handled and what
the impact was to the canals and also eventually Naples Bay.
I remember the discussions many times, and at that point in time
Page 128
October 23-24, 2007
I remember we called on Dr. Colfer to be able to offer some opinions
on this. And I know you've already got a finding from water
management, but I was wondering -- I don't know if you were here for
this reason or not, Dr. Colfer.
DR. COLFER: No, but I'm happy to help you if! can.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you mind talking about this or
testifying on this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She's not sworn in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. You heard the discussion.
There's considerable concern over this farming operation -- and we'll
have to swear you in if you haven't been at this time. I don't think you
have been.
But before you do, is there anybody else in the audience that's
come in since we started that wants to participate in this by giving
public testimony, I'll need you to also stand.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, thank you.
MS. FILSON: That gentleman's not registered to speak, so he
may want to register.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. It was good practice.
Dr. Colfer, what is your particular spin on this? In other words,
you're going to have a lake that's 20 feet deep, the confining layer is
probably another, what, 20 feet down below that. You're going to
have a commercial operation that's going to probably generate a
sufficient amount of fish feces.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Poo.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any -- is there a possibility
that this could be detrimental to the aquifer?
DR. COLFER: Well, we'd have to know which aquifer he's--
you know, would be -- where the confining layer was and which
aquifer he was going into. So you're concerned about the fish feces,
not any human feces associated with the project --
Page 129
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
DR. COLFER: -- is that correct? We don't build septic systems
for fish feces. So I mean, it would go where it was going to go, which
is, you know, seep into the land.
You know, now usually there's some filtration that goes on when
it does that. But we haven't had a chance to really look at this. I'd
have to take it back to staff. Can't help you today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I just thought I'd ask because I always
consider you the expert on all these things.
Meanwhile, going back to Mr. Y ovanovich. Who was it that
made a determination on this? What agency ruled on this already on
this particular issue? Because this is a big issue for the people that
live out there, and also the people inland, too, that depend on this for
their water source.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We go to the Florida Department of
agriculture, and they are the ones who issue the license, and they also
are the ones who issue this nice thick document entitled "Aquaculture,
Best Management Practices and Rules." So they have adopted very
specific guidelines as to how you dig the lake, how many fish can be
in the lake, to make sure that there is not overabundance of feces or
poop.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Poo.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Poo?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Poo.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Poo -- in the water to find its way into the
groundwater. So there are very specific regulations. And we spoke
about that in great detail at both the Planning Commission and the
EAC, and I don't think any of them at the end of the day -- well, the
EAC certainly wouldn't have recommended approval if they had
concerns about that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, in getting right down to it, the
thing you're before us for today is not to dig the ponds and not the
Page 130
October 23-24, 2007
clearing of the land and not the ability to be able to do what the law
allows you to do, which is guaranteed to you under the Right to Farm
Act. You're here today to get a permit to be able to transport the fill
off site.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you met with, I hope, all the
local people that were there. You've seeked out the advice and
reached an agreement with the Frangipani Property Owners
Association, and that's all good -- all well and good, but there's some
things that still concern me.
When you're going to transport the fill off site, you're going to be
affecting people as far as the wear and tear on the roads.
Now, I know you pay a gas tax and all that type of stuff, and I
know we're kind of limited what we can do as far as fees and all that,
but there's a couple of things. One, the fill you're going to take off the
road -- now, you say stabilize the road. Now, you know, you say not
improve it, stabilize it. Now I'm really confused because I thought the
people out there that were going to own property along these roads
were going to get a direct benefit from your operation with a better
road than they started off with.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And they are. If you've driven out there
-- and I don't know if you have. I've only been out there once, and it's
very sandy. The rains come, those roads wash out. What we'll be
doing is putting a -- basically putting the limerock base out there so
that there won't be wash-outs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So you are improving the
roads?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. We are not widening the road. We
are improving the quality of the road as it currently exists in its
configuration.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, let's go back to the width of the
road. Generally these roads that go through the properties out there __
Page 131
October 23-24, 2007
and they just go through the sand -- and they're various widths. I
mean, I've seen before they tried to avoid a pothole in the road and
they'll -- suddenly the road will grow on the right or the left to a
tremendous width.
Now, when you get all done, is the road you're going to build
going to be of sufficient size to be able to accommodate these trucks
going one direction and private vehicles or trucks going in the other
direction?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will have to coordinate our own
trucks to make sure there -- it will be -- the answer to your question is,
we're going to have to coordinate those efforts, and we've worked with
the neighbors on that. It's not going to be two-lanes width -- in width
to allow trucks to go by. We're going to have to -- one truck's going to
have to stop, wait for another truck to pass by, and then come forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there sufficient space there to put in
two lanes? Are you kind -- are you prohibited by some law?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: One of the objections we've heard loud
and clear from the environmental groups is, we don't want you to
make this wider. Is there space to make it wider? Yes. But in
deference to their concerns, we have agreed to leave it -_
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So what we're going to have is a
situation that will hold one truck at a time with some pull-offs along
the way for trucks coming in, going out --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to be able to move to one side or
the other. How is this situation compared to what already exists?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They probably deal with that now, you
know, with what's out there. They're not very wide roads.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm just trying to see what the benefit
is, and I'm having -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nick Casalanguida might have
something to add.
Page 132
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, Nick. I'm sorry I wasn't -- I
wish I noticed you back there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're talking about the private roads
now, correct, Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm talking about private roads.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: How you are? For the record, Nick
Casalanguida, Transportation.
On the monitor you can see that down to the site there isn't any
homes for a certain amount. A recommendation might be where the
first residential house is, out to the private roads, that they maintain it
approximately 20 feet wide with about six inches of limerock base
rock, and that way there is sufficient width for people who live in that
area to benefit from that road, but you wouldn't be expanding the road
farther south to the project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear what you're saying, but I also
hear the underlying current here that we're not going to do anything to
encourage anyone else to be able to build in that area whether they
have property or not. And this has been an attitude that I've never
agreed with the conservation movement. They've basically bankrupt a
lot of people and drove them out of the southern Estates with the
particular attitude of steath (sic) of land.
Through denial of the services, the property went down to
nothing in value, and people were able to pick it up on the tax sale,
and I'll never be a part of that. I never was and I never will be again.
So if we're going to do anything to benefit these people, I don't
care what the conservationists say in this particular thing. I'm here for
the dam people that live out there and own the land. I want to see
some sort of benefit that's going to benefit these people. You can play
footsies with them all day long, but you still have to deal with me. I'm
sorry. Did I get a little rambunctious there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, and we certainly __
Page 133
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We don't have any objections to what
you're saying. What we are trying to do is balance the concerns we
were hearing from the environmental groups. We don't have an
objection to doing exactly what Nick said, 20 feet in width, making
sure the roads are stabilized, and if that -- if that's what it takes to
benefit the property owners -- because remember, this is a temporary
use.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: In 18 months we're done. I mean, we're
in and out and you'll have a fish farm, you know. And that's -- and
there'll be no -- virtually no traffic related to the fish farm, a car or two
a day.
So we don't have any objections to doing what you're requesting,
but I'm having a little trouble balancing, you know, what others are
saying or are reasons for you to tell us no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand, Mr. Yovanovich. Now,
there's another question, too. I realize this is a limited operation and I
realize also the intent is just to be able to move the dirt off the
property, that it is going to generate a profit, which is fine. I mean,
that's the American way, you know; you benefit from the use of your
land in some way.
However, with that said, we've had a couple of instances now
where we've had actual pits go into place, and in order to compensate
the county for the county roads that they're on, there was a certain fee
that the developer agreed to pay per load. I'm not too sure what it
was. Four dollars?
MS. ZONE: One.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I thought I'd give it a try.
Okay. You already know the answer.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know the exact answer. I know
it's not that.
Page 134
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You gave some thought to this, you
know, that you are going to -- you are going to take and you're going
to impact some of those rural roads that are in pretty dismal condition
the way it is. What can we do to be able to come up with something
that would help to compensate us? We're going through a very tough
time budget-wise trying to cover our backside on these roads.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Didn't Florida Rock give like 50 cents a
truck or something?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was the old dollar, the old
money. Now inflation's taken place since --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So you already knew the answer to the
question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know. Mr. -- Nick, you got a
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is it a dollar a truck, Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was a dollar a truck.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was a buck a truck.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: A dollar a truck?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A dollar a truck?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Buck a truck.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I actually wasn't prepared for that
question, but I was just told a dollar a truck. If that's what Florida
Rock did --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ten dollars a truck.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The theme is a buck a truck.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Buck a truck.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And we've spoken to Tindale Oliver,
our impact fee consultant. He said there is justification of that because
they don't pay impact fees, and we'll be bringing that to the board in
the next six months, so we'll have an actual impact fee ordinance that
applies to that heavy vehicle surcharge that comes forward.
Page 135
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. But in lieu of the fact that we
haven't approved of that yet, can we have something that would be
able to weigh in if we don't approve it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. And if you come up with another
fee, can I have a credit for the dollar a truck that I'm paying?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure, I don't have a problem. Of
course it's got to be a decision made by more than one commissioner,
but at least we got the subject -- we broached the subject and we can
go forward from there.
So, you know, I'm going to have to listen to everybody's
testimony out there, the people that own land, the people that already
have residence out there. I'm going to be listening very carefully to
what they have to say. I've got a feeling that if this is done right,
there's going to be a net benefit with the fact that this only is going to
go for how many months again?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Eighteen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Eighteen months?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You've capped us at 18 months.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. So I mean the --if they can get
a benefit in relation to the amount of time they have to endure what's
going to take place, there may be something here that can be offered.
I've taken enough time. I'm going to go to Commissioner __
who's next? You've been watching, haven't you? Commissioner
Fiala, then Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I went before.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, just to cut to the chase here.
I have some real concerns where this mine is -- where you want to put
this fish farm. And I think it's located in the wrong area. It's in a
sending area. It's in a NRP A sending area. And I have some concerns
about our groundwater in regards to contamination offish feces, okay,
if this thing continues on, and I feel that water is a very precious
Page 136
October 23-24, 2007
resource for this county.
So and -- that's under policy 3.1.1.3 Conservation/Coastal
Management Element. And I don't believe, as I said earlier, that this
is an extraordinary circumstance whereby this needs to go any further
as far as a conditional use, so that's where I stand on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And since I don't have another light
on, I'm going to take it next.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No, I'm just looking your way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I know you are, sir, but I'm
looking at you.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You just heard Commissioner Halas
and his concern and his reason why, for rejection. Being that we have
no authority over farming, would that be -- have legal justifications?
Are we leaving ourselves open for some legal action afterwards, if we
refused it based upon an element that was not up for consideration
today?
MR. KLATZKOW: There's a distinction to be made between the
farming and the excavation. I think they're two separate things.
The petitioner keeps saying that what we're doing here is farming
and we need the excavation to get there, but you can look at it as, no,
what you're doing is you're asking us -- you need to excavate first, and
then when you're done with the excavation, you can farm.
And if this area is such that it's located in a place that you cannot
excavate, all right, then you cannot get the fish farm. Do you follow
me?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. He's allowed to do agriculture. He
can put up row crops if he wants, he can put up --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- whatever he wants here.
Page 137
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: What he's saying though, what I want to do
is I want to dig a hole and put fish in there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yep.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. But there's an argument to be made
that under the Comprehensive Plan, you cannot put -- you cannot
excavate in this area, so he can't get to his fish farm because he can't
excavate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But is that what we have for
consideration today, the excavation or the --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's part of it, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. That was my
misunderstanding. I thought the only thing we were able to consider
was the transporting of fill off site.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I think -- I think you need to look at the
whole thing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, thank you. That's what I
needed. Okay.
Okay. We--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, if! may. I find it -- it's interesting.
Sorry, I got distracted. What I find interesting is the county attorney
is saying that I need to move the dirt to get my excavation. Well, I
need to move the trees as well, and there's no regulation at all in the
county. If! wanted to -- if! wanted to remove the trees off site and
take them somewhere else, I don't need any approval from the county
to prep the land for the fish farm.
So if I want to remove the trees, I dig the hole and I stockpile all
the fill. I can dig the hole, stockpile the fill, and I'm not regulated by
the county.
It's only because the county won't let me -- they'll let me remove
trees by truck, but they won't let me remove the dirt by truck that now
I am stuck in this situation. And it's not a Compo Plan issue; it's a
Page 138
October 23-24, 2007
Land Development Code. Because the Compo Plan doesn't -- isn't
sending me here. It's the Land Development Code that's sending me
here.
So under the Compo Plan, we have every right to dig the fish
pond. It's the removal of the fill and it's the county's regulation on the
removal of the fill that's prohibiting the farming operation, because he
cannot dig the aquiculturallake without the county's blessing, and
quite honestly, I'm not even sure the county can do that under the
Right to Farm Act.
But we're so far along in the process that we may as well take it
to the end to see if the county will address that situation and grant him
the right to remove the fill. So I think the issue today is, it's not
whether we can dig the hole. We clearly can do that. County can't
stop us from digging the hole. It's, can we remove the dirt? And
we've met the criteria for the removal of the dirt.
And I think we should focus on that because there's no testimony
to the contrary about the removal of the dirt, and we seem to be
getting into the operations of the hole, because we can dig the -- we
can dig the lake.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. I don't see any
other lights, so why don't we do this, we'll have staff make their
presentation and then go to the speakers. And we'll probably call you
back later, Mr. Y ovanovich.
MR. MOSS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. John David Moss,
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
The proposed excavation as conditioned is consistent with the
GMP and the LDC. The NRP A overlay area does permit excavation
as an accessory use if it's a conditional use. They're also allowed to
remove 4,000 cubic yards of fill from the site. It's going over that
threshold that is requiring them to get this conditional use. So if they
wanted to stockpile it on the site, they wouldn't need this CU to do
that.
Page 139
October 23-24, 2007
I would also like to mention that the Environmental Advisory
Council heard this petition on June 6, 2007, and unanimously
recommended approval subject to the conditions which have been
incorporated into the conditions of approval attached to your
resolution in the executive summary.
The CCPC heard this petition on August 7th -- excuse me --
August 2, 2007, and voted 4-4 to forward the petition without any
recommendation of approval, and the commission members who were
opposed to the application denied it for six reasons.
First they asserted that the sending lands do not permit
excavation; however, it's staffs opinion that the sending lands do
permit aquaculture and the excavation is necessary for the creation of
the proposed aquaculture facility.
Number two, that it was inconsistent with policy 3.1.1.3 of the
Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP, which
states that continual uses should only be granted in extraordinary
circumstances. The CCP (sic) felt that this was not an extraordinary
circumstance; however, it's staffs position that this provision was
inaccurately applied since the policy does not concern all conditional
uses, only these conditional uses that are referred to in policy 3.1.1 G
and H, of which excavation is not mentioned.
Number three, inconsistency with policies 1.2 and 2.3 of the
natural groundwater aquifer recharge subelement -- of the public
facilities element which require the protection of recharge areas from
activities that could degrade the quality of groundwater as provided in
policy 3.1.1. Again, the proposed conditional uses for an excavation
which, as mentioned, was not a use cited in policy 3.1.1. Furthermore,
the excavation is necessary to enable the permitted aquicultural use.
The fourth reason was its inconsistency with the North Belle
Meade overlay requirements of the future land use element, which
require that any new roads within the sending lands be designated -- or
excuse me -- be designed with aquatic species crossings, small
Page 140
October 23-24, 2007
terrestrial animal crossings, and large terrestrial animal crossings
pursuant to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
criteria.
And staff has addressed that issue by including a development
condition in the development condition attachment to the resolution
requiring that they provide the requisite wildlife crossings.
The fifth one was the location of the project within the panther
primary merit zone, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission has stated that the project is not likely to affect the
Florida panther; nevertheless, staff has included the condition that the
applicant be required to seek consultation for mitigation from wildlife
agencies before the first development order.
And finally, there was uncertainty about the applicant's degree of
commitment to actually construct an aquaculture facility, and as
previously mentioned, the applicant at the Planning Commission
hearing offered to escrow the funds generated from the excavation into
an escrow account. They didn't specify who would be the holder of
the funds and, of course, because the details haven't been worked out,
this hasn't been incorporated into the development conditions before
you. It's -- at this point it's still just an idea.
And that's all I have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Stand by for questions in
the near future. At this point in time we're going to go to the speakers.
How many do we have, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: I have three speakers, sir. First is Nancy Payton.
She'll be followed by Brad Cornell.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton, representing
the Florida Wildlife Federation. We're opposed to the conditional use
permit that's under discussion today.
There are only two aquaculture operations that I've been able to
determine have been proposed in Collier County. One was Jesse
Hardy's, that was in sending land; and now the petition that you have
Page 141
October 23-24, 2007
before you today that is sending land, which I find a coincidence that
these aquaculture operations only seem to be able to make a go of it in
sending lands.
I say once a philosopher, twice a fool. I agreed to allow Jesse
Hardy to go forward under certain circumstance. He didn't honor
them. I'm not going to do that again today.
Mr. Fawzy bought this property in 2005 after the rural fringe
overlay was adopted. He knew what was allowed or should not be
allowed in that area. Yes, aquaculture is allowed, but you don't have to
be an enabler. You don't have to approve the mining operation that's
going to take place for 18 months.
And he can store -- he can dig a pit and store on site or remove
4,000 cubic yards, I guess it is, and he can operate his operation in that
manner. He doesn't have to have a lake that's almost nine acres.
That's the issue here is the size of the lake, because he needs to haul it
off site to get the size lake that he wants or the fill that he wants.
Today is about a conditional use to haul up to 20,000 truckloads
offill through Northern Golden Gate Estates, or that's 40,000 trips
through sending land, NRP A land, designated for panther and other
listed species habitat protection. That was a result of a challenge to
your Comprehensive Plan that said, Collier County, you are not doing
enough to protect the Florida panther and other wildlife habitat.
I urge you to deny the conditional use on compatibility issues.
This is sending land, NRP A land. Building a new road to
accommodate 40,000 trucks is not compatible, and we worry about the
cumulative and secondary impacts of building that road and what it
should bring. And I think you do have to take that into consideration
in a compatibility issue.
If denied, Mr. Fawzy can still dig his pond, but he will just have
to store on site, and that's the way it is. And it's sending land. It
should be protected, and I think you have to be strong about sending
the message that NRP A and sending land, they're not ways to
Page 142
October 23-24, 2007
circumvented those protections.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Brad Cornell. He'll be
followed by Greg Bower.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society.
I want to raise the issue that the county has a strong obligation to
protect listed species under the Federal Endangered Species Act. It's
an obligation that we also share with the state rules of protecting listed
speCIes.
Weare concerned about impacts to Red-cockaded woodpeckers,
Big Cypress fox squirrel, wood storks, and panthers and gopher
tortoises.
I know the site has now been cleared, and I think that's
unfortunate. It was predominantly slash pine, flat woods, and
certainly was feasible to restore to usage by many of these species.
I'm also concerned -- Collier County Audubon Society is
concerned that this is mining masquerading as agriculture. It just
doesn't make sense, and I agree with Ms. Payton's comments
regarding that.
I also do believe that this undoes the purposes of the North Belle
Meade overlay and the sending category that it's in. It just doesn't
make sense to be digging holes in natural resource protection areas
and sending lands.
And I want to point out something about groundwaters. When
you dig a hole in the ground, you expose the groundwater. That
increases your evaporation rate. I think it makes logical sense, and
there's actually a St. Johns River Water Management District
document that points out that there is a 10 -- at least in that water
management district, there's a lO-inch loss of recharge when you
expose groundwater to air because of evaporation. It's hot, it's sunny,
Page 143
October 23-24, 2007
there aren't any -- obviously any more trees on this lot, and that's
going to be a big impact to groundwater levels. They're going to be
lowered correspondingly.
I believe that actually the impact's greater here in South Florida
than it is in St. Johns River Water Management District, but I don't
know what those figures are.
Also, I want to point out the 20-foot deep lakes pose the risk of
off-site wetland impact due to buried shell beds. This is a feature of
our former being under the sea. There are shell beds throughout the
landscape buried, and no one knows where they are until you dig
through them, and that -- if they're connected to wetlands, which
typically they are, you can drain a wetland because you're lowing
groundwater levels in the hole that you're digging, and that would
impact wetland dependent species like wood storks, which are in the
area.
Collier County Audubon Society recommends denial of this
conditional use permit. We certainly agree -- if you are going to
consider approval, we certainly agree with the condition that you
require consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal Fish and
Wildlife Service, before any approvals for digging go forward. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Cornell?
MR. CORNELL: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me. Something new that I
never heard before was about the shell beds.
MR. CORNELL: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there examples around here where
people have made excavation pits and drained the wetlands? I mean,
is it something that's common to this area or is it just one of those
things throughout Florida and --
MR. CORNELL: I'm basing my comment on some studies that
Page 144
October 23-24, 2007
were done around Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary that actually
discovered shell beds when they were digging draining ditches for
agricultural uses in that area, Southeast Lee County, Northern Collier
County.
And it's a -- it's kind of like a porosity issue that the ground is
connected to these wetlands off site. And you can also see it when
you dig a ditch, like the Southern Golden Gate Estates has the six-foot
ditches. The effects can be felt as far as two miles away, and that's
one way that those effects are transmitted is through these shell beds,
but also just through the porosity of the soil itself.
But, yes, those are a feature. I don't know where they are
specifically; I don't think anybody does. But when you dig, you can
find them. And if you hit them, that connects to -- often connects to
wetlands, and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Interesting fact. I appreciate you
sharing it with us.
MR. CORNELL: Sure, sure.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I ask Mr. Cornell a question? Just
one question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One question.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because you're the second public speaker
to say this is an earth mine masking as a fish farm.
MR. CORNELL: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What will it take for us to prove to you
that this is not an earth mine?
MR. CORNELL: Dig it in the receiving area.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's not -- that's not -- tell me
what it will take to prove to you that this is not an earth mine?
Because a fish farm is an allowed use in sending.
MR. CORNELL: Leave all the fill on the site.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think we got enough here
now, okay. Very interesting conversation.
Page 145
October 23-24, 2007
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Greg Bower.
MR. BOWER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Greg Bower. I'm the one that signed the letter that I think is part of
the application you have from the Frangipani Ag. Association.
I've talked with the applicant on many occasions. I live on the
comer of Dove Tree -- and I'm not sure what that road is called at this
point in time, the dirt road. But I have 1,320 feet that borders where
this truck -- these trucks will be passing. They have to stop right at the
comer of my property in order to head up Dove Tree and Fawshady
(phonetic) Agricultural Avenue, and I'm right there in the comer of
Dove Tree on the left side -- on the west side, southwest comer.
I personally don't have a problem if the agreement that we
reached with the applicant is adhered to and is part of the application
that you have as far as fixing the roads. There's many places where
two cars pass very easily.
There was a home built across from me where we had a major
problem with trucking going up and down, 60 loads, shut the road
down completely. And the guy building the house had to spend
$5,000 to fill the holes in. So we have a concern about that, and we
thought we met that very well in the letter that I signed.
Most of the people that I spoke with on Dove Tree are in
agreement that if that is adhered to and there is someone on a daily
basis that can be contacted should there be a problem with the road
itself, then we would not have a problem with having the truck traffic
go up and down there.
Our interest is probably a little bit more selfish in the fact that we
would like an improved road there. I don't know about Mr. Fawzy's
fish farm or anything else other than that, other than the document that
I signed and that you all have in front of you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We thank you for being here today.
MR. BOWER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, Commissioners? Close the
Page 146
October 23-24, 2007
public portion of the meeting.
I don't see any lights going off. I guess there's got to be some
items for discussion here. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have to get this clear. We've
got two different opinions about whether somebody that wants to do
fish farming can dig a hole in the ground or not without getting a
conditional use, and that needs to be straightened out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: In my -- again, my humble opinion --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I heard it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- is we don't need any approval to dig
the hole. It's to remove the dirt.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here comes Susan.
MR. KLATZKOW: To answer your question, the Planning
Commission did go 4-4 on this, so that there was a disagreement of
opinion on this issue.
That are in a wellfield area. It's a special overlay. And under the
Growth Management Plan, you have to have extraordinary
circumstances before you can excavate there. That's the issue, not that
you need the conditional use to excavate, but the issue is whether or
not you can even do that -- whether or not you can dig there even to
begin with.
And the Planning Commission was 4-4 on that issue. Staff --
staff believes that you can do that, and I respect staffs opinion on this.
They're professionals in this area, but there is a difference of opinion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did anybody swear in here?
MS. ISTENES: I swore.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, not swear at her. Have her
sworn Ill, you mean.
MS. ISTENES: I mean I was sworn in.
Susan Istenes. I just want to answer your question real quickly.
The conditional use is required to haul the excess material in excess of
4,000 cubic yards off the site. That's the only reason it's needed. I
Page 147
October 23-24, 2007
hope that answers it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I didn't know if you were
through or not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, no. We got that
straightened out. I mean, I just would have a problem for a bona fide
farming operation to have to get government permission under this
application. So that cleared it up for me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's also the fly in the whole
ointment. You know, we have -- there's a Catch 22 -- 21, excuse me--
to the rural lands management areas when it comes down to it. You
know, you can say, no, we want your land to stay pristine. They come
back, they get a permit from the county for clearing and they clear the
whole thing for agriculture, and if we don't give them what they want,
they clear it for grazing. So we're kind of at one of these issues where
-- what (sic) are you supposed to go from here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you have a hire law that
says you're allowed to farm your property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it shouldn't be an
inordinate burden upon any government to stop you in that process. I
mean, that's an inherent right on everybody's property. I mean, I could
do that on my property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The whole catch though,
Commissioner Henning, is that that right is misused on a continuous
basis. We see people avoid paying taxes by rent-a-cows, putting cows
on their property for no other reason than to be able to say, yes, it's an
agricultural use and avoid paying what the actual appraised value is
for the land.
We have all sorts of issues like that. I mean, that's just the way
the system is. It's less than perfect, and people are always going to
take advantage of whatever little element they can.
Page 148
October 23-24, 2007
So we're down to push or shove on this. In other words, the
land's already been cleared. It would have been cleared anyways,
even if we could have interceded ahead of time. I know I've been told
before that it's being cleared illegally, but everything I'm hearing, they
can do it.
Where do we go from here? Do we tell them they can't excavate
the dirt off the property? We have the attorney come up and say that
we can say you can't excavate. We have staff come back and so, no,
that's not a thing for -- a decision to be made by this commission. So I
guess it's within our own conscience.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What I heard Mr.
Klatzkow say is, we depend upon the expert, being the zoning
director, to give us the skinny on that.
So, I mean, in my opinion I'd have to approve the conditional use
in order to allow him to do his fish farm, but if that's not the case, you
already have that right. The right, as what Susan Istenes says, the
conditional use, or what's on our agenda, is to take the dirt and move it
off site.
So the question is, why can't you do the fish operation by
berming it and creating the depth that you need?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. A couple of -- if we were to dig
the depth we need to have this be freshwater, because what we don't
want to do is to have a lined lake where we have to continually pump
the water -- you push freshwater in, it becomes dirty because it's --
you know, it's lined, over time, then we have to dump that water, refill
it with freshwater.
This will be a naturally occurring process where we have the
right amount of fish in there so the water is always clean so we won't
be wasting water. For us to dig deep enough, Commissioner, for us to
have freshwater, we're probably talking well over 40-foot berms
around this piece of property, if we can even get there. That, I don't
think, is in the best interest of the public to have -- am I right, Mike, at
Page 149
October 23-24, 2007
least -- about 40- foot berms to get the proper depth for a freshwater
lake?
We don't think that makes any sense to try to do that to have a
viable fish farm. You know, people are saying, well, just dig a
two-acre lake. Well, you can't make any money on the two-acre lake.
You have to have a big enough lake to generate enough fish for this to
be profit oriented.
I keep coming back -- and I wasn't trying to put Brad in a hard
place, but I was, because I want to know, what will it take to prove
that we're going to be a fish farm? And fish farms are allowed in
sending lands.
I mean, the Comprehensive Plan clearly says that, and he just
doesn't want it there. He doesn't want a fish farm there even thought
we have the right to do it. So he wants to stop us by not letting us take
the fill off. He just doesn't want the fish farm there.
So, you know, if there's another mechanism -- we offered up the
escrow to show you that we're really going to be a fish farm -- and
that's why I asked the question. Is there something else you all could
think about that will show you that we really are going to be a fish
farm operation?
We're willing to a pay a dollar a truck, you know, for the overall
public road impacts. We're going to fix the private roads for Mr.
Bower and his neighbors. I mean, we think that we're giving back in
return for the ability to go ahead and try to be a fish farm and, you
know, make a profit doing that. I mean, I don't think he should have to
apologize to do what he's trained to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I follow up, please?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- so if you haul off site
without berming, as I asked, you said there would be a normal filling
of the hole?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You mean the water?
Page 150
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The water will be a natural filling. It will
flow with the high -- you know, the groundwater.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The aquifer? The groundwater
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. During dry season, the water will
go down, that's why we need to be 20 feet, and during the wet season,
the water will come up.
So it will be natural, the amount of fish to where it continually
flushes and is always fresh, so we won't be wasting water. You know,
we could -- another alternative, which I think is environmentally the
wrong alternative, is to line the lake, dig down to a certain depth, line
the lake, and then keep wasting water. We can waste that -- we can
waste that resource. Still got a hole.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I understand. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Here is, I think, the problem. You
can't view any elements of this proposal independently because a
decision that's made to excavate and haul off the fill is a decision that
cannot be corrected if something doesn't work right, particularly if
you're doing it in a sending area where we are obligated to protect the
environmentally sensitive lands.
Yes, you can farm in the sending area, but I don't believe you
have the right to dig in the sending area unless there is a very strong
justification for doing so.
You're asking us to approve a petition that includes in it an as yet
unspecified escrow arrangement. You're offering that as proof that
you really intend to do the fish farming operation yet the elements of
that escrow agreement are not present. There's been no agreement on
what that element is.
There are very, very many accounting procedures which can be
Page 151
October 23-24, 2007
utilized for the purpose of reimbursing expenses. Is somebody going
to be drawing a salary as a result of this operation? I don't know.
That hasn't been specified. It certainly can't be based upon profit
because there's no way we can control the profit calculations of this
venture. So there are too many unanswered questions.
I'll tell you what would make me feel more comfortable is a
business plan which specifies the types of fish that are being raised,
how many are going to be placed there, what the source of sale is
likely to be, what is the anticipated revenue, what is the costs
associated with this, how many fish must be sold in order to break
even and make a profit, and also, any evidence that the people who are
operating this fish farm have ever done fish farming before and, if so,
where and to what level of effectiveness.
Because once the hole is dug and the material is gone, what we
now have in a NRP A area is a hole in the ground, and because we
have exposed the groundwater to evaporation, we have done
permanent harm to the process of recharging our aquifers.
So you can't just take this one step at a time and say, yeah,
somebody has the right to dig a hole. It's what happens later that is my
concern, and I think we have an obligation to evaluate the
consequences of our decisions. So based upon what I have heard, I
don't think I would support this proposal.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And, Commissioner Coyle, thank you for
expressing what your concerns are. What I would like to do, now that
I've heard your concerns, is provide you with all of that information. I
can't do it today. I don't think it would be fair to put Mr. Fawzy up
here to -- if I could prepare for you a business report that we will
submit to all of you to show you we have a business plan, how it will
work, how it will function, we'll provide that to you for your review.
And, again, if you -- I welcome your input on the escrow. I don't
want to hold the money. We never intended that it would pay a salary.
It would be -- it would have to be actual invoices for the permitting
Page 152
October 23-24, 2007
process as well as the construction, and that's what would be
reimbursed from the escrow account.
After that, you know, the business plan would then kick in for the
ongoing time to assure you it's generating enough revenue to cover the
costs of operation and the continued viability of the business.
We can bring all of that to you probably -- give us, you know, a
month, because I don't think we can get it to you in time for the next
meeting, and if it needs to be a little bit longer, well -- we'd like to
have the opportunity to present that information to you and hopefully
persuade you that this is not, as it's being portrayed, a fly-by-night
mining operations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, I don't want to
leave that impression. I don't want to make it sound like we have --
we're dealing with unscrupulous people because I don't think we are,
okay, but I -- I think that we have an obligation to make sure that the
person with the purest of intentions will succeed in this situation rather
than fail because it serves no one's interest to have the natural resource
protection area damaged permanently to let someone try their hand at
something that is -- that might fail. We don't want it to fail.
If we're going to go that -- take that step, we want to make sure
that it is very, very successful, and we have been presented no
evidence to suggest that there is the possibility that it will be
successful.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And what I'm requesting is an
opportunity to get you that information. It's not something that's been
requested of staff. It's not the normal process for the conditional use.
We can get that information to you and your colleagues to hopefully
address your concerns.
I can -- I agree with your concerns. We need to. Show you that
there's a backup -- that this is, one, going to be a success so you don't
have the issues you're worried about, and that perhaps we can have a
backup plan if -- what happens if it's unsuccessful.
Page 153
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no concern about continuing
it if the other commissioners wish to do so, but that's not my call.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. It all boils down to, these are
NRP A lands. These are -- this is a sending area. There is a panther
corridor, and there are no extraordinary circumstances involved. We
vote this in and we're going to prompt everyone who wants to ever dig
a big hole in the sending lands or in the NRP A area to go ahead and
do that, and I don't believe we should do this.
So I make a motion to deny.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion to deny by
Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Halas.
I'd like to ask the county attorney that -- should we state the
reasons for denial that might have legal sufficiency? I'm looking to
what may happen down the road if we end this by trying to bring
reasons into it that don't quite fit the mold of what it's supposed to be,
what the item is before us. Your advice would be most appreciated.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, my advice is always to state your
reasons for the record why you're voting to disapprove, all your
reasons.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just did.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine, we just did, okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, she's saying that, number
one, it is inconsistent with the sending land designation of the Future
Land Use Element.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't agree with it, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's what I'm saying, it is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Also policy 3.1.1.3 in regards to
conservation coastal management element in regard --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Also extraordinary circumstances.
Page 154
October 23-24, 2007
It isn't an extraordinary circumstance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I believe this wellhead is -- it's
a protection -- it's a wellhead that needs to be protected for -- and I
believe that's also identified in our Future Land Use Element.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Think that covers it?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm comfortable.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's all that counts. That's
why we got you sitting there.
Okay. With that, any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor in the
motion -- favor of the motion to deny, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Let the record show that the
motion for denial passed 3-2 with Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Coletta --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Takes four votes, I believe.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To approve?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: To take any action on a conditional use;
isn't that correct?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Four votes for approval, I think.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Need four to approve.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. It takes four votes to approve.
For example, if you have a 2-2 vote to approve, it would not be -- it
would not be approved either, and it would go into limbo or failure.
So three votes to deny will pass.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
Page 155
October 23-24, 2007
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You know, I think that
something else we ought to do is take some action on maybe
proposing something to go into the Land Development Code that
specifically addresses our sending lands and NRP A areas about fish
farming in general and mining in general in these very sensitive areas.
And I think that is -- I'm sure that's for a future discussion, but I
think we ought to address that quickly. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree with you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's move on to the next
item, Mr. Mudd.
Item #8B
PETITION HD-2007-AR-11828, THE COLLIER COUNTY
HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION
BOARD, REQUESTS A HISTORICAL DESIGNATION FOR THE
DR. NEHRLING TROPICAL GARDEN LOCATED ON COLLIER
COUNTY PROPERTY AND LEASED BY THE NAPLES ZOO.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CURRENT ZONING OF THE
PARCEL IS C-3 AND "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL, CONSIST
OF 13.35 ACRE AND IS LOCATED AT 1590 GOODLETTE
ROAD NORTH, SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE
25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - MOTION TO
RETURN TO THE BOARD AT A FUTURE MEETING
W IRECOMMENDA TIONS WITH A REVISED RESOLUTION -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 8B. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members.
Page 156
October 23-24, 2007
It's HD-2007-AR-11828, the Collier County Historical and
Archaeologic Preservation Board requests a historical designation for
the Dr. Nehrling tropical garden located on Collier County property
and leased by the Naples Zoo.
The subject property current zoning of the parcel is C-3 and A
rural agricultural consisting of 13.35 acres and is located at 1590
Goodlette Road North, Section 27, Township 49 south, Range 25 east,
Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All people that would wish to
participate in this particular agenda item, please stand at this time and
be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now for ex parte disclosure by
the part of the commissioners; we'll start with you, Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have received several pieces of
correspondence supporting this proposal and discussing the issue. I
have also been down to the Naples Zoo to take a tour of the area, and I
have had the limits of the Nehrling tropical garden identified, and I
have been shown the improvements and expansion that is taking place
at the zoo.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. I have received email
on this from David Tetzlaff of the zoo, and I've also received
correspondence with the County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow, and I believe
I've had some other email in regards to support of this, and I've talked
with staff. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I've had a couple of meetings
with David Tetzlaff and also had the opportunity to tour the grounds,
and I've talked to staff about it.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've received many emails.
Page 157
October 23-24, 2007
I've called David on the telephone and I've spoken with staff, actually
a few different members of staff, about this. I think that's -- or do you
want me to name staff members? Staff; staff is staff, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Spoke to Mr. Tetzlaff and
received an email from him and also received an email from the
County Attorney's Office.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Mr. Mudd?
MS. ZONE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Melissa Zone,
Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land
Development.
The petition here today in front of you is brought to you by the
Collier County Historical and Archaeologic Preservation Board, and
they request that -- the Board of County Commissioners to officially
designate a 13.35-acre parcel that was developed as a tropical garden
by Dr. Henry Nehrling, who is a noted scientist and who contributed
to the protection of tropical plants in Florida.
The Historical and Archaeological Preservation Board is vested
with the power, authority, and jurisdiction to designate, regulate, and
administer historical and archaeologic resources in Collier County as
set forth in the LDC under the direct jurisdiction of the Board of
County Commissioners.
The Historical and Archaeological Preservation Board serves as
an advisory board to you. The intent of the historic board is to
increase public awareness of the importance and significance of
Collier County's historical and archaeological sites.
The historic board has been reviewing this site that is part of the
Naples Zoo for several years, but at the time when they started to
review it, it was under private ownership.
In 2004 there was -- Collier County had a referendum on the
ballot which was approved by the citizens of Collier County for not
Page 158
October 23-24, 2007
just this property, but also there was roughly around 130 acres, to
preserve that site, and it was passed that the citizens agreed to tax
themselves to preserve this area.
There are some issues here with -- and they're not really issues,
but that -- the benefits of the historic preservation of Dr. Nehrlings'
site, there are -- that are beneficial to Collier County, who is the owner
of this site, and that would be, they get not only recognition of
significance, but you also have the ability to register with the state as
well as the national historic sites as a historic designation which, in
turn, there are tax benefits.
Though they are a nonprofit, they are eligible for grant money,
which contributes to the enhancement of the zoo. There's
qualifications of financial assistance at the federal and state level as
well for -- if this does get designated as a historic site.
In your packet, on page 4 of the packet, the Historical and
Archaeologic Preservation Board recommended six recommendations
for you to consider. Staff reviewed all of the considerations but felt
that under number 6 where transportation services division had
requested that they not be part of the review process for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, and staff believes that they are eligible to have
this waiver because there was a cultural assessment done last year and
found there was nothing of significance in the area of a service road
that would be parallel to Goodlette-Frank.
And for that assessment, which is part of your packet, there was
nothing in that area for -- transportation would not be impeding or
putting any impacts to that area, so staff feels that all of the
recommendations by the Historical and Archaeological Board are
warranted except for number 6, which is, we recommended to -- that
transportation services division be granted an unconditional exemption
from having to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Ifthere's any questions regarding the petition, I'd like to be able
to answer them now.
Page 159
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No questions at this time.
MS. ZONE: Great, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Speakers?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have six speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead and call them up.
Each speaker has three minutes. Please state your name for the record
before you begin.
MS. FILSON: David Driapsa. He'll be followed by Patricia
Huff.
MR. DRIAPSA: For the record, David Driapsa. Please excuse
my voice. I have a speech impediment.
In 1915 Ed Crayton, president of the Naples Improvement
Company, wrote to Bruce Haldeman saying, it seems to me that if you
can get this gentlemen Nehrling to come to Naples, it might be quite
an acquisition.
The AHC archaeologic survey of the site relied heavily on my
original research about a decade ago. That survey strongly
recommended historic designation on its own merits.
Since my original research, I've continued exploring this property
and found many significant historical sites that are not listed on the
survey. Among them are the drainage canal dug by the -- along the
southern boundary of the garden by the Naples Improvement
Company and along Palm Avenue planted by Dr. Nehrling through
the garden west to east.
I urge you to allow historic designation of the Nehrling garden,
as it has great historical significance and that Collier County has a
historical preservation ordinance and it is obligated to protect historic
sites. One would have hoped particularly a site owned by the county.
It is also my recommendation and hope that a rigorous and
complete cultural landscape report be conducted preceding any
redevelopment of the site and that it becomes a guide for
redevelopment of the Naples Zoo. It should also be hoped that this
Page 160
October 23-24, 2007
property will be listed on state and national historic registries.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Patricia Huff. She'll be followed
by Betsy Perdichizzi.
MS. HUFF: Good afternoon. My name is Patricia Huff. I'm a
resident of Collier County, and I am a member of the Board of the
Archaeological and Historical Preservation.
Our board is recommending that Dr. Nehrling's tropical gardens
be listed -- given the historical designation.
Over the past two years, we have carefully considered all of the
facts involving the historic designation. We have toured the zoo. We
support the zoo in all of its efforts to improve the facilities and to grow
and to expand, but we also feel like it's very important to have a
historic designation for this 13.3 acres.
So I just want to let you know that we've carefully considered
this over -- since 2005 at 16 different monthly meetings.
If you have any questions, let me know. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Betsy Perdichizzi. She'll be
followed by Ray Carroll. Sorry if I mispronounced your name.
MS. PERDICHIZZI: Perdichizzi, Betsy Perdichizzi, chairman of
the Historical! Archaeologic Preservation Board, and I want to thank
you for reappointing me for another term. I consider it a privilege and
an honor to serve on the board and to serve as chair.
I do want to say that we have met about the Nehrling garden so
many times since 19 -- I mean since 2005, and we are very proud of
the Collier County citizens for voting to tax themselves to preserve
this area. And I think it's only beneficial that it's -- it retain its
historical designation for the reasons that Melissa Zone pointed out, in
the future getting points for state grants and funding for that.
My family has enjoyed going to the zoo. We're certainly in favor
of having a viable -- I know the -- as the zoo, people -- viable
operation to continue renting the space and providing the citizens of
Page 161
October 23-24, 2007
the county with the zoo, but we'd also like to see Dr. Henry Nehrling's
legacy preserved. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Ray Carroll. He'll be followed by
Richard Nehrling.
MR. CARROLL: Good afternoon. I'm Ray Carroll. I'm a
member of the zoo board. Thank you for your time.
The striking characteristic of this issue is how much agreement
there is. There's a long history and we have a PowerPoint to show you
that I'm not going to run right now, but it demonstrates, among other
things, years and years of history of telling about Mr. Nehrling and the
gardens.
The fact that the specimen trees exist and the old buildings exist
is largely due to what's already happened at Caribbean Gardens,
Jungle Larry's African Safari and the Zoo at Naples. We've been
preserving the history and we will continue to do so.
The only problem I think we have with this is it's scary because
here's another layer of bureaucracy that looks like it might want to get
in the way of what we're trying to do thinking we were doing the
public's will in moving forward with the zoo.
There's some disagreement on our board about how strong a
stance we should take or I should tell you that we're taking today, and
the zoo board's official position is that we don't want to be designated
historic. The fact is, we've already done what was necessary for this
item to come before you today because we've preserved it up to this
point.
If it were up to Ray Carroll alone, I would urge you to apply
historical designation to the specimen, the sites that the survey
identified as being very important, and the two old buildings that we're
still using.
The problem we see is that if you put this blanket over 13 acres,
about one-third of the area that we're working in, over and over and
over it's going to come up for review, there'll be another layer of
Page 162
October 23-24, 2007
delay, there'll be more and more concerned, and what we are about is
improving the zoo, and in the meantime, preserving the legacy,
because we've been doing that.
I appreciate the struggle that it represents. I think sometimes zoo
people look this way and historic people look this way and they agree
not to look at the same thing. But there's an awful lot of agreement
here. All the zoo is really requesting is some reasonableness in a
smaller application of the historic designation or, perhaps, trusting us
to go forward doing what we've been doing all along. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Richard Nehrling. He'll be
followed by Sharon Kenny.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Halas
had a question for Pat (sic) Carroll?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ray Carroll, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ray Carroll, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question, sir, is, if you could
respond to this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I need you to come back up to the
microphone, please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There was, I believe, a number of
meetings that took place. Were you part of the stakeholders in regard
to those meetings?
MR. CARROLL: I'm not understanding what you're asking me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There was a number of meetings, I
believe, that took place with the historical society, and I was hoping
that they included you in those meetings. Did they or did they not?
MR. CARROLL: I did attend one of their meetings recently,
yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But were you involved in
any -- of all the number of meetings that might have been called? I
think this has been going over a process of a couple of years.
MR. CARROLL: I was not.
Page 163
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. NEHRLING: Good afternoon, Chairman and
Commissioners. Richard Nehrling from Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida.
Thank you for allowing me to be here today, and more importantly,
thank you for even having this on your agenda today.
I just heard this gentleman speak, and obviously I'm in full
support of this designation and just appreciate the Collier County
historical board for even having this on your agenda today.
When I came here for the first time 12 years ago, to be quite
honest, there was very little there that mentioned my
great-grandfather. I found like a two-blurb sentence in their brochure
that mentioned his name. And the botanist at the time really couldn't
tell me which trees were my great-grandfather's or which area.
I mean, he had a general idea, but he really just said, I'm not sure
if these were your great-grandfather's plantings or Mr. Fleischmann's.
But in any case, I just want to let you know how much I appreciate the
opportunity for this historical designation. I think it's very important.
I think it's long overdue, that he was an early part of your community
that you probably know very little about because he wasn't somebody
that brought a lot of attention to himself.
And to be quite honest, I said I visited here the first time 12 years
ago. It was just shortly before that that I actually even found out who
he was and what he was all about, and this was through a cousin that I
met in Savannah on a business trip. And my cousin sat me down and
said, what do you know about your great-grandfather?
And I said, oh, I heard he was some kind of plant guy, and he got
a chuckle out of this. And he said, well, there's a little bit more to the
story that you should know about. And he told me about his Goth"
(sic) garden, and I'd heard of that. I'd actually been there when I was
young child.
And he said, what about the Naples garden? And I go, what are
you talking about? And he said, well, there's another garden he
Page 164
October 23-24, 2007
planted in South Florida in Naples. And he said, and you live in -- I
was in Jacksonville at the time.
And he said, you live in Florida. Maybe you should go down
there and visit it. Well, it was just shortly after that that my wife and I
made our first trip to Naples and visited this property, and I was just
amazed. I mean, I was amazed that I was walking on land and seeing,
you know, wonderful trees and things that my great-grandfather may
have planted.
Again, there really wasn't a lot of -- lot of information there
pertaining to that, but obviously I knew that he was at this location.
Well, since that time, I've worked, myself and citizens across
Florida, to preserve his other garden near Orlando. It's about 10 miles
west of downtown Orlando. And we have been working steadily on
that for over a decade. And unfortunately that garden is privately
owned, and the current owner has it up for sale, and we're doing
everything we can, including just recently applying for a state grant, to
get this garden off the market.
But anyway, a lot of people really, up till recently, knew very
little about Henry Nehrling. He did something very special. And Mr.
Driapsa over here has spent over a decade researching this person and
his life and his story here, not only in Naples, but in Orlando, and--
oop, time up?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Go ahead and wind it up.
MR. NEHRLING: Okay, I'll wind it up.
As far as the zoo board is concerned and the Tetzlaff family, I
would -- if you would allow me, I'd like to submit a document to you,
and that's a letter that I got from Tim Tetzlaff concerning the
preservation of his other garden, and this was before we went before
the County Board of Commissioners in Orange County.
And if you'll allow me, I'd just like to submit a copy of this to
each of you so you could see his words and how we felt about how
important it was that this other garden be preserved, and I would hope
Page 165
October 23-24, 2007
his words would apply for this garden here today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We thank you, sir.
MR. NEHRLING: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may submit it, but I have to warn
you that I doubt the commissioners will seriously have time to read it
before they have to reach a decision.
MR. NEHRLING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's always best to submit documents
like this prior to the meeting --
MR. NEHRLING: I'm sure, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- three days ahead of time.
MR. NEHRLING: I understand. Well, I mean, if you could look
it over while you're making your decision, there's a couple wonderful
quotes in here from him.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, thank you, sir. We appreciate
it.
MR. NEHRLING: Thank you very much. Thank you for your
time.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Sharon Kenny.
MS. KENNY: Good afternoon. My name is Sharon Kenny. I'm
a resident of Collier County and I am a member of the Archaeological
and Historical Preservation Board for the past year. Thank you very
much. I've been very proud to serve on that board as your
representative.
I also was appointed to the zoo board just recently within the last
few months to try to see that we could come to more of an agreement
over this -- over this document. And I just want to -- for Mr. Halas's
benefit, just a correction, your question to Mr. Mr. Carroll. There are
-- were over the last two years many, many zoo board members as
well as Mr. Tetzlaff that attended the Archaeologic and Historical
Preservation Board meetings whenever this item was on the agenda.
Over the last two years, there were extensive times when they got
Page 166
October 23-24, 2007
together.
I have just a couple notes. I'm a citizen of this county. I should
also mention that I'm representing myself at this -- at this time.
I am a citizen of this county who has seen too much development
and too much lost over the years. I voted three years ago to tax myself
to stop this land from being tom up for condos. I believe if this land
and this garden is important, then we should protect it properly, as best
we can, and that's with the historical designation.
I hope that the zoo is never sold, but it could be sold, and the new
owner or an incoming county commission, for that matter, could be
concerned -- could not be concerned about preserving his garden at
all.
Unfortunately, we all have first-hand experience with that. Just
two years ago the Haldeman house, the oldest house in Naples --
which was built in 1886 at the foot of the Naples Pier, it had been built
and in the same family for more than a 100 years -- it was sold.
A group of Collier County citizens, of which I was a member,
lobbied Naples City Council to save the Haldeman house, and the
council wanted to save it, but they said their hands were tied. They
couldn't because it had never been historically designated. The house
was tom down and there's one megahouse and a lot of empty space
that's trying to be sold for other houses on that site right now.
I think it's important for the commission to vote for historical
designation because if this land, if this Nehrling garden site is not
historically significant enough and if as owners of the land ourselves,
if we don't believe in designating our own land, then -- because our
own rules are too restrictive and there would be too many meetings
involved, then I don't see why we have a historic designation process
at all.
Historic designation is something the Collier County government
encourages for both private and public property owners of historically
significant lands and buildings in Collier County. I certainly hope that
Page 167
October 23-24,2007
as officials elected to protect this county for its citizens, that you will
vote to protect your own historically significant land for our children
and grandchildren so they can all enjoy Dr. Nehrling's legacy. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
That's it, correct?
MS. FILSON: Yes, that's your final speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Commissioners, I am
troubled about this because there doesn't appear to be agreement. I'm
troubled that there might be some concern on the part of the zoo that
unnecessary restrictions are going to be applied to the improvements
that are taking place in the zoo. I would have hoped that these issues
would have been worked out before they came to us.
Now we're going to have to conjure up somehow all of the ways
that historical designation might in some way affect the zoo negatively
in the future. I think Mr. Nehrling's contributions are significant and
have to be recognized and have to be preserved, but I would like to
find a way to do that at the same time that we are assuring or
contributing to the success of the Naples Zoo.
I can tell you that the majority of the people -- and I want to be
very careful about this because I don't want to minimize the
significance of the garden that Mr. -- Dr. Nehrling created, but I -- I
can tell you that when the issue came up to preserve this, save the zoo
was a rallying cry of all of the people who voted in support of this,
save the zoo.
And I have personally seen where the zoo has made sure that the
plant specimens that Dr. Nehrling certainly should be credited for
have been identified there and more work can be done to do that more
specifically, and I feel certain that the zoo would do that.
But I am troubled that we're being asked to make a decision right
now when we have no way of defining any adverse impact on the zoo.
Page 168
October 23-24, 2007
That's what I'm missing.
And Mr. Carroll, you've covered the issues fairly generally, but if
the zoo has any specific concerns and if you would like to see some
changes to the historic designation that would protect your interests, I
would be very interested in hearing about it, and I think we need to
hear about it before we make a decision.
So I don't know how you feel, if you want us to make a decision
on the basis of what is before us right now or whether you would like
to have some additional time to evaluate the implications of this
proposal, and suggest some changes.
MR. CARROLL: Thanks for your comments. As a real estate
appraiser, I suppose it's my business to predict the future and I have to
tell you that within my professional practice, I'm not very good at that.
I certainly am not very good at predicting what will happen going
forward in the zoo in this matter. And I want to be very careful,
having come from a family that's been here a long, long time, not to
do anything to undermine historic preservation that's reasonable and
just.
The passion you've seen expressed today is part of what's
frightening to a zoo person because not all of it is based on correct
history or facts. And we on the zoo board feel that we own a certain
riotous credit for what is already there and what we intend to preserve.
We feel the burden very heavily of the public's mandate, if that's
what it was, to keep and improve the zoo. Furthermore, we're under a
legal obligation to Collier County by virtue of the lease to do that very
thing, and the lease mentions specifically preservation and protection
of the Nehrling legacy remnant.
The archaeologic and historical survey that's been alluded to here
is, I think, part of your package. You've had a chance to look at it.
You'll see that the conclusion of that survey was that there was no
garden anymore.
But there are specimen trees and there are specific locations that
Page 169
October 23-24, 2007
deserve special consideration, and there are a couple of old buildings
still existing that have been and need to be preserved. There is no
disagreement on those points, none. In fact, the reason much of that is
still here can probably be credited to things that have been done at the
zoo to see to it.
I expressed to you that the zoo board's officials position's that we
would not have to have a blanket laid over us. I can say at the same
time that as an individual who's lived here a long, long time, I have
sympathy with the efforts of the historical preservation board.
I think mostly though, it is the Zoo at Naples which encompasses
some of what was once Mr. Nehrling's garden, and we've identified
that and will continue to do so.
All of us on the zoo board are responsible public individuals.
Will that always be the case? I don't know. All of the people that I
know on the historical preservation board are, likewise, responsible
public individuals. Will that continue into the future? I do not know.
The county commission will always be a responsible public body, I'm
certain of that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wish I were.
MR. CARROLL: One has to have faith. The fact is that if you
ask me, what does the zoo board want, we do not want to be
designated historical. If there is common ground to be found in
between, it probably won't satisfy everybody but it may be the best
you can do.
And my personal opinion, subject to criticism later, is that there
are clearly specimen trees. The survey that was done specified certain
defined areas -- all of these can be identified on the ground -- and
there are a couple of old buildings. Everybody agrees those are very
important.
It makes sense to me that the historic designation be applied to
those things, that they be specifically identified so there can be no
mistake about it, and we go forward as we have been going forward to
Page 170
October 23-24, 2007
preserve that legacy. Did that even get close to answering your
question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It gets a lot closer for me, and I
think that that -- that, perhaps, is the crux of the problem. You've used
the terms like blanket and specific designation. I can understand how
a specific designation can be much more effective because you can
clearly identify those elements that are essential for historic
preservation, whereas, a blanket categorization for historical and
archaeologic purposes can be subject to great interpretation that is,
perhaps, not in the best interests of everyone.
So I guess my feeling is, what I would like to see, is every --
maybe we can make this assumption, maybe we can't. But Dr.
Nehrling certainly was the person who provided the initial impetus to
creating that garden and gathering all those specimen plants and trees.
I'd like to see his name on every plaque that identifies those. I also
believe that the Fleischmanns and the Tetzlaffs have done a lot in that
respect also. And to the extent that that can be identified, I wouldn't--
I'd be happy to see them get some credit for what they've done.
And I am very reluctant just to -- just to wave a magic wand over
an area and say, let's create a historical designation for this area
without understanding the implications of it. But I will have
absolutely no reluctance whatsoever to have Dr. Nehrling's buildings,
those that have been specifically identified, and all of his specimen
plants designated with his name. That would delight me to do that.
And if we can reach some conclusion that accomplishes that, I would
strongly support it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was just going to say
something similar. If we just had a blanket historical preservation
ruling, then that would be one context, but that really couldn't go
through if the zoo objected to it because they can't have that, so the
ground in the middle is exactly what you proposed; take the important
Page 171
October 23-24, 2007
things -- I think the zoo's already tried to identify these things and put
the names on them properly now and give credit where credit is due.
Certainly they could add some more. I don't think they've given
themselves credit, for the Tetzlaffs, I mean.
And I think that with those things identified and put in
preservation, then both have accomplished something without being at
the end of the scope, so I totally agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I would like to make a
motion that we ask the representatives of the zoo and the
Historical! Archaeologic Preservation Board to come back to us with
specific identifications of those areas that should be designated with
historical significance and then let us -- let us approve that. It would
be a lot easier for me to --
MR. CARROLL: I wonder if you ought to hear from the
historical board president.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be fine, yeah, that
would be -- that's the chairman's call, but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Yeah. I would be more than
happy to accommodate. You know, I tell you what. We're past the
point of a break right now. Why don't we take a break while they're
having a conference, and then we'll come back in 10 minutes. That
work for you?
(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.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. If! remember correctly when
we broke off, Commissioner Coyle was persuading the participants to
broker a deal during the break.
Commissioner Coyle, back to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Who brokered the deal?
MS. ZONE: I did.
Page 172
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right.
MS. ZONE: I'm Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the
Department of Zoning and Land Development. I would like to bring
up the chair people of the zoo board as well as the Historical and
Archaeologic Preservation Board, if they could.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You only have three minutes each.
MS. ZONE: I know, but I want you to know --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twenty people.
MS. ZONE: Just three of us. And in case there were questions,
I'd like Larry to be sworn in just for the record.
(The speaker was duly sworn.)
MS. ZONE: Thank you for letting us come back. I think this is a
solution that hopefully will please everyone.
On -- in your packet, page 95 of 107, that shows an aerial of the
Naples Zoo which shows historic specimen trees, and what we're in
agreement with is those trees that have been pointed out would stay.
If by chance of a natural event or the tree dying, we understand if they
don't -- if they want to replant them, great, if not, that's the zoo's
decision, but those trees will not be removed.
If you look towards -- closer to where the number 48 is, you have
the Caribbean Gardens Gatehouse and Gift Shop. We'd like to have
those structures maintained. If they cannot be maintained at that
specific site because of the master plan, then at least to be relocated
within that vicinity and preserved.
There are two other locations that are dotted lines. One is the
vicinity of the Nehrling house site as well as a slat house, and they are
in agreement that if there's development that's going to be there, that a,
one-time, we would have an archaeologist there on site when they
come to develop that area to -- for whatever's part of their master plan.
The archaeologist is there, observes.
If they find anything, what they find can either go to the Collier
museum or if one of these gatehouses are used as a museum on site,
Page 173
October 23-24, 2007
then it could be preserved there. And if nothing is found there, then at
that point there is no more need to have an archaeologist every time
they come and develop in that area.
As well as staffs still asking for the transportation service
division to be exempt, because that road, during the survey was found,
there was nothing there.
So if the board is agreeable to these, we will, with the county
attorney -- work with the county attorney, change the resolution, make
it very specific what these recommendations are, approval by both
members of the boards, and bring it forward for signature.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sounds great to me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Couldn't ask for everything more.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Thank you very much.
MS. ZONE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good job.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Make it in the form ofa
motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, no. We're going to make a
motion --
MS. ZONE: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that you take these
recommendations, this agreement between both parties --
MS. ZONE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- back to the county attorney--
MS. ZONE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- draft a revised resolution and
bring it back for our approval.
MS. ZONE: Correct. If you would like--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's your second?
Page 174
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. MUDD: I'll get it on the summary.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Discussion? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to know -- I mean, I don't
feel comfortable what we're doing. Page 69 of 107, I have issues with
that insignia there, and are we really doing the right thing or are we
going to upset other people because of this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's interesting. I hadn't even
noticed that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never saw that before.
MS. ZONE: That was -- if you would like to preserve this
sketch, is that it, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'd love to. Let's frame it.
MS. ZONE: We could put it to the county zoo. But I'm asking --
this was something that was a proposed addition to that slat house.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: By who?
MS. ZONE: By Nehrling.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well then, I can't support the
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because of the cross T.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. ZONE: I'm sorry?
MR. MUDD: Swastika.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Swastika.
MS. ZONE: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. ZONE: Well, we don't have to preserve that. I didn't catch
that. I'm very --
MR. TETZLAFF: We'll cut that out.
MS. ZONE: That certainly -- but that is not the recommendation
Page 175
October 23-24, 2007
of the map and that does not have to be part of -- in fact, you can make
sure that that does not become part of the museum or the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're just missing my whole
point.
MS. ZONE: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If that is the feelings of Dr.
Nehrling, by doing what we're doing is going to upset a different part
of the community.
MS. ZONE: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think, if you don't mind, we have
to raise the question. That particular symbol means different things to
different people.
MS. ZONE: Correct.
MR. TETZLAFF: This was done back in the '20s.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, that's the point. It was done
before the Nazi party in Germany came to prominence and adopted
that symbol. It does have other meanings to other people, and I'm not
sure that we should -- we should imply that Dr. Nehrling had Nazi
leanings because the party didn't exist at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, maybe somebody
could just educate me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think -- I think if you're
going to preserve this particular document, there should be an
explanatory note concerning that, and that's the only way it should be
preserved.
MS. ZONE: This--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think maybe somebody has
an explanatory note to make to that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That particular symbol goes all the
back --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to Egypt.
Page 176
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not old enough to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not either.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I remember though.
MS. ZONE: Certainly would not use this as one of our exhibits
nor prouder moments of Collier County or any of the citizens.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It needs to be -- it needs to be
explained.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. ZONE: Certainly, and we could come up with something. I
would be happy to work with our county attorney to make that very
clear, that this isn't something that the county supports nor do they
recognize this as something --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think other people have the
idea that's going to explain it to me.
MS. ZONE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we now have a motion on the floor
and we have a second. Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by
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 the ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you.
Page 1 77
October 23-24, 2007
Item #14A
CRA TO EXECUTE THE IMMOKALEE REDEVELOPMENT
AREA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
(CRA) AND PENNY PHILLIPPI - MOTION FOR
COMMISSIONER COLETTA TO SHARE HIS OFFICE SPACE IN
IMMOKALEE WITH THE NEW CRA DIRECTOR - APPROVED;
MOTION TO ALLOW THE BUDGET OF $12,000 FOR THE
OFFICE IN IMMOKALEE TO BE OUTFITTED - APPROVED;
MOTION TO APPROVE EMPLOYMENT OF PENNY PHILLIPI
AS THE IMMOKALEE CRA DIRECTOR - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- or gets us to
around a three o'clock time certain. And you have a new director that
came into town, your CRA director came into town for this specific
item, and we'll probably have to go back and start packing.
But this is 14A, and it's basically to be heard on or after three
p.m., and she was quite punctual as far as her arrival is concerned.
It's a recommendation that the Community Redevelopment
Agency approve and execute the Immokalee Redevelopment Area
Executive Director Employment Agreement between the Community
Redevelopment Agency, CRA, and Penny Phillippi. And Mr. Fred
Thomas --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
MR. MUDD: I think you've got to switch hats. I think this is --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, forgive me. Here you go,
Commissioner Fiala.
MR. MUDD: So you have to adjourn one meeting, or --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hereby adjourn this meeting.
Page 178
October 23-24,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, not --
MR. MUDD: Not adjourn, but recess.
MR. WEIGEL: Recess.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Recess this commission meeting, and
Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And the CRA meeting is
open.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
MR. THOMAS: Before you approve it -- before you approve
that, you've got to do some other things, housekeeping things, so we
can approve it, okay, sir.
My name is Fred Thomas. I'm the Chairman of your C -- the
Citizens Advisory Group for your CRA.
I want to first thank Commissioner Coletta for offering to let her
share his office space until we can get a permanent location for her, so
I need a motion that allows us to move into Commissioner Coletta's
office space with her and an administrative assistant.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'll support it as long as it's
permanent.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well--
MR. THOMAS~ What he's referring to is the fact that once I get
her trained, you all won't have to see me anymore.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll support that, yeah, I'll support
that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We've got two motions on the floor here.
I think we ought to first get her into office before we give her -- I
mean, first get her --
MR. THOMAS: I want to give her an office.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- a designation before we give her an
Page 179
October 23-24, 2007
office.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: She could work out of her car if
it doesn't go out.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Don't you think that would work?
MR. THOMAS: I want to make sure she knows she has an office
before she signs the agreement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Then we'll skip the first --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I withdraw my motion, fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'll with --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll withdraw my second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I made the motion to approve
that this young lady gets to use Commissioner Coletta's work space.
MR. THOMAS: For her and her administrative assistant.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no. Office.
MR. THOMAS: Office space.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And his truck.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's more than fair.
MR. THOMAS: Thank you very much, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, I have a motion on the floor
by Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Coyle to
allow the CRA director, whomever that person may be, to use
Commissioner Coletta's office when they're working in Immokalee; is
that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 180
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion -- anyone opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion approved.
MR. THOMAS: Second thing we need to do, up to about
$12,000 in expenditures are already budgeted for that office, that
temporary space, until we can find our permanent location. We need a
motion to approve the expenditures for up to 12,000 to house the -- to
furnish the office.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Isn't his office already furnished?
MR. THOMAS: No. We have to have special things like
typewriters and computers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Desk and chairs.
MR. THOMAS: You know, the kind of things that let her do the
job that she has to do out in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That includes taking out the cot.
MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor
and a second to outfit the office with $12,000 worth of furnishings or
however --
MR. THOMAS: Up to, up to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Up to. And where's the --
MR. THOMAS: Not to include.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- money coming from?
MR. THOMAS: Out of our CRA budget for it, ma'am.
MR. MUDD: CRA.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's already budgeted, okay.
MR. THOMAS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 181
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion carried.
MR. THOMAS: Now I would like to introduce you to Penny
Phillippi who comes to us from Highlands County.
Penny?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I just want to
step up here and say thank you for this opportunity and I'm looking
forward to a productive tenure as executive director of the CRA, and
we're looking forward to implementing your master plan for that area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions?
I have a question, in may.
MR. THOMAS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Could you tell me what experience
you'd had in the field of CRAs? I notice you have wonderful
experience in housing and housing development and a lot of the
HOME and SHIP funds and so forth, but I -- when I read through your
resume, I saw nothing about CRAs.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, that's because I have no CRA
experience. What I have is a wealth of experience in the
redevelopment and revitalization of communities. We've done two
massive empowerment zones, one for the City of Knoxville and one
for the City of Portsmouth and Norfolk, Virginia, which involved a
huge revitalization process and certain census tracts.
And in local government, we've done many of these smaller
revitalizations in areas where we deal with persons who are extremely
low income, empower them, bring in employment, bring in housing,
Page 182
October 23-24, 2007
bring in job training, and it's a whole process of getting people up and
on their feet again.
So my experience is very diverse, and I should have probably
been in a CRA a long time ago.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, would you be willing to go to some
of the CRA conferences? I know our people just went recently from
the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA, and they say that they pick up a
wealth of information, new ideas, and new and fresh ideas are so
important to any area that's trying to recover.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Oh, absolutely, absolutely, and especially in
have Chairman Coletta's truck, that would be great.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you've got it now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Got a rifle rack in it too.
MR. THOMAS: She mentioned very casually what she did in
Portsmouth. You know I have history in Norfolk/Portsmouth to come
in this direction, and she brought together a community in Portsmouth
and the community in Norfolk, across a major waterway, two different
sets of elected officials to come together and development a
community in a very positive, connected kind of way. So I think she's
going to be the kind of person that allows me to go into the woods and
relax.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wow.
MR. THOMAS: So please approve her employment contract.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If that's the case, I'll vote for a
raise right now. No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I just wanted to get all of that --
being the CRA chairman, I just wanted to make sure all of that stuff
was on the record.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Thank you. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now we're going to approve her
Page 183
October 23-24, 2007
employment contract now, right?
MR. MUDD: I believe that's your next item, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Coletta is
going to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'm going to second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Commissioner Coyle's
second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Thank you very much. In
case I didn't hear that, I'm glad that you let me know what was being
said. We playa lot, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER COLETT A: We have to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We need to do that.
Any other comments or concerns or questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. THOMAS: Ma'am, the key to the office.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The CRA board meeting is now
adjourned.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wonderful.
Page 184
October 23-24, 2007
Item #10B
DISCUSSION FOR THE UPCOMING JOINT BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLIER COUNTY
LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION PRE 2008 LEGISLATIVE
SESSION WORKSHOP'S PROPOSED ISSUES - APPROVED
W/CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, next item I'd like to go to
is lOB. We have a number of people here to speak to us about our --
not a number. We have a couple of people here that'd like to speak to
us about our legislative initiatives coming up, what they're going to be.
So if we could go to that, I would appreciate it very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is lOB. It's a
recommendation to approve for discussion at the upcoming joint
Board of Collier County and Collier County legislative delegation
pre-2008 legislative session workshop, the attached list of proposed
Issues.
And Ms. Debbie Wight, Assistant to the County Manager, will
present.
MS. WIGHT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. You have before
you the list of proposed priorities. They do include the 2007 list minus
those that were the ATV issue, obviously. We also have additions,
those that Commissioner Henning proposed as well as those that
Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coyle -- and I am prepared to
give you an update on each issue, or if you have questions, whatever is
your pleasure at this point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well--
MS. WIGHT: Or if you want to discuss them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, may I suggest that we do
several things here, is that we've got speakers here. We could take the
speakers up front so that we can get right on to discussion, then go
Page 185
October 23-24, 2007
down them in order and address each item to see if there's support of
three commissioners or not.
So if there's a problem with that, why don't we go directly -- I
believe you're one of the speakers?
No, you're here to answer questions, correct?
MR. ARNOLD: (Nods head.)
MS. WIGHT: In may, also the CCNA issue, Steve Carnell is
here, and he has some updated information for you as well. He did
attend the recent Florida Association of Counties conference and did
have a good positive reception there and has been asked to attend the
upcoming one in November in St. Johns County. So I'd like ifhe
could have a chance to speak to you on that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course he can, but let's first take
the speakers --
MS. WIGHT: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and then we'll go on with the rest of
it.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have three speakers. Ken
Thompson.
MS. SERRATA: He had to leave.
MS. FILSON: Essie Serrata. She'll be followed by Marcia (sic)
Adame.
MS. SERRATA: Good afternoon. My name is Essie Serrata.
I'm the Executive Director of the Collier County Housing Authority.
And we're on there again for, I guess, per Commissioner Henning, to
take over -- for you guys to discuss taking over the Housing Authority
and taking it to the legislators.
So at this point I guess I would love to hear the discussion and
maybe comment at a later time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't you make yourself
available. If we have some questions, we'll call on you.
MS. SERRA T A: I will. I'll be here.
Page 186
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Marcia, Marcie Adame.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that was easy. I think that's it
for the speakers. Why don't we go ahead with the presentation.
MS. WIGHT: Commissioners, would you like an update? Do
you want to go down each item? Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, if you think the -- did you want
to bring the update in on certain items, or how best do you think we
should handle this?
MS. WIGHT: It's -- it depends on how much information you
would like. When I gave you the list and asked for your input, I gave
you the summary --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MS. WIGHT: -- from the 2007 legislative session, but I have an
update since then going into the 2008 session.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we do it this way. I mean,
we're all fairly familiar with the majority of items on here.
MS. WIGHT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go to each item down,
see ifthere's support to keep that item going forward, and if questions
or discussion takes place, we'll be able to take direction from that.
MS. WIGHT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll have you read it off,
starting with decrease insurance costs.
MS. WIGHT: Decrease insurance costs. Okay. I can tell you as
far as that, in early 2007 the legislature did hold a special session to
address the property insurance crisis in the State of Florida, which you
all are aware of.
The legislature ultimately passed the legislation which allows
citizens that are state insured to expand insurance products,
temporarily freeze rates and cancellations and to subsidize the
Page 187
October 23-24, 2007
reinsurance market, theoretically providing for lower insurance
premIUms.
Unfortunately, this has not happened, as many companies have
filed for rate increases. Just recently, the attorney general issued
subpoenas to insurance companies to justify recent rate requests, so
that's the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. How do you feel, fellow
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Certainly it's a desirable goal, in
my opinion. But the key is not to do what the insurance -- or the
legislature has done, which is to put all the risk onto Florida taxpayers.
I'd like to convince them to take a close look at what they've done and
see if they can't do a better job with it. I don't know how you
convince them to do anything though. We haven't had a lot of success
in the past.
MS. WIGHT: We'd like to keep it on the list as priority?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to keep it on the list, yeah.
You might want to say, continue efforts to decrease insurance costs
because they clearly are working on it. It's just that the solutions
they've come up with are not very effective.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. How do you feel,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it's an important issue, and
as Commissioner Coyle said, I don't think that we should continue to
put the burden on the citizens here in the State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I feel likewise. How
about you, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And just make a quick statement
Page 188
October 23-24, 2007
about that. One of the things they've done is to decrease the ability of
property owners to get insurance under the Citizens Insurance
program because unless you've got shutters on your windows, you're
not even eligible. And if your home cost more than X amount, as is
likely to do in Collier County, you're not eligible to participate.
So they have eliminated a large number of people from being
able to get insurance at all under this state program, and they've made
it more costly for the people who can qualify for it. But those are
things that we need to work out with the legislators somehow.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Keep moving forward here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. WIGHT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Affordable housing?
MS. WIGHT: Affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Affordable housing, I believe that
that's an issue that the state needs to take up in regards to releasing
more Sadowski funds.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you want to elaborate that (sic)? I
think we all agree, include that in there.
MS. WIGHT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's always been the stance of
the Florida Association of Counties.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Keep the Sadowski fund or the
housing trust fund whole.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we put that specific
statement in here? Rather than just say affordable housing, you know,
a specific statement of releasing more funds --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: From the Sadowski.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay.
MR. MUDD: Or you want to say remove the cap on the
Sadowski?
MS. WIGHT: Which they didn't do last session.
Page 189
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Remove the cap on the Sadowski
fund.
MR. MUDD: Cap is what's causing you--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is what's causing the problem, the
cap.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think we got agreement on
that.
MS. WIGHT: Okay. Reduce attorney court fees. As you recall
last session, we did have legislative language go forth, but it didn't -- it
didn't make it.
MR. MUDD: Get out of committee.
MS. WIGHT: Didn't get out of committee.
MR. MUDD: And the issue here was, you have a six-month
hiatus between the time when you start doing eminent domain actions
before -- and during the height of madness in Collier County, the
escalation of property appraisals caused attorney fees to escalate when
the attorneys really hadn't done anything as far as the eminent domain
action was concerned when it was coming down to come to some
agreement.
And the issue was to try to find a rational part that says, all right,
you leave the law as is where you get 33 percent up to $250,000, and
then it's 10 percent thereafter as far as the cut, and that was the
language that you approved last year and it went forward, and we just
want to know if the board still supports that to keep moving.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I make a comment?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a comment about that very
briefly. It was a serious problem, it is a serious problem, anytime
when we are in a rising market where the real estate values are rising
rapidly. It is not so much of a problem now.
They are falling, so it will actually work to our advantage if it
Page 190
October 23-24, 2007
continues to fall, but I don't know how long that will take.
But the point is, we've got a lot of things on the list. Is this one
we want to pull out and put back in at a point in time when it's more
advantageous to do it, or do we want to keep banging on this one and
people are going to say, well, it couldn't possibly be causing you any
problem in a down market so why should we pay any attention to it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a good point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, let's pull it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We get too many items in here, it
looks like a Chinese menu. We're going to overwhelm anyone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we're going to remove that one?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Temporarily.
MS. WIGHT: Direction of the board, temporarily remove.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep, for this year.
MS. WIGHT: Okay. Last year we had oppose portability of
homestead property assessments, and this year Commissioner
Henning asked me to put that he supports this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So do I, by the way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Supports the portability or supports
opposing the portability?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Support the portability.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. WIGHT: Support, right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I support the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we remove the word
oppose or -- I'll let Commissioner Henning speak for himself.
MS. WIGHT: Well, if the rest of you agreed with the supporting
portability, that's the way to do it, remove the portability, the word
Page 191
October 23-24, 2007
opposed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're talking way out of order here.
Let's go to Commissioner Henning since it was his suggestion, then
come back to Commissioner Halas, then we'll go back to
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you must have told them
how I felt because that's how they're addressing it now is --
MS. WIGHT: No, absolutely not, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just kidding you; I'mjust
kidding you.
MS. WIGHT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's what they're
addressing today at the legislature or the special session. There's no
need to have this on our priority list because it's going to be addressed
in the special election. So I would recommend just removing that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In may, I don't agree. I'll tell you
why, it would be great to have something that's happening up there
that we're in agreement with.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you know--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It will change before you get to the
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, that might be the poison pill.
Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we don't know exactly
how it's going to be worded or anything like that. Why don't we wait
on that and voice our concerns or support to the legislation delegation
at an upcoming meeting. And by the way, we'll have another meeting
coming up, and we'll know what that issue is and we can talk to them
and tell them how it affects and how it doesn't, or we like it, we don't
like it, whatever.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we should keep it on until that
point in time, and then take it off.
Page 192
October 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: Or you can put it -- something on there that says, if
it's on the special election ballot, then drop it from our list because it's
going to get voted on by the taxpayers of the State of Florida. And if
it's not on the list, you come back and you say you support it, and then
they can take it up at some kind oflegislation or an election in 2008.
MS. WIGHT: And in may, the latest to come out of the Senate
was full portability up to $1 million, and the House was the same, but
that may change.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That may change.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only way that I would support
portability of homestead is that it would have to remain in the home
county. I believe that it would be a real detriment to other counties,
such as rural counties that have a -- really have a low tax base, and
I've got a problem with that whereby somebody could sell their home
in Collier County and then go to one of those rural counties, and I
think it would mess things up. So I would only just go along with
portability in the home county that it originated in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's try to firm our direction up.
Are we going to bring this up or we going to wait to see what
direction that it takes in the next couple of weeks, if it's going to go on
the ballot or not?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just wanted to chime in
and give my two cents' worth, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- whatever the rest of the
commission would like to do, I'll go along, but I just want to put that
on the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, your two cents is appreciated,
and we'll give you some change back in a little while.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 193
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we do this? We'll know
-- by the time we have our legislative workshop, we'll know what they
have done in the special session. If they have done nothing with
respect to portability, then we can make our preferences known at that
time. And I also personally support Commissioner Halas's position
that it should be within the county rather than between counties. But
we can always bring it back up at -- the week we have -- after the
special session. Can we agree on that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I think we can.
MS. WIGHT: It's November 2nd.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's move on to the next item.
MS. WIGHT: Okay. Partial year assessments.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Do I hear no?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other nos?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we've got four yeses or just
silence. Come on, some direction. A little more enthusiasm. Yes or
no, Donna?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think you've got enough to do that
one. That's--
MS. WIGHT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're going to have to start
thinking of something to fill the voids in property taxes if the
legislature continues its current pace.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Direction.
MS. WIGHT: Move on to real estate transfer fee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MS. WIGHT: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the reason that's here -- and just so
you know -- this provision was included in a general bill offered
Page 194
October 23-24, 2007
during the 2007 session. Unfortunately the provision was tied to the
capping of impact fees in the same bill.
It was Senate Bill 532 which contained the real estate transfer fee
tied to the cap on impact fees. It died in committee last regular
session. The provision was not filed as a bill for 2008 as of this time,
and Senator Bennett was the champion of that particular issue last
seSSIOn.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He was the champion of capping
the impact fees.
MS. WIGHT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The real estate transfer fee was
actually a poison pill, okay, and that's why it wasn't -- and you can
correct me -- and that's why it didn't get out of committee. Okay. I'm
sorry. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could -- I want to hear that
explained, could we?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. Keith, did you want to brief us
on this, and introduce yourself to everyone.
MR. ARNOLD: Sure. For the record, Keith Arnold, and I
represent your interests in Tallahassee as your government affairs
liaison.
Commissioner Coyle's correct that Senator Bennett really, his
principal mode or his principal objective was to do away with and
reduce impact fees. He's made, certainly, no bones about that. He's
been very, very clear in his political objective, along with the Florida
homebuilders and others, have wanted to reduce impact fees. And, of
course, often we were the subject of his criticism and we were the
poster child in many respects for that effort.
As a -- sort of an overture toward us he, in this bill, suggested
that if we did, in fact, reduce or cap impact fees, that we could have a
real estate transfer fee. Well, of course, the opposing organizations to
-- generally to the real estate transfer fee are the Florida Board of
Page 195
October 23-24, 2007
Realtors, and so it sort of pitted the realtors against the homebuilders
and developers and, of course, when you have that sort of dynamics in
Tallahassee, things tend not to go anywhere.
And so I don't know -- I mean, again, you see that this has not
been filed for the regular session in 2008. I think it is clear that
Senator Bennett would like to reduce and have local governments rely
on less impact fees for the local government financing.
Something is likely to emerge from the legislature on impact fees
this year, as it has for the last several years. We've been able to beat
back all of those efforts, but I think if -- clearly your direction to me
over the years has been to protect impact fees. I don't see this bill
coming out in this forum this year, but I think you do need to have a
discussion on the direction. I presume that you will give me the same
direction as you have historically on impact fees, which is the
preservation of your local control over impact fees and your local
economy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning,
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, nobody has ever answered
the question for me, and I'll give you an example. Steve Carnell's
oldest child buys a lot in Golden Gate Estates and continues the
tradition of the Carnell family, and he builds -- or he or she builds a
house. There are no impact fees. There is no transfer of property
when they build a house but yet they will fill that house, keeping up
with the tradition. And that is the true impact of the need of
government.
You know, there is -- the only transfer you have is on the lot, but
the real impact of government is when they build a house and fill it up
with a bunch of kids.
So nobody's even been able to explain who's going to cover that
burden. I mean, a tax or a fee is really a tax, and it should be -- it
should have some kind of a nexus to it, or my house has paid an
Page 196
October 23-24, 2007
impact fee but yet when I sell it, it will pay another fee or a tax of the
same thing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you have a transfer fee, if you
have a real estate transfer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you have a real estate transfer.
So I mean, where's the fairness of that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So you're saying you think the
transfer tax is a better idea than --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, just the opposite. Unless
somebody explains how you cover those issues, then I don't see where
it's a fair tax.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there's no way to escape the
fact that it's an additional tax. There's no question about that. It is an
additional tax. It's just that it is a substitute for charging people who
are still living in their homes a higher property tax.
So if you're going to reduce property taxes and you need to fill up
a gap, you can't -- you don't want to -- you can't assess higher property
taxes because of legislative restrictions, and you look for an additional
source of revenue. Then you go to the real estate transfer fee and take
it out of the proceeds of the real estate sale.
So it is not a tax that is -- that is taxed all year long like property
taxes are. It's only on an occurrence of a single event, and it's
probably -- well, the only way you can characterize it is it's a gap
filler. If you can't get the money from increased property taxes, that's
another source of revenue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. I thought it was to
augment or replace impact fees. My apologies.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it could be both or either, it
doesn't matter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's right, both or either.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Keith, you want to add
some points to this, and then I'm going -- sorry to make you wait.
Page 197
October 23-24, 2007
MR. ARNOLD: Just one clarification. Staff and I met on this
about a month, month and a half ago. And I think Commissioner
Henning's characterization of this is exactly the proposal that we had
contemplated presenting to you, and that is, is that if they do try to
erode your ability to impose impact fees, that there would, in fact, as
Commissioner Henning has suggested, be an offset for the loss of
those revenues with the real estate transfer.
So maybe a way for you to wrestle with this issue is to say that if
there is no legislation which, indeed, erodes your local home rule
authority on impact fees, then you're not out there proposing a real
estate transfer tax. But if the legislature decides to do something in
the area of impact fees, then you need to have the ability to offset
without a real estate transfer fee.
And then the final thing I would say, which again, staff brought
to my attention, which I think is an important long-term discussion for
you and for other policymakers is, as Florida builds out, impact fees
are no longer going to be around unless Florida builds up.
And so at some point there will, indeed, need to be other sources
of revenue for infrastructure. And clearly, all counties right now are
going to experience less revenue for impact fees because of the
slowdown in the economy than they've had in the past, and that's a
separate equation for you to, from a pubic policy perspective, to
wrestle with.
But I think at least -- and I want to make sure I characterize this
correctly, Mr. Mudd, but I believe the discussion has been that we --
our position has been that if, indeed, the legislature tries to take away
from your ability to impose impact fees, that there be a one-per-one
offset with the real estate transfer fee.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, you haven't misspoken.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, let's see. No, I'm sorry. I really
do have to go in order.
Page 198
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner
Fiala, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Keith, do you -- do you feel that
the air up in Tallahassee's still prevalent in regards to eliminating
home rule and also creating a problem with putting a cap on impact
fees along with restricting ad valorem taxes?
MR. ARNOLD: Absolutely. I mean, the House met yesterday,
the House of Representatives, and they're contemplating some
constitutional changes which, indeed, would take away from your
ability to autonomously deal with property taxes, ad valorem taxes. It
would impose restrictions on you.
There are many proposals that are surfacing in Tallahassee, and
they may, in fact, be done this week. Their goal is to be done a week
from -- or excuse me -- by next Monday so that there will, indeed, be a
constitutional amendment on the ballot on January the 29th, which
would further take away your ability to impose ad valorem taxes.
So the air is filled with those who would diminish local
government's autonomy and take away from your ability to wrestle
with these issues, so I see a further erosion of that power in the next
week.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Since you've had
experiences up there as being a state rep, do you believe that these
people up there understand the impact that they're imposing on the 26
counties; if you restrict ad valorem taxes, if you restrict impact fees,
doesn't that really put us in a possibility of a statewide moratorium
because we can't make our -- meet our CIE? And a lot of counties at
this point can't have -- can't meet their capital improvements element.
MR. ARNOLD: I think the special session in May -- or June,
excuse me -- on property taxes and constitutional amendments dealing
with the property tax issue and the special session that is going on
concurrent with this discussion proved to me that many of them, in
Page 199
October 23-24, 2007
fact, do not know the full implications of what their initiatives and
decision -- and decisions imply on local government.
The reality is, is that local infrastructure needs will not go away
just because you devise a constitutional amendment to put before the
people of this state. It's going to put pressure on your other sources of
revenue.
But right now, as it sits right now, there are four or five major
proposals in Tallahassee, one which would give a property tax relief to
low-income seniors who, in this county, would pay zero property
taxes, zero, however you define a low-income senior, up to the median
prices of houses in Collier County.
The median price of a home in Collier County is roughly
450,000, I believe, right now. And so low-income seniors could have
a home valued at 450,000 and pay no property taxes in this
community.
There's another proposal which was passed last night by the
House which would give a similar -- not as -- not quite as aggressive
of a property tax relief -- to those who are first-time homebuyers. It
would give 25 percent of that median for first-time homebuyers.
Portability is in both the House and the Senate bill. It would
allow full portability up to a million dollars to transfer anywhere in the
State of Florida and also contained, particularly in the House bill, is a
Save our Homes type proposal which would cap all increases in ad
valorem revenues on all property to 5 percent, on all property, and
that's in the House proposal that was passed last night. That's not in
the Senate proposal.
So it's a very fluid process right now, but within the next week, I
would -- I would suspect that the legislature does conclude with this
discussion, and at the end of the day, there will be a greater erosion of
local home rule autonomy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the good news. What's the bad
news? Just kidding.
Page 200
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it's interesting, as they take more
and more of our operating money away from us, take more and more
and more of our home rule from us, they also pour more and more of
the financial responsibilities upon us. Isn't that a cute picture, huh?
Well, I hope everybody hears that.
MR. ARNOLD: With fewer mechanisms to pay for that
additional responsibility.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely, right. They've just taken
them away from us, haven't they? My question is really going way
back to what we were originally talking about, and that was -- and that
was real estate transfer fees versus -- and we spoke of the impact fees.
And I was wondering, if we were in favor of real estate transfer
fees and if, indeed, that was something that passed, then that would
certainly put in place the reduction or capping of our impact fees; isn't
that correct?
MR. MUDD: Only -- only if they decide -- you can decide to do
that locally at your option right now, and if Tallahassee decides to do
that, they could do it. So there's two ways that they could -- they
could lower it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if we had one in place here, a
real estate transfer fee in place here, then they would figure we
wouldn't need the impact fees. I mean, stands to reason that's what
they'd think. Well, now they've got that money coming in, they've
decided to do this; now they don't need the impact fees. That's the
way I interpreted it. I could be dead wrong, but it sure makes a lot of
sense to me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. ARNOLD: In may, Mr. Chairman, I think that's the
correct interpretation. I think that's what Commissioner Henning was
Page 201
October 23-24,2007
alluding to earlier, and I think that that is -- that, of course, was the
design of this bill by Senator Bennett, and I think ultimately, at some
point in most communities, impact fees will cease to be a reliable
source of revenue because the counties are built out and real estate
transfer fees become a more viable option for the long-term future of
local communities.
Is that today? Probably not. But is it a discussion that you need
to be dealing with long-term? Probably so. But I think the issue
before you -- well, first of all, you can form this issue any way you
want to. Our recommendation, from a staff perspective, is that this
county's position be that if the legislature decides to erode your ability
to impose impact fees, that there is a one-per-one offset in your ability
to impose real estate transfer taxes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now, the last thing is, with
the real estate market as it is today and probably will be for at least
another year, I feel that by imposing a real estate transfer tax, we
probably won't get rid of the glut of homes that we have sitting on the
market now because we're going to be charging them more. Maybe it
would be more attractive to buy one of these thousands of homes
sitting on the market right now that don't have any type of an impact
fee being imposed on it because it's already been paid previously, and
no transfer tax as well.
And I'm hoping that that will work in favor of filling some of
these empty places while some of the homebuilders are sitting back
anyway not wanting to build any more because right now their
investments haven't gone anyplace. Seems to make sense anyway.
MR. MUDD: What we're basically saying to you is, if you get
capped on your impact fees or they take them away in Tallahassee and
you have a hundred-million-dollar void, you still -- you still have got
concurrency rules that are very stringent that you'll have to meet, and
if you're not getting ad valorem dollars because they're also capping
those, the county's in a heck of a fix. And we're just basically talking
Page 202
October 23-24, 2007
about a staff recommendation that says, if that happens to you, you
need to have another --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We need a fallback.
MR. MUDD: -- you need to have something else in your toolbox
in order to help you get out of that hole --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. MUDD: -- because right now you've got nothing to get out
of it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree, I agree, but I don't think we
ought to be putting that plate on the table right now because I don't
want to, in any way, entice them to say, well, they've already imposed
a real estate im -- a real estate transfer tax, so we don't need any more
impact fees. I feel that that's something we should keep in our quiver
but not haul out at the present time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So what you're saying is you agree
with the statement that was made earlier --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- not to erode the -- our ability to
collect impact fees?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, we're
going to go to you next, but before we do, you had an excellent article
in the East Naples Civic Association Newsletter, and I think it
addressed many of the issues that we're talking about here now.
Possibly you could take just a few minutes to enlighten the audience.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wow, gosh, I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just email it to him.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Maybe I could email it to
him.
Well, very briefly, but let me first address this issue of the
transfer tax and the impact fees. There's a strategic point that has to be
made here. The reason the legislation for the capping of impact fees
Page 203
October 23-24, 2007
failed is because it contained a real estate transfer tax proposal. That's
why I referred to it as a poison pill. It poisoned the legislation for
passage because many in the real estate industry don't want to see it,
so they lined up against it, against the bill.
It is critically important that we continue to pursue the real estate
transfer fee whenever there is a threat to the impact fee. You've got to
have those together because it stops those who want to cap our impact
fees by enlisting the support of people who don't like real estate
transfer fees. It's not so much that we're looking for more money.
We're trying to protect the interests of the taxpayers.
So I think it's critically important that we give guidance that says,
anytime anybody wants to increase or cap or decrease impact fees, we
want real estate transfer fees as a replacement revenue for that. That's
the strategy that we have to play out here, okay. And so that's why it's
important to do that.
Now, with respect to Commissioner Coletta's issue, I -- I did
write the article. It talked about the budget problems at the state and
the fact that we're the ones that, as the taxpayers of Collier County, are
going to have to make up for the difference.
You know, the state legislature spent most of their session this
past year trying to tell us how we need to run the counties and forgot
about their own budget, and then found out after their session ended
that they had severe budget problems, so now they had to call a
special session, and they're going to solve their budget problems by
cutting our revenues and decreasing your quality of life.
So what's happened is that their budget problems have become
our budget problems, and that was the thrust of the article, and there
were some other details there.
But the point is that this is going to be a very, very difficult time.
We're going to get hit really hard. You're going to see quality of life
declining in Collier County. You're going to see less money doing
things people want us to do because we're going to have to use the
Page 204
October 23-24, 2007
money on things that have to be done. And we're not playing games
with this. We're trying to do the best we can.
But I'll tell you the honest truth, and I've said this before, I've
lived in 11 states and 22 cities in my lifetime, and I have never seen a
more efficient, more responsive government than we have here in
Collier County or a more beautiful place to live, and our legislators do
not care about that.
They are motivated by one thing, and that is getting elected to
their next position. And as long as they can tout the fact that they
have given us the biggest income (sic) tax reduction in history, they're
going to take that on their next campaign trail so that they can look
good to the voters. That's what this is all about. They do not care
about your quality of life. They do not care about how we spend
money. It is only for their own personal benefit. So that's the end of
my story.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now Commissioner Halas,
we're going to go to you, and then we really have to get back to
moving through this agenda or we're going to be dealing with this
tomorrow.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're going to be dealing with this
for a long, long time, but just let me make it very -- perfectly clear
here, that the legislators up in Tallahassee have this idea that one size
fits all, and every county in this state, 67 of us, have a different look
and a different way that we want to be governed, and this is being
taken away. It's being centralized up in Tallahassee. It's time that
people understand what is taking place.
Everyone likes tax cuts, but it comes to a point in time where the
majority of these tax cuts are coming on the shoulders of us. And oh,
by the way, there's one other thing. When they want to balance the
budget and they can't do it, those are unfunded mandates that are sent
down to us that takes -- absorbs more ad valorem taxes so that we can
Page 205
October 23-24, 2007
make things right for the state.
I think it's time that the people here understand what's really
taking place here in all of this whole State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good. Okay. Let's go right to
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I don't support this item.
I think this ought to be removed. But let me just say, before it was
fashionable to cut property taxes, I was saying that long ago.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And someday we'll put it on your
tombstone. Okay. Let's move--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's wishing that was pretty soon, I
think.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's get right down to this. We're
going to have to move through it.
Real estate transfer fees, yes, no.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, not now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Where were you? Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm for you -- I'm yes, it's an
important issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We've got three yeses to keep
it on.
Transportation funding tied to seat belt use. Yes or no?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Okay. Keep it on.
311 funding. Do you know what 311 funding is? Go ahead.
MS. WIGHT: Okay. Commissioners, this bill was filed last
session and defined the term, coordinated 311 non-emergency and
other governmental services telephone system. To make it short, it's a
Page 206
October 23-24, 2007
bill that there just wasn't enough funding for, and I'm not sure if you
want to leave this on your priority list, but they died in the respective
committees.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who's going to pay for it?
MS. WIGHT: This would be -- the governor said that there
wasn't enough funding for it, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then let's not get it imposed on us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's not beat the dead horse.
Okay. The answer's no. We've got three nos, four nos.
Cameras at intersections to cut red-light runners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Two yeses.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm for it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Three yes, four yeses, okay.
You got enough to make -- keep it on.
Protect impact fees. Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Halas.
I think it's yes right across the board, isn't it, yes?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about you, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Unanimous, okay, great.
Request changes in Florida Statutes to elect rather than appoint
South Florida Water Management District governing board members.
Now, this was something that I'd like to put in suspended
animation for a while, and I'll tell you why. We got what we needed.
Rather than saying, we're not going to do it anymore, it's still out there
for somebody to resurrect some future day, so I'd like it removed in
have my own personal choice, to be considered at some future date.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like it kept on.
Page 207
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I need to understand why
you want it removed. I mean, what has happened?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it's because the objectives that I
was aiming for, the ATV use, the issues of compensation for Collier
County, it was a numerous number of ones that they came forward,
they met with us, they worked out the issues, and it was -- this is the
reason that brought them to the table.
Now, I -- and I'll be honest with you. We -- Florida Association
of Counties, even though individually when we brought it up
everybody endorsed it, nobody took it to the next step to really push it
forward. Now, it's something we could do, but if we're going to do
anything, I would say, give it a year's rest and bring it back. That
would be my own personal choice.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess I look at it a different
way. These people manage hundreds of millions of dollars of
taxpayer money. I think they should be accountable to taxpayers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if they're accountable to
taxpayers, I think taxpayers can get them to be more careful about
how they spend money and maybe even reduce their property taxes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your argument is beautiful. There's
just one flaw to it. It's not going to change, and these -- these are
people that are going to base their decisions on what they do with
Collier County upon how we go back to them.
In other words, we're telling them, the board members that are
going to be doing the appropriations for Collier County, that we want
them out and we still want them to give us the cookie. And that's my
only reason. If we're going to do it, we have to do it as a collaborative
effort with the Florida Association of Counties. There has to be more
support than just the support of this board. I don't want to be the
red-headed stepchild on this one.
Page 208
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What color is his hair?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Red hair.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I am red-headed, by the way, but I --
never mind. We won't go into that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, can we say, let's push it
through F AC?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I got no problem with that.
We can at least inquire at F AC if there's interest to carry it forward.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we do that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Tried to get it through last year, but
it died.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, there was a lot of interest, but
we were supposed to bring it back this year to put it on, but we --
whatever.
Address issues --
MS. WIGHT: If I may -- the consultants competitive negotiation
act. And in may, this is the one that I was going to ask if you could
have, ask if you could have Steve Carnell address. And the benefit, if
I may, is to give local governments the ability to consider price when
they choose to select architectural or engineering firms, whereas, now
it's strictly based on qualifications.
And if you could let Steve Carnell at least bring you up to date
for a few minutes. If you remember last year, this was on your
priorities list, and we said that this year we would go at it strongly.
And he's worked hard over the last year networking with his peers and
other professional groups and counties.
MR. CARNELL: Yeah. Where we are, Mr. Chairman, members
of the board, is we've gotten the endorsement of the Florida
Association of Public Purchasing Officers, and we've also gotten
Page 209
October 23-24, 2007
endorsements of the policy committees for the -- for F AC, Florida
Association of Counties, and the Florida Governmental Financial
Officers Association, the FGFOA, and we thank Crystal for her help
in getting that orchestrated.
And both -- in both of those situations we're going to their
executive boards in November when they set their agendas for
Tallahassee, and I think we're going to have support from the policy
committees at large. We've also spoken to FAC's legislative director,
and I had an opportunity to talk to him about how the process works,
and I have a little better handle myself. We've also gotten the
endorsement of the St. Lucy County Board of County Commissioners
for this initiative, and that's where we stand at the present time with it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope you didn't take offense to
my humor, but I do wish your wife as many grandchildren as she
wants.
MR. CARNELL: She'll appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Lovely. Okay. Comments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sounds good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it time for a break, yes?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, it is time for a break, but let's see
if we can get through a couple more of these at least. Actually it's five
o'clock, we've got another nine minutes.
MS. WIGHT: Okay. Protect home rule?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MS. WIGHT: Okay. This was support any attempt for federal
government to enforce immigration laws, Commissioners Coyle and
Page 210
October 23-24, 2007
Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Including state government?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly the point, yeah.
Who was first? You were? Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You sure?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's -- you know, this is a law
that the federal government is in charged (sic) of enforcing and they
have failed. I think -- and this is really a bold statement -- that the
legislators or the State of Florida should sue the federal government
for the loss of billions of dollars to the residents and taxpayers of the
State of Florida for housing illegal immigrants in our jails, providing
housing, providing medical care, the schooling. I mean, it just goes on
and on and on.
And I know that's a bold statement, but I think that somebody
ought to step up and tell the federal government to enforce their laws.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My turn.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I couldn't agree more.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. I was waiting to see --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think it's a bold statement at
all. I think it's a responsible statement. And that's what I was -- but I
was going to go in a slightly different direction, but I like that idea,
too.
I don't think we should phrase this as supporting any attempt for
federal government to enforce immigration laws. I think we should
leave out any attempt, or leave out for federal government. I would
prefer to say support any attempt to enforce immigration laws because
I think the state can do a lot with respect to this.
Page 211
October 23-24, 2007
To give you an example, Guy Carlton, the tax collector, is doing
a wonderful job with the driver's license screening and issuing
process. He is detecting a lot of people with forged or incorrect
documentation. They are identifying a number of illegal aliens as a
result of that process. And the sheriff, in his joint task force efforts,
has been doing a really good job of the same thing.
So those are some examples of things we can do, that is a state
can do, internally with or without the federal government's okay. And
although I believe -- I would support strongly Commissioner
Henning's position on suing the federal government, my feeling is that
they're never going to do anything for a whole host of reasons.
They're not going to do anything.
And the more pressure we can bring on them on local and state
government levels to demonstrate that we are doing something and we
are, in fact, reducing the cost to our taxpayers will do a lot to get this
changed, because the more success stories we have of that type
nationally, the better off we'll be.
So if I -- I would -- I would maybe make this -- turn this into two
parts. Number one, encourage the State of Florida to file suit against
federal government for revenues lost as a result of the government's
failure to enforce immigration laws, and, number two, that the state
legislature and the governor should mandate for every county in
Florida the same controls that are being applied by Guy Carlton in
Collier County and the same joint task forces that exist for Southwest
Florida between the sheriff and the state and ICE. So if that would be
acceptable to everybody, I'd like to see us do both of those things.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments on that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to commend
Commissioner Henning for coming up with that. I think that is bold
and it's unique, and it takes a lot of courage to come forward with that,
Page 212
October 23-24, 2007
and I salute you for that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the community, or
the residents in our nation, are very upset over this issue, and a lot of
communities have attempted to take a stand. The liberal courts have
thrown most of those out, and I think it's just time to make our
legislature, or Washington D.C. take notice.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do, too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You might even want to carry this
effort forward to the Florida Association of Counties, see if we can get
their support, have that made as an issue for them to carry forward.
They've got resources beyond what we have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you're talking about tough
budget years, and we've already calculated costs in excess of $70
million a year in Collier County alone. So if we can -- if we can cut
into that $70 million in a meaningful way, then we can save the people
in Collier County a lot of money, more money than they're being
saved through these phony tax schemes that are coming out of
Tallahassee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Next item, before we go to it,
we're going to take a break. We promised the court reporter every
hour and a half we would do such, and then we'll be right back, and
we'll get through this before the end of the day. Okay.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Commissioners, we're still on lOB. The next item is support
county takeover from the state of the Collier County Housing
Authority.
MS. WIGHT: And that was Commissioner Henning's suggestion
as one of the state legislative priorities, so I'd defer to Commissioner
Henning to speak on that.
Page 213
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I have a gentleman that
has 60 units that he would like to convert into affordable housing for
Section 8 people, and it's a -- it is allowable ownership; not rental,
ownership.
And he has tried to get the Authority together. They have failed
to meet with this gentleman. For the last seven months he's been
trying to do this. And I understand the Section 8, what they have. I
think it's 400 and some Section 8 rentals, that they would lose income
from those 60 -- if those 60 units were converted.
And since then, he has contacted Fort Myers, and they're willing
to administrate it to take off the administrative abilities. And it's my
understanding that the Housing Authority would still receive monies
and don't have to do anything and yet, they have failed to meet with
this gentleman.
Now, I understand that they're going to meet with him something
like November 27th, but this issue with Fort Myers administrating it,
the administrator of Collier County Housing Authority just needs to
sign the agreement. And also my understanding the chairman could
sign this agreement for Fort Myers to administrate it.
And, you know, I think giving hands up through home ownership
is a better thing than giving a hands out for subsidy of Section 8. And
you know, the emphasis -- and it was said by a pillar in the Immokalee
community that the Collier County Housing Authority was based
upon housing for farm workers.
Well, we have a need here in all of Collier County, not just parts
of this section of Collier County for housing. And I would like to see
Collier County take over the Housing Authority, ask the governor and
the legislators to bring in the Housing Authority so we can have a
cohesive housing program for all of the residents of Collier County.
And that's why I'm asking.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I hear you, and I can tell
Page 214
October 23-24, 2007
you that a meeting did take place over a month ago. I was there, John
Norman's office, when I met with Armando -- what's his last name?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bucello (phonetic)?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I believe that's what it is, sir. And we
had a discussion going, and he brought up some of the same issues
you did. And at that point in time, I was fortunate enough to be able
to get ahold of Estie (sic) from the Housing Authority and got her on
the phone, and we went back and forth with a whole bunch of
questions.
And I thought it was a very good meeting. At least I had a better
feeling of what was happening. I appreciate it.
And you brought up some very interesting points; however, that's
one side of the coin. The other side of the coin, I'd like to call up Estie
at this time and have her give us a little overview of how this is
working at this point in time, and then decisions can be made.
MS. SERRA T A: Right, thank you. Just for the record again, my
name is Essie Serrata, the Executive Director for Collier County
Housing Authority.
It hasn't been seven months, first of all. I think we got contacted
by Mr. Bucello's representative who works for the Naples Resource
Group sometime in -- was it late August -- late August. And I think
the misunderstanding, they kept calling the Housing and Human
Services Office and were getting misinformed of where to actually go.
So they finally touched base with us in August.
And just to kind of give you a little overview of what the
Housing Authority has, definitely the Housing Authority was created
back in 1966 by local farmers who wanted housing for farm workers,
and that's how the Housing Authority was created.
We are a countywide Housing Authority. We have two offices;
one in Naples and one in Immokalee where we have a Section 8
housing choice voucher program. It's not rental housing. It's
vouchers. It's basically a voucher that provides rental assistance to
Page 215
October 23-24, 2007
low-income families in the county.
And we administer the program for basically -- for HUD, which
is Housing and Urban Development. Housing and Urban -- HUD has a
-- basically they have a program which is called the home ownership
program that they make available, and every county has -- every
Housing Authority has -- basically it's their option if they want to
administer a home ownership program.
And how that works is basically you set aside a number of
vouchers that you're willing to provide for home ownership. And the
way the program works is, if that voucher participant is interested and
they want to buy a home and we -- they meet the criteria, basically we
provide their assistance towards their mortgage for 10 years. That's all
the assistance is for, 10 years. They're responsible for the rest of the
mortgage.
Mr. Henning mentioned about us losing that voucher. Absolutely
we would lose that voucher, basically taking it off the street to provide
rental assistance to someone else on our waiting list.
We have over 500 people on our waiting list. Every time that we
open the waiting list for rental assistance program, we get over 500
applicants during the 30 days that we're open for rental assistance.
So where we are now, we did try to attempt several times to meet
with Mr. Bucello. He missed one of the meetings. I know that John
Norman's office has tried to set up meetings with some of my
commissioners. That has taken place. He put in a formal request to
come to our -- for one of our board meetings. Well, we only meet four
times a year. Our next meeting is in November. We've placed him on
the agenda, and that's pretty much where we're at right now with Mr.
Bucello.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is this money that -- or is this funds
that you distribute, to both Immokalee and Naples?
MS. SERRA T A: Countywide.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And who does it go to; what's the
Page 216
October 23-24, 2007
restrictions?
MS. SERRATA: The restrictions is for low-income families that
-- if they're rent overburdened, they never pay more than 30 percent.
So it's 30 percent of the median income.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do they have to be -- do they
have to be in this country legally? Do they have to be a citizen?
MS. SERRATA: They have to be a citizen or permanent
resident.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are they all farm workers?
MS. SERRATA: No. Low-income families.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Low-income families.
MS. SERRATA: The majority of our participants in the Section
8 program live in Naples/Golden Gate, East Naples/Golden Gate, and
North Naples. We've got about -- less than 40 families that are in
Immokalee on this program.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, the gentleman that's looking for
assistance in your organization, you don't even know if you can
provide it yet till you meet with him, but is it something that would fit
in with your criteria?
MS. SERRATA: We looked it up at this home ownership
program about three years ago. We went actually up to the Miami
office, which is the field office for us, to discuss the home ownership
program. At that time because housing was extremely costly, the
burden -- there was no money for administration costs. We decided
that it was not feasible for us administer a home ownership program at
that time. We have not looked at it since.
Now, I know Fort Myers Housing Authority is looking at it now.
They're having a workshop that's providing -- HUD's coming down to
provide technical assistance, which we've been invited to and we've
already RSVP'd to attend, to learn more ifthere's been any changes
since we looked at it about three years ago.
They're doing it because they have this Hope 6, which is -- they
Page 21 7
.---... --'-'""
October 23-24, 2007
tore down some of their public housing, and they have all this funding
that they're going to provide, which is a mixed community, and that's
the reason they're looking at their home ownership program.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, what they're looking to do to
come into Collier County, would that impair your funding?
MS. SERRATA: Well, each housing authority, their -- they have
a jurisdiction. We have -- our jurisdiction is Collier County only. Lee
County has their jurisdiction only in Lee County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm kind of confused. Well, why
would it be suggested that they come to Collier County?
MS. SERRATA: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because -- because the Collier
County Housing Authority has failed to take action, and the lady that
works for Mr. Patrillo used to work for HUD, and they got the
information -- actually I got information from Congressman Mack's
office that somebody -- some other housing authority can administrate
this, but it still needs the signature of Collier County Housing
Authority.
I mean, we've had several elected officials throughout the State
of Florida on this one issue, and you have the ability to have a special
meeting, correct?
MS. SERRATA: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. SERRATA: And we looked at doing that, but we actually--
we have five commissioners. One commissioner is actually out for the
whole month of October in Utah, and we had one commissioner who's
in the hospital, and then we recently had two commissioners that were
just recently appointed. They have not been orientated at all. They
were appointed just about four weeks ago.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So you say this issue hasn't come up
to you until August?
MS. SERRA T A: This issue came to us at the end of August after
Page 218
October 23-24, 2007
our board meeting in August.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So there is interest to be able to
communicate. We did have that meeting. I remember we had a nice
meeting when we went back and forth over all the issues. And a little
surprised, too, it was suggested that they -- that they were going to
hold a special meeting on their own with the Housing Authority
Board, wasn't even going to be sanctioned by you. I know at that
point in time you were very fortunate, only one of your members
showed up at that meeting.
MS. SERRATA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So it provided -- it prevented any
kind of problems with sunshine. There's a lot more here than meets the
eye. I don't think this is an issue that I, for one, want to pursue at this
time.
I don't mind discussing it. I don't mind people from Fort Myers
coming here and providing more affordable housing. I'll take anything
I can get, and I don't care who the provider is; however, I don't know
what we're supposed to do with this, and I think it's absolutely absurd
to ever say that we should abolish this Authority, take it under the
county. We can't handle what we've got now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll be glad to remove my
objections if they deal with this issue. But from my understanding,
they have failed. But, you know, we're not meeting the legislation __
we're not meeting with the legislation delegation until when?
MS. WIGHT: November 2nd, one to four.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I agree, by the way, that home
ownership usually brings in people who want to stay here permanently
and usually take care of their property a little bit more.
Page 219
October 23-24, 2007
A question was asked of you, are these legal -- legal residents,
and you said they are -- they're citizens or permanent residents.
MS. SERRATA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You didn't -- yes, but you didn't say
if they're legal or not.
MS. SERRA T A: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can be a permanent resident.
That doesn't mean -- that doesn't mean you're here legally just because
you're here permanently.
MS. SERRA T A: That's considered a legal status, permanent
residency.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Because we've seen people
here 12 years who have lived here all those 12 years illegally. So is
there something that qualifies these people for legal status?
MS. SERRATA: I don't know in terms of -- they have a certain
card that basically, on our requirements, that HUD -- they're
requirements. And if they meet those qualifications based on the
resident alien card that they have as permanent residency, yes, they do
qualify. It's considered a legal status under HUD regulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they have to present that
residency card?
MS. SERRATA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Would --let's assume that
all the facts with respect to this gentleman who wants to provide the
affordable housing, all the facts are true, all the things that have been
said are true. Would you object to having the Fort Myers office
administer that program?
MS. SERRATA: We don't know if it's allowable. Would we
Page 220
October 23-24, 2007
object? If it's something that we cannot do, then, absolutely, we
would support Fort Myers Housing Authority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. SERRA T A: To come back to your question, Commissioner
Fiala, I just asked my staff person, who's the director of housing, we
actually, under our Section 8 program, we're required to do
immigration checks, verifications on-line, so we do -- check their
permanent residency.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The legality?
MS. SERRATA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Okay. That they're here
legally?
MS. SERRATA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. That's very good. And
you just answered Commissioner Coyle. Now let me see.
MS. SERRATA: So this item's on our November board agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now you said that -- when he asked
about this, if we don't have a program that assists people to purchase a
home, if we only have a rental program in place in Collier County, can
then Lee County step over the line and fill the gap that we are not
filling ourselves?
MS. SERRATA: Those would be details I'd have to find out.
I'm not sure that that's allowable to really answer the question. We
would definitely support Fort Myers Housing Authority if they wanted
to do the home ownership component and allow families to be able to
do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Because right now families
that would want to live in a permanent residence and that are here
permanently cannot do that and own a residence through your
program, nowhere.
MS. SERRATA: No. We don't have any permanent units. We
have our farm labor housing program, which are rental units that are
Page 221
October 23-24, 2007
located in Immokalee, but in Naples or Golden Gate, we don't have
any housing that the Housing Authority owns. Of course, they can
always, you know, buy a unit, and we always -- I mean, we lead them
towards home ownership, you know, through the SHIP program,
down payment assistance, other programs that the county offers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Estie, I think we're losing some points
here.
MS. SERRATA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What the discussion is also -- I mean,
there's many different facets to this, but one part of the discussion is,
home ownership versus rental. That's one of the biggest subjects that
keeps coming up. Now, no one doubts that home ownership is a truly
essential part of the American way of life; however, how many things
are there to be able to help people that are -- need rental assistance?
We have a tremendous amount of population that will never be in
homes.
MS. SERRATA: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And some day they might reach that
point, but they're going to have to first be able to rent, they're going to
first be able to take the availability of these federal dollars. Is there
any program that if we took all your money and put it into just home
ownership, is there any program out there that could fill the gap of
what you're doing?
MS. SERRATA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in other words --
MS. SERRA T A: This is the only program that provides rental
assistance for low-income families.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Who provides low-income
housing right now? I'm sorry.
MS. SERRATA: For rental?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, just provides for home
ownership?
Page 222
October 23-24, 2007
MS. SERRATA: Some of the nonprofits, like the Empowerment
Alliance. Of course, you know, the newly created HDC for Collier
County, that's one of their goals to provide some --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Habitat for Humanity?
MS. SERRATA: Habitat for Humanity.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And so there is a mechanism out
there, even though none of these measures are sufficient? There is a
need that far surpasses the resources that are out there.
MS. SERRATA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The resource that you're using, ifit
suddenly was flipped over to just home ownership, these people would
be at a total loss and they couldn't -- they wouldn't be able to find --
MS. SERRATA: That's correct, sir. We only have 440 vouchers
for our total-- whole county, and to reserve -- set aside 10 vouchers or
whatever that number the board agreed to for home ownership, I
mean, they would be lost to Collier County and there would be no
other entity or program available to assist them with rental assistance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, is the entity we're talking about
now interested in what you might be able to do to provide home
ownership? Is this a nonprofit or is this a private concern?
MS. SERRA T A: This is a private developer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And what happened? This private
developer obviously went in for a different direction and something
went wrong with the direction. Do you know what might have -- what
happened to get to this point that he's asking for assistance?
MS. SERRA T A: I can only assume that he has a property that,
my understanding, he turned condo conversion back in 2005, and he's
unable to sell his units.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we got some very
interesting situations here of a public entity out there, board profit
organizations that finds themselves in a desperate situation and wants
to tap into the public dole to try to better themselves. I rest my case.
Page 223
October 23-24, 2007
MS. SERRATA: Absolutely. And I mean, if we were -- if the
community was pushing us to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a board of five.
MS. SERRATA: -- have a home--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Board of five.
MS. SERRATA: -- ownership program, then, you know, it
would be something that we would look at further. But to have a
developer try to force our hands to develop a home ownership
program that he would benefit for (sic) us, I just -- right now, I'm not
going to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I tell you for a fact, I sat in on
the meetings, I've dealt with this gentleman. He is a very driven
person. He borders on arrogant, and I said that to him when I left the
last meeting, the way he was acting in front of -- on the phone with
you, the way he was demanding, the way he was dropping names;
Charlie Crist, he knows. He knows the head of the -- head of the HUD
authority in Washington, D.C.
This is a very driven person, a very big person in the political
world. He has tremendous amount of influence and he's trying to
wheel this influence for his own best use. And I'm sorry I had to lay
that out the way I did, but sometimes it's absolutely necessary.
Commissioner Henning next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. It is a board of five.
I'm not going to defame somebody's character or participate on a
feeling. We're here to make good judgments for all the residents.
Essie, if you have 440 units, and say you converted 10 of those
into home ownership, you would lose 10 rental vouchers, correct?
MS. SERRATA: That would be correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And that's my point is,
I'd rather give them the American dream by hands up. And if you can
take 10, or 60, of those 440 in home ownership, you've just taken --
given somebody something that everybody is searching for.
Page 224
October 23-24, 2007
I'm sure you own your own home also. And it's not my
philosophy, my party's philosophy, and if somebody, a businessman,
finds an opportunity which Collier County doesn't know about, so
what? Is he going to make some money on this? Maybe. Maybe that
is the American entrepreneurship in the United States. And, boy, I
hate to slam somebody just because he was a businessperson.
I won't participate in it, and I think that we should take it over. It
is a Collier County Housing Authority.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, and I think that
Keith has something he wants to offer us. But you want to go first, sir?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm just wondering if this
had something to do with this Memorandum of Understanding that I
believe a commissioner directed the housing person to address on this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, I had a
misunderstanding, or we had a misunderstanding. Now you have a
memo from me correcting that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I believe the stuff needs to be
directed through the county manager and not directly through
somebody else.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I gave it to somebody -- what's
my letter say?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, your letter says -- I'm just
saying what's there in regards to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's my -- why don't you
read --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I, at no time, directed you to do
anything or take any action.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that have something to do with
what we're doing now?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I was wondering ifit does. It
sounds to me like it does.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't want to get too far afield on it.
Page 225
October 23-24, 2007
It might be an item we might want to handle under communications.
If it directly has bearing upon this, then go ahead and offer it up. If it
doesn't, let's let that lie at this time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Arnold?
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board. I think it might be helpful to crystallize this issue before you.
I am personally not familiar with the local dynamics of the issue
you're debating right now regarding the local developer who would
like to convert these units, but the legislative issue that's before you is
whether or not this board wants to change the method of appointments
to local housing.
And right now, city housing authorities are appointed by the
Marrin (sic) City Council. County housing authorities are presently
the -- the board members are presently appointed by the governor.
Irrespective of what action you take today and direct me to
support in Tallahassee, I'm not sure it even remotely gets at the heart
of the issue you're discussing, which is federal Section 8 housing,
which is governed by federal statutes irrespective of who the board
members are.
And I don't pretend to understand all the dynamics of Section 8
housing, but I think the issue, as Commissioner Henning has brought
before you, is one of governance. Do you support changing the law to
allow a different methodology of appointment, which would take a
general change in law and/or special act of the legislature, which, you
know, obviously we haven't remotely even floated this by the local
delegation at this point.
But, Commissioner Henning, did I frame that correctly?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think if we're going to be
consistent here, we would almost have to ask that any appointments to
Page 226
October 23-24, 2007
local boards and organizations be done by elected officials in Collier
County rather than by someone in Tallahassee.
I, quite frankly, am tired of people in Tallahassee telling us how
to do things in Collier County, determining who sits on our boards,
who spends our ad valorem property taxes. And I understand these
funds are largely coming from federal government so -- but the point
is, who has a better feel for what the people of Collier County need or
want and who should the members of a board such as this be
responsible to? They should be responsible to the people of Collier
County, not to somebody in Tallahassee.
Now, if Tallahassee -- if our elected representatives in
Tallahassee acted in a more responsible manner with respect to the
needs of counties, I would not feel that way. But if we're going to
agitate for members of the South Florida Water Management District
to be elected here, then we should be looking to get all of the boards
appointed and/or elected by the people in Collier County, and that's
the way I feel about it. And I understand this other thing has clouded
this issue a bit, but if we're going to be consistent --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I offer you, sir, that that's not a
bad idea. I have no problems with that. Abolishing the Authority is
one thing and finding out who is going to be appointed to govern it,
that's a whole different issue.
MS. SERRATA: Commissioner Coletta, can I respond just to
that? When there's a position available on our board, you know, it's
posted, I guess, on the governor's website and applicants from Collier
County -- because they must be a resident of Collier County to be --
and a registered voter to serve on the Housing Authority Board.
They put in an application. When the governor reviews them, I
know that they go through the local party delegation to receive
recommendation from the local people to -- whether they -- the
governor appoints -- makes that recommendation for appointment, and
that's the process as I know it.
Page 227
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Possibly if we can't get them to
change it that the commission could appoint the people, we could at
least have the governor ask for our input on it. That might be another
way.
MS. SERRATA: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Judging by how well we're doing in
Tallahassee at this point in time, that might be something that would
be more approachable than asking for that control totally.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I wouldn't -- I don't feel
comfortable about the recommendations made by the Florida -- by the
local delegation.
Our legislators work in Tallahassee. I know where they come
from, and they don't -- they are not all necessarily elected by the
people of Collier County. They might have a portion of their district
in Collier County, but they're doing bus -- the people who are
appointed are doing business entirely within Collier County, and I
think they should be responsible to the people of Collier County.
I think the commissioners should be able to appoint them, and I
do not believe it should be left up to a -- a legislative delegation from
Tallahassee to make these recommendations, because I don't trust
them, make the proper selection for them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Where we going with this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm just saying, look, if there
are three votes to put this on the agenda that says to our legislators, we
want to have the right to appoint the boards of anybody who's
spending money in Collier County or providing services to our
residents, end of story.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I can support that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Instead of the governor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about you? Anyone else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
Page 228
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Estie, you've been most
helpful.
MS. SERRA T A: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much for being here
today.
You got that? I think that we -- let's see. What else do we have
left? We have one left.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, we got four.
MS. WIGHT: Okay. The last one is monitor growth
management developments. I can tell you that two shells bills have
been filed by Senator Garcia related to growth management for 2008.
It is expected that legislation will be offered by the Department of
Community Affairs to further address growth management issues,
transportation backlog, concurrency issues, impact fees, local compo
plan exemptions will all be issues likely to come forward this session.
The secretary of DCA, Tom Pelham, has indicated the
department will introduce a significant growth management proposal
this session. And we did hear that, Commissioner Halas and I, at the
Florida Association of Counties conference. There was quite a deal of
conversation about that.
So if you have any questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I'm sorry. Go ahead,
Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I certainly do, and that is in
regards to concurrency. I think we have a good concurrency plan in
place, and I think it's a good guide as we move forward with our
development. It's a smart growth way of addressing growth. And I
don't want to see it lost. Right now we have to have infrastructure in
place before we allow people to take occupancy, and I don't want to
lose that.
Page 229
October 23-24, 2007
MS. WIGHT: Okay. So you are saying yes, is that a vote to
continue to monitor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes? That was from before.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Yes, that's fine. Did we
exhaust the issue?
MS. WIGHT: Five yeses?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm exhausted.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Why don't we put it in the
form of a motion that we adopt the changes that we made in the
legislative agenda, and second it, and then we'll take a vote and we'll
be all set. There won't be any doubts what we did.
Commissioner, I seen you just bow your head up and down,
Commissioner Coyle just made the motion. Commissioner Fiala
nodded her head; she seconded it.
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 the ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you very much.
MS. WIGHT: Thank you very much.
Item #lOP
Page 230
October 23-24, 2007
THE FY 08 CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR
OPERATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.481,000 - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, I really do want to make
sure that I don't have to bring Dr. Colfer back here tomorrow. Let's go
to lOF. I think it will take about five minutes. lOP, excuse me, lOP.
Got to do it with the glasses on, Jim.
MR. MUDD: Hang on. I'm just looking. 10, papa, I'll get it.
We're at lOP. It's a recommendation to approve the FY-'08
contract between Collier County and the State of Florida Department
of Health for operation of the Collier County Health Department in the
amount of$1,481,000. Mrs. Joan Colfer, your Director of the Collier
County Health Department, will present.
DR. COLFER: Yes, you already -- you already really approved
this in your budget workshops.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, that's right.
DR. COLFER: Back in September.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I was just going to give you an
endorsement. You are one of the most responsible people we've got to
work with on the budget. You do a wonderful job. I'm perfectly
happy to move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And thank you very much for the
fine job you and your office do.
DR. COLFER: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: So just so that the audience outside knows, our
county piece is $1,481,000. And basically Joan brings in 10 times that
amount of money in order to leverage for the budget of our health
department, and that's basically what this pie chart says. You're the
Page 23 1
October 23-24, 2007
best deal in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You are a very capable administrator.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. If you could just build roads
now, it would be a lot better.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Norm, we're putting her in charge of
your department.
MR. MUDD: Did we take a vote on that?
DR. COLFER: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the setbacks of the
roads?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that we have a motion,
we have a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously.
Okay. Let's keep going a little bit. Where are we going now,
Mr. Mudd? What do we have out there that we don't want to come
back tomorrow? Who do we have?
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2007-66: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
Page 232
October 23-24, 2007
PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 98, PARKS AND
RECREATION, ALSO KNOWN AS ORDINANCE NO. 76-48, AS
AMENDED, PERTAINING TO PARK USE; PROVIDING FOR
ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 98-57;
AND ADDING AN EXCEPTION TO SECTION 98-58,
PROHIBITED ACTS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Let's do 8D and finish up your public hearings,
okay, because it's advertised.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 8D?
MR. MUDD: 8D. You haven't done 8D.
CHAIRMANCOLETTA: 8B?
MR. MUDD: 8D, delta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Dog.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 8D.
MR. MUDD: That is to approve an ordinance amending the
provisions of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances,
Chapter 98, parks and recreation, also known as ordinance number
76-48, as amended, pertaining to park use; providing for an additional
definition in article 3, section 98-57; and adding an exception to
section 98-58, prohibited acts. Fiscal impact none. This is a
companion item to ION, and in this particular case, this ordinance
specifically addresses alcohol use at Clam Pass.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to deny.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to deny by
Commissioner Henning. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'll second it.
MS. FILSON: I have two speakers, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we have a second by
Commissioner Coyle. Okay. Let's go to the speakers.
MS. FILSON: Doug Finlay. He'll be followed by Hunter
Page 233
October 23-24, 2007
Hansen.
MR. FINLAY: Yes. Doug Finlay, I'm a resident of Collier
County. I've been involved in the issue of the Clam Pass concession
contract for actually several years having spoken to this board at one
time actually a couple years ago, the park and recreation board, and to
staff, including Murdo Smith, and more recently, Barry Williams.
First, I'm actually neutral on the issue of alcohol, so you're not
going to get any real opinion from me on that issue. And second,
despite what you may have read in this morning's paper, I am not
opposed to the 12 percent of gross sales, should the commission go
forward with the alcohol sales.
My concerns have always been associated -- and this is in
relation to the concession contract -- pricing and associated water
sport rental rates at Clam Pass Park for Collier County residents. And
I make that distinction between Collier County and resort guests.
Historically pricing at Clam Pass Park on these issues has been
geared towards affluent, four-star resort guests. This contract does
address my concern with the -- by including in the contract kayak and
canoe discounts for Collier County residents.
Prior to this board reconvening after lunch, Barry Williams
introduced me to Mr. Hansen, who you'll be hearing shortly, who is
the manager of the Naples Grande Resort, and he and I had actually a
productive conversation on the area of my concerns. And it was
actually such a productive conversation that I can basically cross off
the rest of what I was going to talk to you about.
So I think all of the other issues that I have in relation to the
contract which have to do with menu pricing and discounts for median
income Collier County residents, that we want to make sure can enjoy
the park, I think those concerns are going to be taken care of, so I
basically have crossed off the rest of my speech, so thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Commissioners, I actually have four speakers,
Page 234
October 23-24, 2007
because two registered under 8D and two under ION, and they're
companion items.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Please call them now.
MS. FILSON: The next one I have is Hunter Hansen. He'll be
followed by Brett Cohan.
MR. HANSEN: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mr.
Chairman, Commissioners, and Mr. Mudd. I'm Hunter Hansen, the
Managing Director of the Naples Grande Resort.
I'm here just to talk about if this moved forward, I want you to --
everyone to know that -- the seriousness we take to serving alcohol
responsibly. We as a hotel require all of our servers to go through a
certified class that is conducted from an outside vendor, not ourselves.
We conduct those once a month; 275 of our associates have gone
through this class. It is a three-hour session that talks about how to
serve alcohol responsibly and what all the implications of that are,
how to look for IDs, how to deal with people that may be approaching
their limit, and the seriousness and responsibility of serving alcohol
responsibly.
We have a list -- I have a list of all the associates that have
attended those classes. We treat it extremely seriously to our current
resort now, which we would do if we were allowed to serve alcohol on
the beach concession.
Secondly, I think it's important as a corporate citizen to keep that
beach clean. I would adopt that beach as companies do Adopt A
Highway. We would adopt that beach to keep it clean, to keep it litter
free and clean of any debris, and I want everyone to know that.
So I would like to just go on record that, as a business person,
serving alcohol responsibly is a key concern to me as a leader, and
keeping that beach meticulously clean, we would adopt, own it, and
take that responsibility.
So thank you very much. I'll be happy to address any questions
you may have.
Page 235
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There may be some questions shortly,
sir, so don't go too far.
MS. FILSON: Brett Cohan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, yeah, I'm sorry, Commissioner
Fiala. I didn't see your light on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Do you have insurance
covering any activities on the beach that are generated by your hotel
as well as if you sell -- if you sell alcohol to anybody who steps up, do
you have insurance to cover all of that?
MR. HANSEN: The agreement, Commissioner, does have
extensive insurance language that was reviewed by both the county
attorneys and our own attorneys, so yes, I believe Mr. Williams can
address that, because his attorneys have reviewed that language. But
the agreement does cover that language, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And you also have spoken
together about making sure that everybody is of age. I know I talked
with you on the phone about this -- but everybody is of age, and
everybody is -- you know, they haven't had too much and, you know
MR. HANSEN: Yes, ma'am. That's the certified course that we
require all of our servers to attend, and we don't conduct this course.
We conduct it through an outside vendor, and we require all of our
employees that serve alcoholic beverages currently in the resort, but
futuristically, if this were the case on the beach, you have to attend
this class. It's a three-hour class and it's from A to Z on how to serve
it, how to look for IDs, how to look for false IDs, how to, you know,
identify blood alcohol content and things like that, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Brent Cohan.
Page 236
October 23-24, 2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Robert Leher?
(No response.)
MS. FILSON: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Okay. From staffs
perspective, do you see this as a positive, negative, or a neutral?
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, for the record, Barry
Williams, Parks and Recreation Director.
From what we've heard and understood, you know, the ability to
do this in public, ability to enjoy a cocktail at this particular location,
there are very few opportunities for the public to do that. We think
that Naples Grande is certainly a responsible entity. We are impressed
by the fact that they have extensive training for their staff to identify
people that may over consume, so we see it a benefit to the public.
There are very few opportunities now for the public to enjoy the
sunset with a glass of wine, is an example that I hear, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I have no problem with that. My
question would be, suppose this became a negative or a liability or it
was perceived to be a bad thing because of some negative actions that
take place?
How long does our contract run and how could it be voided if we
do run into something that raises serious problems?
MR. WILLIAMS: Before I answer that, I just want to point out
the item before you initially is the change in ordinance that would
allow you to approve ION. So the contract, the agreement, 30 days
written notice is my understanding of the lease agreement to get out of
this arrangement if it did not meet the county's needs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does the county attorney agree with
that, that if we were not happy, that we'd be able to end this agreement
within 30 days?
MR. ZACHARY: Good evening. This is Robert Zachary with
the County Attorney's Office. That's written into the agreement that
Page 237
October 23-24, 2007
for cause we can terminate the lease.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What determines cause?
MR. ZACHARY: Give me a moment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
MR. ZACHARY: Ifwe want to get back to that when we go
over the lease at ION?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I've got a feeling we won't go
much farther if we can't get these questions up front now. I mean, I
don't know why we'd want to change the ordinance.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, in may read from the default
and termination article. It states, if either party fails to comply with
any of the material terms, conditions thereof, and such noncompliance
not cured within 30 days after written notice is given, the
non-offending party may terminate this agreement.
Should the county, under the terms of this agreement, be entitled
to declare lessee in default and terminate the agreement, then the
county will revoke the privilege.
So basically what it says -- and Robert, you can help me with that
-- it's article 41, it's a 30-day.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let me give you a quick
example. Suppose all of a sudden that one or more underage drinkers
was arrested -- or they arrested people there for serving people
underage. Would that be reason to be able to end the contract? Would
that be considered cause?
MR. ZACHARY: That would constitute reasonable cause to end
the contract.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. How about loud and
disorderly conduct?
MR. ZACHARY: That's not allowed -- that's not allowed at all
under this lease agreement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know that, but I'm just making sure
because, I mean, the worst thing we could ever do is put something in
Page 238
October 23-24, 2007
place, then once it's in place, it can never be revoked, and that I don't
want to see happen.
MR. ZACHARY: The way this is written, we have that right if
they're a disruption, if there's a material breach of the lease, then we
could terminate this lease.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The other concern I have is
that I believe the Naples Grande would have 26 events. And could
you explain what those events would be made up of, please? And the
time frame that these events would take place.
MR. HANSEN: Yes, sir. Hunter Hansen again. Yes,
Commissioner. Part and parcel of the agreement was to allow the
Naples Grande Resort to hold no more than 26 private events per year
on a specified designated location which is north of the walkway of
the current beach right now. Those would be for the private functions
that the resort would cater an event to, be it a group or meeting that's
holding a convention or meeting at the resort that would like to have a
cocktail reception at sundown.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what time would the time
frame be?
MR. HANSEN: Well, typically a group like that would like to
see the sunset, so it would be -- they would start the function maybe a
half an hour before sunset, or an hour before sunset, and watch the
sunset. When the sunset goes down, really the party's over.
Everybody really wants to go back home.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Would this entail loud
raucous music?
MR. HANSEN: No, Commissioner. Part of the agreement, it's
clearly stated that there is no amplified music. I don't have the exact
language --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
Page 239
October 23-24, 2007
MR. HANSEN: -- off the top of my head, but it's clearly stated
that it was not disruptive to the noise ordinances --
MR. WILLIAMS: No steel --
MR. HANSEN: -- of the county.
MR. WILLIAMS: No steel drums, no amplified music is the
reference, actually.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
MR. HANSEN: We worked very closely with Barry Williams
and Marla to work through the language.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Williams, how many people
do you know that have to have a glass of wine to enjoy the sunset?
MR. WILLIAMS: Do I know personally? I know one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we're making this
change for one person out of 325 --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, count me in. Count me in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Then you got two of
them.
How about if Joe six-pack from Golden Gate wants to bring his
six-pack to Clam Pass. Is that -- is that allowed?
MR. WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Joe six-pack can buy a drink there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But Joe six-pack can't go to
7-Eleven and bring his own six-pack?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. He goes to Naples Pier.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He can do that at Naples Pier?
Without getting arrested?
MR. WEIGEL: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Would you -- wouldn't you
Page 240
October 23-24, 2007
say that this agreement is a substantial change because we're talking
about different fees? Is there a reason why this didn't go out to
competitive bid?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know that I can answer that
question. I think what Naples Grande -- and we've enjoyed a long
relationship with -- before Naples Grande, the Registry Hotel, and
many of the improvements around Clam Pass have been a
private/public partnership with that particular hotel. So it's -- they're a
natural partner, given the fact of their location of the beach or in that
particular location, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So Naples Grande will most
likely have this contract forever then?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the terms of this agreement, I believe, is
for --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ten years.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- 10 years with the opportunity for additional
five-year increments up to 20.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does this agreement permit alcohol
to be taken onto the beach?
MR. WILLIAMS: Not -- only in the sense of the special events,
the 26 special events that are defined. What Naples Grande would
like to do is go 1,000 feet north. They will have special events -- and
perhaps Mr. Hansen could better define what those special events
might be, but that would be the only instance, those private party
events of that nature.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In may. I don't want to leave
anybody with the mis -- the perception that alcohol is never allowed
on county facilities. There are times when certain festivals take place
or whatever; they do have beer sales. And also, I don't know, but I
Page 241
October 23-24, 2007
believe, too, if they have private weddings or something they can --
MR. WILLIAMS: Golden Gate Community Center is the
example that I would use. And the current county ordinance does
allow the community center for certain events to have alcohol at that
location.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And has this been an issue for a
number of years now when they do serve alcohol at those locations?
I'm just -- and I know that's a terrible comparison between the two
probably, but I have to make some.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, I'm not aware of any instance
related to that at that particular facility --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- due to alcohol.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The special events, in may,
also I sit as the chair of the TDC, and of course, one of the things
we're always trying to do is to make sure that we have -- and I know
this is going to give Commissioner Coyle heartburn -- sufficient
amount of tourists to keep the local economy going, you know. And
these special events that you're going to offer, would that be an
enhancement to be able to make sure that we have a sufficient number
to be able to maintain our economy in a way that's meaningful?
MR. HANSEN: Well, currently, Mr. Chairman, we run the little
trams from the parking lot to the beach, and our tram drivers keep a
record. And we ask the passengers, are you a county resident or a
guest of the resort. And on general, on average, we run about 60
percent, 60, six zero, percent of the passengers are from the public,
and 40 percent from the resort. So it's not quite half, but 60/40. So
that 40 percent comes from the resort.
That's -- so the private events, if you will, are coming -- will be
coming from that 40 percent basis point value.
So that is -- it is an important feature for the resort, to be honest
with you, to have a private event at the beach for our group or meeting
Page 242
October 23-24, 2007
customers. We're currently at a competitive disadvantage to our
neighbors up the street. So we're losing business because we cannot
serve a glass of wine at a cocktail reception at sunset for IBM when
they hold their meeting at the resort. They'll take their business and go
elsewhere.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if Commissioner Halas and I
showed up, you'd let us have a glass of wine and watch--
MR. HANSEN: With my compliments, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we can't accept gifts.
MR. HANSEN: But in could also say that I think -- and I've got
a very good relationship with Barry, and -- of the parks, and with staff
recommending this and with us proving to you that we're going to
serve alcohol very responsibly and keep the beach very clean, I think
this is a win-win for both sides, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go back to
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, just to clarify. Your
comparable, Joe six-pack can bring a six-pack for that special event or
wedding. If somebody's holding a -- he's talking about the other
facility. That is a part of that. So there's no -- unless there's a special
event where the Kiwanis is having a beer fest -- if it's a wedding or
some other event, Joe six-pack could bring it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I wish you wouldn't Joe six-pack. I
mean, that was a -- one of the reasons I went after the City of Naples
for, and we have a lot of people out in my particular area that drink
other than beer from a six-pack. Some of them drink it from a bottle
and use glasses.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, well, you know, I don't
see that as a negative connotation. I think it's just the average Joe.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But would the average Joe be able to
come to your establishment and buy a beer?
MR. HANSEN: Absolutely, that's part of the agreement is the
Page 243
October 23-24, 2007
average Joe can come to the deck --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're -- that's not my point,
and I think you realize my point, is, we're giving one person the ability
to sell beer or wine or whatever on the beach whose hotel is not on the
beach, but anybody -- any resident can't bring their own drink. I could
bring water or sandwiches or stuff like that.
Anyways, I'm not going to argue the point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, and that's a good point that you
make, Commissioner Henning, but then again, too, you can't -- Joe
six-pack or whoever, can't take their bottle of wine or their beer just
anyplace in the county and sit out on the curb and drink it. About the
only place you can do it, in private residence, and that's about it. I
mean, they're very strict about alcohol and where it's consumed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or Stevie Tomato's.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean, it's just the way it is, or
potatoes or whatever.
In any case, here we are. We've got a motion for denial and
we've got a second for denial. Let's go ahead and move this thing
forward one way or the other.
All those if favor of the motion for denial, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I hear a new motion?
Motion failed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion for
Page 244
October 23-24, 2007
approval by Commissioner Fiala, second from Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show that the
vote was 4-1 with Commissioner Henning in opposition.
Mr. Mudd, one more?
MR. MUDD: We have a companion item to this one --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- and it's ION, and that has to do with the lease,
okay, this lease term. You just approved --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: As quick as you can, because I do
want to squeeze one more item into this -
Item #lON
RESOLUTION 2007-299: A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
LEHILL PARTNERS LLC (D/B/A NAPLES GRANDE) TO
PROVIDE FOOD, BEVERAGE, BEACH EQUIPMENT
RENTALS, AND WATER RECREATIONAL RENTALS AT
CLAM PASS BEACH PARK AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: This is a recommendation to approve a lease
agreement with Lee Hill Partners, LLC, d/b/a Naples Grande, to
Page 245
October 23-24, 2007
provide food/beverage, beach equipment rentals, and water
recreational rentals at Clam Pass Beach Park and approve all
necessary budget amendments. It's a companion item to 8D.
And Mr. Barry Williams will present.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, again, for the record, Barry
Williams, Parks and Recreation Director.
The item before you is the lease agreement that would allow for
the alcohol sales itself. The prior item that you just approved, 8D, was
the ordinance change that would allow you now to enter into this lease
agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. And I read the lease
agreement and I thought it was complete.
Motion by Commissioner Fiala for approval, second by
Commissioner Coletta.
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.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And let the record show the vote was
4-1, Commissioner Henning in the opposition. Don't go.
One real quick. Do 1 OQ.
MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
MR. ZACHARY: This is Robert Zachary, again, for the County
Attorney's Office. The way I wrote the amendment, the board needs
Page 246
October 23-24, 2007
to do a resolution to approve the alcohol sales. So if we can reserve a
resolution number, then I can bring that back for the chairman's
signature.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Resolution number?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, what that is, Commissioner, is the
resolution, consistent with the ordinance amendment that you've
adopted, will direct and approve Marla to -- or the director, to provide
the approval for the alcohol sales at Clam Pass Park only.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Put the wording together so if A
commissioner wants to make that motion, he knows what to say.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. The motion would be to the effect that
the board approve resolution consistent with the ordinance of 8D and
ION --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: lON.
MR. WEIGEL: -- to provide for the director to allow for sale of
alcohol with the -- at Clam Pass Park.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve as stated by the
county manager -- or county attorney.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Halas to approve and second by Commissioner Fiala.
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.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show the vote was 4-1
Page 247
October 23-24, 2007
with Commissioner Henning being the opposition.
Item #10L
RESOLUTION 2007-300: A RESOLUTION SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION 2003-195 AND ESTABLISHING THE COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'
PURCHASING POLICY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LANDS
BY THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM - ADOPTED
One real quick one, Mr. Mudd, and we're going to go through it
lickety-split, lOQ, so we can get the people from Collier --
Conservation Collier so they don't have to come back tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's 10L.
MS. FILSON: I don't have any speakers on lOQ.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, 10L, forgive me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 10L.
MS. FILSON: I don't have speakers on 10L. I have speakers on
lOC, 10M and 11.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm looking for the
Conservation Collier one. Which one is it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There she is, 10L.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Which -- 10L, okay. Once again, got
MR. MUDD: lOL, it's a resolution superseding resolution
2003-195 and establishing the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners purchasing policy for the acquisition of lands by the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program.
Ms. Alex Sulecki, your Senior Environmental Specialist, will
present.
MS. SULECKI: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record,
Page 248
October 23-24, 2007
Alex Sulecki, Coordinator of Conservation Collier.
What is your pleasure; would you like me to go through the
executive --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, motion to approve.
MS. SULECKI: Can I answer questions?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala. And a second by?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it's probably a little bit
premature. I think we'll probably have to have --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh. We have a second by
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought it was seconded by --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, any questions
on this? Did you have something you'd like to read into the record?
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this is a -- this is a new
resolution, so we don't have the strikethroughs of the previous
resolution?
MS. SULECKI: No. It's the strikethroughs and additions
verSIOn.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see the -- I don't see the
addition or the strikethroughs. Am I missing something? Do you see
something?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I didn't either.
MS. SULECKI: I have it in my copy, so I'm not sure what
happened.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I just don't know
what's happening.
MS. SULECKI: Well, I'd be happy to go through the changes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many are there? Pretty
Page 249
October 23-24, 2007
extensive?
MS. SULECKI: No, not really. There's really two substantive
changes, and then the rest are just insub -- nonsubstantive.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to know all the changes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please do.
MS. SULECKI: Okay. Well, the first one is the change to
section 2, and this basically incorporates some direction that was
given to us in Conservation Collier regarding acquisition ofTDRs,
and it outlines the direction that was provided by the board for those
properties, for purchasing those properties, and says that in transfer of
development rights, for properties within a rural fringe mixed-use
district, sending lands property owners must do one of the following
prior to the appraisal process:
They need to either separate all four of the TDR credits resulting
in a conveyance of the property to Conservation Collier or separate
the first two credits and discount the resulting property value by the
cost agreed upon by Collier County property owners to remove all
prohibited exotic plants as identified in the Collier County Land
Development Code, section 3.05.08.
And then once all TDC credits are extinguished, the real estate
services staff will proceed with ordering appraisals based on the
extinguishing of those TDR credits.
And I would just note here that this change goes through a
portion of what the policy would be prior to doing an appraisal. The
Conservation Collier Committee has made some recommendations
which will be coming to you in November on the whole issue of
conveyances and what we would do, but it's -- this is just one small
section of it.
The second substantive change is to add a section that deals with
an unanticipated situation. Should -- and this is in section two four,
and it adds a whole -- it adds four. It says that should the offer not be
accepted by the owner within the 30-day acceptance period -- oh,
Page 250
October 23-24, 2007
excuse me. That's one of the nonsubstantive changes, just giving us a
time frame for the acceptance of the offer of 30 days, which we did
not have before.
Okay. And it also adds in that if the offer is not accepted by the
owner, the county's offer for the property, and then the owner contacts
the county before six months has elapsed from the expiration of the
offer offering to sell the same property again, the same offer can be
made upon certification of the existing appraisal by the county's real
estate appraiser.
So if it's under six months, appraisal's still good, he'll look at it
and say, yes, this is still a good price, and we can go ahead with that.
If more than six months have elapsed, this adds a policy that a new
appraisal shall be ordered, but the owner needs to pay for that prior to
the appraisal, and this was to avoid the operation where folks would
come in and, perhaps, appraisal shop in different kinds of markets for
properties.
And we actually do have that situation coming up; not the
appraisal shopping, but the situation where an owner has come back.
And so this policy would help us to work with that situation.
The other changes are basically nonsubstantive. They've tried to
more align this with the county's purchase policy and further elaborate
on, like in the very end, what -- the costs that the sellers are
responsible for and the county is responsible for.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any questions? Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Shouldn't we include the
RLSA in section 2A?
MS. SULECKI: Well, right now we're dealing with another
property in the RLSA, and what I'm discovering is that there may be
some differences in the TDR policy and how it's considered and the
RLSA policies. So I'm not sure that that would -- they would fit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, when Mr. -- when you
Page 251
October 23-24, 2007
came to us about your targeted areas, one was in that area, and Mr.
Lorenz told the board that we'll make sure that it doesn't have any
TDRs on the property before we go to acquisition.
MS. SULECKI: For TDRs, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Remember that?
MS. SULECKI: But the stewardship credit program--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Credits.
MS. SULECKI: -- is a little bit different.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- well, no. He was talking
about --
MS. SULECKI: The stewardship credits?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- stewardship areas. I could
find you the minutes, if you'd like.
MS. SULECKI: Well, if you prefer, we could go away and come
back with a policy that incorporates both of those. But each property
will come to you for approval and -- the properties seem to have a lot
of different circumstances involved with them, so you still have the
final point of approval of that property given the circumstances.
The TDR is a little more straightforward and straight cut than the
recall lands stewardship portion, so that's why -- I guess we haven't --
we haven't really addressed it, because we know that you can make
your consideration at the very end given all the relevant facts for
property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this will give you
guidance? This gives you guidance in order to bring --
MS. SULECKI: We have your guidance. We understand the
direction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why are we passing this
resolution then?
MS. SULECKI: This helps us with the TDRs, the issues of the
TDRs and several other issues in addition to the -- coming back for
owners who have denied -- or not accepted our offer.
Page 252
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I would like to -- I mean,
if it's going to be in conservation anyways, wherever the property is, if
there's opportunities to sever any development rights, they ought to be
done, and it's a better value for the program.
MS. SULECKI: That might be the case, and then again it might
be that property is in a very strategic location and you might want to
make a decision about that based on knowing everything about the
property.
So I think if it's your desire as a board for us to have a firm policy
for that, we can certainly do that. You still have control. And because
all the circumstances are different, we've done it this way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep. You said you were going to
be coming back in November with a few other things, a few other
policy suggestions. Maybe you could include something like this and
you could put some wording in, that ifthere's specific reason, you
know, with the RLSA anyway, that we needed to adjust something or
another, you might be able to work that in, but then that could satisfy
Commissioner Henning's concern over that particular issue.
MS. SULECKI: Well, the resolution we're bringing to you has to
do with conveyances, and it goes a little beyond what's in here and
talks about long-term management and how we're going to handle
evaluating that kind of need. But we -- and that particular resolution is
coming to you because we have some conveyances on tap.
So I'm not sure if we'd have time in that resolution to change it,
but we can certainly look at that and bring you something if that's your
wish.
(Commissioner Coyle left the hearing room.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Why don't you bring it
back? But I also think it's important that maybe the three of us ought
to talk to Bill Lorenz and when he was in charge or -- I shouldn't say
-- you're always in charge Alex, but he was the oversight of you. I
Page 253
October 23-24, 2007
mean, he was your direct boss.
MS. SULECKI: I'm actually not in charge even now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're always in charge. Yeah,
I'd like to bring it back to include that, and then maybe the three of us
could sit down and -- so we all have an understanding.
MS. SULECKI: Okay. We can do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. If we bring this back, will that
in any way jeopardize what you're working on right now?
MS. SULECKI: It will make a difference in how we view a
particular property that is coming back to the commission, the
committee, for evaluation of whether to reappraise it or not and how to
handle those costs.
So if no particular resolution is made or direction given from you
here today, what will happen at that point is likely that the Collier
County Conservation Land Acquisition Advisory Committee will
make a presentation of what to do. And if it's under the threshold of
the purchase policy regulations, they would make that decision. Here
you would be making the decision; so they would make that decision.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is it possible that if we approve this
today, that you might be able to bring it back with the additional parts
later? In other words, be --
MS. SULECKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- able to give -- there's enough
direction here, I think, that's based upon good practice, management
practices; however, Commissioner Henning's brought up some very
good points as far as the TDR and severing of them and the whole
business to bring down the cost. That's -- rather than hold this whole
thing up, would we be able to bring that back or -- would we be that
much longer before we have to wait if we approve this today and then
waited to bring it back? What's going to be --
MS. SULECKI: We can bring it back. We can bring one back.
Page 254
October 23-24, 2007
And, in fact, we do have a property in our cycle that incorporates all
these rural lands, stewardship credits issues. So yes, we can bring that
back, that portion of it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would be a separate issue from
this right now?
MS. SULECKI: It would.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So right now we do have a
motion for approval and we've got a second. And with that, is there
any other discussion? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just think we can straighten it
out and bring it back at the next meeting, but I'm not going to fight the
Issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0.
And with that, we will continue this meeting tomorrow -- or no,
tomorrow at one o'clock, right, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, because you have Land Development
Code at nine o'clock, and that's been publicly advertised.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. MUDD: So one o'clock this meeting continues in the
afternoon, and your calendars have been cleared for at least two hours.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And my apologies to those members
of the staff that couldn't have their item heard today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll be gone.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all right. I'll handle it for
Page 255
October 23-24, 2007
you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question. Do we have a
new LDC book that we're supposed to be dealing -- that we're
supposed to have?
MR. MUDD: No. I believe this is your second reading.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It's a third meeting of the
second reading?
MR. MUDD: Sir, you had the first two, and I think you went
through, all the way through, and this is the second -- this is the
second reading of the Land Development Code on that -- this is the
second reading.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:18 p.m. and
continued to 1:00 p.m. on October 24,2007.
Page 256
October 23-24, 2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 23-24,2007
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 1 :00 p.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Jim Coletta
Tom Henning
Frank Halas
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala (via speakerphone)
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
JeffKlatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 257
October 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back
to the continuation of the October 23,2007, Board of Collier County
Commissioners' meeting, and I believe, Mr. Mudd, we're going right
to 9A.
Item #9 A
AWARDING CONTRACT 07 -4170 FOR COUNTY ATTORNEY
RECRUITMENT SERVICES TO WATERS CONSULTING
GROUP, INC. FOR $28,000 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: 9A, recommendation to award a contract, 07-4170,
for county attorney recruitment services to water -- Waters
Consulting, Inc., for $28,000.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And is there anyone from staff
or County Attorney's Office that's going to make a recommendation or
MS. FILSON: I think Steve Carnell's here, if you have any
questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none -- is there any speakers
on this?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor, indicate by
saymg aye.
Page 258
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0,
Commissioner Fiala had to leave.
MR. MUDD: 7B.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Next one, if you
wouldn't mind, sir, we're going to hold that till --
MS. FILSON: Oh, there she is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait. Commissioner Fiala, are you
here?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Fiala, can you hear us?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hello, Commissioner Fiala?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Fiala asked if we
could put that off just a little bit so she could be here with us by
phone, and at that time we have to also agree to allow it to take place,
and we'll do it. In fact, why don't we get that out of way right now.
Do I hear a motion to allow for -- recognizing unusual
circumstances for Commissioner Fiala to attend the remainder of this
meeting by phone?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion for approval, and I --
the smiling man over here, Commissioner Coyle, is making a second.
And with that, any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
Page 259
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0. And
hopefully Commissioner Fiala will join us shortly. But she asked if
we could hold that item off for just a little while until she's here
because she wants to weigh in on it. I'd like to respect that wish.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2007-301: APPOINTING LT. GEORGE WELCH
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CITIZENS CORPS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Brings us to our next item, which is 9C,
appointment of a member to the Collier County Citizens Corps.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve Lieutenant
George We1ch.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Coyle for
approval.
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: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 260
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2007-302: APPOINTING CHRISTINE JONES
AND RE-APPOINTING KENNETH KELLY TO THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMISSION - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9D, appointment ofa member to the
Affordable Housing Commission.
MS. FILSON: Commissioners, on this executive summary, I
have the objective is to appoint one member; however, there's two
vacancies, and they wanted to use the same applicants, and they gave
me a recommendation for the second applicant, but I couldn't get it on
the agenda before it went to the press. So do you want me to bring
that back on a future meeting or would you like to consider that
appointment today?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have no problem considering it
today. How about the rest of you; how do you feel? Go ahead and
just give it to us.
MS. FILSON: Okay. The other one is Christine Jones. They
would like to have Christine Jones appointed and Kenneth Kelly
reappointed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to -- has the motion already
been started on this one?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nope. You're starting it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the
recommendations of the committee, Christine Jones and Kenneth
Kelly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
Page 261
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle to approve the committee's recommendation, second by
Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Henning, did you have a -- okay.
MS. FILSON: And I'm also advertising for this committee for
another resignation, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Got a little bit of a turnover, huh?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There is no speakers on this item?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments,
questions?
(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: (Absent.)
. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2007-303: RE-APPOINTING NANCY L.
LASCHEID AND APPOINTING VICTORIA DINARDO TO THE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL -
ADOPTED
Page 262
October 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9E, appointment of members to the
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council.
MS. FILSON: And Commissioners, on this one, this is for one
reappointment and one new appointment. And for Nancy Lascheid, I
have her on the executive summary as her term expiring on August 31,
2009. That should be 2010.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the
recommendations of the committee, Nancy Lascheid and Victoria
DiNardo.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussions?
(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: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? And the ayes have it, 4-0.
And I assume that if we do have any speakers on any of this, you'll be
kind enough to interpret me.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. There are no speakers on item 9 at all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2007-304: RE-APPOINTING ELIZABETH M.
PERDICHIZZI TO THE HISTORICAL! ARCHAEOLOGICAL
Page 263
October 23-24, 2007
PRESERVATION BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9F, appointment of a member to the
Historical Archaeologic Preservation Board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to accept the committee
recommendation, the appointment of Elizabeth Perdichizzi.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, a
second by Commissioner Henning to accept the committee's
recommendation.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
Item #10A
THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICTS
IRRIGATION QUALITY (IQ) WATER POLICY AND ON THE
BASIS OF THAT POLICY AUTHORIZING STAFF TO DEVELOP
AN IQ WATER MASTER PLAN AND PERFORM AN IQ WATER
RATE STUDY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to lOA, and it's a
Page 264
October 23-24, 2007
recommendation to approve and adopt the Collier County
Water/Sewer District's irrigation quality IQ water policy and, on the
basis of that policy, to authorize staff to develop an IQ water master
plan and perform an IQ water rate study. Ms. Beth Johanson -- yeah,
Johanson -- Johnssen, your wastewater irrigation quality manager, will
present.
MS. JOHNSSEN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Beth Johnssen, Irrigation Quality Water Manager.
As Mr. Mudd indicated, today we're asking the commission to
approve and adopt the Collier County Water/Sewer District's aeration
quality water policy, and on the basis of that policy, to authorize staff
to develop an IQ water master plan and perform an IQ water rate
study.
Would you like me to go ahead with the presentation or do you
have any questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The policy that you're going to
adopt, is it going -- is the charges for -- the irrigation water is going to
be after the retention ponds of the -- for the sewer water, you know,
the -- you don't call them retention ponds. You call them --
MS. JOHNSSEN: Storage ponds.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Storage ponds. Is that policy
that you're going to set?
MS. JOHNSSEN: The master plan will determine the rates that
will be applicable. Depending on the customer classification, the
charge mayor may -- may come before storage or may come after,
depending on the type of service we're providing to that customer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, that's interesting. Well, give
me an example of what you would charge before and after.
MS. JOHNSSEN: Our bulk storage customers, the ones that we
Page 265
October 23-24, 2007
provide a lump sum of water to, are charged 31 cents per thousand
gallons. Customers that may receive what we call pressurized and
distributed water is -- the charge is 78 cents per thousand gallons.
And the difference comes that -- in the fact that we may store it for
them and then send it to them pressurized and distributed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thanks.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0. Thank you very
much.
MS. JOHNSSEN: Thank you.
Item #10C
A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONCERNING A POSSIBLE CHANGE IN THE COUNTY'S
ORDINANCE TO REFLECT AN AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA
STATUTES REGARDING THE USE OF ALL TERRAIN
VEHICLES (ATVS) ON CERTAIN UNPAVED ROADS IN THE
Page 266
October 23-24, 2007
COUNTY - BRING FORWARD AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM
ON A FUTURE BOARD MEETING WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10C. It's a report
to the Board of County Commissioners concerning a possible change
to the county's ordinance to reflect an amendment to Florida Statutes
regarding the use of all-terrain vehicles, A TV s, on certain unpaved
roads in the county.
Mr. Bob Tipton, your Traffic Operations Manager, will present.
MR. TIPTON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Bob Tipton, Director of Traffic Operations.
The original A TV statute passed in 2006 required that the county
allow A TV s on all roads or prohibit them on all roads, creating an
all-or-nothing situation. Collier County passed a resolution in 2006 to
prohibit A TV use on county roads.
In 2007 the statute was amended to address the all-or-nothing.
The amended statute allows the county to designate specific unpaved
roadways for A TV use without requiring countywide use. Given the
change in the statute, the board tasked the transportation division to
identify any unpaved roadways that might be appropriate for A TV
use.
The criteria used by staff was that the roadway not have
residences and that they be at least a half mile long to allow room for
both riding and for parking the vehicles that are used to tow the A TV s
to the site.
It should be noted that our review was performed based only on
traffic issues.
A search was made of the road maintenance department's
database of limestone roads to find those without residences on them.
The search identified 34 locations, of which only three were a half
mile or more long in length.
Page 267
October 23-24, 2007
One of these is 36th Avenue Southeast near the old Ford Motor
test track off of DeSoto. 34th Avenue and 38th Avenue on each side
of the segment do have residences on them.
The other two road sections identified were 41st Street and 43rd
-- 41 st Avenue and 43rd Avenue Northwest, just west of Wilson
Boulevard, just north of Twin Eagles. All three of these locations are
lined with vacant residential lots so we have to presume that houses
could be built anytime on these roadways.
An area further from the populated portion of the county is
Wagon Wheel Road maintained by Collier County. There is a section
running five miles between Birdon Road and Turner River Road in the
Big Cypress National Preserve. The adjoining land is federal
property, and the roadway is open to general traffic within the
preserve.
We also looked at locations that are not county maintained. A
well-known roadway is Jane Scenic Drive, approximately 10 miles
long, located within the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve. It is
apparently no longer maintained by anyone. I drove it.
An obvious area with many unpaved roads without residences, of
course, is the former south blocks area of Golden Gate Estates. This
area was formerly maintained by the county but is now a part of the
Picayune State Forest. Destined to eventual flooding, roads in most
parts of the forest are currently still in fair condition.
This area was formerly utilized by many A TV riders, but they are
no longer allowed in the forest. Forest rules prohibit any off-road
vehicles but allow motor vehicles on named and numbered roads.
Our study results show that Collier County is filling in. There
are very few unpaved public roads with no residences, and most of
those are on state and federal lands. The trouble with utilizing state or
federal land, that we would presumably need permission from the
operating agency in order to install the warning signs on their land.
Such warning signs are required by the statutes to mark areas where
Page 268
October 23-24, 2007
A TV s are allowed.
Staff recommendation is to maintain the prohibition of A TV s on
county roadways with residences or the possibility of residences in
order to avoid traffic conflicts; however, if the board wishes to modify
the existing ordinance in any way, we stand ready to assist by
advertising the required public hearing, and then in posting the
requisite warning signs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I think that was a very
good presentation. And you outlined some of the problems that we're
going to incur, and I also assume that it's going to require some more
maintenance to the roads that are used for this purpose; however, this
is something that's been very, very important to the Collier County
Commission.
Mike Davis worked with us directly last year, and it was one of
our legislative objectives, which we asked them to modify this to
provide to amend it in a way that would allow us to pick and choose
what roads in the county would be able to work, and I think you've
done a great job of selecting those roads.
Now, the question is, is as far as the ones that are in the Estates,
which are very limited amounts of them, when one of them -- which
ones of them would be able to gain enough public acceptance to be
able to go forward with, and what kind of rules can we apply that
when a house is built on one of those particular roads, that that
particular segment is removed from inventory at a reasonable time.
So it's far from a perfect picture that this -- that we're painting
here. But when you have nothing, anything we can offer would be an
amenity that would be greatly appreciated to that large amount of
people that still would like to be able to enjoy ATVs in a limited
fashion.
With that, let's go to Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner
Coyle after that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Bob, I have a couple of questions.
Page 269
October 23-24, 2007
Some of these roads that you pointed out belong not only to the
county, but I believe they belong to another form of government.
My concern is, how are we going to monitor the deterioration of
these roads, that -- if we decide to go in this manner?
MR. TIPTON: We probably wouldn't other than by visitation,
but seeing as how we don't even maintain those roads, we really
wouldn't be able to go in and do maintenance on them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Question I have then is,
what's the width of these roads, 60 feet?
MR. TIPTON: The roadway -- the actual roads, most of them
were from 20 to 30 feet wide.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The right-of-way.
MR. TIPTON: The roadway is, at the most, 60 foot.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. How are we going to -- has
there been any thought in regards to how we're going to protect
property owners that are on each side of these -- this right-of-way so
that people don't use the ATVs to use their property to turn around in?
MR. TIPTON: Not in our review. We were looking strictly at
traffic issues. The main thing that we were concerned about were
traffic conflicts between -- in the areas that had residences where
people would be backing out of driveways and kids on bicycles and
that type of thing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I guess what I'm concerned
about is, some of these roads are just a straight shot, then they end.
MR. TIPTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So then, of course, at the end --
MR. TIPTON: Turn around.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- people have got to turn around.
Now, whether they're going to stay within the confines of that 60-foot
right-of-way or are they going to intrude on other people's property,
there's no way we can control that, right?
MR. TIPTON: No, sir, not that I know of.
Page 270
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll wait until after the speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would you please call the
speaker.
MS. FILSON: I'm not sure ifhe's here. He was signed up
yesterday. Rick Varela.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He sent out an email saying he
wasn't going to be here. That's the gentleman that was sitting there
with the laptop all day yesterday.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I believe that when you
open up a road for A TV use, you also open up all the private property
adjacent to that road for ATV use. Not many people I know just like
to run up and down a road. They like to get out and ride around.
(Commissioner Fiala is appearing by speakerphone.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so it appears to me that we are
going to have a substantial liability, not only from private property
owners whose property will be utilized by A TV s, but also since we're
not maintaining these roads, if there is an accident because -- that can
be blamed on the fact that roads are not properly maintained, it seems
to me that we might have some liability here. That's a legal question
that our attorney has to answer, but I am very apprehensive about
doing that.
I think just opening up a straight road for people to ride A TV s is
not going to be appealing to them, first of all. It doesn't solve the
problem, but it does provides them access with a lot of other people --
to a lot of other people's property, and I think that's unfair.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I appreciate that. Now, why
don't we ask the county attorney to comment on that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Not to be facetious, because that's really not
Page 271
October 23-24, 2007
the intent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, before you --
Commissioner Fiala, are you with us?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Could I get you to put your
mute button on until you're ready to speak? We're getting some
background noise.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Surely, hold on. I will do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't hang up. Just your mute
button.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is my mute button?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's the one that says off.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, it doesn't. Don't listen to
Commissioner Coyle. We'll never get through this meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know where the mute button
is. Here, I'll hold my hand over it, okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. It's not that irritating.
We're glad that you're with us in any case.
I'm sorry, would you please go ahead, Jeff.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I guess to be succinct, yes, you will
be opening up the county to at least claims by people injured from
ATV use or private property owners whose property has been injured
by ATV use.
That's what we have anytime we offer any service though, we
open ourselves up to liability. I mean, when you provide EMS, you're
opening yourselves up to liability if it doesn't get there quick enough
or it gets into an accident. So when you provide a service, you open
yourselves up to liability.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that goes true even for regular
four-wheel vehicles that drive on our roads, ifthere's a crack in the
pavement.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's true.
Page 272
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Or the sidewalk has a break in it.
There's a certain amount of liability that goes with everything.
The thing is, is that I want to remind everybody, we've been
through a very traumatic thing with this issue for a number of years
now. I want to bring back to you what we went through with the
south block and when we turned over roads over to the state and they
removed that use in that particular area, and there were many promises
made that they were going to provide it and nothing came of it. We've
had people fill this room numerous times looking for that service.
Water Management lagged behind for a long time on providing
their promises as far as providing a park for us. Still, to this day we
don't have that park. This is what, three, four years, five years since
the whole thing started?
We have a certain segment of our population that we have
recognized in the past that have a recreational pursuit that is just as
valid as playing golf or soccer or whatever.
The problem being is, is that we have given every avenue of
support to get to the point we're at today. Originally we supported the
bill. We got them to carry it as one of our legislative initiatives. The
bill came back. It was too inclusive.
We brought our legislation delegation back. We went over
everything with them from A to Z, got them to amend the bill. It's one
of the last things Mike Davis did for us, he amended the bill as per our
directions so that we'd be able to pick and choose where we could put
this limited amenity.
The whole question is, is can we provide this amenity in a way
that will not only enhance a certain segment of the population, but will
not deter from the enjoyment and peaceful quiet of the residents close
to it.
Let's go to Commissioner Halas, then we'll go to Commissioner
Fiala, even though she hasn't indicated she wanted to speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, thank you.
Page 273
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll go to Commissioner Fiala first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll tell you, I think it's a
wonderful idea. I think that they've waited a long time. I don't care
where they're going to be, whether they're in Bad Luck Prairie or
whatever. Somehow we could always be sued for whatever, and we
never have been, by the way.
And so I think that it's a -- I think it's a wonderful idea to see
these roads, especially one, what is it, 28 miles long and no residence
all along that way. I don't think they would be any detriment to those
road systems at all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's do this, Commissioner
Fiala. Since you brought up the subject like that, we have some
recommendations from staff for several segments to bring back for
consideration at another meeting in the near future where we can
involve landowners and residents and everybody and his brother to
make sure that this is doable.
Would you like to make the motion at this time?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to make a motion that
the three staff recommendations be acted upon.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, now staff recommendations
actually were not to allow it period, but they did offer --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no.
MR. TIPTON: Yeah, I should make it clear that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry.
MR. TIPTON: -- we're not recommending--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They identified three areas; did they
not?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, they did. Bob Tipton, would
you elaborate on that?
MR. TIPTON: Yes. We were just asked to identify areas. We're
Page 274
October 23-24, 2007
not making any recommendations. The areas that we found most
suitable for this purpose are not on county-maintained roadways, and
that would take dealing with other agencies in order to make that
happen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's an issue that we bring back
and discuss.
MR. TIPTON: And we certainly didn't presume to go to these
agencies and even talk to them or anything, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I assume if we brought it back at
that point in time that we'd have the different agencies here that could
interact with us to find out how we can present this in a meaningful
way and still protect the resources.
MR. TIPTON: I'm sure they would be interested in meeting with
us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I mean, that -- can't do that here.
MR. TIPTON: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We don't have anyone present ready
to support or defend or to ask us to reconsider. But anyways --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Commissioner Fiala, I hear your
motion, and I'd like to second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I just want to move this thing a long.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my motion is to have Bob
Tipton investigate with these people and move this issue -- move this
project further forward so that we have a place identified that people
can use, and it's approved by all the agencies, and bring it then back to
us for our final approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, yeah, bring it back here. I
wouldn't put down approval of the agencies, because that could take
years before that happens.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
Page 275
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: See, we already have jurisdiction to
do this by the state, but we don't have the agencies here to be able to
be -- to be able to deal with them in a -- when they show up at that
meeting to be able to talk about how this would all come together.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, maybe you could better state
the motion, Commissioner, and I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then you withdraw your
motion and I'll restate a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. My motion is, is that we bring it
forward in a future agenda to discuss the possibilities that staff
outlined of all the roads that staff had as examples, and I can't
remember how many segments there were. There was a couple in the
far Estates. There was --
MR. TIPTON: Picayune State Forest.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Jane Scenic Drive.
MR. TIPTON: Fakahatchee and the federal preserve. On the
federal preserve, we'll have to get with legal -- well, that's a county
road, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, and we can -- but you know,
whatever the jurisdiction the state gave us on this, we can use it, I
assume. But just to be able to move it to the next step forward, and
that's my motion. Do you second it, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And forgive me in seem to be
moving this along, but -- and then we can get into discussion now.
Go back to Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, in regards to
properties that butt up against the right-of-way, if someone goes on
somebody else's property and has an accident, who's liable, the county
or the property owner that owns that, even though it's trespassing?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't really think the county's liable. I
Page 276
October 23-24, 2007
mean, when people get taxes (sic), they tend to sue everyone. But I
don't really think the county's liable, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can they sue the property owner
even if they trespassed on it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Can they sue? Yes, they can sue. Will they
be successful?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other discussion on this
particular matter? Is there anything we missed here staff would like to
comment on?
MR. TIPTON: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, any
comments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sounds good to me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. There's no more comments,
we've taken care of the public speakers.
With that I'm going to call the question, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show the vote
was 3-2 with Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coyle being in
the opposition to it.
Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You are so welcome.
Item #9B
Page 277
October 23-24, 2007
RESOLUTION 2007-305: APPOINTING THE FOLLOWING TO
THE COMMITTEE: BRADLEY CORNELL; ZACH FLOYD
CREWS (W/WAIVER OF TERM LIMIT); GARY EIDSON;
DAVID FARMER; RON HAMEL; JIM HOWARD; THOMAS
JONES; WILLIAM MCDANIEL JR.; TIMOTHY NANCE;
TAMMIE NEMECEK; NENO SPAGNA; FRED N. THOMAS JR.
(W/W AIVER OF TERM LIMIT); AND DAVE WOLFLEY;
RESOLUTION 2007-305A: COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE TO
PREPARE REVISED RESOLUTION TO THE ORIGINATING
RESOLUTION TO ALLOW FOR A REGIONAL MEMBER TO
THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you said you were going to wait
for Commissioner Fiala to come back on and go to 9B. So I suggest
while we still have her on the phone -- 9B is appointment of members
to the Rural Land Stewardship Area Review Committee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, and I appreciate that. And
everybody's got the list in front of them, and I'm sure that there are
many people on here that we're all going to agree to right at --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve what,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We need 13 of28, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right, right. And if I may make a
couple suggestions here. And I don't want to try to make it look like
I'm picking just people from -- that live in that particular district, but
one of the prime considerations I'd like to be able to bring up is, there's
four people on here that served on the original Rural Land Assessment
Area Oversight Committee. Those people are extremely
knowledgeable, these four to come back and actually want to do it
again. They bring that institutional knowledge back with them that
October 23-24, 2007
would be of tremendous help.
And if! may share their names with you. It would be Floyd
Crews, Ron Hamel, Neno Spagna, and Fred Thomas. The rest of the
15 members didn't reapply.
That, I would think, would be the bases of the committee.
They'll walk in the door, they already got an understanding what's
there, and they can help to help staff and the rest of the committee
carry it to the next level.
I have a couple others I'm going to recommend, then I'm going to
turn it over to you for your consideration, and that would be Tom
Jones, who represents a number of the landowners out there. They
haven't all submitted, just Tom Jones mainly; Bill McDaniels (sic), Jr.,
who is -- also heads up the 951 committee. Very, very familiar with
issues; and, of course, probably a favorite for everybody would be
Tammie Nemecek.
Then in your district there's a person that's been very active,
Commissioner, is David Wolfey, but I'll leave that for you to decide.
And that's the ones I would like to see, if -- you know, move forward,
and that gives a total of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven people of
the 13. If there's any objections to any of those people or -- probably
the best way to handle it maybe be if we each submitted
recommendations and then had the county manager tally it up, or if
you have certain people.
Your suggestions, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think -- I think what
you've done is good. This is an appointment for one year. These
people have to hit the ground running, and if they don't have a
background in this rural land stewardship area or if they don't have an
understanding of its purposes and what has been done out there, then
they're not going to be very productive.
And I would just like to expand upon your concept, not only
would I like to see us nominate for membership those people who
Page 279
October 23-24, 2007
were prior members of the Rural Land Stewardship Area Committee,
but also include all of the people who are currently on the East of 951
Committee because they are at least familiar with the issues in the
area, and that would add Dave Farmer to the list that you have
selected, and Timothy Nance, and I believe that gives us about nine of
the 13 people.
So if that is an acceptable strategy for the other commissioners,
then we could -- we could just concentrate on the remaining four or
five people.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: IfI've made my counts right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I -- could I weigh in?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course, we're waiting for you to
speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I would think it's also a
good idea, instead of having all people that have served on that, I
always believe we need some fresh eyes and fresh new ideas. And I
had a few people there, one of them was Tom Taylor. I thought he
would be excellent for that, another one was Brad Cornell. We don't
have any environmental people on there, and we sure don't want to be
tangling with environmental when this is all done. It would be a good
idea to get their input. There was a gentleman on there, and I think his
name was either Peter or Paul Gadly or something like that, or Gladly,
and I read his --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Gladdys.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- resume, and I was so impressed.
And I thought, he would probably be able to add a real good
dimension to the committee rather than having always the same old
people on these things. It doesn't allow us to expand our horizons any.
So I would throw in a couple of those names.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry. One more time
here. You're saying that you're recommending Thomas Taylor?
Page 280
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Tom Taylor, Brad --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Brad Cornell.
MR. MUDD: Brad Cornell and a Paul A. Gladly (sic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's it, okay. There were a
number more, but I would at least like to throw those names in.
MS. FILSON: So that's 12.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One of the things that would really
help, when you've got these long lists, if we could get everybody --
well, I guess we do. Never mind.
MS. FILSON: In alphabetical order, they are.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there's -- well, that was my
intent is we appoint the people who we know have a background, and
that leaves us about four or five people that we each can nominate
someone for, and those would be -- as a matter of fact, I agree with
Commissioner Fiala's recommendation of Brad Cornell, but I also
think that there are people in Commissioner Halas's district who could
contribute and Gary Eidson is one of those.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. I would have mentioned
him also, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I think if -- and Commissioner
-- we need to hear from Commissioner Henning and, of course,
Commissioner Halas can speak for himself, but I do think one of the
members -- one of the people in his district would serve very well
there.
So I think that if we follow this strategy that we've laid out, we
will get a good cross-section of applicants on this committee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One of the things I did notice, it's a
minor issue, but it could be important. The commission districts aren't
listed correctly on some of these people. Fred Thomas is in District 5,
not 2. It's a minor point, but you know, somebody -- David Wolfey, I
Page 281
October 23-24, 2007
believe, is in 3, isn't he?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not 2, and I don't know about the
other ones.
Okay. Let's just see. Commissioner Coyle, we're done with you.
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'd like to appoint from my
district, as a layperson, Gary Eidson. I won't be greedy. I'll just get
one person on there, and I'm in agreement with Brad Cornell.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I cannot accept the
recommendations to have Tim Taylor on the committee because of his
position, what he told me personally about his land and what he's
going to do with it and now what he is attempting to do, and it has to
do with the rural district. I can't support that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tom Taylor. I can't support that
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Dave Wolfey is a former
member of the Planning Commission. He'd be an excellent choice.
MS. FILSON: That would be 13 unless you take someone off.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'm not too sure that we have a
count. Obviously--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got a count.
MR. MUDD: Did I hear that David W olfey -- Commissioner
Henning, you'd like him on? Okay. If you decide to take Tom Taylor
off because that's a conflict of interest on land that he owns, then
you're at 13.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Well, since you're only
making one choice, Commissioner Fiala made several. I'm not going
to try to make a judgment on how he fits into it. I can agree to remove
him along with Commissioner Henning.
Page 282
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I tell you, you've got -- as county
manager says, you've got 13 right now. And if! could read them off to
you, and you could see if you like them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Start--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's go with Brad Cornell; Floyd
Crews; Gary Eidson; David Farmer, because he was on the East of
951 Committee or is; Ron Hamel, who was on the rural land
stewardship area; Jim Howard, who also was on the original
stewardship committee; Tom Jones; Bill McDaniel; Timothy Nance;
Tammie Nemecek; Neno Spagna; Fred Thomas; and David Wolfey.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. You were just a little too
fast. Did you say Tammie Nemecek?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I did.
MS. FILSON: Take Paul off?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't put Paul Gladdys on there,
but he's certainly well qualified, but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't have Jim Howard on the
original committee, to be honest with you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Manager, what have you
got for a count; could you tell us what you've got?
MR. MUDD: Jim Howard, according to page 4 of71, backup
document, former member of the Rural Lands Area Assessment
Oversight Committee. Jim Howard has got a yes against his name.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Got a yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh -- okay.
MR. MUDD: So based on what Commissioner -- based on what
Commissioner Coyle just read off, I have 13. The only question -- the
only question that's up there is Paul Gladdys, who is a Commissioner
Fiala recommendation, isn't part of that 13.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But her recommendation of
Bradley Cornell is.
Page 283
October 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: Bradley Cornell is, and so is -- she mentioned Tom
Taylor, but Tom Taylor's off.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: David Farmer too, I believe. No, that
was Halas. David Farmer, I don't know who recommended that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, he --
MR. MUDD: David Farmer was on --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The 951 committee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. He's on the 951.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Then can I make a comment?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry?
MS. FILSON: May I make a comment, please?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may.
MS. FILSON: If you appoint Floyd Crews and Fred Thomas,
you'll have to waive section 5D of2001-55 because they currently
serve on two or more committees, and also the person from Fort
Myers you just have to --
MR. KLATZKOW: If you could make in your motion that you
would like the county attorney to, at the same time, amend the
resolution that created this board to include non-county members, that
would take care of that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, he was on the prior
committee.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, but the resolution that created this
omitted that as an oversight.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh. Yeah, I also noticed that, but I
looked at enabling legislation. Enabling legislation says that regional
representatives are encouraged.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so it was a proper thing to do,
that is --
MR. KLA TZKOW: It is the proper thing to do, but just for
suspended --
Page 284
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Since you got everybody's attention,
you want to put it in a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'll make a motion that we
nominate the following people, or appoint the following people to the
Rural Land Stewardship Area Committee for the assessment, and
those people would be Bradley Cornell, Floyd Crews, Gary Eidson,
David Farmer, Ron Hamel, Jim Howard, Thomas Jones, William
McDaniel, Timothy Nance, Tammie Nemecek, Neno Spagna, Fred
Thomas, and David Wolfey, and that we also need to waive the
provisions to permit Floyd Crews and Fred Thomas to serve on the
committee and we also will be giving guidance to the county attorney
to revise the resolution or ordinance to permit the appointment of Ron
Hamel as a regional member.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning, do you still have some
discussion on this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 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 the ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you.
Page 285
October 23-24, 2007
Item #lOD
RESOLUTION 2007-306: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF RIGHT -OF -WAY
AND RELATED EASEMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF
GOLDEN GA TE BOULEVARD FROM WEST OF WILSON
BOULEVARD TO EAST OF EVERGLADES BOULEVARD
(PHASE ONE PROJECT LIMITS), AND AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION OF LANDS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF STORMW A TER RETENTION AND
TREATMENT PONDS FOR BOTH PHASES ONE AND TWO
(FROM WEST OF WILSON BOULEVARD TO EAST OF
DESOTO BOULEVARD.) PROJECT NO. 60040. ESTIMATED
FISCAL IMPACT: $18,411,297.00 - FIRST MOTION TO REPEAL
RESOLUTION 2007-292 - APPROVED; THEN MOTION TO
APPROVE RESOLUTION 2007-306: ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item on
the agenda, which is lOD. It's a recommendation to adopt resolution
authorizing acquisition by gift or purchase of right-of-way and related
easements necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage, and
utility improvements required for the expansion of Golden Gate
Boulevard, west of Wilson Boulevard to east of Everglades
Boulevard, phase one project limits, and authorizing the acquisition of
lands necessary for the construction of stormwater retention and
treatment ponds for both phases one and two, from west of Wilson
Boulevard to east of DeSoto Boulevard. Project number 60040.
Estimated fiscal impact, $18,441,297.
Mr. Norman Feder, your Transportation Services Administrator,
will present.
Page 286
October 23-24, 2007
MR. FEDER: Thank you. Commissioners, you approved this
item at your last board meeting. There was some question raised on
one provision, that provision being paragraph 5 of the resolution that
allowed us to offer under an administrative settlement up to 50,000
over the property valuation for the property of the land to be taken.
The question that was raised at that time was did that apply,
whether it was a value of 1,000 versus 100,000, if! remember
correctly, and the answer was yes, and that is the case the way it was
written previously.
We noted that the 50,000 was based on purchasing authority, and
anything above that requires us to come to the board. We also noted
that an administrative settlement was an effort to try and reduce the
cost of condemnation and is why we came to you in that attempt.
We also noted that, in fact, obviously, we wouldn't be looking to
offer 51,000 if the property was valued at 1,000. But to make sure
that that issue is clear, we're asking that you, in fact, repeal resolution
2007-292 that you passed last board meeting, and to pass the
resolution before you today that is basically one and the same. It is a
gift and purchase resolution for rights-of-way for Golden Gate
Boulevard from Wilson on out to Everglades, and then for retention
from Everglades to DeSoto on Golden Gate Boulevard, but it has the
modifications in paragraph 5 that provide that we offer not more than
125 percent of the value established by appraisal, up to and not to
exceed $50,000, and what that means, if it's a $1,000 value by the
appraisal, we can offer no more the 1,250 without coming to the
board.
The breaking point obviously is at 200,000. Anything below
200,000, we would offer no more than 125 percent of value to get an
administrative settlement, which would be just under 50,000, if you
will. At 200,000,50,000 can be offered. Anything above 200,000, no
more than 50,000 could be offered to effectuate an administrative
settlement.
Page 287
October 23-24, 2007
So we wanted to bring that back to clarify. We never intended to
offer 50,000 on a 1,000. And to be honest with you, we wanted this
clarification so the public does not perceive that we have that
flexibility to go 50,000 even on a $1,000 value.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
repeal resolution 2007-292, and the reason I want to do that, I think
we need to get that off the table before we start discussing the other
resolution.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can we do that without advertising?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, great. I'll second that.
We have a motion from Commissioner Henning to repeal the
previous resolution, and a second by myself, Commissioner Coletta.
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: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0, with
Commissioner Fiala out of service at the moment.
Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I just have a question on
the new resolution. What determined a 25 percent over the appraised
value, estimated appraised value?
MR. FEDER: That is basically the provisions that had been used
Page 288
October 23-24, 2007
some years back in administrative settlements, and so we applied that
same basic valuation. Again, what you're trying to do is to come to an
administrative settlement.
If you have a property under 200,000, if you end up going to
condemnation, your costs are typically, in any condemnation suit,
somewhere in that 50,000, I had noted at the previous meeting. So
you're trying to take small areas where we're getting either a right of
entry, which is land value, or a corner clip or issues of the sort and
make sure that can work with an administrative settlement. There
needs to be some flexibility. Obviously this $250,000 per 1,000
valuation is not a lot, but at the same time, it's some inducement to try
and get it closed if we cannot do it at the straight 1,000, which would
be our effort.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, being that it's a buyer's
market, wouldn't it be more prudent to, let's say, do a 5 percent over
appraised value?
MR. FEDER: Again, Commissioner, this is going to stay in
effect in market changes over time. What I will tell you is, again, this
is a process for an administrative settlement. We will do whatever this
board directs, obviously, but at the same time, there is purchasing
capability right now up to 50,000 without coming to the board.
What we were trying to recognize is, there's no way we're going
to offer 50,000 on 1,000 value, and we don't want the public believing
we even have that option, even though technically we don't have to
come to the board up to 50,000. So we feel the 25 percent, given that
we're talking values under 200,000 -- because once you're at 200,000,
125 percent is 50,000. Anything over that would be constrained by
50,000, would be an appropriate figure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Coyle, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Why is this particular
Page 289
October 23-24, 2007
resolution appropriate only for the purchase of right-of-way or land
easements for the Golden Gate Boulevard expansion and not available
for any other takings of land?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I think you'll see it in all of our
resolutions in the future, this provision of 125 or 50- when we ask for
gift and purchase.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it true of the Livingston Road--
or the Vanderbilt Road extension?
MR. FEDER: Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, we're doing
whole takes, and every one of those have come to the board.
Unfortunately, your 50,000 hasn't been able to allow us to make an
administrative settlement, as you're well aware.
Again, on this any taking where we are unable to negotiate within
125 percent or 50,000 has to be brought to the board for action and
determination by the board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It just seems to me that we have to
be careful about -- about not being fair in all of our takings --
MR. FEDER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and not provide people in one
area financial advantages that people in another area do not enjoy.
MR. FEDER: And we are seeking definitely to do exactly that.
And I think we're very consistent on that and we'll be addressing like,
on this issue where you have an existing corridor and you'll be taking
portions of that and hopefully no whole takes, we'll be addressing that
on the Vanderbilt Beach corridor as we go into -- once we finish
design -- the partial take, what you've been seeing recently with the
whole take properties.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, your justification for doing
this is that you believe that although you'll be providing a premium for
the purchase of the property, you will being avoiding the costs oflegal
expenses if it goes to court.
MR. FEDER: Attorneys fees, other issues, condemnation costs,
Page 290
October 23-24, 2007
yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think you're absolutely right.
It's just that people need to understand we're not just throwing away
$50,000. We're actually avoiding substantial expenses that occur when
these things go to court, and the state law requires us to pay lawyers
what we think is an exorbitant fee under those circumstances.
MR. FEDER: You're very correct, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But what I don't understand is why
we don't just have a resolution that addresses all of the acquisitions or
takings of property rather than doing it on a project-by-project basis.
MR. FEDER: Because with each project, we come to you and
define the project before we go into acquisition, and each step, we
come in first and request for gift and purchase, authorizing us at that
time, so you know where we are in the project, where we've gone,
where we're going to start the right-of-way acquisition.
Then we come back later for a resolution for condemnation if
we're -- for whatever parcels we have not been able to acquire by
negotiation, or by purchase by negotiation. And so that is the process
we have followed throughout.
MR. AHMAD: Commissioner, for the record my name is Jay
Ahmad. We -- in the gift and purchase resolution, we identify the cost
for a specific project as well, so that's why we do it project by project.
In this case it's 18 million plus for the cost of that project. If all
of the parcels to be acquired through --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then could I ask the motion maker
to consider providing that guidance as part of the motion for approval,
that we approve it for this particular project, that we expect the same
kinds -- the same financial terms to be available to anyone for any
project?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'll put that in a motion
as long as you'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will, yep.
Page 291
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And you have included that in
your motion. We have a motion, we have a second.
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 HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I believe, Commissioner Fiala,
are you there now? Almost there. 4---
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'm here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Can we count you on the
affirmative for that particular --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, you may.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The motion passed by 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry it takes a little while. I have
to put mute and unmute. I found it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great. It's working wonderful.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great, thank you.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2007-307: CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 7,
EXHIBIT E, FOR A GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE (GMP)
OF $7,012,302 UNDER CONTRACT NO. 04-3576,
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK SERVICES FOR THE
COURTHOUSE ANNEX AND PARKING GARAGE, WITH
Page 292
October 23-24, 2007
KRAFT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FOR THE
INTERIOR FINISHING (BUILD-OUT) OF THE COURTHOUSE
ANNEX, FLOORS 4 THROUGH 7, PROJECT NUMBER 52533 -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to WE. It's a
recommendation to approve a contract amendment, number 7, Exhibit
E, for a guaranteed maximum price, GMP, of$7,012,302 under
contract number 04-3576, and construction manager at risk services
for the courthouse service and parking garage with Kraft Construction
Company, Inc., for the interior finishing buildout for the courthouse
annex, floors four through seven. Project 52533. And Mr. Hank
Jones, your senior project manager for the project, will present.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you begin, sir, Commissioner
Henning, did you want to address a question now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I don't have a problem
amending the contract, but there's one thing that we need to get clear,
and that's the purchases of goods to where we get the sales tax back.
And if the contractor buys below what's anticipated, is that going to be
a return of funds back to the board?
Like say he buys -- let's say he buys 10 tables for $200 but he
budgeted 250 per table. Is that $50 going to come back to us now?
MR. JONES: I believe the way that works is whatever the item
in his original bid was for the number of tables and the quoted amount
for those tables is what the change order, the deductive change order is
issued for. At that point we cut the purchase order for that -- to that
vendor for that quantity of goods and services at that price.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: At what price?
MR. JONES: At the price quoted in the GMP.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But that isn't the way the
contract was laid out, and that's my point. So are we changing the
contract to reflect if the -- if there's a savings within the contract, are
Page 293
October 23-24, 2007
we -- that's not coming back to the board then, right?
MR. JONES: I believe the discussion, was it last -- the previous
meeting.
MR. MUDD: Yep, last one.
MR. JONES: The discussion in that case was evolving quantity
changes. In your case, your example, 10 tables, if in the course of the
direct purchase execution there was only a requirement for eight tables
for some reason, then, as I understand it, it was decided that that
money for the extra two tables would come back to the county, would
not revert to the contractor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Cables?
MR. JONES: Tables in that case. Two tables worth 10-table
purchase order.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct, okay.
Crystal, can you help me out on this? There was a letter of change
that struck out the language of returning those monies to the Board of
County Commissioners.
MS. KINZEL: Yes, Commissioners. I think that was on your
change order report in the last agenda item. That was specific though
to the prior amendments to the contract, I think.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. KINZEL: I'm not sure what the provision is in this
amendment. I haven't looked at that particular clause, but I think that
-- agree with you that should be defined so that we know what we're to
pay.
In the past issue it was, if the quantity was reduced, the original
agreement with Kraft gave the money to the county. There were
letters changing other stipulations for portions of these amendments to
this that then gave the money back to Kraft.
So since this is standing alone, seemingly, as an amendment, I'm
not sure what this includes as far as that difference.
MR. JONES: I believe that that -- since this has -- I don't -- I
Page 294
October 23-24, 2007
believe Steve is not here to speak to that, but I believe that we would
__ since this amendment has not yet been signed, that we could take
the board's direction to make it specific to this amendment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I would like
whatever we can give back to the taxpayers that we ought to get. If
there is a savings on a purchase, it should be the taxpayers'.
MR. JONES: Agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If there is a difference in the
quantity, it should be the taxpayers'.
MR. JONES: Ifthere's a difference in the quantity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll make a motion to
approve with those clarifications.
MR. JONES: That'd be fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, I'm sorry. The motion is
to follow the recommendations with the clarifications that you
mentioned?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve this item
with the two clarifications that I just made.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And would you restate the
clarifications?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The clarifications is, ifthere is a
change in quantity, those savings shall come back to the board.
MS. PRICE: Can we discuss this and bring Steve Carnell here?
MR. MUDD: Let's -- let me --let Commissioner --let
Commissioner Henning finish his statement please. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've got an extra seat here, if
anybody wants to join us.
The second one is, if there is a savings within purchase items,
that will come back to the board. That's a part of my motion.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that goes against guaranteed
maximum price. And if you want to have that, then ifthere's any
overage in the cost of the items, then the contractor gets that, too, anda
Page 295
October 23-24, 2007
gets a change order for change of condition.
Now you've set the guaranteed maximum price so that it's fine
because if it comes under what the bid price is, you get it. But if it
goes over the bid price, as it stands right now, the contractor eats it.
And so, if you're going to play that way -- now, ifthere's change
in quantity, Commissioner Henning's dead on as far as the contract is
concerned. We should get that money back on change of contract
because there's a unit cost per item that's bid on. And ifhe only needs
eight and he's bid for 10, then we should get those two units back with
that cost. That's not -- that's not a problem. That's in the contract,
that's there.
It gets to the point where, ifhe gets the product that's under his
bid, then the county would get the money back, as Commissioner
Henning was asking for in this motion; but the other part of this is, if it
costs more than what he bid, right now he eats that, and where's the
fairness in that? He bid on a guaranteed maximum price to the
contract, he assumes all risk in that contract, and you're not supposed
to assume any. So that's the way the contract mechanism is set up.
And so that's all I'll tell you. I mean, if you're going to get one,
then you've got to give him the benefit of saying, okay, if it's over and
I underestimated my bid, then I need to be able to come back and get
those dollars back from the county.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's that written about the
guaranteed maximum price bid? Where is it written what you just
stated?
MR. MUDD: We just went through this last meeting on an item
that was very similar on the guaranteed maximum price. That's why
you bid on a guaranteed maximum price, that's why you do it, because
you reduce the risk, and you don't have any.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Guaranteed maximum price?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 296
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That means it could go down?
MR. MUDD: No. You're bidding that project for guaranteed
maximum price. He's telling you, the price of that contract isn't going
to come in higher on that bid. And he assumes the risk -- if the
economy goes in a bad direction for him, he eats all of those things in
that particular project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then it's my opinion that we
shouldn't do any of these guaranteed maximum bids anymore because
you just don't get any competition --
MR. MUDD: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- m It. You do a -- what you're
doing is RFQ or RFP, then you go into negotiations with the -- Kraft
in this case -- and there is no competition in that.
MR. MUDD: No. Kraft basically takes bids in every sub element
of that particular contract and brings those forward and takes the
lowest bid on each one as he brings them forward, and that's where
you negotiate the maximum price on the particular contract with those
subbids and those subcontractors.
So you -- they don't basically come in with a price to start with.
It's negotiated based on the proposals that that main contractor
receives from the subcontractors.
Hank, I don't believe I missed a thing.
MR. JONES: You got it right on. But let me even add a little bit
further. For example, the original courthouse GMP for 36-odd million
had a number of subcontractors that were awarded that portion.
When we went out to get a new GMP to finish the fourth through
seventh floor, Kraft readvertised for subcontractors and obtained
multiple bids for those portions of the work and, in fact, in all but the
case of two trades, the new subcontractors covered under this
particular GMP are different from the ones that were originally bid the
first part of the annex, which was quite surprising, but that reflects the
downturn in the market, I believe, the more intense competition
Page 297
October 23-24, 2007
among the outfitting -- what I call outfitting -- trades in the building
group.
So, in fact, only, I think, the plumbing contractor and the fire
sprinkler contractor, which is codified to be the same contractor for
the entire building, are the same in this secondary GMP. So they did
get all new low bids for the subcontracts.
And further, I might add, in terms of the deductive change orders,
recognizing the discussions that went on two weeks ago, I agree that
the money comes back to the county. And in fact, most cases when
there is a lesser quantity, as you were referring to earlier, in that case,
we've been executing change orders to the original deductive change
order that decrease the quantity to guarantee that it comes back to the
county .
One interesting note there is though, when we do that, the 5
percent stays in our pocket somehow one way or the other, which
doesn't seem quite right, but we're figuring a way to make sure that
that's done correctly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one question. Crystal, the
letter of change took out the -- those -- and it's been a while since I
seen it -- those -- and if it's your understanding, ifhe buys it for a
lesser amount, those monies were supposed to come back to us,
correct?
MS. KINZEL: I believe what we talked about two weeks ago,
the original agreement that Kraft signed agreed to give that money
back to the county. There were some change order letters that were
administratively executed that changed that clause and gave that
money back to Kraft.
Those administratively issued change order letters then did come
back to the board at the last agenda to ratify or certify, but that's what
raised the question of, the original contract with Kraft said that money
__ those dollars came back to the county. It was amended then to say
the money went back.
Page 298
October 23-24, 2007
So I think any contract is only held as good as the agreement that
you have with the vendor and the contractor. And the issue that was
raised by those changes giving the money back to the vendor was that
Kraft originally signed the contract that said the money came back to
the board. And so for -- that change needed to be a Board of County
Commissioners decision as to giving that money back to them or not,
and that's my understanding and that's the conversations that we had
had with the contracting group on the change to that -- there were, I
believe, three letters to Kraft and one to Wright Construction, if my
memory's coming back, and all four of those letters changed that
provision from the original agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we'll go back to my original
question on this contract. Does it have that language in it with this
amendment or is it a part of --
MR. JONES: This is an amendment, as I understand it -- and I
think Steve is on his way to affirm it. But as I understand it, this is an
amendment to the preexisting GMP contract with Kraft which did
have, originally, the difference in deductive change orders coming
back to the county.
Now, what was passed at the last meeting -- here's Steve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me just restate my question.
MR. CARNELL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With this amended contract,
does it remove the language that the savings on goods, if there is a
savings on goods, come back to the board, or does it stay with the
contractor?
MR. CARNELL: This contract was amended previously in the
last discussion. And let's make sure we understand what we did
because --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We had a lot of discussion. I
think everybody understands.
MR. CARNELL: Yeah, let me just do it -- but I can give you a
Page 299
October 23-24, 2007
very succinct answer because, Commissioner Henning, I think you're
going to be satisfied that you're getting at least part of what you're
after here.
The -- as Mr. Mudd said to you earlier, what we -- what we did
was correct an inconsistency in terms of how the pricing was being
handled. The GMP is composed on pieces, all kinds of parts and
pieces, if you will, in different pricing. Some of the pricing is unit
priced, a lot of it is lump sum priced.
And the issue is, when we back the purchases out of the contract,
we issue the purchase orders directly to the vendor. That's how we get
the tax savings legitimately under Florida law. And all we were trying
to do was be equitable and fair and say, if you priced it as a lump sum
price to get to -- from the beginning, then you -- essentially you get
the full payment for those goods regardless of exactly how many you
deliver because we're in a lump sum arrangement while you've borne
the risk. You take the risk of assuming a set amount, whether you
have to deliver more or less.
Now, in the example you were asking about tables. Typically--
and I'm making a general statement here. Typically something like
that, if we specked 10 tables and they delivered eight and we only
need eight, we'll pay them for eight. Typically those are priced, unit
priced.
Where you have a lump sum price would be something like
concrete, rebar, fluid materials where you're making an estimate as an
engineer about how much needs to go in. And when you actually go
out there and pour it, it's different because it's just -- that's just the way
that works. It's never precise down to the last cubic yard in reality.
So that's what, in a sense, we were saying, we'll pay lump sum,
because that's how the contractor priced it, he bore that risk, so we'll
be consistent with him even though we're pulling it out to get the sales
tax savings. We're not pulling it out to try to turn it into a unit price
agreement that's totally one sided in our favor.
Page 300
October 23-24, 2007
So the master agreement was amended, so this issue's already
been addressed at the larger contract level.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So the answer to my
question is --
MR. CARNELL: The answer is, you'll get some of the savings
you're looking for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah.
MR. CARNELL: You will --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's how the contract -- it is
now. So in my last contract -- and I'm ready to make a motion to
approve -- now, when we -- we buy 10 yards of concrete and the
contractor has a reduced price and there's a sales tax on that, do we get
the sales tax back on the amount that was -- that was formulated, the
10 yards instead of the eight yards?
MR. CARNELL: Yes. We get it -- he prices it to the amount we
specify.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. CARNELL: And we get 6 percent off of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I'll make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning for approval, second by Commissioner Halas. Now that's for
the motion just as stated in the staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because, yeah, we had to clarify
of what the contract says.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's fine. Just wanted to make
sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Very good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Coyle, right back
to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I have a question, a slightly
Page 301
October 23-24, 2007
different issue. The Kraft Construction bids a guaranteed maximum
price and, as you stated, they did this by collecting bids from
subcontractors and they created a guaranteed maximum price, but then
over time they might change subcontractors. They might get a
subcontractor that provides the same services for less money than they
had originally estimated. What happens under that circumstance?
MR. CARNELL: Well, first off we have a provision, they need
our prior approval to do that, and we don't encourage that,
Commissioner, because we have an interest in a reputation as an
owner to not -- not only with our general contractors, but with our
subcontractors, to not allow what can be called or known as bid
shopping, where the general names a sub and then later on goes and
shakes them down, if you will, for money. And if you won't do it for
this price, I'll get someone else to do it at this price.
Now, first off, you don't have a lot of that happening in CM at
Risk because the general, Kraft, is not competing for the job. He
already has the job. So there's much less of an incentive for the
general to do that in the first place.
But the safeguard is that if the prime or the general, in this case
really the construction manager, which is Kraft, ifhe wants to make a
change, he needs to come to Mr. Jones and say, I need to change my
plumbing subcontractor because of reasons A, B, and C, and provide
justifications.
Now, one of the things Mr. Jones is going to sniff for is, is this a
pricing issue. And I would say in the vast majority of cases, we would
turn them down if it's simply we're trying -- we're going with
somebody else to save money.
MR. JONES: Unless they offered us a change order credit.
MR. CARNELL: I suppose we could.
MR. JONES: Ifthere's a viable reason.
MR. CARNELL: You could. You see what he's saying. If
they're going to pass the savings on to us, okay, financially there's an
Page 302
October 23-24, 2007
interest there, but even then we still have a reputation interest to
consider. And so we would -- we'd have to think that through before
we'd approve something like that, and if we did, it would come
through as a change order reported in the system that the board would
see each month, if we had a price change.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So bottom line is, they
require our approval to change a subcontract, and if there is a price
adjustment associated with that, if the change is justified, we get the
benefit of that price adjustment.
MR. CARNELL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's all I wanted to nail
down.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions?
(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: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 2007-308: 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
Page 303
October 23-24, 2007
IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE EXTENSION OF
SANTABARBARA BOULEVARD FROM DAVIS BOULEVARD
TO RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10F. It's a
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
extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to
Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
Capital improvement element number 32, project number 60091.
Estimated fiscal impact, $3,750,000. And Mr. Jay Ahmad, your
Director of Transportation Engineering and Construction
Management, will present.
MR. AHMAD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jay Ahmad, for
the record.
We're here before you again asking for a superseding resolution
for this project, Santa Barbara extension from Davis to Rattlesnake
Hammock. There are minor errors that we found in the legal
descriptions and the property maps, and we have corrected those, and
our attorney says that we have to bring the whole resolution again
before you for approval.
In doing so, I'd like you to have considered that the previous
resolution that was adopted by you on July 25,2007, that you have
considered the community impacts, the alignment variations that we
have considered in adopting this resolution, the costs, the
environmental assessment of this project, and traffic safety, that all
these issues were considered in your deliberation for approval of this
item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great, okay.
Commissioner Halas?
Page 304
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So has there been any increase in
costs since this has been brought -- since we discussed this last?
MR. AHMAD: The costs remain identical to what we have--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So this is all -- all we're
doing here is just taking care of the scrivener error.
MR. AHMAD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #10G
FISCAL YEAR 2007 GRANT REPORT PROVIDING AN
ANNUAL UPDATE OF GRANT ACTIVITY - TO ACCEPT
REPORT - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, the next item, item lOG,
recommendation to accept fiscal year 2007 grant report providing an
annual update of grant activity, and Marlene Ford, your Grants
Page 305
October 23-24, 2007
Coordinator, will present.
MS. FORD: Hi, good afternoon. Marlene Ford, for the record.
The grants report provided to you demonstrates that Collier County
has been very successful with grants in FY-'07. The success is due to
a combined effort by all the departments of Collier County.
As you see in the report in FY-'07, we were awarded over $56
million in grant funds, and matched that with another $88 million in
other funding and in-kind services.
I have since been notified since this report was prepared that we
were awarded another $42,000 in funds and also have an additional
137,000 in matching funds. In addition, the sheriffs office also
reported $10.7 million in grant funding for '07.
So that's the report for '07. If you have any questions, I'll be
happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I want to extend my personal thanks,
and I'm sure the thanks of my fellow commissioners. Fixty-six
million dollars is absolutely remarkable. Thank you.
MS. FORD: It's an undertaking from a great many people.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval, and it was
second by --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is not an action item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Be right to you, Commissioner.
Motion for approval by Commissioner Halas, second by
Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Henning, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is not an action item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we're accepting the report.
That's what the motion was for, right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right, accept this report, definitely.
Page 306
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Thanks again.
MS. FORD: Great, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We really do appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for the hard
work.
Item #101
AWARDING CONTRACT 07-4183 - GATEWAY TRIANGLE
STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT PHASE 1
CONSTRUCTION TO D.N. HIGGINS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1.048,565.50 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 101, and this is a recommendation to award contract 07-4183,
Gateway Triangle stormwater improvements project, phase one
construction, to D.N. Higgins, Inc., in the amount of$I,048,565.50,
stormwater management department project 51803.
And Mr. Jerry Kurtz, who's the Senior Project Manager for
Stormwater, will present.
Page 307
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval by
Commissioner Henning and a second by --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- by Commissioner Coyle, me.
And any discussion? Commissioner Fiala, anything you want to
add?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I just am so glad that we're
doing this. Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, thank you.
With that, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #10M
RESOLUTION 2007-309: AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE PERTAINING TO RENTAL
REGISTRATION PENDING APPROVAL OF THE RENTAL
REGISTRATION ORDINANCE - ADOPTED W /STIPULA TIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next item is number 10M. It's
to amend the Collier County Community Development/Environmental
Services fee schedule pertaining to rental registration pending
approval of the rental registration ordinance, which we'll have at the
Page 308
October 23-24, 2007
next meeting.
Mr. Joseph Schmitt, your Administrator for Community
Development's Environmental Services will present.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we do have a speaker on
this item also.
MR. MUDD: Or maybe he won't present. Between Jennifer and
I, we can present this particular item.
At the last board meeting the Board of County Commissioners
asked us to come back as soon as we could to amend the fee schedule
for late registration -- late registration fees for rental properties.
In so doing, we found that we could get the resolution done, but
we couldn't get the ordinance done in time for advertisement. So what
you have before you today is the resolution to adjust the fee schedule
for that particular item.
And what the board told us to do the last time -- and I'm trying to
get the item real quick -- was to gear it toward properties instead of
units, as it was previously, and to adjust the late fee so it was capped
so it would be no more than four times the resubmittal fee, which is
the $20.
We also had a discussion about the state requirements for
professional businesses and their registration fees on these rental units,
and we also put those requirements into this particular resolution.
Now, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation,
county attorney staff did some searching and had some conversations
with their staff to make sure that they -- that we've got their exact
requirements and what they asked of these rental properties -- I'm
talking about apartment complexes and whatnot -- when they register
with the state, and made sure that we -- we put those particular
idiosyncrasies into this resolution.
At one time we thought, during the discussion at the last meeting,
that we would be able to get, let's say, a landlord that had four rental
properties that were -- that were all over the county, and they would
Page 309
October 23-24, 2007
be registered with the Department of Business and Professional
Regulation, and that is not the case.
And so after checking with their staff, it has to be collocated in a
particular area, particular property, or folio number in order to have
the registration with the DBPR.
And so the late fee -- and the change to the resolution is on page
70f7. The initial registration fee would be $30 per property. The
annual renewal fee would be $20 per property. And I'm on lA, B, and
going down to 1 C. The annual late fee would be $10 per day for
property up to a maximum of$80.
The term property means a parcel with any number of rental units
located thereupon. A rental unit -- and I'm on E. A rental unit is any
dwelling that is not owner occupied but occupied by someone other
than the owner for any portion of a calendar year.
Go to 002, rental inspections. The inspection, $200 per unit is
number A. B, reinspection is $50 per inspection per unit. And go to
C, which is an ad -- which is 2C, a rental inspection shall not be
required for rental units covered by the Florida Department of
Business and Professional Regulation, DBPR license. A copy of the
DBPR inspection report shall be provided with the initial rental
registration and all subsequent rental renewal applications.
And I believe that captured what the board had told us to do the
best we could after we talked with the DBPR staff in order to get
everything that you needed on this particular resolution.
Do you have any questions? Jennifer and I will--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Let's start off with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So basically we're going to do it
by portfolio then?
MR. MUDD: By property, yes, sir, folio number.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So rental inspections shall not
be required by -- if they have a DBPR?
Page 310
October 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, because they -- based on -- based on what
we were told and based on our conversations with their staff, if they
are registered with the DBPR, the DBPR does inspections of those
particular properties and has reports.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So anybody who has this license
won't have to participate in the rental registration program?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. They'll still -- they'll still renew and
they'll still have a registration fee, but the inspection piece, they will
not take part of.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what do they get for their
registration? What services will they get?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator of
Community Development/Environmental Services Division.
All their registration does is notify the county that they're
registered as a rental unit, and ifthere's any complaints by any
residents about the quality or the habitability of the unit, we will then
conduct the inspection. So it's an inspection more on -- a
complaint-driven type of inspection rather than a periodic inspection,
as we would perform on other properties.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But more importantly if -- let's
say that they kick out a tenant and all the stuff goes to the street
corner. You have an ability to contact that owner quickly as
compared to --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- just moving out?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. Of course, we would assume that
these are managed -- these are professionally managed properties and
that the management company would have a handle on that. But this
would give us -- identify that the property is a rental and it gives us --
it still gives us the authority, if deemed appropriate under the housing
standards ordinance, that if, in fact, the property needs to be inspected,
we would still have the authority to do that, and that's the ordinance
Page 311
October 23-24, 2007
2004-58.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Great. Any speakers?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Please call the speakers.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker, Lora Jones.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're a lot closer to that answer now,
aren't we?
MS. JONES: Yeah. For the record, my name's Lora Jones. I
have -- I'm a landlord. I own a four-plex in Golden Gate City. I've
been -- I've owned it since 1998. I have paid the rental registration
starting -- it started out at $10, and now it's gone up to $80 for the
building.
I did fail to pay by June 30th, and I was handed on -- two weeks
ago from Evelyn at the code enforcement, a bill for over a thousand
dollars for being late. I do not think that's fair. I do think it's
appropriate. There's no cap on it. I mean, when's the $10 a day going
to stop?
There was -- I received no late notice, no, you know, friendly
reminder, did you forget, you know, because I would have definitely
paid. I have been paying the last 10 years.
I have owned up to 19 apartment buildings, but since I got
divorced, we've had to sell. I would eventually like to buy more
apartment buildings to rent, but if I keep getting this, I won't. I won't
buy nothing else again.
And on my letter that I did receive back in June, you know, to
pay, it says here that the late fee is four times the amount of what the
property is, so that's a lot more than what my -- or a lot less than what
my bill is that they gave me. It's over a thousand -- I think it's $1,042,
1,060, for a $20 late fee because I forgot to pay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's why we're moving towards that
direction trying to correct this and the injustice that exists.
I'm glad you're here today. There was a tremendous outpouring
of grief when these things were going through, and we got to the point
Page 312
October 23-24, 2007
now where, I guess you're -- is there anyone else in the audience from
the industry?
Yeah, good. So you're bearing witness. Obviously you're not
terribly distressed with the direction we're trying to go at the moment,
which is good.
Mr. Schmitt, would you address what was just said just so -- in
plain terms, to where we were, where we are, where we're going now,
just --
MR. MUDD: Joe, let me--
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, go ahead, Jim.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd like to do that one because--
the last meeting we brought forward to the Board of County
Commissioners a discovered inconsistency with the way your
ordinance for late registration was being administered and what was
on a piece of paper, okay, that you approved, and it gets at your point,
ma'am.
And the way the past regis -- the last resolution that was attached
to the ordinance for late fees read, it basically -- it basically said,
ma'am, that the late fee was $10 per day per unit, and so -- or really
didn't mention unit, but you had to go to the ordinance. I understand
what the letter said, and that's the inconsistency that staff had with
what the board had passed.
The staff did not have any authority whatsoever to cap that late
fee at four times the renewal fee, which was $20 on a unit. And so we
brought that to the board's attention.
I have the state attorney investigating that particular issue to see
if there were any things that were fraudulent, nefarious in the way that
staff had acted with collecting these fees over the last couple of years.
That's an active investigation.
What we're trying to do today is get some clarification because
there are some extraordinary circumstances, and you are one. I have
another one that I can share with the board that has to do with 128
Page 313
October 23-24, 2007
rental units, and right now their late fees, according to the resolution
and the ordinance as written previously, their late fee's up to $894,000,
okay.
So we will discuss all of those. But because we're under an
active investigation, my recommendation to the board is, we collect
what we're going to collect, and if the board determines they want us
to go back and rectify those bills with the rental owners, the landlords,
we will go so do that.
But I would ask the board to let us finish the investigation and let
the state attorney finish the investigation and this resolution that you
have today go forward for this point on. And we have at least, from
this point on -- and then we have to -- we'll have to rectify what
happened in 2005,2006, and 2007 after we get the results of the state
attorney's investigation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But meanwhile, the bill she's got,
what should she do with it?
MR. MUDD: She should pay it, sir. And I -- and based on the
board's direction, okay, after we get the investigation back, we will--
we can go back and refund, if that's what the board's desire is on their
previous regulation. And we will -- we will execute whatever you tell
us to do, and we -- and staff will have a recommendation for you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The important thing is that there's
progress being made. No, I know. There's injustices that happened in
the past. This board is dealing with it one step at a time. If it was
within our power, we'd just say, you know, heck with it all, you know,
end it, but you have to go through the investigation, then we have to
go back.
I tell you what, I never agreed with the fees from day one. I still
don't today. But I just wanted to give you an appraisal from the
county manager so you had a better idea where you are.
But keep bearing with us as we go through it, and we'll try to get
this resolved, and hopefully I can -- we'll be all in agreement on
Page 314
October 23-24, 2007
refund checks coming back your way. These funds are unjust when
you're providing affordable housing.
MS. JONES: Do we get interest on that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, probably not. Probably not, but I
mean, I would be more happy to get the check than to worry about
interest.
MS. JONES: Well, you know, I kind of consider this as like a
business tax, you know, your occupational license except for kind of
for a rental. And even, you know, those fees for being late is not that
much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you're right.
MS. JONES: You know, I mean, so I don't know why this can
get so out of hand where you're liable to have people lose their
properties for it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got it. And that's why we're
trying to address it.
MS. JONES: And that's not right.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, if you are going to pay it, then do me a
favor, when you write the check, in the notation, say, pay under
protest. Okay.
MS. JONES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good advice.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, I don't like that
direction, and really, I think it's up to the board's choice what we do,
not the county manager.
If I can make a suggestion under these from 2007, is charge the
registration fee, put the rest of those in a hopper, and let us deal with
that once the investigation is done and we get recommendations from
the State's Attorney's Office. You know what I mean? And don't do
anything with the late fees, and just put those in a hopper and let us
deal we it, because we have to deal with the global issue, too, from
Page 315
-,. '----'
October 23-24, 2007
2005 all the way to 2007. Why would we -- it would create more
paperwork trying to collect money and then, you know, reimburse it.
You know what I mean?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I'm not arguing a point, but you could
end up having to collect money after a registration that's already been
made, and that also -- that also puts you in the other piece, too. Do
whatever the board wants to do on this particular one.
But I will tell you, there are late fees -- and I'm going to give you
an example of that -- of that apartment complex that's a little bit -- is a
little bit awry, but -- it's $855,000, I stand corrected.
And I've taken the name off the apartment complex to protect the
landlord. And if -- here's the total figure that's owed on the late fees,
and the bottom registration renewal fee chart lays out what transpired,
when due dates were on fees, how many days late the particular
applicant was in 2005, how much the amount due and the amount was
paid. They never paid on the late fees, so that late fee is pushing -- is
pushing out to a particular piece.
Then in 2006 they came in and registered, amount paid -- the
amount paid on their particular properties. No late fee collected.
Then you kind oflook at the 273, adds up to $449,00, and the 396
days being late adds up to 506-, so there you get up onto the 855,000
owed on the late fee, and that's a particular instance.
But see, it wasn't just late in 2007, it was late in 2005. And if the
board is saying to us at this juncture that they want us to just suspend
collecting the late fee and only collect the application fee on the
particular units, we can so do that and notate it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. That's my choice.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And also in my motion is
approve the amended resolution.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I agree with it.
Commissioner Fiala, you want to weigh in?
Page 316
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just agree with whatever
you've said. I mean what you've said, not whatever.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. She said she agreed or
disagreed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do agree. I do agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, great, thank you.
And with that, any other discussion? And I've got two people. Yes,
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It was stated -- this is for staff. It
was stated that this person only got one correspondence stating how
much this person owed and no other follow-up correspondence; is that
true?
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code
Enforcement Director. I don't know the specifics on this particular
one, but we did send a renewal notice this year, and there was no
delinquent notice sent. The way that we were attempting to address it
is to create code cases for all those properties that failed to register
timely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So there was no other
correspondence. Once you sent out the renewal notice, there was
nothing else that staff did, say, a 30-day late notice saying, you're past
due by 30 days?
MS. ARNOLD: No. We've had reoccurring problems with the
computer system that we have, and the only way that we were able to
handle it is by creating code cases.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. This process is being -- it's in the process
of being corrected with our new municipal or city view software
program that we're going with.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Were you concerned that maybe
we have something awry here?
Page 317
October 23-24, 2007
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I'm concerned that we did not -- we
weren't able to issue those notices, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, because if somebody -- if
something happened with the mail or if they misplaced it and then we
didn't have a follow-up procedure --
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- other than a code case -- okay.
MS. ARNOLD: That was some of the staff concerns, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
County Attorney, with the motion that was made, where does that put
us in the attachments that were made with the motion?
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding, the motion is that you're
approving the resolution but you're asking the county manager to not
collect any late fees at this point in time; just to hold off on it.
MR. MUDD: That's right, but collect the registration fees.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, the ongoing registration fees.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But we will continue to collect the
registration fees at the new rate; is that --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir, by approving this resolution.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm sorry. Commissioner Coyle,
and then I've got a comment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just want clarification. I
think I support the motion also. We're going to collect the registration
fee at the levels which are specified in this new resolution?
MR. MUDD: Starting today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But wait a minute. How about for
the people who have a problem right now?
MR. MUDD: Okay. You told -- that resolution that you have
that you put -- that was put in place in 200 -- in September of 2004
said, registration was done by unit, not by --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand that, I
Page 318
October 23-24, 2007
understand that.
MR. MUDD: -- not by property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we are determining by this
registration, that that action was probably excessive and unreasonable.
So we are saying that --
MR. MUDD: No, sir. You haven't said that, but--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We haven't said that.
MR. MUDD: What you're basically saying is, we have some
issues previously, and it's been brought to the board's attention, and
we have an invest -- an active investigation by the state attorney on
those particular -- on that particular issue.
And they're -- and we're providing information and they're
collecting information. I have the records locked up.
What we're basically saying to you is, we have a new resolution.
You had speakers that came before this board last meeting that
basically said that they believe that unit registration was too expensive
and -- for the services that were being provided with that registration,
they didn't believe that it was fair and equitable, and so the board
directed us to come back with registration by property and a -- and a
less --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Onerous.
MR. MUDD: -- onerous penalizing late fee that was capped.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But none of this is going to
be retroactive.
MR. MUDD: No, sir. The thing -- the only thing that's going to
be retroactive, based on the guidance I just received, if the board so
approved, is the fact that any late fees that are owed between 2005,
2006, 2007, would be put on hold until the state attorney's
investigation is over, and then we bring this item back to talk about
what you want us to do specifically to go retroactive, 2005, 2006,
2007.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. I got it.
Page 319
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'm sorry if! interrupted
anybody. I didn't mean to do that.
Do we have a policy in place for what we are going to be doing
about late fees for people who are continuously delinquent?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, we do.
MR. MUDD: Moving forward, it's in there, and then we'll
address that after the investigation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you catch that, Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She said yes.
MR. MUDD: Yes, she did. She said thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Any other comments?
(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: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Thank you very much for being here.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: We're going to take a short break.
Commissioner Fiala, you all right for a short break?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You betcha.
Page 320
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll see you in 10 minutes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: You have a hot mike, Commissioners.
Item #10Q
AUTHORIZING THE PREP ARA TION OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING SECTION SIX OF ORDINANCE NO. 2004-62 BY
PROVIDING FOR A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE TERM
OF THE IMMOKALEE MASTER PLAN AND VISIONING
COMMITTEE FROM DECEMBER 31,2007 TO DECEMBER 31,
2009 - APPROVED; COMMITTEE DIRECTION GIVEN
Commissioner, the next item on the agenda is 10Q. This is a
recommendation that Collier County Board of County Commissioners
authorize the preparation of an ordinance amending section 6 of
ordinance number 2004-62 by providing for a two-year extension of
the term of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee for
December 31, 2007 to December 31, 2009.
Mr. Thomas Greenwood, Principal Planner with Comprehensive
Planning, will present.
MR. GREENWOOD: Tom Greenwood, for the record,
Comprehensive Planning. This is an executive summary simply to get
direction from the board whether or not you wish to extend for a
two-year period the dissolution date of the Immokalee Master Plan
and Visioning Committee.
Right now, the way the ordinance is drafted and adopted, the
committee would be dissolved at the end of this calendar year. As an
update, the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee has
gotten to the point where they've got a draft master plan for
Immokalee. It's under review internally, and they have every
Page 321
October 23-24, 2007
anticipation that it will be filed for a growth management plan
amendment next year, and hopefully next year there will also be some
action going toward doing some growth -- I should say some Land
Development Code amendments as well.
If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just -- I know that there's been a
tremendous amount of effort put into that plan. I don't think we ever
had a master plan that has run so long or had so much detail going into
it in the history of Collier County, at least not that I'm aware of.
It's one of those things, they're aiming for something that's going
to be stellar, and if you think it deserves the time that they're asking
for, I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval by
Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Halas. And
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How long have they been
working on this?
MR. GREENWOOD: I believe in earnest they really got busy in
fall, right around Hurricane Wilma, fall of 2005.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. They really got busy
around Hurricane Wilma, but how long they been working on this?
MR. GREENWOOD: I know there was an existing group before
then, and I think the contract that was signed with the consultant
occurred in that summer of 2005, and I think that's really where they
started.
MS. FILSON: This particular committee was created in 2004.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- you know, I -- it's worthy of
finishing, but I'm just concerned that it's just taking too much time.
And one consultant quit because I would -- what I'm told is, there
Page 322
October 23-24, 2007
wasn't enough consensus on there and there was a -- there was a
reshifting and -- of ideas and so on and so forth.
MR. GREENWOOD: There are a variety of reasons, and I can
say this, I think, number one, I think you have a very good appointed
group out there, very serious, both the Master Plan and Visioning
Committee as well as the CRA advisory board. And I know they're
behind this. They want to get it quickly done as possible. And, again,
their anticipation is to file the actual amendment next year, early next
year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Early next year.
MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. It's taken a long time to get to this
point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Tom, do you think they might be able
to supply us with a time line, in other words, protecting the time out? I
think if maybe they put a little bit more thought into it, they might be
able to bring this to a conclusion a little bit sooner.
MR. GREENWOOD: As soon as this review is being -- is
completed by comprehensive planning, we'll have a very good idea.
And I anticipate that they may be done in the next several weeks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I'm going to include that in my
motion, that we are supplied a time line of how everything's going to
come down in the remainder of the time there and do everything I can
to possibly encourage them to complete this in a time frame of less
than two years.
MR. GREENWOOD: I agree with that, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does my second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, do you have
anything?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: She might be airborne.
Page 323
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, she may be. She was waiting
for a flight.
In any case, Commissioner Henning, anything else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with what you're doing,
Commissioner. I'm going to vote for your motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show that the motion
was 3-0, with two commissioners absent.
Item #lOR
AUTHORIZING STAFF USE OF A DEVELOPER'S VERSION OF
THE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS MODEL (FlAM) AS A
SUPPLEMENTAL PLANNING TOOL FOR INTERNAL USE
ONL Y TO REVIEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS OF
REGIONAL IMPACT (DRIS), PROJECTS WITHIN THE RURAL
LAND STEWARDSHIP AREA (RLSA), PROJECTS WITHIN THE
RURAL LAND MIXED USE OVERLAY, AND OTHER MAJOR
DEVELOPMENTS IN ORDER TO ASSESS PROJECTED
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE IMP ACTS UPON COLLIER
COUNTY SERVICES - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is lOR. It used to be
16A9. It's a recommendation to authorize staff use of the developer's
Page 324
October 23-24, 2007
version of the fiscal impact analysis model, FlAM, as a supplemental
planning tool for internal use only to review proposed developments
of regional impact, DRIs, projects within the rural land stewardship
area, projects within the rural land mixed-use overlay, and other major
developments in order to assess projected revenue and expenditure
impacts upon Collier County services. The item was asked to be
moved at Commissioner Henning's request.
MR. GREENWOOD: Thank you. Again--
MR. MUDD: Mr. Greenwood is here to present.
MR. GREENWOOD: Tom Greenwood again, principal planner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Tom, before we go through any
length, maybe we can move this along by -- Commissioner Henning,
did you have anything in particular or just want to deal with the
subject matter through a presentation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Mr. Greenwood and I
talked briefly. It doesn't -- it doesn't really address the concerns I
have. It's saying the staff is using the developer's version of FlAM.
Who is the developer that provided this?
MR. GREENWOOD: Let me explain how FlAM works. There
really are -- there are 14 spreadsheets -- and by the way, the FlAM
that we're looking at and have actually been using internally, even,
you know, just because we've had to have the FlAM to review, for
example, Ave Maria, the FlAM that we're using, have been using, is
developed by Fishkind & Associates, and it's really been developed
over the last 20 years in Florida. It's been in use both in the
private/public side for this kind of review for a number of years.
About a year and a half ago, myself and another person in
comprehensive planning took training to learn the use of both the state
or the DCA headed comprehensive planning version of FlAM and the
developer's version.
And up until late last year, early this year, DCA was going to --
in fact said their comprehensive planning version was acceptable for
Page 325
October 23-24, 2007
formal adoption by local units in development; however, very abruptly
they pulled that version off the website with really no announcement
of such.
The so-called developer's version, if you will, is really the basis
for the comprehensive planning version which, again, is on the shelf
by DCA. We don't know when they're going to pull it off the shelf. It
has some problems.
The developer's version is basically broken into two sets of
spreadsheets. One set of spreadsheets, which is the last set of
spreadsheets, there are nine of those, and those are so-called output
tabs. The five input tabs are populated with Collier County specific
information updated at least annually. And many of the FIAMs that
the developers brought in the past were very dated with Collier
County information.
So I can tell you that it's updated annually or more frequently.
For example, impact fee changes will go right into the FlAM. The
most recently audited records from the Clerk of Courts go into the
FlAM for revenues and expenditures.
The only information that goes into the FlAM, the input tabs by
the developer when a developer is proposed, for example, Big Cypress
or Tradeport DRI is data that is specific to the project. And that data
that the developer supplies that's specific to that project will be looked
at with very close scrutiny by staff.
Example, a DRI or Tradeport in Immokalee, it's a nice project.
The developer's showing a seven-year buildout. It's 1,000 acres, more
than 1,000 acres. Just under 3,000 dwelling units, 4- or 500 acres of
industrial. That kind of assumption is very, if you will, I think,
optimistic, and that kind of assumption is a quick buildout, also leads
to model -- or tends to show the model having fiscal neutrality.
I took the same seven-year buildout and put it into a 20-year
FlAM, very easy to do. You show a lot of red ink. So what this
FlAM is going to allow us to do is look at the developer's assumption,
Page 326
October 23-24, 2007
air them out before the Planning Commission, before the BCC, and
make some decision as to what is a reasonable buildout time.
Another example of a developer input, up-front in a project when
it's reviewed by FlAM, is the land use developments. And depending
on how the land use is actually developed, in year one the plan is
approved as X, Y, and Z; market changes five years or 10 years later,
and all of a sudden there's an amendment to the plan.
So what I'm saying is that almost all the information that goes
into the FlAM will be Collier County specific, put in by staff. The
only data that would be put in by the developer will be specific to their
project, and that will be looked at very, very closely and critically,
especially when it talks about a very short buildout, which may not be
appropriate. So I don't know if that's addressed your question.
You can call this a developer's FlAM, you can call it -- if you
want, you can call it a -- I'd call it an internal interim supplemental
planning tool. By interim I mean it probably will only be used until
such time that the state actually has an official model that they said it's
okay for the county or local units to adopt.
Internally -- it will be used only internally by staff. The Collier
County specific information will be available to developers because
we want them to use the most current information. It will be
supplemental to your decision making. It won't eliminate any codes,
any Compo Plan regulations. And again, it will be a planning tool and
be considered just that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To answer your question, no,
you didn't answer my question.
MR. GREENWOOD: Can you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I could try it again.
MR. GREENWOOD: Please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who -- what is the developer's
name that provided the -- this FlAM?
MR. GREENWOOD: The FlAM actually is developed by
Page 327
October 23-24, 2007
Fishkind & Associates. It's a model, and the model has several
thousand cells of information. Most of those cells of information that
are data input come directly from the county in sources that are
available to the county. So most of the information goes in -- a small
part of the input is put in by a specific developer for a specific project,
and then that FlAM actually pulls out of the input tabs output
information such as job creation, ad valorem taxes, sales taxes and that
sort of --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the executive summary's not
correct then?
MR. GREENWOOD: In what respect?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's saying for the --
authorize the staff to use a developer's version of the fiscal impact
analysis model. So it's not a developer who developed this?
MR. GREENWOOD: No, it's Fishkind & Associates.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. And it's a model that's been in
development for over the last 20 years. In fact, the State of Florida
had such confidence in it they used Fishkind to develop the
comprehensive version, which has the three additional input
spreadsheets. But, again, that model has been determined by DCA to
be flawed. And any use of this model will use a very conservative
approach to it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the recommendation is
authorize staff to use Fishkind & Association's (sic) updated version of
FlAM?
MR. GREENWOOD: Well, it's a FlAM that's been developed
by Fishkind & Associates, and use it as an internal interim
supplemental planning tool, and that data --
MR. MUDD: You're right, Commissioner Henning, what you
just said is absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Page 328
October 23-24, 2007
MR. SCHMITT: Exactly right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now I get it.
MR. MUDD: And I think where we get the distinction -- where
we get the distinction, where they use this developer's piece -- because
you've got just -- guys, let me try to get through this thought, okay. Is
-- what Tom mentioned to you was the DCA version had three
additional spreadsheets, okay, and those three additional spreadsheets
skewed the output and gave him unrealistic outputs to the model so
they shelved it. They shelved the whole thing.
So what was remaining, what was there before the DCA version,
and I believe that's what they call the developer's version, but it's a
Fishkind model, yes, sir.
MR. GREENWOOD: It's a Fishkind model. It will actually be a
model that we will review developers' proposals.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion to approve
by Commissioner Henning and a second by --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it. I got a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Commissioner Halas. Yeah, we're
coming right to you, sir. And we'll go to Commissioner Halas at this
time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe what this amounts to, it's
a skill set that's available for the counties to use; am I correct, that that
was put together for -- by Fishkind for the counties to use as their
regional impact DRI study; is that correct?
MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's what I figured it was.
MR. GREENWOOD: It does the math, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Skill set.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Based on our last experience at
getting some economic projections from Fishkind & Associates, I amO
Page 329
October 23-24, 2007
extremely leery of this model. I certainly am not going to have much
confidence in it. Does it cost us any money?
MR. GREENWOOD: We have the use of the -- the real cost to
the county is, we need to keep the model data current for Collier
County specific information because when a developer submits
developments to us for review, such as a DRI, we will put input into
one of the input tabs called the developer's tab. And we will put in
what the developer tells us, but then we'll look at the developer's
rationale for each of those items such as years of build out for a
project. And they will very likely say five or seven years because the
output tabs will show it's fiscally neutral. In reality, it might take 20
years for the development to be built.
MR. MUDD: So outside of staff time, sir, no, there is no cost.
We have the model. We have the existing data set. The data set was
built when we were part of the six counties or so that were selected to
be guinea pigs, so to speak, to be the test base for the model for DCA.
And we developed that data as being part of that test base, and
that was funded by the state. That particular item had gone before the
board prior, about a year and a half ago.
So we have the data, we have the model. The only thing that's
going to be a cost is staff time, and I believe staff time would have to
go through and look at this DRI that comes in with an economic
analysis that says, voila, look at how good this is going to be for the
community. This is a tool that basically staff can go and look and see
if what they're telling us is the truth or it's exaggerated.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's my problem. I don't
think you know by looking at this model whether it's the truth. The
only way you know whether a model is producing the truth is if you
know and support and understand the assumptions that have been
made in the model to create the calculations.
And I am -- let's face it, it you don't have a model, it's better than
nothing, I would guess, but I am extremely apprehensive about basing
Page 330
October 23-24, 2007
any decisions on this model because, as I said before, I have been
extremely disappointed in the projections which these people have
provided us in the past.
And so I -- I understand why you want to use it. I don't have any
objection to it, but I want to vote against it.
MR. GREENWOOD: And, again, the assumptions that go into
the model that are presented by the developer will be scrutinized
where staff disagrees with some of those assumptions, such as
buildout time and others. Those will be part of the discussion when it
goes through hearing. And, again, the FlAM will be just one item that
you'll be able to review.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner, this is Donna Fiala.
Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I was just wondering, will it
be -- who will be managing the information? Who will actually be in
control of all the information that we submit through this process?
MR. GREENWOOD: All of the -- all of the input data that goes
into the model, those five spreadsheets, will be Collier County
specific, will be sources, probably a hundred-plus sources for that
information.
A small part of the information that goes into that input will be
relative to the proposed project, and that information relative to the
proposed project will be the source of staff scrutiny, Planning
Commission, BCC scrutiny, and ultimately approval. But again, you
can't count on the model as being a hundred percent accurate because
it isn't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I understand that. I was just
wondering if any of this then is pumped into Fishkind and they are --
they are the final holder of all of this information for -- for distribution
at some further point, or does it stay within the county?
MR. GREENWOOD: The only information that we would share
Page 331
October 23-24, 2007
with any developer that's required to submit a fiscal impact analysis
model will be the Collier County specific information, which will
probably be more current than what they have access to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just within our own
government?
MR. GREENWOOD: We intend to use just this as an interim
internal planning tool, and yes, it won't be on the website. I think I put
it on the website for some of you to review it if you'd like. It's still on
there, but it will be pulled off the website. It's under FlAM on the
comprehensive planning website.
But it -- it's a very powerful tool. But, again, like anything else,
we're making projections five and 10 or 20 years out. Neither the
county nor the developer could make it with any real great accuracy,
but you try to make your best guess and look at all those assumptions
and the buildout time and those sorts of things while you're reviewing
the project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. And I'm going to -- you know,
the reason -- I mean, my reasons for being a little skeptical at times,
maybe not always justifiable about Fishkind, is what I've seen when it
came before us for affordable housing and their findings in one case
where Fishkind was used by the petitioner for a project off of Pine
Ridge/Airport, that there was no need for affordable housing, that all
the needs were met, you know. I mean, they skewed the evidence so
much.
And I know Fishkind is very, very involved in the Urban Land
Institute, and I enjoy going to their meetings and pick up a lot of
information, although I do occasionally get into very interesting
discussions with the presenters. They've got some strong bonds to the
development community. We've seen this numerous times. I've seen
it in the Regional Planning Council.
If you feel that the data that you've got to work with is not
Page 332
October 23-24, 2007
skewed in the way that it's favorable to developers in the final part that
it spits out in the end, the results it spits out, I'm more than willing to
go along with it as a tool to be able to weigh everything. But you
have to tell me you have that confidence that this -- what you're
working with is a meaningful tool and not something that may be
slanted in a way to give the developers, development industry, a little
bit ofa one-upmanship on the rest of the community.
MR. GREENWOOD: I have confidence that after using it for
two years, learning how to use it for two years, that the output tabs are
basically a series of formulas that pull information out of the input
tabs. Almost all the information in the input tabs will be -- will come
from county sources or other sources the county staff will load into
those input tabs.
The only thing that is really going to be subject for debate is
buildout time. And, again, that's a major consideration. Another one,
internal capture rate of traffic, those sorts of things, and those are the
kinds of things that staff will red flag when we start running the
developing --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So simply put, you don't any type of
apprehension in using this particular database?
MR. GREENWOOD: Just so that everybody knows that it's not
perfect. There's going to be a percentage of error. What we try to do
is to make the error certainly on the side of the county and be very
conservative with such things as buildout, internal capture rate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you very much. I do
think that we've just about exhausted --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. You've got a question,
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. How many counties use this
skill set? Do you have --
MR. GREENWOOD: I don't have a count. I know that are some
Page 333
October 23-24, 2007
ofthe larger counties north of us, in Sarasota County. I'm not positive
about Lee, but I know the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So there's other counties that --
MR. GREENWOOD: There are.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- have already scrutinized this --
MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. GREENWOOD: Many of the urban counties are using
something like this already. Many of the rural counties, as you might
guess, it may be five or 10 years before they get to the point where
they can use a model like this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But counties such as Broward --
MR. GREENWOOD: They're using it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- possibly Palm Beach, the
counties of this nature are using something similar to this or are using
this skill set that was provided by Fishkind & Associates?
MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Okay. I think we've
probably exhausted this at this point in time.
Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have a speaker?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, nothing
new you want to add or question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm fine. Thank you. I wanted
to know -- well, I can ask you at another time or at another meeting.
You had mentioned something about a Fishkind report that saw your
satisfaction, or dissatisfaction, and I was wondering what that was
about, but I don't mind waiting till another time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner
Page 334
October 23-24, 2007
Fiala.
And with that, I'm going to call the motion. All those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show that the vote was
4-1 with Commissioner Coyle being in the opposition.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph lion
your agenda, public comments on general topics.
Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker and he's left
over from yesterday, but I think he's here, Stan Cummings.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have -- oh, that was already
pulled. Okay. Excuse me.
MR. JOHNSON: Sorry. Stan Cummings became ill.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
MR. JOHNSON: I'm here -- didn't realize I'd be before the board
this morning or this afternoon.
MS. FILSON: Could I have you put your name on here for me,
SIr.
MR. JOHNSON: Mike Johnson, with Suncoast Auto Builders.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: I'm here on behalf of the owner of Tamiami
Page 335
October 23-24, 2007
Ford, Tim Zellers. We're out there -- we're currently in final review
with fire, having failed them twice, trying to get past them on
remodeling their service area. And we're using a temporary tent to
bring them under -- to get them out -- for the safety of his customers
and his workers out there, just a place for them to pull under to write
their service work orders instead of out there in our hot sun and rain.
And I understand the county's reason for having a limit on that.
As far as time-wise 28 days, I believe, is the limit. And you know, the
intent is for sales, but we're really not doing that. It's not obvious to
the road.
It's off Mercantile. It's not obvious from Airport-Pulling. Just
trying to get some lenience while we get that final approval. We kind
of jumped the gun on getting them out there a little bit early and hate
to see them have to take that down.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In a previous life, I used to rent tents
for a living, I don't know why, but I did. And I can tell you--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You were a tent maker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- I've been against it all. And I can tell
you, there's exceptions to that. And if for one, have absolutely no
problem having this brought back at a future agenda and maybe we
can get -- and I would recommend if we're going to do that and if my
commissioners agree with me, that we also have -- ask code
enforcement to hold off any action till that point in time we can deal
with it.
MR. JOHNSON: I'd appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would be my own personal
feeling, only we have to hear from the commissioners. Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Your big concern is getting through
the process with fire; is that correct?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes, big concern.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We understand it, and we try to put
Page 336
October 23-24, 2007
pressure on them. I think we also have a committee that's supposed to
be addressing this issue, I'm not sure where they're at, but we
understand your frustration. We really don't have that much clout
over those people.
We're hoping that we can come to some agreement so that people
throughout the county that want to have structures built, whether
they're residential condos or, in your case, a business, that we can
expedite this in a quicker manner than it's been -- than it's been
happening here lately, so --
MR. JOHNSON: It's been a real struggle for Mr. Zellers, you
know. He, in fact, attended the last meeting over at fire.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: If I can ask the petitioner a question. The tent
permit that you've got, how long have you had it?
MR. JOHNSON: We'd had it for -- I think we're on the final
days actually.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So you've had it about a month?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: You know, you can come back in and renew it for
another 30 days?
MR. JOHNSON: From what I'm told from code compliance, it's
not renewable because of the intent that they'd have it for car sales.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They're allowed so many times a
year, and they probably had some sales, and so they used up some of
the permits. This is a different circumstance entirely. I believe that's
still the rule that goes back --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- seven years ago when I was in the
business.
MR. JOHNSON: I've learned a lot about it here recently.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there -- can we do this, Mr. Mudd,
Page 337
October 23-24, 2007
bring it back for special consideration of the commission?
MR. MUDD: Board can set that policy and take exception.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I interject? Has he called any
one of the fire commissioners to seek some help?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes. We had a meeting with them last week
with Mr. Ed Riley, and he was pretty helpful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, he's not one of the fire
commISSIOners.
MR. JOHNSON: Oh, I'm sorry, not the commissioners, no. We
just been going with the plan review. I hate to go too far over people's
heads.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I would sure like to make a
suggestion that you call one of the fire commissioners. Sometimes
they're able to help unsnarl something like this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In the meantime, Commissioner
Fiala, we have the problem of them being out of business or putting in
their employees undue duress underneath the sun if the tent has to
come down because they're remodeling the building, if I remember
correctly.
MR. JOHNSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you know, this is something, I
think, that we should give consideration to at a future meeting as far as
granting them --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I have one more
commissioner that agrees? Okay. We got three commissioners that
are onboard on bringing it back.
Thank you so much for being here.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Meanwhile, too, that direction also
included on the understanding that code enforcement will hold off any
action until we do have a chance to bring it back and take action.
Page 338
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I make the suggestion that he
call Tom Cannon, 774-3712, and talk to him about it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, that's 774--
MS. FILSON: 3712.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 3712.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 3712. Everybody write down Tom
Cannon's number that has any kind of concerns over fire inspections.
Close personal friend of Donna Fiala's and Jim Coletta's, and mention
our names and it will get you to where you want to go.
MR. JOHNSON. I'm liking the way this sounds.
MS. FILSON: Did you get the number?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Tom's going to love me for this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't believe it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, while we're __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Is this an inspection or is
this an approval? Do you know, in the process, where you're at?
MR. JOHNSON: It's permitting approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's for approval.
MR. JOHNSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Yeah, you better see if you
can get ahold of some fire inspectors, but that's -- that may be where
they'll make you jump through hoops. That's where we've heard a lot
of complaints, where they'll come up with a plan, and then they'll start
to move in that direction, and pretty soon there's another review, and
all of a sudden, oh, by the way, you've got to have this added to the
system. Is that what you've been experiencing?
MR. JOHNSON: Pretty familiar.
MR. MUDD: But you do have the construction permit?
MR. JOHNSON: No, that's the problem.
MR. MUDD: Okay. You haven't started remodeling yet?
MR. JOHNSON: No, but we moved them out in preparation for
that.
Page 339
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I know where you're coming from.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much for being here
today.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you so much for your time and
consideration.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, county attorney's report?
MR. MUDD: No, we're not there yet, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, forgive me.
MR. MUDD: We're going to bring that item back on the 13th of
November, sir. Mr. Johnson?
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 13th.
MR. MUDD: 13th.
Item #12A
DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING COLLIER
COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS POLICY - MOTION THAT
PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS FOR ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA OF AN ADVISORY BOARD ARE TO BE FREE OF
CHARGE THROUGH THE COUNTY MANAGER. THE
ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS ARE TO HAVE THE COUNTY
MANAGERS CELL NUMBER AND E-MAIL TO ASSIST IN
GETTING THE INFORMATION. STAFF TO BRING BACK A
RESOLUTION THAT ADDRESSES RECORDS ACCESS TO A
FUTURE BCC MEETING - APPROVED
Commissioner, next item on your agenda is 12A. It's a
discussion and direction regarding Collier County public records
policy, and you write commissioners, county attorney's report. I just
thought you were going to communications already, and that isn't a
Page 340
October 23-24, 2007
good thing. Still have one item.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. The issue came up when you had a
member of one of your advisory boards request documents. The
documents, I believe, in furtherance of his duties as a board member.
There was a charge imposed by staff of approximately $60 for
furnishing these documents, and we're bringing this forward to get
board policy as to whether or not when an advisory committee
member requests documents, are we to charge him the statutory fees
for the copies to go to the staff time or waive them? And it's purely
board policy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's start with Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me. That's from before.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's start with Commissioner Coyle,
go to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can think back some times when
we've had activists on advisory boards who seem to abuse the process
where they were acting pretty much on their own for causes that they,
themselves, supported, and it seems to me that under those
circumstances, they should be treated just like members of the public,
but if they're acting as part of the advisory board as a result of the
approval of the advisory board to pursue a particular topic, I don't
think we should be charging them for it.
So I see a distinction between an advisory board member taking
on a special project that isn't -- hasn't been approved by an advisory
board and then expecting that they can get those documents free of
charge.
You can imagine what would happen under those circumstances
with the general public then coming to individual members of
advisory boards, saying, hey, get me all these documents because I
Page 341
October 23-24, 2007
want to do something with them and I don't want to have to pay for
them, and so the advisory board members are acting on behalf of other
people.
I don't think that's the purpose of this process. And I guess my
feeling is, that if it's part of the advisory board function, if the advisory
board had said -- has said, yes, we want to look into this particular
situation and get these things, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't
make those free. Does that make sense?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's an approach, yes. So would you
want the advisory board to actually make the request or individual
member of the advisory board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the advisory board
chairman should make those requests.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it provides for a better
control, a more orderly process of getting the necessary documents,
and we can account for it a lot easier, and we can make sure that it is
an official request of the advisory board rather than some activist who
has gotten on the board just to -- just to bypass the process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, maybe I could help
you out. I know what you're talking about. I don't think that there
was a lot of public records from that person. But how about if we just
say that anything on the advisory board that a member wants extra
information, that they provide it at no charge? If it's not on the
agenda, then I think that you can come to the conclusion, it's an
example of what you just said, is somebody that's an activist on
something that are not -- the whole board is not dealing with. You
know what I mean?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think we're in agreement
then. You know, if somebody wants additional information on an
advisory board and they -- they get the majority of the support ofthe
Page 342
October 23-24, 2007
advisory board to do that, I don't see any problem at all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the problem is, agenda
packet is placed, and it's an action item for them to make a
recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. If there's not
enough information for one to make a decision, then it would be best
to have -- provide that information as requested to that one person
instead of having to go through the majority of the board. And let's
see how that works.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So let's suppose it were a member
of a planning advisory board, they get their packet, they don't have
enough information in the packet to make a decision or they need
some information to review, just like we do, they would request
additional information from staff?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it would be something that
would be related -- would be specifically related to an agenda item on
the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, specifically to the item on
the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think I can argue with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I mean, let's say -- let's
say you got -- the case is there was -- the coastal advisory commission
wanted some information on dredging and they wanted the historical
information on that dredge.
Now, that's -- they're asking that -- for information to give us
recommendations. Maybe they can give the board a lot more
information. Here's what I understand. Planning Commissioner Mark
Strain gets a lot of information through public records, especially
through the clerk's website, and he's very successful to formulate an
opinion on the board, and through that extra information, I think they
just give us great advice, so -- so you're in agreement with that?
Page 343
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't -- we before we go to
Commissioner Halas, why don't we form this into a motion. Since
you started the discussion --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I think maybe we need to
bring up some more stuff before we go into a motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. If you feel that way,
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I do, I feel that way. I also feel that
these advisory boards, if -- once they're given direction to go ahead
and obtain this information, I would like to see them go through the
county manager so that he then can disseminate that information down
to whatever group needs to pull up those records. I think there should
be some control that way, too, okay? They have to go through the
county manager, and then he, in turn, makes sure that that is sent
down to the proper area in regards to addressing those issues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got a question on that
statement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have a liaison to a board,
an advisory board. Why would you want to go through the county
manager, to have that advisory board go through the county manager
when they can clearly go through the liaison to the board?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. That way I think we got --
also got control to make sure that this isn't being abused, because as
we move into a more -- budget that's more -- has a -- is involved with
austerity, I think we need to make sure that we're going in the
direction that it's not going to be abused. And I think -- well, I just
think it's a good way of making sure that the right thing is being done,
and if there's any questions that something wasn't directed properly,
then the county manager basically has the responsibility.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, how about this. If the
board's liaison or the advisory board's liaison copy the county
Page 344
October 23-24, 2007
manager on the request, and that way the county manager will be in
full understanding of what's going on.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I don't -- I think that it should
be county manager, then he directs the staff people. We're not in a
position to be directing staff people, nor do I believe that the people on
these advisory committees are there to direct staff. So I believe it's the
authority of the county manager to direct staff when the request comes
m.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, they're advisory
to the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that. We go through
the same process ourselves. Whenever I have -- if I have a request for
information, I go through the county manager, and then I may have on
there that I CC it to the individual. But the county manager has that,
and then I make sure that he has the ability to direct staff if he feels so
inclined.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do the same thing. Doesn't
everybody?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How do you do it, or don't you?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nobody ever gives me any
additional information, so I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You get your information for
the developers after.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When I read the newspaper.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it's pretty much -- it's easy
that way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I go through Jeff (sic) to get mine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, seriously. I am sort of
conditioned to trying to follow chains of command, and I send all of
my communications -- they are addressed to Jim Mudd, Leo Ochs, and
Page 345
October 23-24, 2007
David Weigel, and then everything else is carbon copied to the
appropriate staff, and then that way I've informed the people who are
responsible and I've expedited the request by getting it to the
individuals who are probably going to pull the information together.
It gives a good record, it makes sure everybody is -- is notified and is
on board. It's easy for me. I mean, it's simple, a simple process for
me. And I recommend it, but that's just the way I do it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, you want
to weigh in at this time?
MR. MUDD: I think her flight was at 2:30.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think she weighed out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: She's on the big bird. Well, whatever
we do, it's going to have to come back again, I'm sure. But we need
some direction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me make a motion that
advisory board members --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, can you hear me?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't believe him.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think that the reason we go
through the county manager is because that's the only person we can
go through. We cannot direct staff; however, I think at many times
our advisory boards -- and I speak specifically to the Planning
Commission, but probably Productivity Committee and others as well
-- they need to seek information and they want to go directly to the
source because they know what they're looking for. They don't want to
make -- they don't want to go through all of those other steps, and a lot
times they're trying to seek things out earnestly in time for so and so
meeting, whatever it is.
I think -- you know what, I want them to find out as much
Page 346
October 23-24,2007
information as they can as easily as possible and as accurate as can be,
and I don't think we should make is cumbersome for them. That's my
opIlllon.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I weigh in?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So you've got a divided
direction. In other words, commissioners should go through the
county manager but the advisory boards should be able to go directly
to staff; is that what you said?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't see why not. I mean,
we can't. By law, we cannot go to staff and tell them -- or give them
direction. We have no right. We can ask them a question. I'm sorry
about that. Excuse me. Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. Very interesting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me go ahead and make a
motion. I think this will satisfy everybody. That public information
available to advisory boards on items on their agenda shall be free and
they should request this information from the county manager, and the
county manager will provide to all the advisory board members his
email address and his cell phone, because not all use computers.
That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We've got a motion on the
floor by Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
The way I understand the motion is basically the county manager
would be the sole source for assigning information. I don't know if I
agree with his cell phone number for -- how many board members do
we have out there?
MS. FILSON: Over 400.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, see, here's the problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we put it on the front of
Page 347
October 23-24, 2007
the building.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's the problem, is, not all
use computers and sometimes, through technology, computers are
down and they need information on items on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think that's a reasonable thing
to -- I can understand what you're saying, but in this case his cell
number, I think the office number and then the information can be __
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have any
recommendation, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you get the email number and I get
the office number and a cell phone number, and we'll get it out there in
order to get this thing resolved. It's doable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So let's talk about this for a
minute. So we agree that the commissioners and -- of course, we
already got our direction. We go through the county manager. But
the advisory groups will have to direct all their requests for
information to the county manager, and he, in turn, will direct various
members of staff if he so believes the information request is related to
items on the agenda. What's missing from this?
MR. MUDD: You're asking for a public records request, okay.
You're asking for data to be given in the thing. It isn't asking for a
question. I mean, if the -- if somebody on the advisory board, as a
liaison, has a question that can be answered, they ask the question.
But if they're looking for public records, i.e., go give me the last three
years' worth of stuff --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They'd have to go through you.
MR. MUDD: -- they're coming through me to avoid what
happened to a certain member recently. And I believe if that member
would have told me what he had, he'd have got it, okay, and we
wouldn't have went through this. And for that, I'm sorry. We went all
the way through that process. And I've looked through all the emails
Page 348
October 23-24, 2007
and I went up to the attorney's office, and the attorney's office said,
charge him.
And I -- you know, you look at what the guy was asking for, and
we shouldn't have charged him, okay. It's my firm belief. And so, had
I known about it, it wouldn't have happened. And so, I believe that's
to prevent that from happening again. And what we're trying to do is
find a way to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, there's one element to
this that we need to discuss, is, how do we handle the county
attorney's part of the equation? I mean, obviously if they need
something from legal, they're not going to come to the county
manager and you're going to go back to them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: CC the county attorney.
MR. MUDD: Or I'll call the county attorney.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They still go through you.
MR. MUDD: I talk to the county attorney, and we share emails
and things like that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're on speaking terms.
MR. MUDD: Oh, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's nice to know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's included in the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion, we have
a second.
Any other discussion on this motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there anything from legal that you
want to ask?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I guess the only question is, do you
want this in resolution form or is direction sufficient? I mean, we can
bring back a resolution that incorporates this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think a resolution would be -- now,
I'll tell you why a resolution. Once it's set down so there's absolutely
Page 349
October 23-24, 2007
no doubt, it has to come back one more time, then you've got
something on paper to be able to say, yes, this was a decision of the
commission and a direction. That's my feeling. Directions to staff can
always be reinterpreted.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: County Manager wants to say
something.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion maker and the second,
that's up to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: County Manager wants to say
something.
MR. MUDD: If -- the resolution is pretty specific, and this
policy that you just had is a rather large change to it, especially at __
where it says, this resolution applies to all officers, agencies,
departments under -- of the Collier County government and the Board
of County Commissioners.
If you're going to do this, you had a conversation in 2005 -- and
I'd just bring another piece into this. In 2005 when we were having a
significant amount of data that was going between the sheriffs office
and the county's office, this board at a meeting on January 11,2005,
had some other directions that -- basically talking about records
flowing between constitutional officers and the Board of County
Commissioners.
And you basically said that if it was a discussion that it -- that
you would waive the particular copying fees, and I believe that
discussion needs to be included if you're going to do are-resolution
because you have this policy sitting out there that was in 2005 that's
not written anywhere, and plus you're making another change, and I
think you need to codify both so that there is -- so that there is some
record of what you're basically deciding.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're essentially making a
motion to provide guidance to -- for the county attorney to create a
resolution which succinctly and completely addresses this issue of
Page 350
October 23-24, 2007
records access and transfer, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that what we're talking about?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, memorialize it in the
resolution. So I'll amend my motion to also include, direct the county
attorney to bring back a resolution stating -- reflecting __
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What we've talked about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- what's in the motion.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know how succinct we can be, but
we'll try.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And your second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Fiala seconded that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Resolutions are never succinct
anyway.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, she did?
MS. FILSON: Yeah. I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, do you agree to
that in your second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good, thank you.
And with that, 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.
Page 351
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- you finished 14
yesterday. That brings us to staff and commissioners' general
communication.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you want to go first, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: The only thing I'd like to bring to the board's
attention, and it will be -- kind of been trying to figure out what's
going on in Tallahassee. We have a different --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good luck.
MR. MUDD: We have a difference between the Senate plan and
the House plan for the Constitutional amendment for January, but of
note, I received a copy of an email from Senator Pruitt to the other
senators, and the Senate will reconvene on Monday, which is their last
day to have the things down -- down pat in order to get it done. And it
seems like the bills are pretty far apart, so I just bring that up to your
attention so that you'd know about it.
That's all I have, sir, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. County Attorney have
anything?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's start with you,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Since -- because of the Sunshine
Law, I read something very interesting in the weekend paper, and it
was supposedly a statement from Commissioner Coyle. You ask a
Page 352
October 23-24, 2007
question of the county manager and you get a response from a
developer sometimes?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, not ofthe county manager. It
actually -- it pertains to the questions that I ask concerning the packet
before our meetings. I always send them to the county manager with
copies to the staff --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- so they can prepare answers for
me on Monday before the meeting. And one of the problems I was
having is that sometimes I would hear from a developer about one of
my questions before I would hear from staff. And I had talked with
the county manager about it, and -- but let's face it, my -- my emails
are public record and anybody can get them, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And they must go
through -- they must go through the public information officer on that,
and it's going to take a matter of days to get that done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not unless somebody forwards it to
them. I mean, if somebody forwards it to somebody.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, but I think that's a bad
policy myself.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think the county manager
has sort of solved that problem for me. I haven't encountered it in
recent weeks or months. So it was something that -- it didn't really
disturb me. I just thought it was strange that there was such a direct
link between someone on staff and some developers. And I just raised
the question, and to the best of my knowledge, the county manager
has solved that because I haven't encountered it recently.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I found incidences
where staff has asked people to come to the board's meeting to
encourage the board to approve whatever's on our agenda, and I think
that is not good practice myself. And we have the ability, or the
county manager has the ability to suspend somebody or remove an
Page 353
October 23-24, 2007
employee -- well, let me just read what it says in the statutes.
Suspend, discharge, or remove an employee under the jurisdiction of
the Board of Commissioners pursuant to the procedures adopted by
the board.
Now, I would like to adopt a procedure to make sure the politics
stay here, because this is where the politics belong is up here and not
out there. And I would like to give the county manager direction to
create that policy, bring it to the board to memorialize it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I just ask a question, Mr.
Chairman? Are you sure you're referring to the county manager's
employees rather than employees of the board? You know, there are
two categories of employees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Employees of the board. I don't
know that we can set criteria other than those that are adopted at __
already in our human resources manuals and all that sort of stuff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, here's what my
understanding is and what I was told. It -- and I know it's treated as
the county manager's employees, but it's really the jurisdiction under
the Board of Commissioners. It's really the Board of Commissioners
that says it.
And, in fact, it says, the board -- the county manager shall hire
department heads -- department heads but must be confirmed by the
Board of Commissioners. I think that we could take a firm stance on
that, and all department heads, that says directors, they have titles to
directors, they should be confirmed by the Board of Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not going down that road.
MR. MUDD: May I?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And but -- you know, it's -- it's a
-- it's not good policy to have people creating politics out there and
bring it to the board.
Page 354
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can understand what you're saying
about it, but I can tell you that they sit on advisory groups, they work
within the community. People ask, you know, about what's coming
up. At what point in time are they actually lobbying to bring people to
the board to change our opinion or dispensing information as far as a
board meeting goes? How do you start to separate that?
Now, I'll be honest with you. I'd be very upset if! seen
somebody trying to manipulate politics in such a way that it was not
advantageous to the board or to make us look unfavorable to the rest
of the public out there.
But Mr. Mudd has some comments to make. I see he had his
hand up a few moments ago. Did you have something you wanted to
add?
MR. MUDD: The only thing I wanted to clarify was the director
piece that says -- at one time the county manager was the county
administrator, and there was only one administrator, and it was the
county manager, as I'm sitting here today. And that changed a couple
of years ago before I was here, and it was the county manager. And
the directors he used to have would become administrators, and we
have five of them. We used to have six. Tom Store was the sixth one,
and we've adopted and merged that into a different department.
But those administrators come to you for ratification, and that's -- and
I've had this conversation with David Weigel before on the particular
issue, so I just wanted to clarify that.
So in essence, the administrators that the manager would hire
would come to this board for ratification on an -- on an executive
summary, and we have done that consistently, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What we could do is ask the
attorney general opinion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is getting interesting. You
mean, that's if we want to change something?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It is not change something.
Page 355
October 23-24, 2007
It is a clarification of the statutes. What is the interpretation of
director, department head?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not going to go there. I'm sorry.
The way it is now, Mr. Mudd has the responsibility to provide a
service to this board. I like what he's providing. I don't want to start
micromanaging every inch of it along the way. I trust you, sir. You're
doing a wonderful job. Don't change a thing. That's my opinion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't mean to upset you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you didn't. But Commissioner
Henning, you know, I see continuous efforts to try to undermine the
county manager's influence.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just -- I'm just saying--
telling you what's in the Florida Statutes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't mean to upset you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not really upset. I think it's
wonderful you bring up these things for discussion. Let's take a
minute, go to Commissioner Halas, then we'll come back to you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, there's other things that
bother me also, and that is where we have a tendency to sit up here
and belittle staff when they're making a presentation, and I'm tired of
it, and I want to see it end.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I don't know how we got into
this, but go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got one more thing. Under
the ordinance, we are allowed to ask staff questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I didn't question. I said we are. I
meant it as a statement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But it seems like we had
a discussion prior to that says it just goes to the county manager.
Page 356
-.-------
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's a difference between asking
questions and giving what may be perceived as directions. That's
where the whole problem lies, and that line has got to be clearly
defined and understood by everyone. And that's the only thing that I
see that would may -- present a little difficulty for this board and staff.
But you still have the floor, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think I'm done. And, again, I
apologize if I got anybody upset.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't, don't apologize.
I'll tell you what, let me go to you. I'm not too sure if I had anything
or not, now that you mention it.
Okay. We're to you, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just want to say that I
know there's days that some of us have rough times, and I want to say
that staff does, I think, a fairly good job in this county, and I'm very
pleased that -- of the leadership that we have here. So I've said
enough.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just two observations. One is the
issue of asking for -- asking for information from staff. I think there
has to be a difference when we ask the staff to answer a question and
they can generally do that fairly quickly and asking them to undertake
a research project where it might involve a substantial amount of time
and effort, and to go through a public records search and that sort of
thing can be fairly time-consuming.
And under those circumstances, I think it creates a very difficult
problem for the county manager because then we are really directing
them to go do work that is time-consuming and it deprives the county
manager of the opportunity to manage his people in the most effective
way.
So it's a thin line. I don't know where to draw it, quite frankly.
But it is clear that we have the right to ask questions of staff and get
Page 357
October 23-24, 2007
them to provide us answers, but I think it's less clear that we have the
right to direct them to go do a research proj ect for us and accumulate a
large amount of records.
And I think that's best handled through the county manager, and
let him handle his people, because we can't hold him responsible for
effective utilization of his people if we are directing them to spend
their time doing things there are specifically related to our interests.
And so -- the other thing is that Commissioner Henning is
absolutely correct in the area where he implies that sometimes staff
becomes advocates for a particular position or for a petitioner, and
that's -- I'm not saying that staff does that. I'm saying he's correct in
his observation that they shouldn't do it.
And the staff should not be an advocate for a petitioner. They
should provide as much information as they can to the petitioners, as
they would to any member of the public and help them in any way
possible, but they should not become advocates in a way to
manipulate the process and try to get approval for them.
And -- so I think that's a valid observation, and I hope that staff
does not engage in those kinds of activities.
And with that, I'm finished, too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And one comment I'd like to
make. There is nothing prohibiting a commissioner from taking on
some project that may be of large dimensions outside of what an
agenda item is ifhe just brings it back to the board. And the board -- I
think probably 99 times out of 100, if a commissioner had a sincere
interest in a particular subject, that the board would endorse him to be
able to go forward to gather that information. And with board
direction, then, of course, Jim Mudd would be obligated, under all
circumstances, to provide those files at no cost.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're not talking about the
public record. You're talking about issues -- like, say you had some
issues in Golden Gate Estates about, you know, resurfacing roads.
Page 358
October 23-24, 2007
You had other issues that the county manager came to the
commissioners and got some guidance on those. Those are the issues
you're talking about, and I totally agree with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, no, I'm talking past that,
Commissioner Henning. It might be an issue that never came before
the commission before but it could be an issue of social justice, it
could be some inadequacy that exists within our own ordinances, and
that -- you may have a tremendous interest in that thing that it requires
some help from staff to be able to bring it to a point that you could
present it to the commission.
If that item was brought forward by any commissioner to this
commission indicating that they would like to be able to pursue that
and have permission to be able to -- or have the blessing of the
commission, or at least three of the commissioners or two plus
themselves, to direct staff to do so, there's no reason why those
projects couldn't go forward. And the general rules we're talking here
wouldn't quite apply.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, yeah. Well, that's kind of
setting policy, maybe that ought to be memorialized. But you're not
talking about a constituent having a concern and a commissioner
asking for -- getting the history on that concern, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, no, not in this case here. That's
a simple matter of putting it through the county manager per request
for information.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I usually go through public
records for that information. Works out well. In fact, that issue about
the rental registration, I think, never would have came to us without
getting --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- getting through the public
records. So I'm going to continue doing that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good, that's a wonderful --
Page 359
October 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: That brings us to another question, one that isn't
answered on your resolution for public records request, because your
resolution says -- your resolution says that -- this resolution applies to
all offices, agencies, departments, authorized organizations as Collier
County government of the Board of County Commissioners.
And so it's basically saying, if you're making a public records
request, then you're paying for the fees. And so you need to discuss
this particular item. If that -- if that -- that's going to happen, because
right now -- that hasn't been charged in the past, but while we're on
that particular item, we need to get -- we need to get it resolved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought we gave some direction
in regards to coming up with the resolution that -- in how this was
going to be taken care of as far as the cost. Isn't that what we gave
direction to the county attorney on?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, with respect to advisory committees.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And we're talking about
now, what, fees? More specific on what you're saying on __
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Henning just made a statement that
said, he's going to continue to go -- to do public records request.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, he didn't --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, he did. He said that, but I __
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He said he's going to use, I guess, the
Internet to be able to get -- isn't that what you were just saying, sir,
that you were accessing public records on your own?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. What prevents somebody to
go into the public files that are out there and open for access to be able
to get the information if they're not using staff?
MR. MUDD: No, no, Commissioner __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He's using staff.
Page 360
October 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: He's using staff because he goes to Mr. Torre, he
makes a public records request, okay, and then staff __
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, forgive me.
MR. MUDD: -- goes out and--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I misunderstood. I thought he was
doing it on his own. And, you know, anyone that's capable of pulling
those records out of the computer system on their own and generating
-- or using their own staff person or assigned person, I could see no __
nothing wrong with that. But I mean, that wasn't what you meant. I
misunderstood. So where does that leave us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not -- the present practice
is, we're not doing that, and we're also -- if you -- if you ask for a
public records request, you're not being charged, and if the County
Attorney's Office is not -- is asking, and they do all the time, for the
public record on a lawsuit, they're not charged.
So if the direction needs to be, is, since it is a standard and you
need to have it in a resolution, let's put it in the resolution.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we already gave direction on the
resolution. If somebody would like to change it, then this would be
the time.
Commissioner Fiala, you still with us? No, you left. Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, okay. You were very quiet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know why? I found out
where the mute button was.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Boy, am I glad--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to mention something also,
not for this meeting, but something that we could even address at
some point in time, and that is, impact fees on older buildings. And
I'll give a for-instance. A lady was trying to open a gymnastics place
and she had identified a place in the industrial section. It was a huge
warehouse. It had been used for trucking and warehouses before, and
Page 361
October 23-24, 2007
she needed that space for the gymnastics.
We didn't have a category for her, so we put her in retail. Well,
that was $236,000 extra impact on a place that would only be used in
the evening and only have children dropped off. No trucks coming,
no trucks going, nothing. And, of course, she had to then forego that,
and now she's again looking because the impact fees were so high.
And I'm thinking, maybe on older buildings where an impact fee
is already paid, maybe we ought to -- because we'd like to get some of
these older buildings rented and off of our inventory, maybe there's
some way that we could work with these people.
And I know that we had already given them some type of a
discount on that building because of the impact fees already paid.
And, no, we didn't have a category for them, and everybody agreed it
was an awfully high request.
But I thought, I would love to see us work with staff a little bit at
some point to see what we can do for those buildings that have been
sitting around for a while that we'd like to get out of our inventory and
have them fixed up so they're -- they're not rather disgraceful looking.
So that's just something for a future date.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, Commissioner Fiala. We
appreciate that. We were going to come to you in just a moment to
see if you had any other comments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I thought you had called on me.
Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that -- did you have anything else
that you wanted to share with us?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we have a discussion
that's going back and forth right now, and we really haven't quite
resolved it totally. So I'm going to keep it open. Yes--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The one that Coyle just mentioned
before -- I mean, Commissioner Coyle?
Page 362
October 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not too sure. We've been
progressing through a whole bunch of --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know, but I agreed with him. I
thought he was right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's refreshing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're absolutely right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I make a motion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You sure may, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm talking to Commissioner
Henning. Push it on mute, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion, further motion
for clarification in the resolution, that the offices that has not been
charged under the purvi (sic) of the county commission, continually
not be charged for public records requests.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you clarify what you just said
there, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, like I stated before, when
the county manager wants public records requests, he's not charged,
the County Attorney's Office is -- asks for public records, they're not
charged. The Board of County Commissioners are not charged for
public records or any other department under the purvi (sic) of the
county government or county -- which is the Board of County
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As long as somebody doesn't get
carried away with it, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess ifthere's a
problem, you could always address it. I mean, the county attorney,
when he does a -- when he has a case, Commissioner, he has to go
through boxes and boxes and boxes of material in order to defend that
Page 363
October 23-24, 2007
case, and I just don't think it's fair to charge the county attorney for
settling a case and getting a public record, nor do I think it's fair for
anybody else.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Who's anybody else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Under the Board of County
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The different -- the different
departments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But once again, through the county
manager, do you -- I'm not too sure where the -- you have your staff
going for public records. They just indiscriminately make it, or do
they come through your office? How does it work, sir?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. It's a staff coordination. If they need
records to do their jobs in order to get a particular item, either as an
agenda item for the Board of County Commissioners or something
resolved for the county attorney to have a lawsuit, we work through
that process and you work through -- and they work through staff.
What the county attorney doesn't do, he doesn't go to Mr. Torre's
shop and file a public records request. I've never seen that done since
I've been the county manager. Jeff, if--
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I mean, I work with your staff every
day. They get documents for me or they'll come to my office and I'll
give them documents. And, frankly, I don't really view it as a public
records request just so much as sharing information.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, would it be necessary to do this
through the resolution that we already have?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I don't think so, because I don't really
read that paragraph that Jim read before in the same manner. I mean,
the way I read it is if you have a public records request on
transportation or if you make it on the County Attorney's Office or
whoever, then you get charged the 15 cents per copy. That's how I
Page 364
October 23-24, 2007
read that, and that's how we've been conducting it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who does? Who gets charged
for that?
MR. KLA TZKOW: If! have someone outside ask us for some
of our records and it's a public records request, we charge 15 cents per
page under your resolution, and that's an outside person.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: If! have comprehensive planning come in
and say, you know, we need something, we just Xerox it and give it to
them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Well, I was told to go
through public records request when I do things, and I'd be happy to
copy the county manager on those.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's what this resolution that
we just directed the county attorney to do, just spells it out. However,
with that said, I would never be opposed if we can get to the point
where we have everything in digital form where anybody in the world
could access it. To me, that would be the most ideal thing in this
world. I mean, that's something that I had a vision of happening seven
years ago when I came aboard, and we haven't quite reached it.
I think that every communication commissioners send,
everything that's in public records out there now that has a database
someplace should be set up so it can be accessed, and that includes our
own emails. I don't think we got anything that we should be able to
claim as private within this organization. And I -- the more we can
provide the public, the better off everyone is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why they call it public
information.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know, but it's just how it -- there's a
cost generated by it the way it's sets up now. That's the big problem.
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Henning again, if you
have something else.
Page 365
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we need to wrap this up,
and I just feel that we have an obligation to -- if we have any type of
request as commissioners, we need to go through the county manager
so that he can direct the resources to get that information. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's the direction we gave.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've already done mine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're all done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. We're adjourn.
Thank you very much. It was a great meeting.
****Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
carried unanimously 5/0, 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 - OSM CO-2005030001, OSM 2006070385, OSM
2006050033, OSM 2004100746, OSM 2006040608, OSM
2005110103, OSM 2005090073, OSM 20041lO136, OSM
2006040685, OSM 2006010694, CEB 2005-11
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR REFLECTION LAKES, PHASE lA-
w /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A3
Page 366
October 23-24, 2007
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR LEL Y HIGH SCHOOL/LEL Y RESORT 7 & 8 _
W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR TOLLGATE BUSINESS
PARK II - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A5
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR TOLLGATE BUSINESS
PARK III - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR THE MAJORS, PHASE 11- W/RELEASE OF
ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITY FOR THE MAJORS, PHASE III - W/RELEASE OF
ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A8
Page 367
October 23-24, 2007
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR MUSTANG ISLAND - W/RELEASE OF ANY
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A9 - Moved to Item #lOR
Item #16AI0
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM FUND
(131) RESERVES TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMIN
FUND (131) TOTALING $147,972 FOR THE UPDATE AND
REWRITE OF PORTIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE - FIR CONTRACT 07-4105 W/WHITE &
SMITH, LLC PLANNING & LAW GROUP
Item #16All
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE
COUNTY'S CRS PROGRAM ACTIVITIES BY UTILIZING
AVAILABLE FUND III RESERVES ($51,400) - FOR
ACTIVITIES & MAINTENANCE OF THE FLOODPLAIN
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Item #16B I
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER PROJECT FUNDS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $395,493.67 TO THE GOLDEN GATE
P ARKW A Y GRADE SEP ARA TED OVERPASS LANDSCAPE
INSTALLATION (FUND 112, PROJECT #600067) - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 368
October 23-24, 2007
Item #16B2
SUBMITTAL OF A TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL)
WATER QUALITY RESTORATION GRANT PROPOSAL TO
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION FOR FREEDOM PARK (F.K.A. GORDON RIVER
WATER QUALITY PARK) IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000.00
AND THE PROJECT MANAGER WILL ELECTRONICALLY
SUBMIT THE GRANT APPLICATION - TO IMPLEMENT
PROJECTS WHICH AIM TO REDUCE NONPOINT SOURCES
OF POLLUTION
Item #16B3
ROADWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH
LODGE/ABBOTT ASSOCIATES LLC FOR THE GOLF CART
OVERPASS ON V ANDERBIL T DRIVE - TO IDENTIFY AND
SEP ARA TE THE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MAINTENANCE
BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND COLLIER COUNTY
Item # 16B4
(THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
BCC MEETING) DEVELOPERS CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
WITH MAC BUILDERS, INC. (DEVELOPER) AND COLLIER
COUNTY (COUNTY) TO DESIGN, PERMIT AND CONSTRUCT
THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON US41 AND
BAREFOOT WILLIAMS ROAD (PROJECT #600451 and #600231)
Item #16B5
DECLARATION SETTING ASIDE COUNTY-OWNED LANDS
Page 369
October 23-24, 2007
FOR A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT. (FISCAL IMPACT:
$10.00) - BETWEEN DA VIS BOULEVARD AND THE PLATTED
SEGMENT OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD
Item #16B6
AWARD BID NO. 08-5001, QUEENS PARK NEIGHBORHOOD
FENCING INST ALLA TION TO COMMERCIAL FENCE
CONTRACTORS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,073.52;
PROJECT #511011 - AS A PART OF THE LEL Y AREA
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP) PHASE lA
IN THE QUEEN'S PARK SUBDIVISION
Item #16B7
AWARD BID #07-4185 "US 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL) EAST
(RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK TO COLLIER BLVD.) SR 951 AT
FIDDLERS CREEK ANNUAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE"
CONTRACT TO VILA & SON LANDSCAPING IN THE
AMOUNT OF $339,542.80 - TO MAINTAIN 6 MILES OF
LANDSCAPING & IRRIGATION
Item #16Cl
SATISFACTION FORA CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER
IMP ACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS
$18.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN - LOCATED
AT LOT 97 PORT-AU-PRINCE MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Item # 16C2
RESOLUTION 2007-293: THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR
Page 370
October 23-24, 2007
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995,
AND 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS
$108.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16C3
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE
EXISTING INTERCONNECT BETWEEN THE COLLIER
COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT AND BONITA SPRINGS
UTILITIES, INC TO PROVIDE FOR REVERSE POTABLE
WATER FLOWS AT BONITA SPRINGS UTILITIES EXPENSE,
TO PROVIDE FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
SECOND INTERCONNECT, AT A LOCATION TO BE
DETERMINED, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, AND TO ESTABLISH RATES FOR
USAGE OF POTABLE WATER ($300,000) - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16Dl - Continued to the November 13,2007 BCC Meeting
SUB RECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING A COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$116,079.00 TO THE CITY OF NAPLES TO FUND
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GEORGE WASHINGTON CARVER
AND RIVER PARK COMMUNITIES AND THE FUN TIME
EARL Y CHILDHOOD ACADEMY - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 371
October 23-24, 2007
Item # 16D2
LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ROSA MENDEZ OLIVERO
(OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY
IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 122, TRAIL RIDGE,
NAPLES - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,372.52
Item #16D3
LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ELIXER DOSSOUS AND VEOLENE
DOSSOUS (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 203, TRAIL
RIDGE, NAPLES - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,616.20
Item # 16D4
LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MARISE VILSAINT (OWNER) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 2, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE-
DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,442.52
Item #16D5
LIEN AGREEMENT WITH SHEILA DESTINE (OWNER) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 3, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE-
DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,442.52
Page 372
October 23-24, 2007
Item # 16D6
LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ZOUBLETTE BIEN AIME (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 27, BLOCK 6, NAPLES MANOR
LAKES, NAPLES - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$26,204.83
Item #16D7
LIEN AGREEMENT WITH AMANCIO RUBIO AND ANA
RUBIO (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 28, BLOCK
6, NAPLES MANOR LAKES, NAPLES - DEFERRAL IN THE
AMOUNT OF $26,204.83
Item #16D8
LIEN AGREEMENT WITH RAUL FRIAS ALMANZA AND
ROSA PEREZ FRIAS (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
154, INDEPENDENCE PHASE II, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRAL
IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,155.40
Item # 16D9
LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ERTHA FABIEN (OWNER) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
Page 373
October 23-24, 2007
LOCATED AT LOT 9, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE-
DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,442.52
Item 16DI0
LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ELIAS BUST AMANTE VERA AND
MARIA BUSTAMANTE (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100%
OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
1, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRAL IN THE
AMOUNT OF $12,442.52
Item #16Dll
LIEN AGREEMENT WITH EVEL YNE BELANCE (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 120, TRAIL RIDGE, NAPLES-
DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 19,372.52
Item #16D12
SUBMITTAL OF AN AQUATIC HABITAT RESTORATION
PROJECT PROPOSAL GRANT APPLICATION FOR WATER
QUALITY, SEAGRASS MONITORING AND IMPLEMENT AN
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM FOR CLAM BAY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $55,000 TO THE SOUTHEAST AQUATIC
RESOURCES PARTNERSHIP - LOCATED JUST NORTH OF
THE CITY OF NAPLES
Item #16D13
Page 374
October 23-24, 2007
LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JEAN CLAUDE EXCEUS AND
ANTIDA EXCEUS (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
6, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRAL IN THE
AMOUNT OF $12,442.52
Item #16D14
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY ON
AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. AND APPROVE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REFLECT THE TRANSFER OF
FUNDS FROM TITLE III-Cl TO TITLE III-B IN THE AMOUNT
OF $35,000 IN THE 2007 OLDER AMERICANS ACT GRANT
PROGRAM - FOR THE SERVICES FOR SENIORS PROGRAM
Item #16D15
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TOTALING $6,746.08 TO
RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL REVENUE RECEIVED IN THE
SERVICES FOR SENIORS PROGRAM FROM THE AREA
AGENCY ON AGING FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA
GENERAL REVENUE PROGRAMS
Item #16D16
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,510.94 TO
RECOGNIZE REVENUE RECEIVED FROM THE COLLECTION
OF CO-PAYMENTS AND ANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM
THE COLLIER COUNTY SERVICES FOR SENIORS PROGRAM
Page 375
October 23-24, 2007
Item #16D17
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF A 2005 ROUND TWO
DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE (DRI) GRANT TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) TO FUND
DISASTER RELIEF AND THE RESTORATION OF HOUSING
AND INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED TO THE EFFECTS OF THE
2005 HURRICANE SEASON - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D18
SUMMARY OF THE IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL IN FY08, INCLUDING THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS APPROVED, THE TOTAL
DOLLAR AMOUNT DEFERRED AND THE BALANCE
REMAINING FOR ADDITIONAL DEFERRALS IN FY08 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D19
LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MARCO BAY HOMES, LLC
(BUILDER) AND JAMES OBROCHT A (DEVELOPER) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT EAST 75 OF THE WEST 180 OF TRACT 115,
UNIT 79, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - DEFERRAL IN THE
AMOUNT OF $ 19,273.98
Item # 16D20
AWARD OF CONTRACT(S) #07-4153 FOR PROFESSIONAL
Page 376
October 23-24, 2007
ENGINEERING FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
PROJECTS TO THE FOLLOWING FIRMS: COASTAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.; JOHNSON
ENGINEERING, INC.; CORZO CASTELLA CARBALLO
THOMPSON SALMAN, P.A. (C3TS); Q. GRADY MINOR AND
ASSOCIATES, P.A.; POST BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN,
INC, (PBS&J)
Item #16D21
REJECT ALL BIDS RECEIVED UNDER BID 07-4162,
VETERINARY MEDICINES AND DRUGS AND EXPENDABLE
SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR DOMESTIC ANIMAL
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Item #16D22
DONATION OF $1,500.00 FOR MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION-MFMP
AS PART OF SPONSORSHIP OF THE MARINE RESOURCE
CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP OF COLLIER COUNTY INTO
THE COLLIER COUNTY UNIVERSITY EXTENSION TRUST
FUND
Item #16D23 - Continued to the November 13,2007 BCC Meeting
SUB RECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING A COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$250,000 TO FUN TIME EARLY CHILDHOOD ACADEMY,
INC., FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT IN PREPARATION FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FUN TIME EARLY CHILDHOOD
Page 377
-_. ----.,
October 23-24, 2007
ACADEMY WITHIN THE GEORGE WASHINGTON CARVER
AND RIVER PARK COMMUNITIES IN THE CITY OF NAPLES
-AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D24 - Continued to the November 13,2007 BCC Meeting
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING DISASTER
RECOVERY INITIATIVE (DRI) FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT
OF $124,923.00 TO THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR PURCHASE AND
INSTALLATION OF TWO BACK-UP GENERATORS FOR THE
SEWER LIFT STATION AND THE WATER TREATMENT
PLANT IN COPELAND
Item #16D25 - Continued to the November 13, 2007 BCC Meeting
SUB RECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING DISASTER
RECOVERY INITIATIVE(DRI) FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF
$293,934.00 TO ST. MATTHEWS HOUSE, INC. FOR
HURRICANE HARDENING OF ITS SHELTER - AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D26 - Continued to the November 13,2007 BCC Meeting
SUB RECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING A COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,000,000 TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER
COUNTY, INC., FOR INSTALLATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE
TO SUPPORT 204 HOME SITES FOR KAICASA PHASE I IN
IMMOKALEE - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Page 378
October 23-24, 2007
Item #16D27 - Continued to the November 13,2007 BCC Meeting
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING DISASTER
RECOVERY INITIATIVE (DRI) FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT
OF $374,545.00 TO THE EMPOWERMENT ALLIANCE OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., FOR INFRASTRUCTURE TO
SUPPORT CONSTRUCTION OF 15 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
IN IMMOKALEE, TO BE KNOWN AS HATCHERS PRESERVE,
INTENDED FOR LOW INCOME, FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS
AND FAMILIES DISPLACED BY HURRICANE WILMA
Item #16D28 - Continued to the November 13,2007 BCC Meeting
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING DISASTER
RECOVERY INITIATIVE (DRI) FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT
OF $415,000.00 TO ONE BY ONE LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION
FOR INFILL IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION
OF HOUSING UNITS - USED FOR INFILL , TO BUILD (3)
THREE HOMES IN IMMOKALEE
Item #16D29 - Continued to the November 13, 2007 BCC Meeting
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME)
SUB RECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH BIG CYPRESS HOUSING
CORPORATION PROVIDING FOR A GRANT IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $250,000.00 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND/OR
INSTALLATION OF FIRE SPRINKLERS FOR A 55-UNIT,
MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING COMPLEX (THE
RESERVE AT EDEN GARDENS) FOR LEGAL MIGRANT AND
SEASONAL FARM WORKERS IN IMMOKALEE
Item #16D30 - Continued to the November 13,2007 BCC Meeting
Page 379
October 23-24, 2007
SUB RECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A $442,000
STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PROGRAM (SHIP) LOAN TO
EDEN GARDENS APARTMENTS, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A
FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TO ASSIST IN FUNDING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 55 UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY
RENTAL HOUSING COMPLEX FOR LEGAL MIGRANT AND
SEASONAL F ARMWORKERS IN IMMOKALEE
Item #16El
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH RICHARD F.
BERMAN AS TRUSTEE UNDER AN UNRECORDED TRUST
AGREEMENT AND KNOWN AS THE RICHARD F. BERMAN
REVOCABLE TRUST OF 1998 DATED JULY 27,1998 FOR 1.14
ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$33,170 - LOCATED IN UNIT 65, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AS
PART OF THE WINCHESTER HEAD PROJECT
Item #16E2
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH WILLIAM C.
ARMES FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $27,820 - LOCATED IN UNIT 65, GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES AS PART OF THE WINCHESTER HEAD PROJECT
Item # 16E3
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH ALFREDO
MEDINA FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
Page 380
October 23-24, 2007
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $27,820 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY - LOCATED IN UNIT 65, GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES AS PART OF THE WINCHESTER HEAD PROJECT
Item # 16E4
AWARD BID #07-4188 LONG DISTANCE SERVICES TO TQC
COMMUNICATIONS AT AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF
$51.000
Item # 16E5
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH WANDA E.
RICKARD AS TRUSTEE OF THE WANDA E. RICKARD TRUST
DATED 4/12/90 FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $27,820 - LOCATED IN UNIT 65,
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AS PART OF THE WINCHESTER
HEAD PROJECT
Item #16E6
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH PEGGY S.
CISKO, AND JOHN CISKO, WHO IS THE PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF FREDERICK
ANTHONY CISKO, DECEASED, FOR 1.59 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $38,170 - LOCATED IN UNIT 65,
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AS PART OF THE WINCHESTER
HEAD PROJECT
Page 381
Item #16E7
October 23-24, 2007
AWARD BID #07-4194 FOR THE PURCHASE OF PAINT &
RELATED ITEMS TO SUNSHINE ACE HARDWARE, INC. AND
SCOTT PAINT COMPANY - ANNUAL APPROXIMATE COST
OF $65.000
Item #16E8
AWARD BID #07-4140 FILE RETRIEVAL / RETENTION
SERVICE TO ROBERT FLINN RECORDS CENTER-
AVERAGING $67.000 ANNUALLY
Item #16E9
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING $581,660,415.18
CARRY FORWARD AND EXPENDITURE BUDGETS FOR
OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS FOR NON-PROJECT FUNDS AND
FOR UNEXPENDED BUDGET FOR PROJECT FUNDS AT THE
END OF FISCAL YEAR 2007
Item #16E10
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000 TO
TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE DESIGN STUDY FOR INLAND
DATA CENTER CAPITAL PROJECT #500521 TO THE DATA
CENTER EXPANSION CAPITAL PROJECT #500511 - TO
RELOCATE AND EXPAND THE CURRENT PRIMARY DATA
CENTER IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING
Item #16Ell
Page 382
October 23-24, 2007
INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES
FOR MUTUAL SALES AND PURCHASES OF MOTOR FUELS
BETWEEN THE CITY AND COUNTY - TO SAVE TIME AND
COST
Item #16E12
RE-ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT NO. 06-3983, "THIRD
PARTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR GROUP INSURANCE
BENEFITS" - FROM CORPORATE BENEFIT SERVICES OF
AMERICA. INC. (CBSA. INC.) TO MERITAIN HEALTH. INC.
Item #16F1
BAR RESOLUTION 2007-03: RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS,
CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item # 16F2
RESOLUTION 2007-294: RESOLUTION APPROVING A
DISASTER WORKSITE AGREEMENT PROVIDING FEDERAL
FUNDS UNDER A NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANT TO
COVER THE PRE-SCREENING COSTS, WAGES AND
REQUIRED SAFETY EQUIPMENT FOR TEMPORARY
WORKERS DUE TO THE EFFECTS OF A DISASTER SUCH AS
A HURRICANE - AT NO COST TO COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16F3
APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS - #08-016
Page 383
October 23-24, 2007
Item #16F4
RATIFICATION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT WITH THE PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS OF
THE EVERGLADES INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 3670 - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F5
BUDGET AMENDMENT AND PAYMENT OF AN INVOICE
FROM CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SERVICES (CJIS)
IN THE AMOUNT OF $342,093, WHICH IS THE COLLIER
COUNTY PORTION OF THE COST SHARING PROJECT FOR
THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR FY06/07
Item #16G1
CRA RESOLUTION 2007-295: AMENDING CRA RESOLUTION
2001-98 AS IT RELATES TO THE BYLAWS OF THE
BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY BOARD
Item #16G2
DEMOLITION OF CRA-OWNED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
(MOBILE HOMES); APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS (RFP) SCOPE OF WORK TO BUILD SINGLE-
F AMIL Y HOMES ON CRA OWNED LAND; APPROVE THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ADVERTISE THE RFP THROUGH
THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT AND RETURN WITH
Page 384
October 23-24, 2007
RECOMMENDATIONS - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16G3
CRA RESOLUTION 2007-296: AMENDING THE BA YSHORE
GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT
PROGRAM TO MODIFY THE MATCHING FUND
REQUIREMENT FOR RECIPIENTS AND DECLARE THE
GRANT PROGRAM AS SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Item # 16G4
RATIFY COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 07-33, ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 8, 2007,
APPROVING AN 8.0 PERCENT ($8,363.79) MERIT INCREASE
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008 FOR THE AUTHORITYS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. THERESA M. COOK
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE.
ATTENDED THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FEDERATED
REPUBLICAN WOMEN'S LUNCHEON ON OCTOBER 8, 2007
AT ARBOR TRACE. $15.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED
AT 14551 VANDERBILT DRIVE. NAPLES
Item #16H2
Page 385
October 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE.
ATTENDING THE EVERGLADES COALITION ANNUAL
CONFERENCE ON JANUARY 10-13,2008 AT SOUTH SEAS
ISLAND RESORT. $598.77 TO BE PAID FOR
ACCOMMODATIONS FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED ON CAPTIVE ISLAND,
FLORIDA
Item # 16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE, BY
ATTENDING THE IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
BANQUET - CHAMBER SILENT AUCTION & STEAK DINNER
ON OCTOBER 27,2007 AT THE PACE CENTER FOR GIRLS.
$100.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE, BY
ATTENDING LUNCHEON HONORING FORMER SHERIFF
AUBREY ROGERS ON OCTOBER 26, 2007 AT THE NAPLES
ELKS LODGE. $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 3950 RADIO
ROAD. NAPLES
Page 386
October 23-24, 2007
Item # 16H5
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE, BY
ATTENDING THE BLUE CHIP RECOGNITION BREAKFAST
ON NOVEMBER 8, 2007 AT THE HILTON NAPLES AND
TOWERS. $10.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 5111
TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH. NAPLES
Item #161
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 387
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
October 23, 2007
FOR BOARD ACTION:
I. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
1. Ave Maria Stewardship Community District: FY07/08 Regular Board
Meeting Schedule.
2. Verona Walk Community Development District: FY 07/08 Regular Board
Meeting Schedule.
3. Naples Heritage Community Development District: FY08 Board of
Supervisors Meeting Schedule.
4. Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District: 2007/2008 Revenue;
Declaration Letter of No Outstanding Bonds; FY07/08 Meeting Schedule;
District Map; Letter of Designation of Registered Agent.
5. East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District: 2007/2008 General Fund
Budget; Schedule of Regular Meetings and Workshops FY07/08; Letter of
Registered Office and Agent.
6. South Florida Water Management District: Big Cypress Basin Board
Minutes of May 30,2007.
B. Minutes:
I. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisorv Committee: Agenda for October 18,
2007; Minutes of September 12,2007.
2. Environmental Advisory Council: Agenda for October 3, 2007; Minutes
of September 5, 2007.
3. Immokalee Community Redevelopment and Advisory Committee:
Agenda and Minutes for August 15, 2007; Agenda and Minutes of
September 5, 2007.
a) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency: Agenda and
Minutes of August 15,2007.
b) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Agenda and
Minutes of August 15,2007.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondence\102307 misc
corr. docH: DatalF onnat
4. Collier County Planning Commission: Revised Agenda for October 4,
2007.
5. Collier County Public Vehicle Advisory Committee: Agenda for October
1,2007.
6. Collier County Library Advisory Board: Agenda of September 26, 2007
(no meeting in August or July).
7. Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee: Agenda for October 8,
2007; Minutes of September 12,2007.
8. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda for October 9,2007;
Minutes of September 11, 2007.
9. Black Affairs Advisorv Board: Minutes of September 24,2007.
10. Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of July 26,
2007; Minutes and Agenda of June 28, 2007.
11. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Minutes of September 19,2007.
12. Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board: Agenda for October 16,
2007.
13. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Agenda for
October 8, 2007.
C. Other:
1. Minutes of September 5, 2007 of the "Settlement Conference" of the State
of Florida Department of Community Affairs, Florida Wildlife Federation,
Collier County Audubon Society and Collier County.
2. Immokalee Airport Phase One Lake/Collier County Airport Authority Bid
No. 07-4129.
3. Fire Steering Committee: Agenda for September 27,2007.
4. Collier County Public Safety Coordinating Council: Minutes of June 18,
2007.
a) Work Restitution Release Subcommittee Meeting: Minutes of
June 18,2007.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondence\102307 misc
corr .docH: DatalF onnat
October 23-24, 2007
Item #16K1
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED INCORPORATING THE
SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE MEDIA TED
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $119,500
FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 134 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
NAPLES, INC., ET AI., CASE NO. 04-3587-CA (IMMOKALEE
ROAD PROJECT NO. 66042). FISCAL IMPACT: $73,033
(COMPANION TO ITEM 17A, WENDY'S VARIANCE PETITION
V A-2007-AR-11577)
Item # 16K2
STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND FINAL JUDGMENT
FOR PARCEL 181 RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. ARMANDO YZAGUIRRE, ET AI., CASE NO. 07-2746-
CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT NO. 60044). (FISCAL IMP ACT
$234.635)
Item # 16K3
TRI-P ARTY DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
WHICH WILL IMPLEMENT RESOLUTION 05-235
(DEVELOPMENT ORDER 05-01) BY PROVIDING FOR THE
DEVELOPER'S (AVE MARIA DEVELOPMENT, LLLP)
DEDICATION OF 46 ACRES WITHIN AVE MARIA FOR
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SITES IN EXCHANGE
FOR CREDITS AGAINST EDUCATIONAL IMPACT FEES
Item #16K4
Page 388
October 23-24, 2007
STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND FINAL JUDGMENT
FOR PARCEL 177RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. JORGE A. ROMERO, ET AI., CASE NO. 07-2681-CA
(OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT NO. 60044). (FISCAL IMPACT
$240.630.65)
Item # 16K5
OFFER OF JUDGMENT FOR PARCELS 838A AND 838B BY
COLLIER COUNTY TO PROPERTY OWNER, NANCY L.
JOHNSON PERRY, AND REJECT THE OFFER OF
JUDGMENT/PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT BY NANCY L.
JOHNSON PERRY TO THE COUNTY IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED CC V. NANCY I. JOHNSON PERRY, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE, ET AI., CASE NO. 03-2373-CA
(GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT NO. 60027)(FISCAL
IMPACT: IF ACCEPTED. $2.000)
Item # 16K6
CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR SOLID
WASTE, RECYCLABLE MATERIALS, AND YARD TRASH
COLLECTION SERVICES IN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT II WITH
CHOICE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES OF COLLIER. INC.
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2007-297: PETITION V A-2007-AR-11577 (WB) B
F FT. MYERS, INC., REPRESENTED BY ROBERT J. MULHERE,
AICP, RW A, INC. AND WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, REQUESTS A
Page 389
October 23-24, 2007
VARIANCE FOR AN OUTP ARCEL (PRESENTL Y IMPROVED
WITH A WENDY'S RESTAURANT), IN ORDER TO REDUCE
SEVERANCE DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE "TAKING"
OF A +/- 15.0 FOOT ROAD EASEMENT FOR THE EXPANSION
OF IMMOKALEE ROAD. THE VARIANCE WILL ALLOW FOR
PARKING WITHIN 11 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE ALONG
IMMOKALEE ROAD FRONTAGE. THE SITE DOES COMPLY
WITH THE PUD REQUIREMENT FOR A 15 FOOT BUILDING
SETBACK FOR THIS FRONT YARD. IN ADDITION, A
VARIANCE OF 9 FEET IS REQUESTED FROM THE REQUIRED
20 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER WIDTH PER LDC
SECTION 4.06.02CA, TO ALLOW FOR AN 11 FOOT WIDE
LANDSCAPE BUFFER. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED AT 10941 AIRPORT ROAD NORTH, WHICH IS AT
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND
AIRPORT ROAD, WITHIN THE GREEN TREE PUD
(ORDINANCE 81-58), GREEN TREE CENTER TRACT "C",
SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. (COMPANION TO ITEM 16Kl)
Item # 17B
ORDINANCE 2007-63: PETITION PUDZ-2005-AR-7883,
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY DWIGHT NADEAU, OF RW A, INC., IS
REQUESTING A REZONE TO THE HABITAT - WOODCREST
RPUD ON 11.2 ACRES OF LAND FROM THE AGRICULTURAL
(A) ZONING DISTRICT, TO ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM 66
RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF WOODCREST DRIVE,
SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE, JUST NORTH OF ACREMAKER
ROAD, IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26
Page 390
October 23-24, 2007
EAST. COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2007-64: TO AUTHORIZE THE HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT TO AMEND THE COLLIER
COUNTY FINGERPRINTING ORDINANCE NO. 04-52 TO
REQUIRE FINGERPRINTING FOR ALL COLLIER COUNTY
EMPLOYEES AND CERTAIN COUNTY CONTRACT
EMPLOYEES AS DEFINED BY 125.5801. FLORIDA STATUTES
Item # 17D
ORDINANCE 2007-65: ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 2002-63, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER PROGRAM, BY REVISING SECTION SIX:
CREATION OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER ACQUISITION
FUND; SECTION EIGHT: LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE; SECTION TEN: CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING
LANDS FOR ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT; SECTION
ELEVEN: ACQUISITION LIST: SECTION TWELVE:
NOMINATION OF ACQUISITION PROPOSALS AND
CANDIDATE SITES; SECTION THIRTEEN: PROCEDURES FOR
SELECTION OF ACQUISITION PROPOSALS FOR
PLACEMENT OF THE ACTIVE ACQUISITION LIST AND
SUBSEQUENT PURCHASE PROCEDURES; SECTION
FOURTEEN: MANAGEMENT PLANS AND USE OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS; SECTION
FIFTEEN: RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COUNTY MANAGER;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Page 391
October 23-24, 2007
Item #17E
BAR RESOLUTION 2007-04: RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD,
TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 ADOPTED BUDGET
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:12 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~~
JIM ctfLETT A, Chairman
ATTEST:'>' ,
DWIGHT. E. BROCK, CLERK
..--~---
~. . .c..
, "~U /
. :v
. .
. t~s to (,
. slgnatur. iiitr~ "'"
These minutes approved by the Board on fJDVeMbeK 272607 , as
.,,' I )
presented ~ or as corrected .
Page 392