BCC Minutes 11/27/2007 R
November 27,2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, November 27,2007
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)
al.".\.'.'~1.
. "
r . '". ,,' '.:...
()I ...... \
AGENDA
November 27, 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."
Page 1
November 27, 2007
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. October 9,2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. October 18,2007 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Davia
Mazur
D. October 23-24, 2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting
E. October 24, 2007 - BCC/LDC Meeting
F. October 29,2007 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Stephen
Cunningham
G. October 30, 2007 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Stephen
Cunningham
Page 2
November 27, 2007
H. October 30, 2007 - BCC/Land Development Code Meeting
I. October 31, 2007 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Scott
Watson
J. October 31,2007 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Davia
Mazur
K. November 2,2007 - BCC/Pre-Legislative Session Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) Donald Champlin, Road Maintenance
2) Kelly Grandy, Library
3) Miguel Herrera, Road Maintenance
4) Susan Rossi, CDES Operations
B. 25 Year Attendees
1) Helen Ortega, EMS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Sandra Arnold-Lawson congratulated for receiving the Certified Emergency
Manager (CEM) designation from the International Association of
Emergency Manager (IAEM). To be accepted by Sandra Arnold-Lawson.
B. Proclamation to recognize the CCPC for their work on the AUlR. To be
accepted by Planning Commission members.
C. Proclamation to recognize members of the Productivity Committee for their
work on the AUlR. To be accepted by Productivity Committee members.
D. Proclamation to recognize Matthew Berning, Troop 2001 Life Scout Eagle
candidate, for his efforts to organize an electronics recycling round up event
Page 3
November 27, 2007
and to designate December 1, 2007, as a Day of Recycling for Electronic
Waste in Collier County. To be accepted by Life Scout Eagle Candidate
Matthew Berning.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation by Chip Merriam, Deputy Executive Director, South Florida
Water Management District, regarding the local Comprehensive Plan as it
relates to S.B. 360 and 444.
B. Recommendation to recognize Jim von Rinteln, Emergency Management
Coordinator, Bureau of Emergency Services, as Employee of the Month for
November 2007.
C. Contractor Presentation on the New, Collier County, Courthouse Annex;
Project No. 52533; Kraft Construction CM at Risk Contract.
D. This item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Swearing in ceremony for the newly
elected Florida House of Representatives Member, District 101.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by Mary Mayville, Collier County Agricultural Fair
& Exposition, Inc., to discuss reinstatement of a permanent beer license.
B. Public petition request by Mark Adamczyk to discuss the construction of a
County park in the Delasol Community.
C. Public petition request by Patrick White to discuss Orders Finding Violation
relating to property owned by Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker.
D. Public petition request by Craig Brugger to discuss waiver to contract with
FGUA for their Golden Gate Wastewater Plant Injection Well.
E. Public petition request by Robert Lockhart to discuss CEB Case No. 2004-
026 and related fines.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1 :00 D.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Page 4
November 27, 2007
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Petition: PUDZ-2006-
AR-l0648: Naples Motorcoach Resort Inc., represented by Robert L. Duane,
AICP, of HoleMontes, Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich, esquire, of
Goodlette, Coleman, & Johnson, P.A., is requesting a rezone from the
Mobile Home, Travel Trailer Recreational Vehicle Campground, and Heavy
Commercial Zoning Districts (MH, TTRVC & C-5) to the Commercial
Planned Unit Development District (CPUD) for a project to be known as the
Naples Motorcoach Resort CPUD. This project proposes to allow
development of up to 200 motorcoach lots as well as various amenities such
as a boat ramp and boat slips. The subject property, consisting of23.2 acres,
is located on the southwest side of Tamiami Trail, East, approximately three
quarters of a mile east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 3,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Petition: CU-2007-AR-
11970, American Dream Builders, represented by James McCord, is
requesting a Conditional Use for the extension of a Model Home/Sales
Center, which has been in existence since 1997. The subject property is
located in Golden Gate Estates on Tract 119, in Unit 26, at the Southwest
corner of 13th Ave SW and Collier Boulevard (CR 951), Section 15,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida
C. This item continued from the June 12.2007 and October 23. 2007 BCC
meetinl!s. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDZ-2006-AR-
10698: A. Grover Matheney, Trustee, represented by R. Bruce Anderson
esquire, of Roetzel & Andress, LPA and Margaret Perry, AICP, of
WilsonMiller, Inc., is requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development
(PUD) to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for a project to
be known as the Gaspar Station PUD. The subject property, consisting of
17.7 acres, is located on the south side ofImmokalee Road (CR 846),
approximately one quarter mile west of the I-75/lmmokalee Road,
interchange, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 5
November 27, 2007
A. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Presentation by Andrea B. Sims of The
Waters-Oldani Executive Recruitment, a division of the Waters Consulting
Group, Inc.
B. Appointment of member to the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
D. Appointment of member to the Affordable Housing Commission.
E. Appointment of member to the Immokalee EZDA.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners on accepting
after-the-fact developer applications for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for owner-occupied affordable housing units and provide
direction to staff to amend the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance. Board
direction on this item will directly impact the following items on today's
agenda: lOB, lOC, 1OD, 1OE, 1OF, lOG, lOH, 101, 10J, 10K, lOL, 10M and
lON.
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and
authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Garry Jean Baptiste
and Syndy Jean Baptiste (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 26,
Block 11, Naples Manor Lakes and authorizes a reimbursement of the fees
paid by Habitat for Humanity of Collier County Inc on Building Permit
2007041982 in the amount of$26,204.83.
C. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and
authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Araceli Ramirez
(Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-
occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 8, Liberty Landing and
authorizes a reimbursement of the fees paid by Habitat for Humanity of
Collier County Inc on Building Permit 2007020738 in the amount of
$12,442.52.
Page 6
November 27, 2007
D. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and
authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Roberto Maciel
Chavez and Gloria Maciel (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 15,
Trail Ridge and authorizes a reimbursement of the fees paid by Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County Inc on Building Permit 2006064370 in the
amount of $13,616.20.
E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and
authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with David Licot and
Nancy Licot (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 121, Trail
Ridge and authorizes a reimbursement of the fees paid by Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County Inc on Building Permit 2007012026 in the
amount of$19,372.52.
F. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and
authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jean S. Jean Noel and
Marie J. Montfort (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact
fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 5, Liberty
Landing and authorizes a reimbursement of the fees paid by Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County Inc on Building Permit 2007020743 in the
amount of $12,442.52.
G. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and
authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Clairicia Achille
(Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-
occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 7, Liberty Landing and
authorizes a reimbursement of the fees paid by Habitat for Humanity of
Collier County Inc on Building Permit 2007020740 in the amount of
$12,442.52.
H. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and
authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Monica Martinez
(Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-
occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 14, Trail Ridge and
authorizes a reimbursement ofthe fees paid by Habitat for Humanity of
Collier County Inc on Building Permit 2006064365 in the amount of
$13,616.20.
Page 7
November 27, 2007
I. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and
authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Miguel Vera Vera
and Maria Elena Vera (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 16,
Liberty Landing and authorizes a reimbursement of the fees paid by Habitat
for Humanity of Collier County Inc on Building Permit 2007020728 in the
amount of $12,442.52.
J. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and
authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Marise Omeus
(Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-
occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 18, Trail Ridge and
authorizes a reimbursement of the fees paid by Habitat for Humanity of
Collier County Inc on Building Permit 2006064384 in the amount of
$13,616.20.
K. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and
authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Guerline Mathieu
(Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-
occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 13, Liberty Landing and
authorizes a reimbursement of the fees paid by Habitat for Humanity of
Collier County Inc on Building Permit 2007020732 in the amount of
$12,442.52.
L. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and
authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Inel Tanis and
Almonise Tanis (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact
fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 19, Block
14, Naples Manor Lakes and authorizes a reimbursement of the fees paid by
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County Inc on Building Permit 2007052698
in the amount of $26,240.68.
M. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and
authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Nicolas Huerta Lara
and Juana Cortes Alvarez (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 16,
Trail Ridge and authorizes a reimbursement of the fees paid by Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County Inc on Building Permit 2006064377 in the
amount of $13,616.20.
Page 8
November 27, 2007
N. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and
authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jean C. Jean Pierre
and Marie Jose Jean Pierre (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 11,
Block 6, Naples Manor Lakes and authorizes a reimbursement ofthe fees
paid by Habitat for Humanity of Collier County Inc on Building Permit
2007041987 in the amount of$26,204.83.
O. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction
related to the acceptance of after-the-fact developer applications from
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Incorporated for 48 properties and
the reimbursement of impact fees paid prior to issuance of a Building Permit
and execution of an impact fee deferral agreement (Amy Patterson, Impact
Fee/EDC Manager, Community Development & Environmental Services
Division)
P. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners evaluate and
consider each option presented with respect to including less than five acre
illegal Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Land properties
into the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program for the purposes of
programmatic participation relative to TDR severance. (Joe Thompson,
Planner, Comprehensive Planning, Community Development &
Environmental Services Division)
Q. Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve a
funding change for the Goodlette Frank Road Project (60005); Collier
Boulevard South Project (60001); and the Davis Boulevard Project (60073)
in the amount of$2,279,900. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services
Administrator)
R. This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Recommendation to grant final
approval ofthe roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final
plat of Strada Bella (Olde Cypress PUD). The roadway and drainage
improvements will be privately maintained.(Stan Chrzanowski, Senior
Engineer, Engineering & Environmental Services Department, Community
Development & Environmental Services Division)
S. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution (Initiating Resolution) of the Board
of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, pursuant to Part II of
Chapter 171, Florida Statutes (Florida's Interlocal Service Boundary Act) to
Page 9
November 27, 2007
commence the process for negotiating an interlocal service boundary
agreement regarding 204.19 acres of land, more or less, described as the
Hole in the Wall Golf Club, proposed to be annexed into the City of Naples.
(Jim Mudd, County Manager)
T. Recommendation to approve a modification to Agreement 07-EC-33-09-2l-
01-486 between the State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management
and Collier County accepting an additional $1,693,940 towards the
construction of a new County Emergency Operations Center (EOC) within
the Emergency Services Center (ESC) and approve the Budget Amendment
necessary to recognize and appropriate $1,693,940 as revenue. (Jim von
Rinteln, Emergency Management Coordinator)
U. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County
Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development-related review and
processing fees as provided for in The Code of Laws and Ordinances,
Section 2-11 (Companion Item to 10V) (Joe Schmitt, Community
Development Administrator)
V. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County
Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development-related review and
processing fees as provided for in The Code of Laws and Ordinances,
Section 2-11 (Companion Item to lOU) (Joe Schmitt, Community
Development Administrator)
W. Recommendation to amend the County's Purchasing Policy to further
modernize the County's business practices. (Steve Carnell, Purchasing
Department Director)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 10
November 27, 2007
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 have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
prioritize the watersheds for development of the Watershed
Management Plans.
2) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfactions of Lien for
payments received for the following Code Enforcement actions.
3) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility
facility for Falling Waters North Preserve.
4) Release and Satisfactions of Lien
5) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility
facility for Calusa Island Village.
6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facility for Verona Walk, Phase 2A.
7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for VeronaWalk, Phase 2B.
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility conveyance for VeronaWalk, Phase 2C.
9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Heritage Bay, Phase IB.
10) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Forest Park, Phase 4
Page 11
November 27, 2007
11) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for North Naples Research and Technology Park.
12) This item reouires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission Members. Should a hearinl! be held on this item. all
participants are reouired to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Ave Maria Unit 6, Bellerawalk
Phase 1 B, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to authorize Board of County Commissioners
Chairman to enter into a Local Agency Program (LAP) Agreement
with the Florida Department of Transportation, on behalf of Collier
County, for receipt of Federal dollars in the amount of $134,000 for
landscaping enhancements for SR 93/ 1-75 at Golden Gate Parkway.
2) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a funding source change for past and future expenditures in the
amount of $500,000 for Fleet Maintenance expenses and the Collier
Area Transit facility repair and renovation expenses.
3) Recommendation to approve a budget arnendment to transfer funds
into a new stormwater project known as the Golden Gate City
Stormwater Outfall Replacements, Project Number 510291, in the
amount of$66,500.
4) To obtain Board of County Commissioner approval of an Easement
Agreement and acceptance of a Drainage, Access and Maintenance
Easement from the District School Board of Collier County for the
purpose of maintaining the current drainage pattern in Section 34,
Township 49S, Range 26E.
5) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a budget amendment to move unspent landscape maintenance fees
that rolled from fiscal year 2007 into fiscal year 2008 to the Bridge
Repair/Rehabilitation Program in the amount of $621,721.61.
Page 12
November 27, 2007
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to award Bid Number 07-4192 for the purchase and
installation of one 200 KW Generator for the Goodland Repump
Station in the amount of $62,999 to Power Pro Tech Services and
approve a budget amendment within the Goodland Water District
Fund 441.
2) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said lien is satisfied in full for the 1993 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
3) Recommendation to Award Bid Number 07-4181 for landscaping of
Public Utilities Division facilities in the estimated amount of
$400,000 to Florida Land Maintenance, Amera-Tech Incorporated,
and Ground Zero Landscaping.
4) Recommendation to approve five Work Orders for the development of
the 2007 Master Plans for a not to exceed total of $781 ,940. Under
Contract #05-3785, Fixed Term Contract for Professional Utilities
Engineering Services, with Greeley & Hansen LLC four Work Orders
for the 2007 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Water
Supply Master Plans for a total of $678,940. Under Contract #07-
4071, Fixed Term Contract for Financial Consulting Services, with
Public Resources Management Group, Inc. one Work Order for the
2007 Water, Wastewater and Irrigation Quality Water Rate and
Impact Fee Studies for $103,000. Projects Numbers 70070, 75007,
73066,72516,75005 and 75018 cover these Work Orders.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve,
and authorize the Chairman to sign, an Amended Subrecipient
Agreement with Collier County Housing Development Corporation
(CCHDC). This amendment extends the timeline for the development
of Cirrus Pointe. The HOME grant was provided to the CCHDC to
acquire approximately 10 acres of land, which was purchased in
December, 2005 including the developer's fee of $30,000 for a total
Page 13
November 27, 2007
of $320,000. Cirrus Pointe will construct 108 units of which 32 units
will be for new affordable housing units in Collier County.
2) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of the
attached Older Americans Act grant application to the Area Agency
on Aging to provide nutrition programming, in-home support services
and case management for elderly residents in Collier County.
3) Recommendation to approve an agreement between the Board of
County Commissioners and Benderson Development Company to
allow the usage of the Golden Gate Kmart Plaza for parking during
Snowfest.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Report and ratify Property, Casualty, Workers Compensation and
Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the Risk Management
Director pursuant to Resolution #2004-15 for the fourth quarter of FY
07.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommend approval of an interlocal agreement with the City of
Naples to lease office space for use by the Collier County Film
Commission Office.
2) Recommend approval of the award ofRFP #07-4175, Collier County
Tourism Department Public Relations Assistance, and corresponding
tourism agreement between Collier County and BCF of Florida, Inc.
in the annual amount of$140,000
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve a Resolution terminating a Site Improvement Grant
Agreement between the CRA and Sona Gallery and Echo, LLC due to
applicants failure to meet terms of the agreement
Page 14
November 27, 2007
2) Report to the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) providing an update on a proposed public referendum allowing
the CRA to incur debt and to delay the desired referendum until
November 4, 2008.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
Collier Citizen of the Year event on Thursday, November 15 at The
Naples Elks Lodge; $35.00 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's
travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending as a "celebrity server" at the Farm City BBQ on November
21, 2007. $18 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending the Leadership Collier 20th Annual Platinum Holiday Party
on December 6,2007. $45 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 Greater Naples Better Government Committee Holiday
Social on December 18, 2007. $10 to be paid from Commissioner
Coletta's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
November 3, 2007 through November 9, 2007 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
Page 15
November 27, 2007
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
November 10,2007 through November 16,2007 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve are-conveyance of unused portions of
certain dedicated rights-of-way in Immokalee's Newmarket
Subdivision.
2) Request by the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County for
approval ofresolution authorizing the Authority to issue single family
housing revenue bonds to be used to finance a qualifying single
family project to provide affordable workforce housing.
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-
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 bv Commission members. PE-2007-AR-12164,
Keith Basik, Larry Basik, Jeff Basik of Naples Big Cypress Market Place,
represented by Patrick White, Esquire, of Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur,
LLP, is requesting a Parking Exemption for an irregularly shaped parcel of
just less than ten acres to allow over flow parking facilities of approximately
372 total additional parking spaces in excess of minimum required parking
for Naples Big Cypress Market Place. The subject property is located at 220
Basik Drive, at the Northwest corner of US 41 and Trinity Place, Section 17,
Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
Page 16
November 27, 2007
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDEX-2007-AR-
12177 (NG) Hammock Woods, LLC, represented by David R. Underhill, Jr.,
of Banks Engineering, and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette,
Coleman, and Johnson, P.A., is requesting a two-year extension for the
Sierra Meadows PUD from December 14,2007 to December 14,2009 in
accordance with LDC Section 1 0.02.13.D.5(a). The subject property consists
of90.8 acres and is located on the southwest comer of the intersection of
Rattlesnake-Hammock Road (CR 864) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in
Section 22, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
C. Request that the Board of County Commissioners Adopt an Ordinance to
Regulate Security of Certain Convenience Store Businesses to Protect the
Physical Security of Convenience Business Retail Employees and
Individuals who Patronize such Businesses.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 17
November 27, 2007
November 27,2007
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
County Commissioner meeting of November 27th. And we'll start this
meeting like we start all meetings, with an invocation by Chaplain Bill
Brodeur from the Avowed Hospice of Naples.
Please stand.
CHAPLAIN BRODEUR: Good morning, and thank you for
inviting me to be here. This is probably as close as I'll ever get to
political activism. With that, let us just take a moment -- let us just
take a moment in this busy time of year, busy in our government, busy
in our families, busy in our individual lives, let's just take a moment
and center ourselves.
Oh God, you are, indeed, a loving God. You've shown us your
love in so many ways, so many gifts, a gift of life itself, gift of love,
gift of relationships and families and friends, the God-given gifts
which bring us here today as administrators for all the people of
Collier County, but most of all, dear God, we thank you for your most
precious gift, the gift of your unconditional love for us. Even though
as humans we are imperfect beings, your love never ends.
Allow us to feel that love, allow us to feel your gentle arms
envelope us and carry us on our life's journey so that we may take that
gift of love and share it with others.
We call you a God of Peace. May your peace and your love
penetrate every fiber of our being, our heart, our soul, our spirit, our
mind so that we may live always in your peace and in your love.
In this season of giving, may we take the love that you give us
and give it in return. May our God be with you, may he guide you
and give you strength, may he watch over you, keep you in his care
and bless you with his peace, and may Almighty God continue to
Page 2
November 27,2007
bless you and may you bless God by who you are and what you do.
Amen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. And the
administrator for the Board of County Commissioners Office will lead
us in the Pledge of Allegiance, Sue Filson.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Ms. Filson.
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Mr. Mudd, changes to today's agenda.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes Board of County
Commissioners' meeting November 27,2007.
Item 3A2, Kelly Grandy will not be in attendance to receive her
20-year award today.
Next item is to continue item 6C to the December 11,2007, BCC
meeting. It's a public petition request by Patrick White to discuss
orders finding violation relating to property owned by Jerry and
Kimberlea Blocker. That item's asked to be continued at the
petitioner's request.
The next item is item 8A. There's a request for it to be continued
to the December 11, 2007, BCC meeting. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
Petition PUDZ-2006-AR-I0648; Naples Motorcoach Resort,
Inc., represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., and
Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esquire, Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson,
P.A., is requesting a rezone from the mobile home travel trailer
recreational vehicle campground, and heavy commercial zoning
Page 3
November 27,2007
district, to the commercial planned unit development district for a
project to be known as the Naples Motorcoach Resort CUP -- CPUD.
This project proposes to allow development of up to 200
motorcoach lots as well as various amenities, such as a boat ramp and
boat slips.
Subject property consisting of23.2 acres is located in the
southwest side of Tamiami Trail East, approximately three-quarters of
a mile east of Collier Boulevard, County Road 951, in Section 3,
Township 51 south, Range 26 east, Collier County Florida. That item
is being asked to be continued at the petitioner's request.
The next item is item lOA. In the executive summary under
consideration, second page, paragraph 2, it refers to 48 additional
deferral agreements processed. The correct number is 41. That
correction is at staffs request.
Next item is 100. The title in the index of this item uses the
number 48 in reference to the number of impact fee deferrals. The
correct number, again, is 41, as stated in the executive summary. That
correction is at staffs request.
Item 16A1, attachments for this item, table 1, prioritization
ranking and figure 1, water management plan watershed maps, were
omitted from the agenda packet. Copies have been distributed and are
available for review, and that correction is at staffs request.
Next item is to move item 16D1 to lOX. And it's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the chairman to sign an amended subrecipient
agreement with Collier County Housing Development Corporation.
This amendment is to extend the timeline for the development of
Cirrus Pointe.
The HOME grant was provided to the CCHDC to acquire
approximately 10 acres of land which was purchased in December of
2005, including the developer's fee of $30,000, for a total of $320,000.
Cirrus Pointe will construct 108 units, of which 32 units will be for
Page 4
November 27,2007
new affordable housing units in Collier County. The item is asked to
be moved at Commissioner Halas's request.
Next item is item 16G2. In the executive summary under
background, the second sentence should read, language to incur debt
to the January 29,2008, rather than the "2007," presidential primary
ballot, and that correction's at staffs request.
Item 16D3 under considerations, fourth sentence should read,
due, as in D-U-E, to, rather than D-O to, do to, continue growth, and
that -- that correction's at staffs request, and a good find by
Commissioner Fiala, by the way.
We have a couple of time certain items today, and there's -- first
is item 5D to be heard at 11 a.m. It's a swearing in ceremony for Matt
Hudson, the newly elected Florida House of Representatives member,
District 101, by Collier County Judge Ramiro Manalich.
Next item is item 9A to be heard at 10 a.m., and it's a
presentation by Andrea B. Sims of the Waters-Oldani -- Oldani
executive recruitment, a division of the Waters Consulting Group, Inc.
Next item is items, items plural, lOA through 100, to be heard--
all to be heard at three p.m.
Next item is item lOR to be heard at four p.m. And that -- oh, by
the way, items lOA through 100 have to do with Habitat for
Humanity refunds for their impact fees that were paid and/or putting
liens on properties for qualified owners of those particular properties.
Items -- excuse me. Item lOR to be heard at four p.m. It's a
recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Strada Bella, which is the
Olde Cypress PUD. The roadway and drainage improvements will be
privately maintained.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
At this point in time the commissioners will do their ex parte
disclosure for the consent and the summary agenda, and any changes,
Page 5
November 27,2007
possible changes, to the agenda, and we'll start with Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nada, none, zero, zip. Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that a maybe? Thank you. We
appreciate that, sir.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I did want to comment on one
thing, but we're already going to be discussing it, so I'll just set that
aside until that time. And I wanted to say also on the consent agenda,
I have no disclosures on 16A, but on 17 A and 17B -- 17 A I've had
meetings on that particular item, which is the Naples Big Cypress
Market Place, and although the -- some of the meetings and some of
the correspondence did not pertain to this particular parking
exemption, I have spoken to people and staff about this particular
item. And on 16B (sic), which is the Sierra Meadows, I've had
meetings, correspondence, emails, and phone calls.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
And myself, on the consent agenda, 16A12 -- no, no disclosures on
that. 17 A, I've had meetings, correspondence, emails, and phone calls;
and 17B I've had meetings, correspondence, emails, and phone calls,
and anyone wishing to see my ex parte folder, I have it right here.
In addition to that, I have no changes to the agenda, but there is
one thing, to accommodate our aide to David Rivera, representative,
he is making the presentation under 6A for the Collier County
Agricultural Fair and Exhibition, and he won't be available till two
o'clock. He's on state business for David Rivera, and I told him I
would bring this back at two o'clock for him to be able to make an
appearance.
And with that, we'll go on to Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Thank you, Chairman. I have
nothing to divulge in the consent agenda nor the summary agenda, and
I have no changes to today's agenda. Thank you.
Page 6
November 27,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have no further
changes to the agenda and I have no disclosures to the summary or
consent agendas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I hear a motion at this time
approving today's agenda?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion by Commissioner
Halas and a second by Commissioner Coyle -- or Commissioner Fiala
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: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Page 7
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING. 2007
November 27. 2007
Item 3A2: Kelly Grandy will not be in attendance to receive her 20-year service award. (Staff's request.)
Continue Item 6C to the December 11. 2007 BCC meetina: Public petition request by Patrick White to
discuss Orders finding Violation relating to property owned by Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker. (Petitioner's
request.)
Item 8A continued to the December 11. 2007 BCC meetina: This item requires that all participants be sworn
in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-10648: Naples
Motorcoach Resort, Inc., represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP of HoleMontes, Inc., and Richard D.
Yovanovich Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., is requesting a rezone from the Mobile Home
Travel Trailer Recreational Vehicle Campground, and Heavy Commercial Zoning Districts (MH, TTRVC & C-
5) to the Commercial Planned Unit Development District (CPUD) for a project to be known as the Naples
Motorcoach Resort CPUD. This project proposes to allow development of up to 200 motorcoach lots as
well as various amenities such as a boat ramp and boat slips. The subject property, consisting of 23.2
acres, is located on the southwest side of Tamiami Trail, East, approximately three quarters of a mile east
of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Petitioner's request.)
Item 10A: In the executive summary under Considerations, second page, paragraph two, it refers to "48
additional deferral agreements processed". The correct number is 41. (Staff's request.)
Item 100: The title in the index for this item uses the number 48 in reference to the number of impact fee
deferrals. The correct number is 41, as stated in the executive summary. (Staff's request.)
Item 16A1: Attachments for this item (Table 1 Prioritization Rankings and Figure 1 WMP Watersheds map)
were omitted from the agenda packet. Copies have been distributed and are available for review. (Staff's
request.)
Move 16D1 to 10X: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve, and authorize the
Chairman to sign, an Amended Subrecipient Agreement with Collier County Housing Development
Corporation (CCHDC). This amendment is to extend the timeline for the development of Cirrus Pointe. The
HOME grant was provided to the CCHDC to acquire approximately 10 acres of land, which was purchased
in December, 2005 including the developers fee of $30,000 for a total of $320,000. Cirrus Pointe will
construct 108 units of which 32 units will be for new affordable housing units in Collier County.
(Commissioner Halas' request.)
Item 16G2: In the executive summary under Background, last sentence should read, ". . ... language to
incur debt on the January 29, 2008 (rather than 2007) Presidential Primary ballot." (Staff's request.)
Item 16D3: Under Considerations, 4th sentence should read: "Due to (rather than "do to") continued
growth. . . . ." (Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 5D to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Swearing in ceremony of Matt Hudson, the newly elected Florida House
of Representatives Member, District 101, by Collier County Judge Ramiro Manalich.
Item 9A to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Presentation by Andrea B. Sims of The Waters-Oldani Executive
Recruitment, a division of the Waters Consulting Group, Inc.
Item s10A throuah 100 to be heard at 3:00 p.m.
Item 1 OR to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Strada Bella (Olde Cypress PUDlo The roadway and drainage
improvements will be privately maintained.
November 27,2007
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F, #2G, #2H, #21, #2J and #2K
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 2007 - BCC/REGULAR MEETING;
OCTOBER 18, 2007 - VAB SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING
WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE MAZUR; OCTOBER 23-24, 2007
- BCC/REGULAR MEETING; OCTOBER 24, 2007 - BCC/LDC
MEETING; OCTOBER 29, 2007 - VAB SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
HEARING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CUNNINGHAM;
OCTOBER 30, 2007 - V AB SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING
WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CUNNINGHAM; OCTOBER 30,
2007 - BCC/LDC MEETING; OCTOBER 31, 2007 - V AB
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING WITH SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE WATSON; OCTOBER 31,2007 - VAB SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE HEARING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
MAZUR; AND NOVEMBER 2,2007 - BCC/PRE-LEGISLATIVE
SESSION WORKSHOP - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Okay. Now, the -- a motion for the approval of the October 9th
BCC regular meeting; the October 18th Value Adjustment Board,
special magistrate; October 23rd to 24th, BCC regular meeting;
October 24th, BCC LDC meeting; October 29th, Value Adjustment
Board, special magistrate; October 30th, Value Adjustment Board,
special magistrate; October 30th, BCC/Land Development Code
meeting; October 31 st, Value Adjustment Board, special magistrate;
October 31 st, Value Adjustment Board, special magistrate; and
November 2nd, BCC pre-legislative session workshop for those
particular meetings, the minutes for them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
Page 8
November 27, 2007
(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.
Okay. Mr. Mudd?
Item #3A
SERVICE AWARDS - 20 YEAR ATTENDEES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to service awards.
We have three 20-year employees to receive awards today. The first
is Donald Champlin from Road Maintenance.
Donald, if you'd please come forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Twenty years, Donald.
MR. CHAMPLIN : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's a pleasure. Thank you very much
for all that you've given to Collier County.
MR. CHAMPLIN: Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. We appreciate your efforts.
We'd like to get a picture from you, and then if you could, your
greeting from the other commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Don.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Our next 20-year awardee is Miguel Herrera from
Page 9
November 27, 2007
road maintenance.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Miguel, you must have started mighty
young to put in 20 years and still look this young. Congratulations.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twelve. He was 12, right, when
you started?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll get your picture there, too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We didn't get to shake the other
man's hand.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Our next 20-year awardee is Susan Rossi from
Community Developmental's Environmental Services Operation.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Isn't that fun.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You brought your own cheering
section.
MS. ROSSI: Yes, I sure did.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations for your service.
Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations, Susan. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MS. ROSSI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Susan, congratulations.
MR. MUDD: Congratulations.
(Applause.)
Item #3B
Page 10
November 27,2007
SERVICE AWARDS - 25 YEAR ATTENDEES
MR. MUDD: We have a 25-year awardee today, and that's
Helen Ortega from Emergency Medical Services. Helen?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You ought to be younger than 12
when you started.
MS. ORTEGA: That's correct. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for your
help here in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations, Helen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's beautiful.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: County Manager? County
Manager, she just said, thank you for the privilege of working here.
Isn't that beautiful?
MR. MUDD: Good employee.
Item #4A
SANDRA ARNOLD-LAWSON CONGRATULATED FOR
RECEIVING THE CERTIFIED EMERGENCY MANAGER (CEM)
DESIGNATION FROM THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF EMERGENCY MANAGER (IAEM) - ADOPTED
Commissioners, we have a number of proclamations today. The
first proclamation is Sandra Arnold-Lawson to be congratulated for
receiving the Certified Emergency Manager designation from the
International Association of Emergency Managers to be accepted by
Sandra Arnold-Lawson.
Page 11
November 27,2007
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I don't know
how we're going to do this. Are we going to all go down and take
pictures of Sandra?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We can bring her up here--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: She's going to be on video.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, because she always takes our
pictures, that's what he's saying.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's right. I think we've got a
volunteer out there to take a picture, don't we?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this is a great
accomplishment that -- I'm excited of being able to read this
proclamation recognizing Sandra's accomplishments.
Whereas, Sandra Arnold-Lawson joined Collier County staff in
2002 as the communication and customer relations coordinator; and,
Whereas, before joining Collier County, Sandra was a Navy
journalist for Admiral Captain (sic) C. Chaplin, commander U.S.
Navy (sic) Forces Japan, and a news anchor and reporter for the
American Forces Network in Europe; and,
Whereas, she has supported the Bureau of Emergency Services
during the presidential declaration of disaster of Hurricanes Charley
and Wilma, as well as numerous other local emergencies; and,
Whereas, in 2002 Sandra has completed the Florida governor's
hurricane conference basic public information officers course earning
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, Emergency
Management Institutes of Professional Development Series
Certificate, completed FEMA's advanced public information officer's
course, became accredited in public relations, APR, and;
Whereas, ultimately this is -- earns Sandra the Certificate of
Emergency Manager designation from the Internal (sic) Association of
Emergency Management, of which only 700 individuals
internationally currently hold.
Page 12
November 27,2007
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County that Sandra Lee (sic) Lawson be
congratulated for her achievements in recognition (sic) of the value
assets to Collier County and its citizen.
Done in this order, 27th day of November, 2007.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning
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: And the ayes have it, unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And she lives in my district.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait, wait. Thank you so
much.
MS. ARNOLD-LAWSON: I've never done this before.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're also on the picture-taking
end.
MS. ARNOLD-LAWSON: I know, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, that's really impressive.
Page 13
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, do we get a picture with
the proclamation?
MS. ARNOLD-LAWSON: Okay. I should know how to do this.
(Applause.)
MS. ARNOLD-LAWSON: Commission Chairman and fellow
commissioners, I just want to sincerely thank you for this recognition,
and also there are a couple of other people who I think are a
significant factor in achieving this. I'm not sure if you're aware or not,
but there are currently 637 certified emergency managers
internationally, and we have 3.5 of them here.
I say 3.5, Dan Summers, our Director, is CEM, also Jim von
Rinteln, Rick Zyvoloski, and Joe Frazier will be certified in 2008, so
there's the .5.
Also, they have helped me tremendously in getting this
certification. Without them, I couldn't have done it. And also, if it
wasn't for my director who supported me going through all of these
classes, it wouldn't have been possible. So thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sandra?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, if I could. Don't go
away. You're going to Orlando, I believe, soon, to accept another
award, aren't you?
MS. ARNOLD-LAWSON: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't you tell us about that.
MS. ARNOLD-LAWSON: Well, actually we just were notified
that we are up for four additional awards, the county is, one of them
being for the combination of work that the emergency management
department and the communications department has worked together
in doing a hurricane preparedness plan, and we've been recognized by
the Florida Government Communicators Association, and we're a
finalist for that award, which is very significant.
Additionally, we are up for a couple of other awards, including
Page 14
November 27,2007
the annual report, our Freedom Memorial public service
announcement, and there's one more. I can't remember.
So we will find out the good news on December 6th but we are a
finalist for all those four awards.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's -- thank you, Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wow.
(Applause.)
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE THE CCPC FOR THEIR
WORK ON THE AUIR - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is a
proclamation to recognize the Collier County Planning Commission
for their work on the AUIR, to be accepted by the Planning
Commission members, and I believe, if I'm right here, we have Tor --
of that group -- and if I don't have everybody's name, forgive me. We
have Tor Kolflat today, Bob Murray here today, Mark Strain here
today, Donna Caron here today, Lindy Adelstein, Brad Schiffer, and
Bob Vigliotti. Did I miss anyone? Good.
All members of your Planning Commission, and they work very,
very hard every day to make things tick as far as your zoning actions
and issues like that in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it is my pleasure to read this
proclamation.
Whereas, a vital part of the mission of Collier County
government is to ensure that capital improvements for governmental
services and infrastructure are provided to accommodate the county's
expanding population base; and,
Whereas, volunteer members of the Collier County Planning
Page 15
November 27,2007
Commission, CCPC, perform an extremely important role with this
provision of capital improvements through their review of the Annual
Update and Inventory Report, the AUIR; and,
Whereas, during the preparation for the three days of the AUIR
workshops and the workshops themselves, the CCPC members
provided countless hours of volunteer effort; and,
Whereas, the result of the time given during the AUIR workshops
by the CCPC membership provided the Board of County
Commissioners, the BCC, with specific recommendations related to
the individual components of the AUIR from a planning perspective
unique to the CCPC membership; and,
Whereas, the specific recommendations provided to the BCC
allow for that body to arrive upon decisions related to the proposed
capital improvements within the AUIR that are most reflective of the
wants and needs of the community while balanced against fiscal
budgetary limitations.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that we express the deepest
appreciation to the citizen planning -- citizen -- I'm sorry -- to the
Collier County Planning Commission members for their gift to our
citizens.
Done and ordered this 27th day of November, 2007, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James Coletta,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I motion to approve, and I'd like to add to this that
I don't know what we would do without them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we look to them for their
advice. And as you know, they guide us -- they guide us along the
way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second.
Page 16
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All the way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you've got multi seconds on
this. So we have a motion by Commissioner Fiala, and I'll recognize
Commissioner Halas as the second.
And 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, of course, the ayes have it 100
percent.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Gentlemen, ladies, thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have prizes for all of you. Thank
you for all your work. Oh, thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, Lindy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hi, Brad. Thank you. Appreciate
all your work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the chairman of our Planning
Commission, Mark Strain. Oh, did you get one?
MR. STRAIN: Lindy gave me his.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, Lindy, here's another one for
you then.
MR. STRAIN: I think he was thinking they're supposed to be
passed on down the line.
Page 17
November 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, he's got one, too, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's take a moment here and get a
picture, Mark. Towards the camera here.
MR. MUDD: Now, it's a good time to smile, because I watched
you and you had that zoning petition stare on before. So now it's time
to smile for the photo.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you again, guys.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mark, would you like to use the
podium?
MR. STRAIN: Good morning, and thank you very much for the
proclamation today. It means a lot for us to know how much you
appreciate our work, and we try real hard to do exactly what we're
supposed to do, and that is look at things as hard as we possibly can.
AUIR was an exception this year. I want to tell you why,
because we've been tracking this for two or three years now with the
Planning Commission, and it started out pretty rough. If you
remember the first year it was sent to you, there was all kinds of
turmoil and commotion. There's changes to the way it was reviewed.
The Productivity Committee joined us, and that's been a very good
thing for us.
But over the years it's gotten a little bit better. Last year we had
some bumps and things to go through. We went through it, got it
cleaned up. The nicest thing we saw this year though was the great job
done by your staff in comprehensive planning.
I personally want to tell you that, thanks to Randy Cohen and
Mike Bosi, this was the smoothest year we've had in an AUIR, as you
well know. Now, there's another member of that staff that wasn't
exactly involved in this AUIR but she's been involved in some things
that are going to be coming up in the AUIR, and that's Michelle
Mosca. And I just want to make sure that -- the recognition may be a
proclamation to us, but we owe the success to the staff that may put
this together, because you've got a good comprehensive planning staff.
Page 18
November 27,2007
So with that, I'll leave you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mark.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE MEMBERS OF THE
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE FOR THEIR WORK ON THE
AUIR - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is the
second half of the dynamic duo. This proclamation is to recognition
members of the Productivity Committee for their work on the AUIR,
to be accepted by the Productivity Committee members here today,
and I believe Steve Harrison is here, Joe Swaja, Bob Dicter, Janet
Vasey, and Georgia Hiller, all members of your Productivity
Committee. If you'd please come forward.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would you all please come
forward. It's a real pleasure to read this proclamation, since at one
time I was involved for a year with the Productivity Committee.
Whereas, the vital part of the mission of the Collier County
government is to ensure that capital improvements for government,
governmental services, and infrastructure are provided to
accommodate the county's expanding population base; and,
Whereas, volunteer members of the County Government
Productivity Committee, known as the G -- OR the CGPC, perform an
extremely important role within the provisions of the capital
improvements through their review of the Annual Update and
Inventory Report known as the AUIR; and,
Whereas, during the preparation of the three days of the AUI
(sic) workshop, the workshop themselves, the Productivity Committee
members provided countless hours of volunteer effort; and,
Page 19
November 27,2007
Whereas, the result of the time given during the AUIR workshops
by the Productivity Committee members provided the Board of
County Commissioners, the BCC, with specific recommendations
related to the individual components of the AUIR from a fiscal
perspective unique to the productivity membership; and,
Whereas, the specific recommendations provided to the BCC
allow for the body to arrive upon decisions related to the proposed
capital improvements within the AUIR that are most reflective of the
wants and needs of the community while balanced against fiscal
budgetary limitations.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that we express the deepest
appreciation to the Collier County Productivity Committee members
for their gift to our citizens.
Done and ordered this 27th day of November, 2007, the Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James Coletta,
Chairman.
And Chairman, I make a motion that we approve this
proclamation and -- in (sic) behalf of the people who worked so
diligently on the Collier County Productivity Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. We have a motion by
Commissioner Halas, 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: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 20
November 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for all your hard
work.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And who's going to be
the spokesperson?
(Applause.)
MS. VASEY: For all of the productivity members, I'd just like to
thank you very much for this recognition. We have enjoyed the last
two years working on the AUIR, and especially working with the
Planning Commission. They have a different perspective on things
than we do, and I think together we cover a lot of territory.
Also I agree with Mark that the staff has been excellent,
community services, but your entire staff was very good. We didn't
have any problems with getting information. All of the answer -- all
the questions were answered and we're very pleased with the results
also. So thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I'm going to make a brief
comment for the listening public out there. Now what you've seen
today is one of the most perfect examples of government, by the
people and for the people.
The commissioners don't do all the hefty lifting. It's the
Productivity Committee and the Planning Commission and all the
other committees that are out there. There's a tremendous amount,
tremendous pool of expertise out there that we draw on a regular basis
to be able to make our final decisions.
Without them, we would be blind in the night. We'd never be
able to find our way. We owe them all the debt of gratitude, and I'd
Page 21
November 27,2007
like to invite the public at any point in time, if they feel like they're
interested in local government, to seek out openings in these different
committees that are available to us and make themselves and their
expertise available to the general public. We appreciate it so much.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4 D
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE MATTHEW BERNING,
TROOP 2001 LIFE SCOUT EAGLE CANDIDATE, FOR HIS
EFFORTS TO ORGANIZE AN ELECTRONICS RECYCLING
ROUND UP EVENT AND TO DESIGNATE DECEMBER 1,2007,
AS A DAY OF RECYCLING FOR ELECTRONIC WASTE IN
COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation is to recognize Matthew
Berning from Troop 2001, Life Scout Eagle Candidate, for his effort
to organize an electronics recycling roundup event and to designate
December 1, 2007, as a day of recycling for electronic waste in Collier
County. To be accepted by Life Scout Eagle Candidate Matthew
Berning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, it gives me great
pleasure to read this proclamation in recognition of Matthew Berning.
Whereas, electronic waste in the form of PCs, TV s, and other
electronic devices is the fastest growing part of the waste stream in
America and in Collier County; and,
Whereas, just one computer monitor can contain four to eight
pounds of lead, mercury, and cadmium that, if not recycled properly,
could leach into our environment as well as take up precious landfill
space; and,
Whereas, with the onset of a new generation of operating
Page 22
November 27,2007
systems, computers, flat screen TV s, in the 2009 digital TV mandate,
recycling unwanted computers and TV s is more important now than
ever before; and,
Whereas, Matthew Berning, a Life Scout Eagle Candidate of
Troop 2001, feels strongly that all of Collier County should do their
part to protect our precious environment and has dedicated his Eagle
Scout service project to a public awareness campaign called, "Poison
PCs Toxic TVs: Recycle E-waste Responsibly"; and,
Whereas, Matthew Berning has organized as a part of his Eagle
Scout service project a community roundup recycling event in
conjunction with Best Buy and the Collier County Solid Waste
Management Department to be held on December the 1 st, 2007, when
Collier County residents can recycle poison PCs and toxic TV sand
other e-waste responsibly.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that December 1, 2007, be
designated as a day of recycling for electronic waste. Done and
ordered this 27th day of November, 2007, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James Coletta, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A motion by Commissioner Coyle, a
second by Commissioner Fiala for approval.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 23
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much. You're going to
be really successful in life.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm looking forward to your code of
honor.
MR. BERNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations. Good job.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. Let's get a picture,
then we'll have you speak.
MR. BERNING: I was wondering in could get a picture with
some of the supporters.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why, of course. Please, come on up.
MR. BERNING: I have my wonderful parents. My dad -- oh,
there he is. And Jack Cane, who has been a wonderful friend and
neighbor; my pastor, Dr. Wicker; and Pam Berryman, my guidance
counselor in my school; and Jodi Walters, of course, who has been
very influential to my Eagle Scout project and who is a representative
for me at Collier County Solid Waste Management.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll bet you're so proud of that son,
aren't you? What a great thing.
(Applause.)
MR. BERNING: Thank you very much. I really appreciate the
recognition given to recycling and my Eagle Scout project to the
Board of County Commissioners in this proclamation. All I wanted
through my project was to instill in the public a fervent desire to
recycle e-waste responsibly, and this has really done it for me. So,
Page 24
November 27,2007
thank you again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. BERNING: I hope to see all of you December 1st from 10
to 3, for recycling any electronics. You can bring them there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let me make sure that
everybody heard that. This recycling event will be Best Buy in the
Best Buy parking lot on 6325 Naples Boulevard.
MR. BERNING: Yep, next to Costco.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Next to Costco on Saturday
December the 1 st from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. So please get there. If
you've got e-waste of any kind, get it there and help Matthew with this
project.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then they can go right into Best
Buy and buy new products.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Buy a new one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Matthew, before you leave, too, I
want the audience to recognize that becoming an Eagle Scout is a very
special privilege, that less than 1 and a half percent of all Scouts ever
achieve the rank of Eagle, and you're almost there, and for that I
congratulate you.
Also, I'd like you to be able to state a contact number, hopefully
your telephone number, where people who would like to get more
involved might be able to give you a call.
MR. BERNING: Okay. My telephone number is 352-2001.
And for more information, you can go to the website at
recycleNaples.com. There's also a contact me slot there that you can
type in a little message to me and your email address, and I'll get back
to you as soon as I can. So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. BERNING: And I hope you have a nice day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 25
November 27,2007
MS. W ALTERS: Commissioners, I have one more thing. Jodi
Walters, Collier County Recycling Coordinator. And it's been my
pleasure to work with Matthew through his Eagle Scout project, and
so we'd like to present him with this small token--
MR. BERNING: Oh, wow.
MS. W ALTERS: -- of our appreciation for his hard work toward
recycling in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wonderful.
(Applause.)
MR. BERNING: Thank you very much. That's wonderful of
you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What a nice kid.
Item #5A
PRESENT A TION BY CHIP MERRIAM, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, REGARDING THE LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AS IT RELATES TO S.B. 360 AND 444 - MOTION TO
BRING BACK AT A FUTURE BCC WORKSHOP - CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to presentations.
Your first presentation today is by Chip Merriam, the Deputy
Executive Director of the South Florida Water Management District
regarding the local Comprehensive Plan as it relates to Senate Bill 360
and 444.
MR. MERRIAM: And good morning. How do you get it up
here, Jim, on the other screen?
MR. MUDD: Okay. Hang on. You on the laptop or podium
computer?
MR. MERRIAM: Podium computer.
MR. MUDD: There we go. You're on.
Page 26
November 27,2007
MR. MERRIAM: Great, thanks. And Commissioners, thanks
very much for allowing me to be here. And I do have to share with
you, I get the opportunity to travel around the state quite a bit, and this
was very nice this morning, and I enjoyed that.
I also, some of you know, I spent 11 years over here running the
office out of Fort Myers doing all of the permitting, so it's actually
kind a pleasure for me to be back.
Around 2001, Henry Dean became the executive director and
drug me over to West Palm Beach kicking and screaming, but it's
worked out pretty well so far.
And what I'm here to do today is talk to you about a new role we
have that the legislature has provided for us to actually share in some
of the comprehensive planning processes you all noted today.
It's going to make things a little better, we think. It's going to
make things a little complicated for a while. But the good news for
Collier County government is the vision that the commission and the
leadership has had.
Most of what has happened in the new requirements of the 2005
Senate Bill 360 and 444, you've already done. And we still have some
communication issues to work out on how we package these as you
move forward on your comprehensive planning process, and I'll share
those with you as I go through the discussion.
But the point that we're looking at statewide right now is, there's
over six billion gallons a day of water being used by the residents of
this state. In the next 20-year period of time, actually less than 20
years, we're going to need an additional two billion gallons.
The Southwest Florida Water Management District will represent
half of that, and that's not -- that's going to be mostly conversion of
agricultural lands into a more urban and suburban type system as you
all are seeing in your own development here.
What we also end up with in this process is trying to define
where these future uses are going to be and how to relate the
Page 27
November 27,2007
long-term demands. And actually one of the things we have a very
difficult time with right now -- and almost every local government I'm
in front of right now, the utility directors.
And again, this is not reflective of yours at all. But the typical
statement is, we want to know when the last drop of cheap water has
come out of the tap, and that's when we'll start the alternative water
supply planning and implementation.
The reality is, the last drop happened a while ago, and there is no
more cheap water to be had. Collier County's been one of the leaders
in the development of the Florida aquifer, you know, reverse osmosis
program.
You've done a phenomenal job in reusing water more than once.
All those things become extremely important especially with the --
you know -- the fragile nature that we've learned within our system
and its inability to continue to supply the cheap water.
Let's see if I can't get this going forward again.
All right, as we look forward in the next 25 years, in this
particular area you're going to see doubling of the volume of the water
necessary to meet the requirements of growth. But the law's done
something very unique, and it was a very new law, and it changed our
roles significantly.
Instead of the legislature just kind of passing a mandate down,
which has happened sometimes in the past, in this one the vision was
also to pass down some funding with it, and the funding is a
competitive funding, and your county's done very well in doing this.
But it's the first time water's become a concurrency issue and a
discussion of your future development. What we're actually looking
at is, in the past your development orders and your Comprehensive
Plan changes have asked facility-type questions. It has never really
been a resource question. And the resource was always handled
through our regulatory process and permitting.
Now what the new laws say are, as you look forward to the
Page 28
November 27,2007
future, and you're going to improve -- or improve your
Comprehensive Plan process, you need to account for the resource
necessary at the time those developments would come on-line. A
much different approach than in the past.
It's going to very much increase, as I said. There's no more cheap
water out there on alternatives. We're hoping that it's going to have a
much stronger strength between the regulatory process, the land use
process, as well as the -- our utilities working together.
We also think that there's some great opportunities out there in
some of the forward thinking. It's -- the more proactive approach is
going to be necessary. The plants are much more expensive to
develop nowadays.
And I'll share with you that I just was -- just finished the Dade
County permit which -- to kind of put it in scale, with two million
people in Dade County, it was a permit for 347 million gallons a day
for Biscayan (phonetic), that was their cheap water, and then another
100 million gallons after that, which was all alternative.
They're taking the pioneering of using treated effluent to a level
similar to what California has at this point -- this is how valuable the
water's becoming in Dade County -- where they're actually going to
use high-level disinfectant and reverse osmosis to replace the water
into their wellfield and actually bring it into the same canals that are
currently being recharged by the Everglades. So they're actually
going to cut off Everglades water, let that sit in the Everglades where
it should be, and then actually return that water once it's gone through
this high-level treatment.
Our governing board has taken a very strong position of saying,
using water once and disposing of it is not a reasonable or beneficial
use. It is not in the public interest to use water once and then get rid of
it. And, again, Collier County has been a leader in that with us.
We're going to have to work together to identify how the water
supply needs are going to be met. You all will be working in your
Page 29
November 27, 2007
capital improvements elements on how your facilities plans are going
to be upgraded in order to accommodate that, and we are going to be
working with you in -- a little different.
We're going to be kind of taking the regulatory role of the
permits and our less traditional Comprehensive Plan role and try to
roll them into more certainty for you.
What we'd like to do is, at the end of your Comprehensive Plan
process, is ask you to be just a little more visionary so we can issue a
20-year permit. Then all you have to do at that point is be consistent
with that permit and march forward for the next 20 years, next two
decades as you develop your plans.
Against, focus on water conservation and reuse programs. That's
the cheapest water out there right now. One of our local governments
had a 60 percent loss rate. You know, for them to actually go through
an older town, an older city that was in a very tough place. Once
we've upgraded, that was water that was found water that resource
didn't have to impact any more, leak detection, not irrigating your
lawn every day, not wasting -- wasteful uses of water are the cheapest
for the utility to recover.
You have a requirement in this where the financial planning has
to be in place also as you look into the future, and that's part of the
capital improvement element.
What are those facilities, what are the resources that are going to
be out there. And again, we're going to be looking to try to give a
little more of a win in this process for you by marrying up the
planning process with the permitting process.
The dates that are responsible, that we updated our plans in 2006.
You all notified us in the lower west coast water supply plan of the
projects that you wanted to target. We sent those back in our plan to
you all. By next January, local governments will have showed us
what projects they want to implement, and that becomes the
framework of how we move these forward.
Page 30
November 27,2007
And then you adopt at that point in time a 10-year water supply
facilities network as part of your compo plan. Then in 2008, and then
annually after that, we're going to report, and you're going to report to
us, how the projects are moving forward. And, again, that's how we
marry the regulatory process up, because I think it will be a good way
to get everything packaged together.
We're going to do everything we can to update our water supply
plans on a regular basis. If you all have a problem and you want to
shift gears and change things, my commitment is, if it's each year you
have to make an update, we'll update the plan to accommodate that.
We want to make sure that what you're moving forward on is
successful and that you can deliver it.
We want to provide technical assistance where you deem it
necessary. The local planning process is yours. We just have a little
different role in it at this point in time.
And we want to provide funding assistance through the Senate
Bill 444, which provides our district with a little more than the other
four water management districts. But, again, your county has been
very successful, and I know Clarence has worked very hard with you
all in getting -- scraping those dollars together so you will get the
lion's share of them.
The work plan is due January, 2008, but your staff knows that
already.
With that, I went through it very quickly figuring you all might have
some questions. We did meet with your staff yesterday on some of
the permits and the longer duration discussions.
We have sent a comment back to you all asking questions,
moving your most recent Comprehensive Plan change back. We don't
comment directly to you. We comment to the Department of
Community Affairs, but we like to give you what we've sent to them
so there's no surprises in that process.
But, you know, with Clarence's help, with your utilities
Page 31
November 27,2007
department, and your planning staff, I think our two agencies have a
phenomenal working relationship. So I'm kind of -- it's an opportunity
for me to be here to talk to you about it, especially since most of what
seems to be happening you are already performing.
So with that, I'm open to any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a question by Commissioner
Halas, Commissioner Henning, and Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have three particular questions.
First one is, why does the South Florida Water Management District
continue to approve applications to destroy wetlands when that's used
for a recharge?
MR. MERRIAM: I could -- I'll answer that question a couple
different ways for you, Commissioner. Number one, within the
framework of our authority, we choose to minimize and avoid wetland
impacts, as does United States Corps of Engineers in their permitting
process.
If you cannot minimize and avoid those and you can mitigate and
we can provide a matching function of what that is -- and I'll get a
little more detail in that -- we will allow mitigation to occur. The first
thing is to avoid them; second is minimize the impacts; the third is
mitigate.
Now, with the mitigation -- and I'll pick on a real drastic case
first just to illustrate the point. A shopping center comes in and it has
a one-acre wetland in the back, fencing that off and having semis drive
back and forth does not make a successful wetland or that wetland
would not survive.
In those cases we may choose to mitigate to expand another
footprint in order to make sure that those areas are growing in size
where there are not other neighboring impacts.
Again, in some subdivisions that choose to be right up against
wetlands, one of the things we find a little discomforting is, you know,
people do like their pets. People do not like what wetlands bring in.
Page 32
November 27,2007
In some of those cases we may also look at ways to expand bigger
areas so that we can isolate some of the more suburban contacts that
do not support those -- those intact systems that were there being
healthy. In a lot of cases we do both, we make them keep those
systems and then mitigate on top of that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My other question is, I understand
that Collier County will be under the same -- we're under the same
water restrictions the rest of the district is under and yet we've done
due diligence in regards to making sure that we have an adequate
supply of water.
Can you tell us why that -- since we've done due diligence, that
we're still under that type of situation?
MR. MERRIAM: Excellent question, and thank you,
Commissioner.
The -- we do not put you under restrictions for the same reasons
we put the Lake Okeechobee service area under restrictions. Right
now it is no secret that that lake every day creates new record, record
low. It's also no news that Florida, in general, is in a very significant
water shortage situation right now, and I'm refraining from using the
word drought because it did rain on the coast, mostly on the east coast
of Florida, not as much on the southwest coast.
We look at the actual well data from not just Collier County's
draws, but also from all the single-family people out in the Golden
Gate Estates area, as well as Bonita Springs and Lee County,
Immokalee, and look at the impacts of all those wells.
We make our decisions based on the resource conditions, period.
And what we have done is we have used your restrictions, your
authority, to help keep those in place because, frankly, the only
authority we really have besides declaring emergencies and setting the
stage for the water shortage irrigation hours is to -- is just to monitor
and cut back on the permitted growers -- users, I should say.
And all the single-family homeowners and homeowners
Page 33
November 27,2007
associations that do not have permits with us, the only authority we
have to get to them in a comprehensive way is through your local
ordinances.
But the answer to your question is, we look at your resources,
your groundwater issues and, yes, you have done a good job, but you
also are very reliant on surficial water, and we do not want, to go back
to your first question, to allow the consumptive use of Collier County
to have a further impact on the wetland systems that we are also trying
to manager.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My final question is, how do you
or how are we going to enforce if we go to phase three? How are we
going to enforce this to make sure that people understand the
importance of conserving water, especially watering lawns?
MR. MERRIAM: I think that's a great -- again, thank you. And
the reason I'm appreciative of it, these are all very important questions
to what I do on a -- and some of the decisions you'll be making in the
future.
The -- phase three's going to be difficult. We've been under phase
three on the east coast for quite a while. We went through most of the
drought emergency in a one day a week irrigation, and it is just as
frustrating for me to be walking and, you know, doing my exercising
and seeing people's sprinklers on. I'm bold enough that I'll knock on
their door and wake them up and ask them to turn it off and leave a
business card behind, and usually that's enough of a wake-up call that
that one individual won't do it again.
But I'm a little troubled, I can't do that 18 -- what'd I say, 18
million times, 16 million times, I guess it is, in the State of Florida.
However, what we're doing -- and we will be working with your
utilities getting more of an educational message out.
Irrigating more than twice a week on the lawns in Florida is just
wasteful use of water and the -- what happens over time is the
resources do get impacted and -- as well as the cost of doing business
Page 34
November 27,2007
for the county goes up. You know, the treatments get more and more
expenSIve.
We do rely on your local governments, your sheriffs office and
your local police officers, to actually write the tickets and implement
them, and in some cases, some local governments have gone as far as
deputizing the code enforcement people, since they are out more
often.
We'd like to work with you on that. We're not a -- we're not an
endless source ourselves. We have a lot of projects moving forward
that we have to get constructed in order to try and improve some of
this; however, the education component is going to be very important
this year. We're going to do everything we can to get the word out
and hopefully I -- you'll see more of Clarence standing up here helping
share the message also.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, good morning, sir. I want
to tell you that the basin board staff has been absolutely wonderful to
work with in education and personal assistance.
The -- we do have a water police force out there, and they take
their job very seriously and do a very good job of enforcing the
district's laws. But we have so many private users throughout
Southwest Florida and consumptive use permits in continuance. Is
there a time that you have denied those consumptive use permits?
MR. MERRIAM: We have. We have done two things. One,
we've held back on issuing some of those consumptive use permits for
a while we were in the drought emergency. When things started to
recover, most of those were directed to alternatives themselves.
Any permit we're taking to the board at this point in time, to our
governing board, will have an alternative attached to it. Again, we're
saying that the cheap source that's there is no longer there.
We're actually now saying that if you want to grow, you're going
Page 35
November 27,2007
to grow against an alternative source.
In your case, what makes it a little unusual is that you have been
in alternative sources for quite a while. You have some conversions in
the cheaper water that may be included in your utility package in the
future. You may actually be a little bit of a different piece in that as
we look forward in your permit process.
But, you know, that discussion's just to share with you that we're
open-minded both ways on this. One, we recognize the cost to your
customers, and second, we're not going to give somebody else the
cheaper water because you -- and force you into it without a very level
playing field.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good. That's good to hear.
We are working on so many fronts with water. You know, Clarence
has the primary canals. We take care of the secondary canals. We're
developing watershed management plans. We have flood protection
plans coming, and, you know, just stormwater management in general.
You know, it doesn't seem to me that it's really serving the public
well by everybody doing a little bit on water resources. That's the
bottom line. You know, flood protection or watershed management
plans, it's still the resources of water and what you do with them.
I think we can serve the public better by the agency or the district
and Collier County to try to get all that stuff together under one roof.
Is that something that you might be able -- be interested in the
future?
MR. MERRIAM: I'd probably like to hear you out more. That's
a pretty -- you're kind of at 100,000 feet and I'm one of the detail guys
that implements things. So I'd like to probably have that conversation
with you and Clarence in the near future, if you'd like to, to hear more
of your details.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great. Thanks. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good morning, Chip.
Page 36
November 27,2007
MR. MERRIAM: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thanks for the update. After you
issue a 20-year permit, what happens at the end of 20 years?
MR. MERRIAM: Well, in the meantime, or the five years -- 20
years, every five years you report back. If we see additional impacts
occurring that were not part of that 20-year vision and the modeling,
we reserve the right to modify that permit and actually either cut back
or change the way the allocations -- or maybe even change the way
the wellfield is operating.
At 20 years, you then come back in and prove up that the
withdrawals you had did demonstrate the submission you had given us
as well as the five-year incremental reports, and then, again, we
reserve the ability to reevaluate and then issue the next -- whatever the
next duration will be.
Up until a few years ago, we only issued permits of five-year
duration, and that purpose was to make sure what we were issuing
really did reflect what the modeling indicated. The problem with
models, frankly, is that, if you touch them enough, they can confess to
anything.
And we'd get the best models in with the best information, and
then what we would see happening with the maximum amount of
water being withdrawn or changes in the nature scape that's out there,
we'd see some impacts we'd have to deal with.
Today with the alternatives, if you are going to try and grow
against the cheaper water, and if there is some somewhere that can be
used -- and again, Collier County may have a little difference in this
discussion -- that permit will be issued with a five-year duration when
it's issued. The rest of your alternatives will all be issues with 20
years. But we're still keeping, on anything that's groundwater,
especially close to the surface, as tight a tab as we on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess the point I'm trying to
determine is, if we forecast our requirements properly and at the end
Page 37
November 27,2007
of the 20 years we have shown that our withdrawals are in accordance
with the 20-year permit and we have issued permits to people to live
in homes and use water for that amount, is there any circumstance
where you would refuse to renew the permit?
MR. MERRIAM: That far out, I would have to say it'd be
resource based. But if there had not been impacts, I would not foresee
a problem in a renewal at that 20-year period of time, if there were no
resource impacts, and that's the only thing that would change it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You said that you rely largely on
local government laws to enforce your procedures and make certain
decisions with respect to permits. Do you see any particular conflict if
we take a stronger position on some of these issues than you have
taken?
MR. MERRIAM: As long as you're not issuing -- consumptive
use authority is ours and solely ours. If you are looking at making
restrictions more stringent than what we have, that is your decision
and we would work with you on that as part of the messaging.
The most difficult thing we have is -- and I'll rely back on the
time I worked over here. This region has almost a population turnover
every four years, number of people that come down and leave and,
you know -- and as you also expand.
And understanding Florida's unique nature is hard. And I've had
people tell me things that, you know, the trouble with your lawns are,
you have to really put a lot of water on them to make them soft, and
this isn't, you know, Kentucky blue glass. It just doesn't get soft.
You know, for those who love their manicured Floratam lawns,
Floratam's a weed, it just spreads and mows nice. So it's -- the
problem we have is trying to keep that message alive.
Some local governments have taken a little bit more of a lead. In
one case where their wellfield is actually in trouble -- they don't have
an alternative to jump to right now -- they have been on phase three
one day a week and with a minimum four-hour restriction for the last
Page 38
November 27, 2007
almost year, and they're -- our restrictions at that point in time in that
place are not quite that restrictive, but it is a decision the local
government has made and we support.
My point about the education and messaging is, the more
consistent it is, the easier it is for all of us to understand what's going
on. And if you have pockets of Naples or pockets of another city
sitting within your jurisdiction and their restrictions are different than
the county's, that sometimes makes it very difficult for those trying to
enforce it to understand who's on which side of the street and what
their requirements are. So as uniform as we can make it, that's --
during those drought emergencies, that's important.
The second thing that's even more important in long-term is,
Florida, we've got to learn how to develop an ethic that wasting water
is the wrong thing to do, and it's something that I know our agency is
beginning to take and push very hard. We have December 4th a
summit where we're going to be working with many utilities to
develop that. But long-term, with your utilities and others, the ethic of
how you deal with water in Florida has got to become very real to us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It appears that -- well, let me
rephrase that. It's my interpretation of the growth management bill as
it pertains to water supply is that governments are obligated to provide
whatever water is demanded for development and growth.
Governments do not have the right to meter growth to meet or to
balance with the use and availability of water. Do you have a
different interpretation?
MR. MERRIAM: Actually I do, Commissioner. And I'll -- and
hopefully I'll do this in a logic that won't be too far out.
Water will never be the limiting factor for development in
Florida. You can desalinate the Gulf of Mexico and make as much
water as you want. That's one extreme of developing of the resource.
We typically don't get the regulatory discussion or decision until
you've already gone through your zoning and your Comprehensive
Page 39
November 27,2007
Plan process. So water is not at that point the limiting factor, and we
rely on your best judgment that that decision you make is the right one
for your community, and then -- we then look for what the resource
availability is. That's kind of the old way of doing business.
The new way of doing business is, you're going to grow in the
future. You've used the -- whatever terms your planners use, be it
BEBR, be it whatever other planning tools, and you want to be able to
capitalize that out over time so you can make a good sound business
decision.
When that's done -- again, that doesn't really become the limiting
factor unless it's a facilities issue and your facilities haven't kept up
with the growth.
So I think the essence of what -- and I may be wrong -- and that's
why I kind of cautioned myself when I started out. The water itself is
not the limiting factor. It actually becomes, what does this local
government and community want and what do they want their
resources to look like in that planning process.
We just now have with the new legislation a new component that
says, it's not just about the facilities. It's about the resource also.
Hopefully I answered your question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, but I think that it's possibly a
bit too simplistic. I would -- I would suggest to you that raw water is
not the limiting factor but water that is prepared for consumption is a
limiting factor because it becomes increasingly expensive to convert
sea water into drinking water or even water for irrigation if you have
to do that.
And if there are restrictions on the revenue raising capabilities of
local governments, they can't produce that water as quickly as
development might demand it.
So in my mind, the water that is converted for use is a limiting
factor and we should never permit growth to expand so rapidly that it
-- it outruns our ability to fund and develop the necessary water
Page 40
November 27,2007
treatment facilities.
But I don't get the impression that anybody else in the State of
Florida at higher levels of government believe that or even understand
it. And I'm very concerned that we and other local governments are
merely being pushed to supply whatever growth demands at whatever
cost it might incur, and we don't really have any control over that. We
can't really say, no, we're not going to have this new plant available
for five more years or 10 more years.
MR. MERRIAM: I understand the difficult position. And the
lucky part for myself and the agency I represent is we're on that raw
water side. You're on the more difficult side of that.
The caution I have for you is -- recently I got the opportunity to
go out to California to look at some of the treatment plants and some
of the reservoir storage because we were looking at capturing some of
what Florida has done so effectively of draining and holding that to try
and add to, actually first, natural environment, second to -- for -- if
there's water available, to potable resources.
What the caution was is some of the most expensive water you
can buy is in California. They actually don't pay -- Florida water's
free. What you pay for is the treatment and transmission. There is no
cost for Florida water. California, you buy it by the acre-foot. And
the further it goes, the more expensive that acre-foot of water is.
I drove by a gentleman's house that had Melaleuca growing in his
front yard because that was the tree of choice at that particular point
out there, but he was washing his driveway down with a garden hose
out of his potable supply.
And I sat there and I just thought, how can you do that, with the
expense and the cost of the resource. But again, consider the source of
that statement. And then at the same time I'll tell you that I drive a
three-quarter ton pick-up truck because my wife and daughter have
horses and I have a boat, and I'm now paying 3.25 a gallon for gas. I
don't like it, but I'm doing it.
Page 41
November 27,2007
And it's the same thing, I think, happens as you try to do the --
the same discussion you had is, you seem to rise to that cost. You
don't like it, you come kicking and screaming. So cost doesn't
necessarily force, I believe, that restriction.
The difficult piece you have is, your facilities growth and who
pays as those plants expand? Is it a user pay program of those new
ones coming on? Is it a subsidy from your utilities and from those
sources? But those are business discussions your utility director and
your county administrator can share with you.
Like I said, I'm lucky. I got the easy side. I just have to deal with
the raw water resource.
But just food for thought from some of the traveling I've been
doing recently.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, I'm
going to make a suggestion. We've still got Commissioner Fiala and
we've got Commissioner Halas, and I have numerous items I want to
talk about. This is going to go on for -- to be able to really explore it
right -- for probably another hour, an hour and a half. It's probably the
biggest single subject on the public minds today, now that we've got
the roads fixed. That was meant as a joke, by the way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if that's the case, why don't
we schedule it for a workshop?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what I was going -- I'll second
your motion for a workshop.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Anyone else agree?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, also we need
from our staff, is how do we sit for potable water for our residents,
existing today under these potential, you know, further restrictions and
Page 42
November 27,2007
-- during that workshop --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I think we need that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's so many subjects, and I'd also
like to broach the subject at that time about wildfires. We have a
situation that's developing that's going to put us in about the same
situation as California, and we need to make the public aware of it and
we need to have that workshop at a reasonable point in time, sometime
probably after the first of the year, to be able to broach all these
subjects, because we're not going to get to there today, where we need
to be. This is too big of a subject, there's too much detail that's
needed, and we need to go into it in a lot more depth than we are now.
So I'm going to ask my fellow commissioners -- first I'm going to
go to Commissioner Fiala, then back to Commissioner Halas, to please
keep the comments short with the idea we are --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My comments will be short because
I totally agree with this. I just want to add that, in workshop for
abusers -- we read in the Naples Daily News an excellent piece on the
abuse of some who water their lawns with millions and millions of
gallons and they have the money to do that, and they don't really care
what happens to the rest of the community. And in that workshop I'd
like to see us talk about what preventative measures we can take,
because apparently rates and punishment don't mean anything to these
people. So maybe there's a way to turn it off or something like that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree, and I'd like to have somebody
possibly from the Cooperative Extension come in and explain to
people what it is about native Florida grasses like I have in my yard
that don't require irrigation, that are bug-resistant, and the yard's
always green. It's a very simple thing to maintain. It requires no
serious efforts other than the mowing. But we'll leave that for another
day.
Let's go to Commissioner Halas, and then we're going to move
Page 43
November 27,2007
on.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The last thing I -- I'm involved with
the Florida Association of Counties, and I'm in the water policy work
group. And what was brought before us by the University of Florida
was a moisture pad that can be put under your lawn, and it measures
the moisture content. And some of the studies that the University of
Florida's made is that it saves better than half the gallonage on a
particular lawn. And I haven't seen anything in publication by South
Florida Water Management or any other water districts to get actively
involved in trying to save our resources. I don't know if you've been
exposed to that particular item.
MR. MERRIAM: And actually, Commissioner, I'd suggest that
if it came from the University of Florida, it's probably brilliant, but
beyond -- that's a Gator. Sorry.
But beyond that, in our xeriscape we actually do manuals that we
put out there. We actually do talk about supplements to soils in order
to provide some of that benefit. There are new technologies that are
coming out today that have made it a lot more affordable than it was
previously to add those components.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be more than happy, after the
first of the year, to schedule a day with you, if you'd like to do that,
and sit down with you and go through a --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine.
MR. MERRIAM: You know, if that's of value to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: County Manager's Office will be in
contact with you. Thank you so much for your presentation today.
MR. MERRIAM: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, we have a 10 o'clock time
certain.
Item #9A
Page 44
November 27,2007
PRESENTATION BY ANDREA B. SIMS OF THE WATERS-
OLDANI EXECUTIVE RECRUITMENT, A DIVISION OF THE
WATERS CONSULTING GROUP, INC - MOTION TO PROCEED
WITH RECRUITING PROCESS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That is item --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: I would just like to introduce Andrea Sims from
the Waters Consultant Firm. She's going to update you on the
recruitment process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: That's item 9A on your agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Is Andrea here? Oh, okay.
MS. SIMS: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
MS. SIMS: Thank you for the opportunity to present to you. I'm
just updating you on the recruitment process for the county attorney. I
appreciate the input from your offices, from your staff on gathering
the materials that will be used in the preparation of the marketing
materials.
We will be putting together a draft ad and brochure for your
review early next week. I'd like to ask your permission for the
comments from your -- either you individually to go to Ms. Filson so
that we can have the materials put out.
We will be advertising in professional journals on a national and
regional basis focusing on getting the best possible candidates before
you. We will make sure that all candidates understand the sunshine
law and understand that they will -- their candidacy will be made
public. All resumes will come into our offices, will be reviewed.
About mid January we will finish the review of all resumes and
put together a questionnaire and administer a questionnaire to the top
Page 45
November 27,2007
candidates. Top candidates will be -- their questionnaires and their
resumes will be shared with you in a late January board meeting.
With your approval, we'll select semifinalists that will have
one-to-one interviews with myself, also be asked to prepare more
written information so that we can do background checks and the like.
In the February time frame we will, again, present to you pros
and cons on the semifinalists candidates so that we can get down to
about four to five individuals to be interviewed in the March time
frame by your -- by each of you.
Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I might note that you have taken the
time to meet with each commissioner individually and answer our
questions, and I feel -- we all feel fairly confident the way the process
is going forward. Does anyone make any -- want to make any
comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much for being here.
MS. SIMS: Thank you. Do I get your -- do I have your
permission to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Proceed?
MS. SIMS: -- have all the -- to proceed and to have your
comments on draft materials forwarded through Sue so that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we -- let's put that in the
form of a motion so there's no misunderstanding.
Motion by --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Certainly. I make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Fiala and a
second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
Page 46
November 27,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those if favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you
very much.
MS. SIMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your time.
Item #5B
RECOGNIZING JIM VON RINTELN, EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR, BUREAU OF EMERGENCY
SERVICES, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR NOVEMBER
2007 - RECOGNIZED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us back to
presentations, and the next presentation is 5B, and it's a
recommendation to recognize Jim von Rinteln, Emergency
Management Coordinator, Bureau of Emergency Services, as
Employee of the Month for November, 2007.
Jim, if you'd come forward, please.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Jim is instrumental in county hurricane, tornado,
and wildfire evacuations and responses. He is an innovative thinker
with the ability to analyze problems and identify efficient and
cost-effective solutions.
Page 47
November 27,2007
With over 25 years experience in the field, Jim is often called
upon to provide expert advice and guidance to emergency
management agencies across the state.
In his free time he instructs the Community Emergency Response
Team, conducts emergency preparedness seminars, and actively seeks
opportunities to improve emergency awareness.
His vast knowledge, natural leadership ability and strong
organizational skills resulted in his selection as the project manager
for the Emergency Services Center. Over the past three years, Jim has
remained the driving force behind the funding, programming, and
construction efforts on this project that broke ground in February of
this year.
His professionalism and devotion to duty reflect greatly on
Collier County and make Jim truly deserving of this award.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present to you Jim von Rinteln,
emergency management coordinator, Bureau of Emergency Services,
the -- our employee of the Month for November, 2007.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to say that Jim was very
instrumental in getting me involved with the FEMA organization and
getting involved in two courses. One was preparedness, and the other
one was mitigation of storms.
MS. FILSON: Wait, Commissioner, his letter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry.
(Applause.)
Item #5C
CONTRACTOR PRESENTATION ON THE NEW, COLLIER
COUNTY, COURTHOUSE ANNEX; PROJECT NO. 52533;
KRAFT CONSTRUCTION CM AT RISK CONTRACT -
PRESENTED
Page 48
November 27,2007
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next presentation is the
contractor presentation on the new Collier County Courthouse Annex,
project number 52533, Kraft Construction, construction manager at
risk contract.
I'll help you a little bit.
MR. JONES: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Hank Jones from Facilities Management. I'd like to present Mr. Peter
Tuffo, Project Executive for Kraft Construction, who's going to give
you a brief update on the status of the project for the courthouse
annex. Pete?
MR. TUFFO: Thank you very much.
Good morning. The Collier County Courthouse Annex is
roughly a 140,000-square-foot facility, seven stories that's being
constructed just to the west of the building we're in now.
When completed, this building will house the Clerk of Courts,
the State Attorney's Office, Public Defender's office, and a few others.
The project is currently on schedule. And I'm going to take you
through the project team as well as the last nine months of the project.
The project team in the field is headed up by Don Olney. He's
been in the industry 35 years. He is the senior project manager. He
has been with Kraft roughly seven.
Dave Clarkson is the senior superintendent on the project. He
has been in the industry over 35 years, and has been with Kraft for 17,
and they have their support staff listed below.
Now I'll take you through the past nine months. In March of
2007 we began this project. We started by demolishing the existing
atrium tied to the existing courthouse that we built back in the early
'90s.
We removed the atrium, we cleared the site, and we began the
auger cast pilings that are supporting the structure.
In April we continued with the pilings as well as began the
Page 49
November 27, 2007
excavation of the forming and the pile caps that, again, will support
the structure.
In May of 2007 we completed the pile cap work and the crane
was installed in order to facilitate going vertical with the project.
In June, as can you see in the pictures, we started the pile caps as well
as started standing up some columns and the sheer walls to facilitate
the first floor and the second floor.
With this project we have roughly 23,000 square feet of -- per
floor. We're pouring it in two separate pours in our cycle in order to
meet the schedule demands, so we're pouring a floor every three
weeks, so there's roughly a pour every week and a half to get us up to
topping out the structure by the end of the year.
In August you can see we started pouring the second floor deck.
Again, in halves, pouring the north half first and the south half second.
In September we were working on the third floor. Again, it's
pretty much -- once you get above the second floor on this side, it's
pretty much the same floor going vertical, so it's the same process
throughout.
In October, you can see we're now pouring the fourth floor,
portions of the -- we poured the -- actually poured the south floor first
on this one just due to an issue with the sheer wall on the north end.
In November, where we currently stand right now, we are
pouring the sixth floor. Actually, if you go out there, this picture was
dated from November 1st. We've actually poured the first portion of
the seventh floor, looking to top out the structure with the roof before
the end of the year to meet our substantial completion date of March
of2009 with a final completion of April, 2009.
The interesting facts on this project; to date we've worked
roughly 72,000 or 71,000 hours on the project. We've -- there's over
510 tons ofrebar in the structure itself. Poured close to 4,000 cubic
yards of concrete, and the off-site architectural precast is completed.
It's actually -- will be down here the first part of the year to be erected.
Page 50
November 27,2007
That process should take roughly 10 weeks.
With that, I'd like to ask ifthere's any questions or comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions from the fellow
commissioners, other than the fact that we appreciate the wonderful
job you're doing in keeping this on schedule?
MR. TUFFO: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much for being here
today.
MR. TUFFO: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Keeps us all busy watching it go up,
too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, would -- I don't think
there's anything else. Thank you, sir.
We're going to take a short break at this point in time.
MR. MUDD: Ten minutes, sir?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's make it 15. I have to meet with
a state representative.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Yes, sir.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seat.
Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Mudd, the next item will
be 6B. We're holding 6A until two o'clock. But before you begin it,
I'm going to turn the meeting over for about 10 minutes to
Commissioner Henning. I have a meeting that I have to conclude, and
I'll be back shortly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we're going to miss you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sure you are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What did he say? Did he say he
was leaving?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
Page 51
November 27,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Pay attention, okay?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Permanently?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next item?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't look so excited.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MARK ADAMCZYK TO
DISCUSS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COUNTY PARK IN THE
DELASOL COMMUNITY - MOTION TO BRING BACK TO THE
JANUARY 15, 2007 BCC MEETING AND FOR THE
PETITIONER TO WORK WITH PARKS AND REC'S STAFF-
CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: 6B. It's a public petition request by Mark
Adamczyk to discuss the construction of a county park in the Delasol
community.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and
Commissioners. My name is Mark Adamczyk. I'm an attorney with
the law firm of Peck & Peck here in Naples.
This morning I'm speaking on behalf of the Delasol Homeowners
Association and myself as a homeowner in that community in item
6B, public petition, seeking your further consideration of a matter that
is of great concern to our community, that being a county proposal for
a neighborhood park.
Also present today in support of my statement are Jim Culkar,
president of the association, and Terry King, a Delasol resident who is
familiar with this matter as well.
Let me begin by saying, in general, our community and
association strongly support public parks, including neighborhood
parks; however, this petition involves a county proposed public park
which would be located inside our private gated community on our
Page 52
November 27,2007
southern border, separated from the Willoughby Acres community and
the northern end of Euclid Avenue by a section of preserve.
Today we are expressing specific concerns about the county
staffs conceptual park design which will allow non-vehicular
pedestrian access by the public into our private gated community.
We will also briefly address a critical title issue with public
access as planned, the apparent lack of precedent for this type of park,
and what we believe is an important clarification about our PUD
approval as it relates to public access into Delasol, all of which we feel
require more analysis before a decision is made on the park.
Therefore, our limited goal today is to gain your support for
scheduling a subsequent meeting in which we can more fully address
our specific concerns and discuss potential solutions that would work
for our community, for the county and its interests and for the general
public, including our neighbors to the south in the Willoughby Acres
community.
It is our understanding, in addition, that the parks and recreation
department is not necessarily opposed to an extension of time for that
purpose. Mr. Barry Williams, Director of the Parks and Recreation
Staff, is here today and may be willing to acknowledge as such. We
have more comments and more specific --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Please continue with your
presentation.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Okay. No problem at all. Just wanted to
express that there has been discussions about an extension being
necessary .
Based upon our current research and understanding of the facts
and issues, the conceptual park design as proposed by county staff has
an unsecured perimeter and two open unsecured access points. I do
have copies of the design if the board wishes to view them today.
The design also includes a perimeter of shrubs of unspecified
height or density with no wall or fencing or other security measures,
Page 53
November 27,2007
an entrance from within our gated community which is open and
unsecured, and a second entrance, which is an open and unsecured
public entrance from a boardwalk which begins at the northern end of
Euclid Avenue and crosses our preserve to reach the park.
Pedestrians and, perhaps, even cyclists or others would be able to
use this boardwalk entrance. And should the board wish to view them,
I also have copies of our plat which further shows the intended access
and the location of the park relative to our residences.
From a security and access control standpoint, we have three
examples of major concern. First there is nothing to prevent public
participants in the park from passing into our gated community
unimpeded and having access to our private recreational facilities,
sidewalks, lakes, and other areas.
Second, when the park closes at night, there would be no way for
the county to know whether all users had left or were -- or whether
some were in our private community areas.
Third is liability and insurance. The association cannot accept
the risks involved with unknown park users using our private
community facilities and potentially having accidents.
Given that the park is on the border of our residential area, we
believe the current design with no apparent reason would create the
only park in Collier County which opens up a private gated
community to public access.
In our -- as we understand it in other cases where a park is on a
private community border, there is a wall or fencing or something of
the sort to provide the necessary security.
These security concerns were raised at a recent informational
meeting for homeowners where the county parks and recreation staff
presented its conceptual design for the park.
Although there are children in our community who may benefit
from the park, the reaction to the proposed conceptual design was as
follows: Two or three homeowners spoke in favor. A substantial
Page 54
November 27,2007
number of the approximately 65 present, many of whom do have
children, spoke in opposition. A showing of hands on a vote for or
against the park indicated virtually unanimous opposition.
Since that meeting, however, our association has been conducting
a community-wide poll. Homeowners have been asked whether they
would be willing to accept a public park with public access into
Delasol or whether they oppose such a park. Of the 66 responses thus
far, 60, or 91 percent, are opposed to the park. The 60 responses
opposed include families with 21 children under the age of 13. The
six responses in favor of the park have four children in the age group.
Given the evolving facts and discussions that are still ongoing
with county staff, we feel it is reasonable to have more time to
develop a refined set of options to bring back to the board for its
consideration.
One option would be a county decision to not develop the park
and thereby consider the land to be surplus. Accordingly, we and
county staff are working to determine the appraised value of the land.
In parallel, our association and county staff have also agreed to
investigate modifications to the proposed plan that may adequately
address our community's concerns about security. Included in that
investigation, we may need to discuss alternative locations for public
access because of a private preexisting recorded vehicular access
easement not platted because of a title error.
It appears that the proposed path of the public boardwalk to the
park lies inside of that private preexisting easement. If so, that could
preclude construction of the boardwalk as currently envisioned.
Additionally, we would like more time to complete the collection
of our current polling results and input from our 270 homeowners and
to get homeowner reaction from whatever modified plan we may
jointly develop with county staff that mitigates the security defects of
the current proposal.
We would also like to clarify our PUD approval as it relates to
Page 55
November 27,2007
interconnection with Willoughby Acres. In reviewing the board's
minutes of November 28,2000, there was much discussion and debate
about vehicular interconnectivity with Euclid Avenue. As to the park
itself, there was limited discussion about the size, and the issue of
access to the park was unresolved.
There was no discussion about pedestrian interconnectivity with
Delasol via the park. Our PUD -- in the end our PUD approval was
for a gated community and adopted without the Euclid Avenue
connection largely due to opposition from residents of Willoughby
Acres.
Based upon the above, we feel it is critical for the board to grant
us and your staff the opportunity to come back and address you in
January, 2008, with well-defined options and answers to any
outstanding issues. To achieve that end, we request that you direct
county staff to continue to work with our association to develop such
options for your consideration and that you direct no further action be
taken by staff to let contracts or other irreversible actions be taken
regarding the currently proposed plan.
Weare aware that staff has a requirement under the existing grant
agreement with Florida DEP to make a progress report early in
January, 2008, but we feel that our discussions and problem-solving
are not going to greatly affect that report or the timing of any future
progress.
I'd like to thank you for your time and consideration this
morning, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have
and would like to save a minute or two to address any comments.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. It's my understanding that
you're absolutely right, in 2000 there was quite a discussion in regards
to this park. But I think it -- not only the park serves the benefit of the
people or the children in your community, it also was to basically
Page 56
November 27,2007
benefit the people in Willoughby Acres, and I believe that's what the
discussion was.
As far as the boardwalk, they're building the boardwalk because
that's a wetlands area and that's one way to get into it.
I would hope that as you work through this process that you
would like at -- that I believe that parks are essential to any
community, whether it's yours or the neighboring community. I think
it helps and -- where parents who take their young children to the
park, and hopefully there would be a lot of action where you'd
interface with the other parents and maybe get a big -- better
understanding of what's taking place here in Collier County.
I don't know how many children you have in your community.
Do you have that right now?
MR. ADAMCZYK: I don't have the exact number. I gave a
statistic on essentially what was a large number of families with
children, were in opposition to the park. I, myself, have a young child
and I live very close to the proposed park. But the security questions
are a large -- a great concern.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You stated that you're a gated
community. I don't believe you have a wall around the thing. I think
it's all shrubbery, right?
MR. ADAMCZYK: I believe that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we could probably work
with the homeowners association in something of that nature so that it
would hopefully benefit the people outside and they wouldn't intrude
into your private space.
MR. ADAMCZYK: And we would just like some time to
discuss those potential measures, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It looks like this is something that
needs to be discussed with staff and brought back, as the applicant has
Page 57
November 27, 2007
asked for, and as Commissioner Halas has implied. So I would
suggest that we bring this back for an open commission discussion
sometime in late January.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would second that motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I didn't hear that
from Commissioner Halas. Did you want to bring this one back,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And I hope that they
continue to work with parks and rec. in regards to this. I think it's
very, very important for the citizens.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And transportation, too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And transportation. But there's
really no transportation issue. That was covered in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So there's no road in there. That
was what they gave up was the access by road and basically ended up
with this park.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The only question I have
from our staff, we do have a grant for that boardwalk. Is it going to
jeopardize that grant?
MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, Barry Williams, Parks and
Rec. Director. No, sir, it won't. We have three years from the date
that we received the grant, and the board approved the grant in, I
believe, September. So we have three years from September, 2007, to
use that money.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You have a majority of
the board wanting to bring this one back.
MR. MUDD: 15, January, sir, that board meeting?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, that's fine.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before the next item, I'd just
Page 58
November 27, 2007
like to recognize, Floyd Chapin is with us today.
What do we have, 6A, is the next one?
Item #6D
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY CRAIG BRUGGER TO
DISCUSS WAIVER TO CONTRACT WITH FGUA FOR THEIR
GOLDEN GATE W ASTEW A TER PLANT INJECTION WELL -
TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO FUTURE BCC MEETING
MR. MUDD: No, sir, we go to 6D, and that is a public petition
request by Craig Brugger to discuss a waiver to contract with FGUA
for their Golden Gate wastewater plant injection well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Manager, may I ask what
happened to 6A?
MR. MUDD: 6A, the chairman basically asked for a time certain
for it to go to two p.m. because John Norman was going to be back at
two, and that's why you're having that little conference.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: llA -- or excuse me, 5D is at 11 a.m, in about five
minutes, and that's the swearing in ceremony, and C was continued to
the 11 th of December in our change sheet this morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Sir, if you'd state your name.
MR. McCULLERS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name
is Ed McCullers (phonetic). I work for Youngquist Brothers,
Incorporated, and Craig Brugger also works for Youngquist Brothers.
And basically what we had asked for was a variance to work 24 hours
a day, seven days a week, to construct a deep injection well, and we
ended up in this process. So basically we would like to ask approval
to do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Questions by the board
Page 59
November 27,2007
members? Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you -- when you got -- before
you got your permit to put the well in, did you have neighborhood
information meetings to let people know what was going on?
MR. McCULLERS: Well, it would probably be better if!
explain the process. The deep injection wells are permitted by the
FDEP, and there's a whole public hearing process involved in doing
that.
And Derek, do you want to speak for FGU A?
MR. FOMMY: Good morning, board members. I'm Derek
Fommy (phonetic) with the Florida Government Utility Authority.
We went through an extensive process with the FDEP to get a permit
to construct a deep injection well, including public hearings and
meetings and announcements and public advertisement. We've gone
through that process, and the DEP had granted us the permit to
construct the deep injection well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But did you have the neighborhood
information meetings in regards to informing the people out there that
were going to be impacted that you -- that this is what your plan was?
MR. FOMMY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You did?
MR. FOMMY: We did.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think that's true.
MR. FOMMY: We did it through the FDEP hearing that we had
with them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not the DEP. We're talking about
the people that live in that general area. Did you spend time with
them and have a meeting with them to explain to them what you were
going to do and also the impact that it might have as far as lighting
and noise and all this other stuff?
MR. FOMMY: We did. We did have an extensive explanation.
Page 60
November 27, 2007
I'm not sure what you're -- maybe you meant something different
where you were looking for something different, but we did have
extensive meetings with the public. We did not have a whole lot of
people that showed up in the meetings, but we did have those
meetings as per the public requirements of the FDEP.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. I'm sorry, County Manager, go
ahead.
MR. MUDD: Let me try to -- let me try to interpret and decipher
what's going on. In order to get your permit from FDEP, you have to
advertise that you're going to get a permit and say that you're going to
have meetings, but it's part of a permit, and it's advertised in that
manner.
Commissioner Halas is asking a question, did you have a
neighborhood information meeting? Our neighborhood information
meetings in Collier County, you basically send a flier out to
everybody that lives anywhere from 500 to a 1,000 feet from your
particular project and you mail them a letter and say, we're going to
have a meeting and we're going to talk about this construction project
or whatever in the neighborhood, and this is the meeting that we're
going to have at Golden Gate -- in your particular case it would be at
the Golden Gate Community Center right there in Golden Gate City
and you specify it after hours like seven o'clock so people that work
can be there and that kind of meeting. And that's the neighborhood
information meeting that he's talking about.
MR. FOMMY: I apologize. That's a misunderstanding on my
part. We did not have that type of meeting. We did have a public
open forum meeting.
MR. McCULLERS: If I could, to set the stage, we bid this
project over a year ago and it's just now going forward after going
through this process. We're -- you know, we've drilled eight deep
injection wells for Collier County and we've never had to go through
this process, and on each one of them we worked a 24/7 schedule with
Page 61
November 27,2007
very little -- any issues from the public. And anytime that any issue
ever came forward, we dealt with it and mitigated it. And it's not a
new process. We're just -- it's not usual that we have to go through
this format to get approval to do so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think what we're looking at is the
public utilities need to be able to meet the public needs and also the
public's right to be able to be informed before the process goes
forward.
We've been through many times, gentlemen, not so much with
what you're doing, but public schools being built with a limited
amount of public oversight. People do not appreciate it. They want to
be heard. At the end of the day, the decision has to be made, what's
the best for the public.
I, for one, am very supportive of a public meeting to be held and
then coming back before the Planning Commission, then back before
the commission and done in an expedient way to be able to keep this
thing on track. That's our job as commissioners to make sure that we
meet the needs of the public. That's my own personal feeling.
MR. FOMMY: I just want to make sure I'm not -- because we
were a little bit at a disadvantage when we saw this item. The
contractor's requesting a variance on the 24/7 operation and we --
that's where we ended up in this process.
We have gone through different processes before, and I'm not
sure if this is the request that the contractor had -- is responding to. I
don't know how we ended up with this here.
MR. MUDD: Well, let me help just a little bit. They came in
with a request for 24/7, seven days a week for a year. Okay. I don't
have authority, as your county manager. You haven't delegated that
authority in order to do so. I only have a temporary piece of time, and
I'm very specific, and it normally doesn't last for more than two
weeks.
And every two weeks I make them come back and reapply and
Page 62
November 27,2007
tell me why. Either it's a concrete pour that, you know, needs to be
continuous or whatever, and they want to start at four a.m. or they
want to -- for instance, the county courthouse annex where they want
to make the pours and get it done and they want to work on Saturdays,
they want to start at four o'clock and we've been working with them
for the concrete pours.
We're very, very attuned to the fact that, in no case can they
violate the noise ordinance or anything else, and we basically tell them
that in that temporary permit, and I also notice (sic) them in that
temporary permit, that says, you have to notify the neighbors. You
have to notify -- if you want to -- for instance, Sunday; they wanted to
work on Sunday. I told them to go see the church next door, you
know, when we used to have our -- and I said, make sure they
understand and you're cognizant that they have worship services on
Sunday. And I don't -- you know, the organist is playing and I don't
want a jackhammer as the base to be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Background.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Background music.
MR. MUDD: -- for the background. So we're very cognizant of
those particular issues. In this particular case, they wanted to go for a
whole year, 24/7, and I don't have that authority.
So they're here to ask you for that permission from the board in
order to do that. I believe what the board's asking in return is, you
know, have you notified all the neighbors and are they aware, and
you've told the neighbors what you're going to do in order to mitigate
those things that are -- that are going to disturb their daily lives, may it
be light going over into their neighborhood in the nighttime, may it be
noise that goes off site, how are you going to do that?
And those are the particular issues I believe the board's trying to
get at right now. And I also understand what you're asking the board
to do. And what I hear them saying, sir, is not that they're fighting the
fact that you want to do 24/7, seven days a week for a year, but they're
Page 63
November 27,2007
asking you, have you notified all the neighbors to make sure they're
aware and you've talked to them to at least alleviate some of their
concern, and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Henning,
then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That's the gist of what
you need to do. But do you have a site plan to show us today where
you're going to --
MR. McCULLERS: I did not bring a site plan, no, sir. What I
would like to point out, if I could, is that we are in the middle of a
wastewater treatment plant. And you know --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're in the middle of a
neighborhood, sir.
MR. McCULLERS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you need to go out --
there's a process. Mr. Schmitt will tell you the process of notifying the
neighborhoods. Tell them and come back to the board and tell us how
you're going to mitigate for light and noise.
MR. McCULLERS: If we -- we have a drill rig sitting on the site
and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, that will be a
good opportunity to share with the residents around there what kind of
noise you're going to make, is start it up, you know, in the middle of
the night, and then they can -- then they can hear what's -- what they're
going to have to live with for a year.
MR. McCULLERS: Okay. Would it be possible for us to notify
the neighbors, give them door knockers, and as long as we were to live
within the 75 decibels with the monitoring equipment on site, would
that -- would that be acceptable for --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's above our noise
ordinance and, furthermore, I want to know for sure that the neighbors
Page 64
November 27,2007
are notified through a certified letter.
MR. McCULLERS: I'd be happy to do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. There is a process, and
our staff can tell you what that process is.
MR. FOMMY: I guess we're just -- we were not notified of that
process as the contractor requested this information. All we -- all the
contractor got was a letter saying that you are on the agenda to present
this item, and we -- we're not real prepared to even get the plans;
otherwise, I would have gotten the plans and made a better
presentation. We were under the understanding, this was a variance --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're going to be back,
so you can show us at that time.
MR. FOMMY: We'll be back and better -- we'll get you photos
and everything else, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. FOMMY: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just so I'm clear on this, when
Youngquist Brothers and the firm that repre -- the firm that repre -- the
engineering firm that represents FGUA, when they're done with the
neighborhood information meeting with the -- and they come back,
that's finished, they notify me and I'll put it as a regular agenda item
on a -- on the next available board meeting, okay. So if you let me
know when that neighborhood information meeting is accomplished,
and then you can bring all the other stuff in and we'll schedule you on
a regular agenda item so you don't have to go through --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager, I think you
have to tell them or guide them through the process of that
neighborhood information meeting.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Mr. Schmitt's going to grab ahold of that
gentleman before he walks out the door.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Fiala, then
Page 65
November 27, 2007
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Does it take a whole year to
drill a well? Yes, okay. 2417. I didn't realize it would take that long
to drill a well.
Anyway, and I was just -- you've pretty well answered it. I
wanted to know if there -- how many neighbors were living close by
and how close by, but I think we'll be discussing that at the next--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Real close.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have enough support--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can see your concern.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to bring it back. We do, don't we?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have enough nods.
Commissioner Coyle.
I'm sorry. Commissioner Fiala, did I cut you off?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no. I'm done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No need to belabor it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a word of advice, if it's not
going to take a year to do this, I would suggest that you not go to an
information meeting and tell them it's going to take a year.
If you ask somebody for permit for a year, then they're going to
think that's a bit too long. So you might want to give people a more
accurate indication of just how long this is going to last.
MR. McCULLERS: The seven days a week, 24 hours a day, is
something we do while we're drilling. You know, there's times in
setting the project up, moving the rig to the monitor well and to
cleaning the site up and doing the surface work. So primarily drilling,
we work seven days a week for 24 hours a day, and that would
probably be no more than 160 days total.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's all I have.
Page 66
November 27,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I think that takes care of
it. Thank you so much for being here today.
MR. McCULLERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next we'll go to our 11 o'clock time
certain.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That is the swearing in ceremony for the
newly-elected Florida House of Representative member in District
101. And that's Mr. Matt Hudson.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, the judge has gone back to get a
Bible, so you might want to take the next public petition. He'll be here
in just a few minutes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll do that. Next public
petition?
Item #6E
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY ROBERT LOCKHART TO
DISCUSS CEB CASE NO. 2004-026 AND RELATED FINES - TO
BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE DECEMBER 11, 2007 BCC
MEETING AND PETITIONER TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S STAFF
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next public
petition. It's a public petition request by Robert Lockhart to discuss
Code Enforcement Board case number 2004-026 and related fines.
MR. LOCKHART: Good morning. Thank you for this
opportunity to address you on this matter.
My name is Robert Kevin Lockhart. I live at 1361 Lakeshore
Drive. I desire to resolve what I understand from my title company as
a lien presently on public records by the board against my residence as
a result of code case 2003-026 (sic).
After three-plus years of trying to resolve what I call a bogus
Page 67
November 27,2007
code case and as a result of the news from my title company, I
requested a meeting with County Attorney Dave Weigel on 9/21 of
this year.
I was advised in a 9/25 meeting with Attorney Weigel that this
item could be brought before you via the code enforcement
department after following the requested course of solution to this
code case, that being to obtain an after-the-fact building permit, the
Certificate of Completion, pay all operational costs.
It was understood by me then and clearly discussed that this
matter would be resolved with the fines being reduced to zero and the
resolution would be brought back before the -- before you via the code
department for your approval and recording of a satisfaction of lien.
The building permit was applied for on 10/1, October 1 st of this
year, inspections completed October 31 st, Certificate of Completion
issued on November 6th, and all operational costs paid for on
November 6th.
After two days following of trying to coordinate a meeting with
Michelle Arnold and Jeff Wright of the attorney's office, I was finally
afforded a meeting on November 9th, at which time I was advised
they could not support a reduction of the fines to zero dollars.
I suggested the concept referenced as my attachment A provided to
you with my petition, and they advised me at that time to put it in
writing and they would take it before the board for action.
On November 13th, I did same and was subsequently told that
day by Michelle Arnold that they could not support the idea any
further, and I was then directed by the County Attorney's Office to
bring this matter before you via the public petition process.
I desperately need resolution to this issue and with a specific time
frame and procedure. I'm a little lost, as I am under construction of a
home in the Estates and I cannot finalize my loan with the
encumbrance.
So, therefore, please understand that I have tried to follow the
Page 68
November 27,2007
directions of the County Attorney's Office to no avail. I have tried to
obtain a resolution with code enforcement, but only to have Michelle
Arnold recently hang up on me.
And now I do need to resolve this matter either with a fine
reduction, Agreement A as I've provided you, or any other acceptable
means mutually agreed upon.
Just a couple brief other notes. The cost to me so far in trying to
dispute code claims over the last four years is an untold number of
hours, I would estimate my cost of lost time around 200 -- around
$2,000.
Per the meeting on September 25th, with Dave Weigel, I did
follow, obtained a permit, paid the operational costs. The permit fee I
did pay three times because it was after the fact. The total fees paid
plus the permit were around $2,200.
As I mentioned, I'm currently building a house in the Estates that
I can't go anywhere with because of this encumbrance that I've spent
$15,000 in impact fees for.
Interest expense for delays over the last seven months, around
$2,000. And, of course, because I can't get a loan, I'm out-of-pocket
around $160,000. I don't have money to pay a code fine.
The reason I don't believe the code case really should exist is that
since the beginning, I tried to explain to the county and tried to submit
a permit by affidavit. Initially, the forms were not available. And in
subsequent attempts, people in the building department did not have a
clear understanding of how to process them.
Secondly, the code document referenced as Exhibit A in the
recorded lien was a document stipulated agreement that I signed
concurrently with Michelle Arnold. After I signed it and walked
away, it was altered. I was not privy to the alterations and I didn't
have a chance to refute them, and they were recorded subsequently in
public records, and those are the basis of the recording of the fines that
have been accumulated. So, again, I don't believe that the timeline
Page 69
November 27,2007
was properly legally established.
And I throw that out to you for any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Henning, then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow, can we -- can we
resolve this way with what's being asked, is to give the county
professional hours?
MR. KLATZKOW: I would recommend against that. You'd start
opening up a Pandora's box where people would say, I'll do
community service in exchange for my fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let me ask you then,
what's the purpose of statute 162? Is it to correct the issue or collect
money?
MR. KLATZKOW: The purpose is to correct issues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is the issue corrected?
MR. KLATZKOW: To my knowledge, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. So let me ask the question
again. Can the board resolve this issue by hours of service?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can if you'd like. I would recommend
against that, however, because you'll be getting a flood of applicants
now asking you for community service. In order to get away from an
allegation that you're being arbitrary and capricious, we'd have to set
up some sort of standard as to -- or criteria as to how many hours for
what type of violation. Frankly, it's easier for you to reduce the fine in
this matter if you feel that it's too high or inappropriate than it would
be to require public service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can the board right now reduce
the fine?
MR. KLATZKOW: You -- the fine is the property of the Board
of County Commissioners. You can reduce it to whatever amount you
want, down to nothing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The next question,
Page 70
November 27, 2007
County Manager, is it -- can you accept these hours of service for
professional services?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if that's the board -- if that's the
board's desire, yes, we can. I've looked at Mr. Lockhart's resume, and
I've looked at his past projects. He provided me that list that he
provided. He's pretty well rounded as far as the projects that are due.
Now, I can't tell you that I can put him on a project right this second,
but as one comes forward that fits in his expertise, then we can use
him for that, engineering work, if that's the board's desire.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is a Code Enforcement Board
issue and this is set up by citizens, and they've made the
determination. And I believe Mr. Lockhart at one time was on the
Code Enforcement Board; is that true?
MR. LOCKHART: Yes, sir. I was on the north board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, the county attorney, since
this was brought before the Code Enforcement Board -- and my
understanding is they found that this person was in violation; is that
correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: There was a stipulation that was entered
into where Mr. Lockhart agreed to the finding that he was in violation,
and then it was then entered into the record as such.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So really where this needs to go is
into the court of law, wouldn't you believe?
MR. KLATZKOW: At this point in time, sir, we're well past the
point of being able to take it to the Circuit Court. The only issue left
is the lien on the property, which I understand is around $58,000. And
you own that lien. It's your decision right now what you want to do
with that lien, whether you want to enforce it in full, in part, or
nothing at all.
Page 71
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what I'm surprised at is that it
took four years, and being that Mr. Lockhart was on the board, Code
Enforcement Board, I would think that he would have a full
understanding of the implications of letting this go and not addressing
the issue. Am I right or wrong on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: I would agree with you there, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Michelle Arnold, can you add
anything to this?
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code
Enforcement Director.
Jeff is absolutely correct. Where we are in this situation right
now is that it's in compliance, and the fines are the only thing that are
outstanding.
The case has been through the hearing process and actually been
moved from the code enforcement's jurisdiction to the Board of
County Commissioners' jurisdiction. So you all have the option of
abating it, reducing it, or requiring full payment of it.
And it was recommended by the County Attorney Office that we
not forward a recommendation to have this be abated through
government or community service because, as Mr. Klatzkow had
indicated, this is going to open up a Pandora's box. We've got
hundreds of liens out there, and rather than coming into compliance,
the board may put themselves in the position of, you know, having a
community service program to administer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, have all of the costs been
paid for associated with the violation and getting the permits after the
fact? Everything has been paid for?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's nothing that is owed?
MS. ARNOLD: Other than a fine.
Page 72
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Other than the fine itself.
Now, there is a lien against his property, and it is only for the
fine. It is not for anything else; is that correct?
MS. ARNOLD: The lien is against his property for everything,
but he's satisfied a portion of the lien, which is the cost.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: The only thing that's outstanding is the fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: I mean, I could -- the case, as he indicated, was
initiated back in December of2003. The board, the Code
Enforcement Board, had considered this in June of 2004. They gave
him 45 days to obtain a permit and an additional 180 days after the
date that it was obtained to get a Certificate of Completion.
Fines were imposed back in August of '04 and continued to accrue
until the permits were obtained and CO'ed.
He did, as he indicated today, obtain permits in -- applied for
permits on October 1 of '07. The permit was issued October 17th of
'07, and CO'ed on November 6th of'07. So it was -- it was done all
within the time period granted by the Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, just to share with the
board. My impression here is that the gentlemen has solved all of the
operational costs and the permitting costs. I think that the petitioner
was very negligent in taking care of this on a timely basis. He didn't
take it seriously.
He felt, I think, that he could resolve it in different ways to his
satisfaction, and he didn't really address this. But there are some
extenuating circumstances.
So my feeling is that we're not in the business of penalizing
people to the point where they'll lose their property. We just shouldn't
be doing that. But on the other hand, when people -- the government
assesses a fine for you, you don't let it lie there for three or four years
before you take action to solve it. There has to be some penalty for
Page 73
November 27,2007
that. I think it should be a small penalty.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a -- help you a little bit?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Maybe possibly suggest to bring it
back at another meeting with the option?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And Commissioner Henning,
do you agree to that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think there's a -- the
problem -- I like the way we're going, but I think the problem is, Mr.
Lockhart has a house under construction that he can't continue because
-- because he can't get draws on it, because there's a lien, and the only
way that that can be satisfied is if the board signs off on the lien. And
I don't know if we can do that today anyways.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we could quickly prepare a
satisfaction oflien and get it to you really the same day, you know, for
recording. That's not an issue. But once you've released the lien,
we're done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I make a suggestion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we refer this to our next
meeting, and in the meantime, ask the county attorney to work with
the petitioner to resolve this, reach an agreement, and bring back to us
a motion to resolve the lien, release the lien, at our next board
meeting.
MR. KLATZKOW: We can do that, sir. Again, Mr. Lockhart
has never made an offer as far as monetary goes, whether it's 10
percent or 5 percent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would not be in favor of
community service under these circumstances.
Page 74
November 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I agree with you, sir. Let's see if
we can wrap this up. I think we -- we have this item coming back for
you, sir, so we can address it. It would be at the December--
MR. MUDD: 11.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- 11th -- 11 th meeting. At that point
in time hopefully you'll have come up with some reasonable
agreement with staff. I'm hearing the sentiments of the commission. I
don't want to argue it now. I'm going to be honest, we're giving you
every opportunity we possibly can.
This is less than we've done with two other people that have paid
the fines that were in much dire situations than you were, and that's
something that I will bring up in the near future.
And with that, I'm going to go to Commissioner Henning, ask
him for a final comment. Then Commissioner Coyle, are you still on
board?
Okay. Then Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we need to give the
County Attorney's Office some direction on what we're looking for
when it comes back; otherwise, it might -- I mean, I see some friction
there as it is. So if we don't give that guidance, we might have just as
much friction or even more when it comes back.
And, you know, my feelings, ifit has been abated, fine. If the
board is not willing to take the offer, then how do we work for our
citizens?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I would make a suggestion, if
that's a good one, and say maybe a 5 percent fine -- 5 percent of the
total that he owes now would be the fine that he would pay to settle
this agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I think that we ought to
work on something similar to that or less.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
Page 75
November 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a problem with that
because of the fact that this individual is an engineer, he was also on
the Code Enforcement Board. He understands fully the obligations
that are there. And I'm sure that he sat in judgment of other people
who were in violation of permits -- that didn't get permits, and I
believe that 5 percent is not enough. It's got to be more than maybe
like 15 percent, somewheres in that category.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Got two fives here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I could accept 15. I was thinking 25,
to be honest with you.
In any case, do you want to give any guidance to give
negotiations that are going to take place, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the range that the two of
you have suggested is an appropriate range to consider.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is.
MR. KLATZKOW: Tenpercent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
MR. KLATZKOW: We'll be done today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Sir, I think we've got enough
direction. Don't wave your hands like in dismissal like it's never
going to happen. Go back and negotiate something and come back,
and we'll discuss it at that point in time. We thank you for being here
today, and we're not going to charge you if you break the mike.
MR. LOCKHART: I repaired it. See, I'm already doing service.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #5D
SWEARING IN CEREMONY FOR THE NEWLY ELECTED
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMBER,
Page 76
November 27,2007
DISTRICT 101- MATT HUDSON SWORN IN BY COLLIER
COUNTY JUDGE RAMIRO MANALICH
And with that, we're going to go on to the next item.
MR. MUDD: Which is 5D, it's a time certain at 11 a.m. This
item -- it's a swearing in ceremony for the newly elected Florida
House of Representative member Mark (sic) Hudson for District 101.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Matt Hudson.
MR. MUDD: Matt, excuse me. I said Mark, didn't I? Matt. My
apologies.
And I believe Judge Ramiro Manalich is here to administer that
particular oath.
JUDGE MANALICH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, sir. Thank you for
showing up and being here for us.
JUDGE MANALICH: Thank you for the opportunity. Members
of the board, Representative Rivera, other distinguished guests, public,
County Attorney Weigel and your staff, County Manager Mudd and
your staff.
Just a couple of comments before I swear in the new
representative. It is, for me, truly an honor and a privilege when I get
to do this. This is both a solemn and happy occasion.
Over 200 years ago Benjamin Franklin was asked at the
conclusion of the constitutional convention, what have you
accomplished? His answer was, a republic if you can keep it.
And I submit to you that as long as the American people continue
to support the political process, stay involved, and as long as good
people like Matt and the members of this board continue to choose to
serve an elected office, that promise, that admonition from Franklin
will be adhered to.
Just a comment about the oath that we're going to administer this
morning. It's my firm belief as a member of the judicial branch of
Page 77
November 27,2007
government that the Constitution and the rule of law in this nation are
the glue of values that hold our three separate but equal branches of
government together.
In that respect our nation's founder, George Washington, had the
following comment: The basis of our political system is the right of
the people to make and to alter their Constitution of government. But
the Constitution, which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit
and authentic act of the whole people, is sacred obligatory upon all.
The public has chosen Matt for his skills, experience, and
leadership qualities. And my only good wish toward him at this time
before he takes the oath is that he will find inspiration and guidance in
the great example which is established for this county by Mike Davis,
who we all greatly miss, but we also look forward to Matt's own style,
abilities, and leadership in charting his vision of the course of a
government by, for, and of the people.
All right. At this time I would like to call up Matt and his son
Chris to administer the oath.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. And if I may also invite up to
be able to bear witness Kevin Rambosk, who is the undersheriff. And
Matt has a very special relationship with Don Hunter and the sheriffs
department, and I'd like him to step forward. Also we have
Representative Rivera here today, and Senator Burt Saunders.
Would you please come up and bear witness to this.
mDGE MANALICH: And I also want to recognize Senator
Saunders. I did not know he was in the back of the room.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Can we object?
mDGE MANALICH: All right. Matt, if you will place your
left hand on the Bible and raise your right hand and repeat after me,
please.
I do solemnly swear.
MR. HUDSON: I do solemnly swear.
mDGE MANALICH: That I will support.
Page 78
November 27,2007
MR. HUDSON: That I will support.
JUDGE MANALICH: Protect and defend.
MR. HUDSON: Protect and defend.
JUDGE MANALICH: The Constitution and government.
MR. HUDSON: The Constitution and government.
JUDGE MANALICH: Of the United States.
MR. HUDSON: Of the United States.
JUDGE MANALICH: And of the State of Florida.
MR. HUDSON: And of the State of Florida.
JUDGE MANALICH: That I am duly qualified to hold office.
MR. HUDSON: And that I am duly qualified to hold office.
JUDGE MANALICH: Under the Constitution of the state.
MR. HUDSON: Under the Constitution of the state.
JUDGE MANALICH: And that I will.
MR. HUDSON: And that I will.
JUDGE MANALICH: Well and faithfully perform.
MR. HUDSON: And well and faithfully perform.
JUDGE MANALICH: The duties ofa member of the House of
the Representatives.
MR. HUDSON: The duties ofa member of the House of
Representatives.
JUDGE MANALICH: On which I am now about to enter.
MR. HUDSON: As I am now about to enter.
JUDGE MANALICH: So help me God.
MR. HUDSON: So help me God.
JUDGE MANALICH: Congratulations and good luck.
(Applause.)
MR. HUDSON: Thank you.
MS. KINZEL: Hi, Ramiro. Great speech.
JUDGE MANALICH: Do you want a picture? However you'd
like us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We need for you to say a couple
Page 79
November 27,2007
words, Matt, words of encouragement to this commission.
MR. HUDSON: I'm afraid to touch the microphone. Seems to
be a little concern with telecommunications here.
First of all I want to thank -- I thank everyone for making this
day possible. Most importantly, I'd be very remiss in didn't thank my
family; my wife, who couldn't be here because she's working today as
the infection control nurse for Naples Community Hospital. She does
a tremendous amount of public service herself, and so I'm very
fortunate to have her at my side, as my five children are an
instrumental part of my life.
Very blessed to have my son here today holding the Bible. Sorry
for being a little late on your time certain agenda, but we had to
scramble to locate a Bible very quickly here, but it was very important
to me that we do that.
I want to thank the Board of County Commissioners for your
support. I look forward to the opportunity to work with you as we go
into this legislative session. I think there's a lot of unique challenges
that face us, and I think that if we work together, that there are some
unique solutions that we'll be able to find.
Most importantly, I'd also like to thank the people that elected
me. There is no greater honor and there's no more humbling
experience than to wake up the day after an election and to see that a
lot of people put their most precious commodity in you, and that's
their trust. And I will certainly work hard every day to maintain that
trust, as it is their most precious commodity.
I'd like to thank Representative Rivera for being here, as well as
Senator Saunders, Kevin Rambosk. Very important to have that
support, that's for sure. There are a number of people in the audience
that were very supportive of my endeavors as we went along; Ellie
Crier, James Mullin, Floyd Chapin. Hopefully I'm not missing
anybody, but I certainly appreciate that. It means a lot to have
everyone here for this day.
Page 80
November 27, 2007
It's a big step. It's one that I'm looking forward to. It's a journey,
and today's step one of that journey, and I look forward to working
through it and working through it together and doing what's right for
the citizens of this community and for this state as a whole, and I
thank you very much for your support.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I just recognize that the
Board of Commissioners publicly supported Matt, and I think that I
can speak for the board, we're looking forward to working with you.
And also I want to share with you, Matt was my Bible school teacher
about 10 years ago in one of the classes, so we're going to be learning
together, working together, through the public process, so I'm looking
forward to it.
MR. HUDSON: Me, too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Amazing, because Matt looks so
much younger than you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- yeah. It's a perception--
it's a perception issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait till he's held the office for
another year. It ages you quickly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's watch him age.
MR. HUDSON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Okay. Mr. Mudd?
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2007-334: APPOINTING BRUCE R. FORMAN TO
THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
Page 81
November 27, 2007
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings to us 9B, which is
appointment of a member to the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification
MSTU Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I move to approve Bruce
Forman.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning
for approval of the committee's recommendation and seconded by
Commissioner Halas.
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 #9C
RESOLUTION 2007-335: APPOINTING GERALD J. LEFEBVRE
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -
ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Gerald
Lefebvre for 9C, appointment to the Collier County Code
Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Page 82
November 27,2007
Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2007-336: APPOINTING FRED N. THOMAS, JR.
(W/W AIVER TO SERVE ON ADDITIONAL BOARDS) TO THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMISSION - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve 9D,
appointment, Affordable Housing Commission, Fred Thomas,
Thompson, Thomas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. Motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And waive the requirements for
the blah-blah-blah.
MS. FILSON: But I also have one more comment on this
particular committee, if it's okay. On October 23rd you made
appointments to this committee, and at that time the committee had
recommended to appoint Christine Hatsoy Jones (phonetic), and I
Page 83
November 27,2007
didn't have her on the executive summary, but the bored agreed to
appoint her.
I should have done extensive checking before I brought this to
your attention. Although she resides in District 4, she wasn't within
the City of Naples district, so they wish to appoint their own person
within the City of Naples. So we talked to her. She's okay with this,
and we're going to hold her resume in abeyance for another opening.
But I wanted to bring that to your attention.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And the second agrees with
Commissioner Henning's waiving of the, what is it, three county -- or
three committee rule?
MS. FILSON: Yes, two.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ordinance 2001-155, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Being that he serves on 17 now or
something like that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, something like that. He's a very
important commodity for Collier County, that's for sure.
MS. FILSON: He currently serves on four boards. This will
make five.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I don't think he has any
personal life, but that's another issue.
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.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
Page 84
November 27, 2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2007-337: APPOINTING GARY DANTINI TO
THE IMMOKALEE EZDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9E, appointment of a member to the
Immokalee EZDA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question on this one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it says, Michelle Arnold
advised that Gary Dantini, Enforcement Employee, will replace Carol
Sykora. Do we really need to make an appointment then?
MS. FILSON: Well, in the ordinance it states that one of the
members will represent code enforcement, so she usually makes the
recommendation since they're her employees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: So we confirm the appointment for a set term,
yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's just the way this is
written is -- okay. I make a motion that we approve Gary Dantini.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by -- sorry. Go ahead,
Commissioner Henning. Your motion, we understand. Thank you.
And second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 85
November 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #10P
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EV ALUA TE
AND CONSIDER EACH OPTION PRESENTED WITH RESPECT
TO INCLUDING LESS THAN FIVE ACRE ILLEGAL RURAL
FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT (RFMUD) SENDING LAND
PROPERTIES INTO THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS (TDR) PROGRAM FOR THE PURPOSES OF
PROGRAMMATIC PARTICIPATION RELATIVE TO TDR
SEVERANCE - MOTION TO HA VE CCPC REVIEW OPTION 3
AND FORWARD THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BCC-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item lOP, and this
is a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
evaluate and consider each option presented with respect to including
less than five-acre illegal rural fringe mixed-use, RFMUD, sending
land properties into the transfer of the development rights program for
the purposes of programmatic participation relative to TDR severance.
Mr. Joe Thompson, Planner, Comprehensive Planner,
Community Development's Environmental Services Division, will
present.
MR. THOMPSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Joe Thompson, Comprehensive Planning.
Page 86
November 27, 2007
Could we get this on?
MR. MUDD: I'll help you. There you go.
MR. THOMPSON: Just to give you a very brief refresher on this
issue, this came before you via public petition on your September 11 th
meeting from a private property owner who has what we qualify as an
illegal lot in the sending land. He came in for TDR severance, trying
to be eligible for that. We actually denied the property when it came
in as that application.
Subsequent to that meeting, staff came back on October 9th to
address the issue with a recommendation to continually prohibit illegal
lots with respect to TDR severance eligibility. And from that, the
board issued a directive to come back after some research was
conducted in conjunction with coming back with options as it would
relate to potentially including some of these illegal lots in the TDR
program, so that's what I have for you today.
Again, the board direction was that we were going to analyze the
sending land with respect to less than five-acre properties to do legal
nonconforming lot analysis which would determine which properties
were, in fact, what we would deem illegal, properties that were created
after the underlying zoning standards were in place. The second part
of that was, we were going to formulate options, like I referenced.
Basically the less than five-acre legal nonconforming lots
analysis started with a GIS query of all less than five-acre sending
land properties privately owned.
What we did is we established two eliminating factors that went
hand in hand with that. The first one was that any less than five-acre
property that came back after it was cross-referenced with the property
appraiser's record as a five-acre property, we eliminated it from the
analysis.
The second eliminating factor were those properties that have
already participated in the TDR program, ones that we've already
deemed them to be legal nonconforming, and they were less than five
Page 87
November 27, 2007
acres. That was another eliminating factor.
So after we applied those two factors to eliminate some
properties, we came up with 189 properties to evaluate.
The results of the evaluation deemed 126 of the properties to be
legal nonconforming, meaning after staffs analysis, we would analyze
the property card to establish when it was a created lot of record. 126
of those properties were, in fact, ones that were created prior to the
establishment of the agricultural zoning district, which was October
14, 1974, the date that I referenced previously.
Fifty-one of the parcels were deemed to be illegal lots, lots that
were created after the zoning standards were in place, lots like Mr.
Schulze's lot that initially started the public petition process when this
issue came to you on the 11 tho
Eight parcels were deemed inconclusive, meaning that there
wasn't enough information on the property card for staff to make a
determination. That doesn't necessarily mean they're not a legal
nonconforming property or an illegal lot. In that case it would be
incumbent upon the property owner to bring forth evidence, a deed, an
agreement for deed to staff for us to evaluate with respect to what that
property would be considered.
Same goes for four properties that actually did not have a
property card at all, and that was when I went down to the property
appraiser's and retrieved a property card.
So those 12 properties could be illegal lots, they could be legal
nonconforming. We don't know at this point, but we have determined
that there's 51 out there that are, in fact, illegal lots as staff would
deem them to be.
Here's a map. Gives you kind of an overview of the rural fringe
mixed-use district. You can see the sporadic pattern of the illegal lots
that actually exist out there today, the ones that we reference, the 51.
There seems to be an aggregation of some illegal lots south of 75. It's
actually about 22 properties. I think there's a -- an up-close one here.
Page 88
November 27,2007
And you see here, it's just an upclose shot. There's some sporadic
properties up in the North Belle Meade area, as well as south of75,
too.
And here's a sort of north of Immokalee, the sending properties
up there. There's a few sporadic ones there as well.
Now, like I referenced before in conjunction with doing the
analysis, staff was to come back with some options. The board
wanted us to present some potential options where we could actually
include these illegal lots in the TDR program.
Option 1 would essentially allow every illegal lot proportional of
a severance, meaning if you had the .34-acre property that we
referenced before, you could potentially garner 0.068 base credits
from that property. So it's fractional credits is basically what you'd be
dealing with.
So using the .34-acre property as an example, you could achieve
exactly 0.272 TDR credits all together with full TDR utilization. That
means you would get your base, your early entry, your environmental
restoration of maintenance and your conveyance. So you would have
full utilization in the program and you would have fractional
severance.
Now, there's some advantages and disadvantages associated with
this. Advantages would be that the participation circumstances would
be consistent for everyone who has a less-than-five-acre illegal lot.
You're getting fractional credits, period. That would be the way that
you could participate.
Obviously the built-in advantage associated with that as well is
the full credit utilization, which has the built-in incentive in relation to
environmental restoration and maintenance, which is a good thing.
Disadvantages associated with this option would most definitely be
the fractional credits that would be associated with the severance.
Potentially very difficult to market to a developer who would
obviously need full credits to redeem for development purposes.
Page 89
November 27,2007
In addition to that disadvantage, there's also owners who sever
and get the fractional credits can't expect to garner the $25,000
minimum established sale price.
Option 2 would essentially allow all illegal lots one base TDR.
Regardless of size, if you have an illegal lot, you get one base TDR.
There wouldn't be any bonuses applicable in this case.
There's some advantages and disadvantages associated with this
as well. Again, here, participation circumstances would be consistent.
Every illegal lot would get one base credit. Credit fractions aren't an
issue with this option, and every lot owner could feasibly, you could
argue, they have a marketable TDR.
Disadvantage, and this is an important point -- is the potential
possibility for individuals to take an existing five-acre property and,
say, they're going to spit it into 20 pieces, for example, let's say, 20
.25-acre pieces and say, well, based off of this option, now I have 20
illegal lots, I want to have 20 TDRs as opposed to the four that I was
initially eligible for. That's something that we wouldn't want to see
and would, you know, unquestionably be a detriment to the TDR
program.
And if this option is chosen, consideration would have to focus
on addressing only those illegal lots that were in existence as of the
day the board gives formal policy direction or as of the day that the
actual rural fringe mixed-use district was adopted, which would be the
19th of June, 2002.
Option 3 would only apply to developable illegal lots. And when
I say developable, I'm not talking about zoning, because like we
referenced before, these aren't developable per zoning. When I say
developable, it would be an illegal lot that you could physically put a
house on from a property size and lot configuration perspective is how
we would look at this. So an example would be a lO-foot wide lot
would not be eligible for TDRs.
There are advantages and disadvantages associated with this as
Page 90
November 27,2007
well. It would be consistent with the existing program administration
as it results to a legal nonconforming lot, severance eligibility. Every
legal nonconforming lot that has severed TDRs has been physically
developable.
And obviously, like I referenced, we're not talking about zoning
here. We're talking about the lot size and property configuration
perspective.
Disadvantage, obviously, being to anyone who has a
nondevelopable illegal lot, they would not be eligible for a TDR.
Option 4 is the same recommendation that we brought before you
previously, which is to uphold the current prohibition ofTDR
severance from illegal lots.
Advantages and disadvantages associated with this. It would be
consistent with the Growth Management Plan, consistent with the
Land Development Code zoning standards. And I want to address a
point here that was brought up by one of the public speakers at the 9th
meeting was that these illegal lots could become impediments to
future restoration and maintenance activities within the sending land.
And I agree that that's a very good point, but at the same time I
think it's reasonable to assert that when these future restoration
activities take place, these illegal lots will be targeted for market rate
acquisition if they were to become impediments to ecological or
hydrological restoration.
Disadvantages with this option would obviously be anyone who
has an illegal lot that desires TDR credits would see this as a
disadvantage.
There's an inherent issue here that's associated with the severance
ofTDRs from illegal lots. If illegal lots are allowed to sever TDRs,
other illegal lot owners countywide could argue for their right to
develop based off of the fact that we would recognize development
credits for properties that don't have density that's associated with
them per our zoning standards.
Page 91
November 27,2007
This is another important point I wanted to address. Illegal lot
owner notification. Should the board choose an option that would
include illegal lots in the TDR program, staff would request that we
are allowed to notify the illegal lot property owners previous to the
requisite public hearings that would be required, like a Growth
Management Plan amendment, subsequent Land Development Code
amendments, just to deter any entities or individuals from approaching
these illegal lot owners and they wouldn't be fully aware of what their
property would be potentially worth from a credit perspective if they
were to be eligible.
Again, staff recommends option 4. Then an alternative scenario
whereby option 4 is not viable, staff would recommend option 3. And
again, if you were to go with the one base allocation, we would put
that caveat in there with respect to only addressing those illegal lots in
existence as of the day you give policy direction or as of the day the
rural fringe mixed-use district was actually adopted, which was June
19th, '02.
And I actually have a couple -- couple additional items I can
address. I've got -- I'd like to use the overhead for this, and this was at
the request of Commissioner Henning.
This is from the Future Land Use Element, and this is the
language that addresses legal nonconforming lots or parcels with
respect to severance eligibility. And I'll read it to you verbatim.
In the case of legal nonconforming lots or parcels in existence as
of June 22, 1999, which is the date of the final order, where such lot or
parcel is less than five acres in size, one TDR credit may be severed
from said lot or parcel.
And I just want to put an additional item up here as well. This is
just essentially a clarifying item that just gives you some dates.
October 14, 1974, the date that the agricultural zoning district was
established, the one dwelling unit per five-acre density; the June 22,
1999, is the date of the final order; and then June 19th, '02 was the
Page 92
November 27,2007
adoption date of the rural fringe mixed-use district.
And with that, I'll answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to the questions --
MR. THOMPSON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- I have three commissioners lined
up to ask questions. We've got one speaker --
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- that we're going to go to first.
MS. FILSON: Would you like me to call him now?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you, please.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Jim Schulze.
MR. SCHULZE: Over here?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Whichever one you're comfortable at.
MR. SCHULZE: On October 9th we met to discuss the
less-than-five-acre tracts in the sending lands of the TDR program.
Staff did their homework and discovered that we were only talking
about 51 definite parcels or 204 total TDRs. This is a big difference
than the 600 potential TDRs we were talking about previously, and I
don't believe this will have any impacted to the big picture except
creating the hole -- except creating the holes the environmentalists will
have to plug up with taxpayers' money in the future.
There will be no flooding ofTDRs to the market. Previously we
established that these lots were part of a subdivision. They were
important pieces to the environmental puzzle to conserve lands for
wildlife and water control and any discussion affected numerous
people who were not in attendance.
First, let's revisit the legal description of a lot of record. Staff has
stuck in the 1974 date, but as you can see from the county's own
definition, these lots qualify on the other two definitions of a lot of
record. These lots only need to qualify for one definition. These lots
are part of a subdivision and they were established prior to 1999, the
year the LDC was adopted. These are legal nonconforming lots.
Page 93
November 27,2007
From our last meeting we established that the county was willing
and, in fact, did give TDRs to parcels that were not physically
buildable. The physical shape and size of a lot does not define the
ability to sever TDRs, and the county has set that precedent by
severing TDRs on lots that could not be physically built on.
We have determined that these lots are legally buildable by the
permitted uses allowed by the LDC in the sending lands. Any lot
smaller than 40 acres and created prior to 1999 in the sending lands
can be built on. There is no mention of legal or nonlegal,
nonconforming lots.
Due to a small number of affected lots, the lot of record
definition giving us legal status, the fact that the county has already
allowed physically non-buildable lots to sever TDRs, the fact that the
new LDC gives us the right to build on these lots and the detrimental
effect that these holes will have on the environment, I ask that you
recognize these lots as legal lots, give us the right to sever TDRs and
donate the land to conservation.
I would also ask the commission to recognize that there are 50
other lot owners out there that don't even know about this process, and
they will be detrimentally affected financially by this if you do not
allow us to the same rights as our neighbors. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Okay. Commissioner Fiala, you're first, then Commissioner
Halas, then Commissioner Henning -- excuse me, Commissioner
Coyle, then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We're going to go about fixing
that today and -- so that we won't have this problem any longer.
And I feel that those lots that do not fall into this range can
always be donated to Conservation Collier and the -- and taken off of
your income tax. So, you know, there are ways to deal with some of
that stuff.
Personally, I liked a combination of option I and 3. I liked -- I
Page 94
November 27,2007
liked 3, but -- and I liked 1. One should have added though, a
developable lot, not just -- not just any lot, but a developable lot, and
then they would get credits -- fractional credits for that. And I figured
if you could combine 1 and 3 together, you'd get a pretty fair
conclusion so that you would only permit developable illegal lots
TDR severance capability, and then you would pay them
proportionately or fractionally, depending on what they had. And so
that would be my selection.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I need to get an
understanding, a legal interpretation of the speaker's contention that
we have already given undevelopable property the right to sever
TDRs. Can somebody address that issue for me?
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding from conversations with
Joe is we've never done that.
MR. THOMPSON: Exactly right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- all right. Then let me make
two observations. Number one, I don't know of any reason why a
piece of property that is not developable should be entitled to a TDR.
If it's not developable, then what are we trying to do here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Transfer of development rights.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If there's no development that can
take place there, then there's no transfer that can be taken.
Secondly, it is illogical to me that someone should be able to
claim a $25,000 TDR if they own a quarter or a third of an acre. You
know, that makes no sense to me. The -- and so I will support
Commissioner Fiala's recommendation concerning option 3. Option 3
really is a combination of I and 3, because it gives the option. In
option 3 it says that the TDR credit allocation rate for subject
developable illegal-like lots could be proportional.
So if we add -- I mean, if we accept that option under option 3,
Page 95
November 27, 2007
that the credit allocation will be proportional and it will only be a
developable lot, I would support that. I think that is a reasonable thing
to do. And do we -- are there any potential legal pitfalls in doing that?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. We'll probably have to look into
amending the LDC, perhaps even the Comprehensive Plan, I don't
know. But we can get you there, clearly, if that's what the board
wants.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, these lots were created
before the rural fringe program was --
MR. THOMPSON: That's correct, right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- established, right?
MR. THOMPSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I think we've got to take that
into consideration somehow. But I draw the line where it's clearly not
a developable lot. Why give it a TDR?
I will also say to you that I believe that the cutoff date for these
should be the date that the -- that the program was established in June,
19 2000--
,
MR. THOMPSON: 2002.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- 2, correct. So I would -- I would
add both of those things to option 3 and suggest approval, along with
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just comment on that, as
long as you're commenting on mine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is yours a motion though? I mean,
he's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will make it into a motion. The
thing I didn't like about option 3 was it was based on one credit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It could be proportional. I just
wanted to make sure --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Was proportional.
Page 96
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- It was proportional.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Then I would make that
motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That we accept option 3, because
that would really encompass everything. As long as it's developable
and they only got a portion of the credit --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Portion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- depending on the size of their
property .
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the cutoff was June 19,2002.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's your second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Henning,
then I am going to take an opportunity to speak.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wasn't we given an example
last time we heard this? There was at least one lot, I think, that had
two roads, intersected two roads, and by the time you applied the
setbacks, you couldn't build on it, you couldn't develop it?
MR. THOMPSON: I don't know where that lot came from. That
was put up by the initial public petitioner, Mr. Schulze. I don't know
if that lot is not confirmed to be one we've severed TDR credits from.
It's just a picture of a piece of property. I don't know what the folio
number was. I'm not familiar with the property on the specificity
aspect.
MR. SCHULZE: I could clear that up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I think that we need to
verify that, because we'd be inconsistent if we say developable lots.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. This is a question that is
addressed to the attorney.
Page 97
November 27,2007
MR. KLATZKOW: Again, my understanding is that we've never
issued TDRs for a lot that was not developable. But from a factual
standpoint, if that is true or not, I've got to rely on staff. And if we did
let one slip through the cracks, I don't know what to tell you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but it only takes that one
crack slip.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, that's true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, so -- so can we --
can we verify that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we take this gentleman's
information, because if that's the case that -- kind of have to change
our stance. The other thing I want you to be aware of -- that it is a
concern of mine, Nancy Payton brought it up -- is about people, you
know, creating the Swiss cheese factor of these illegal lots out there
and the ability to still do activity on these lots that would circumvent
the purpose of the sending lands if we allowed that, and then have to
give them access to it, also, their property. So that's where I'm at.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if! can -- we'll come right to
you, SIr.
Commissioner, I can tell you I agree with you. There's another
issue. We keep saying development, you know, what kind of
development rights are we taking away from them and that there's no
development rights. I disagree. There is. They have the right to be
able to clear their land for grazing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They have the right to be able to use
their land several different ways that would be very detrimental to the
environment that would not help.
We already have Hussey who just recently lost out on an issue
Page 98
November 27,2007
before us for earth mining doing serious cleaning -- clearing of his
land. Nothing is served by these types of practices. So by giving
them another avenue to be able to cash in -- that's why I'd be very
supportive of an increment TDR.
In other words, if it's one-eighth of an acre, they get one-eighth of
a -- less than -- no, TDR's based on five acres. So it would five, and
then one-eighth of that, divided by -- 20 percent divided by
one-eighth. It would be a small amount of money, but still, some
cases where they picked up the land on a tax sale, this is their way to
be able to bailout.
I also agree with Commissioner Fiala about the ability of people
to be able to donate this land to Conservation Collier if Conservation
Collier wants to take on the responsibility of small increment lots
throughout the whole of the -- the stewardship area. I don't know if
they would or they wouldn't. It might be an item that they're not
interested in.
So as the motion is presently stated and seconded, I can't support
it.
And with that, let's go to Commissioner Halas, then back to
Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think I got it right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some concerns because there
was an awful lot of stakeholders that sat down and worked through the
rural land stewardship area in regards to how we were going to
address TDRs.
And I believe that there was a -- many, many discussions on this.
And my feeling is, right now we have the rural land stewardship
study group together, and maybe this is one of the issues they need to
address.
As far as for me, I feel that where we are today, I can't support
any of these except option 4. That there was -- ended up as -- I don't
Page 99
November 27,2007
know if you were here at the time, but there was an awful lot of head
bashing, there was a lot of people sitting at the table trying to come up
with an idea of how we were going to address this. And it may not be
perfect, but I think it's a lot better than where we're going at the
present time.
So I'm in favor of option 4, but obviously we'll just wait and see
how this all transpires.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Halas, if I may
interrupt. If you were -- if this motion does fail and you were for
sending it back, making a motion to send it back to the committee that
just formed, I'd be very supportive of that. I think that was a
wonderful suggestion on your part.
Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would be willing to
support that too. I was looking for a solution that wouldn't have a
major impact on anybody, it would be fair, but it wouldn't undermine
or gut the program. But any program which gives somebody a 25,000
TDR for a $995 lot is really off balance and it's unfair to the people
who are looking for purchasers ofTDRs because what will happen is
these people will start cutting the price. All of a sudden it will go to
$10,000 maybe.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it can't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe. If nobody's buying them,
the floor's going to drop.
But in any event, I don't understand Commissioner Coletta's
objection to 3 because -- based upon what I understood the chairman
to say, option 3 does exactly what you said. So I don't understand
why you would oppose it.
But nevertheless, I would like to address the comment that if we
sold or if we granted TDR credits to a property that was not buildable
that we would have to change our position on this. I disagree with
that.
Page 100
November 27,2007
If we made a mistake in the past in something, that does not
determine our future policy. We must establish policy and we must
establish policy based upon what we believe is right, not based upon a
single isolated mistake that might have been made in the past.
So I will go either with 3 as we have stated it. If that fails, I will
be happy to leave it the way it is and let it be worked out later on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When you say worked out later on,
you mean by the reform committee?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: By the reform committee. I don't
have a problem with either one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go back to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, he just said everything I
wanted -- I would say as well. That's what we're doing here today is
trying to correct anything that might have gone on before. We don't
let it set our policy. And I would -- I would be agreeable to letting it
go to a committee and coming up with -- so I'll withdraw my motion.
I'll be --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want to just make a new motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- happy to let them spend the time
that they want. That's what we look to our advisory committees for
anyway.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Absolutely. I'll second your restated
motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll make a new motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we already did. Commissioner
Fiala made the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coletta, which is me,
seconded it. And it's just the one you were going to make, but we beat
you to the punch.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess you did.
Page 10 1
November 27,2007
MR. THOMPSON: Commissioners, if! could clarify for one
moment. I apologize to interrupt. The committee that Commissioner
Halas is referencing is for the rural land stewardship area, not for the
rural fringe mixed-use district. So it would not be the correct
committee to go to. It's a completely different land use program.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. Well, is there another
committee that you would recommend, like possibly the Planning
Commission?
MR. SCHMITT: Can I give a recommendation? For the record,
Joe Schmitt. This has to go through the GMP amendment process
possibly, at a minimum it will go through the LDC amendment
process. That will be the public vetting. Certainly we're going to
meet with the -- in that process, we go to the EAC, we go to the
Planning Commission, we go to others. If you give us direction, we'll
take a couple of options and we'll go through that process. We'll take
two or three options and we'll work it through that process, if you
want to work that way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, you got
something that's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm not interested in having
staff go to somebody and go through these options. If you want to go
through -- go to a group and consider option 3 and have them give us
input on that, that would be fine. But if somebody came back with
one of the other options, I wouldn't accept it no matter who approved
it. So I don't know why we want to waste our time doing that.
So where are we? We're back to Commissioner Fiala's original--
MR. THOMPSON: I believe it was option 3, it was only
developable lots. It would be fractional TDR severance, and the
cutoff date would be June 19,2002, which is the adoption date of the
rural --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you willing to reinstitute that
Page 102
November 27,2007
motion, Commissioner Fiala? We can say to them if -- well, we're
going to go through the public process anyway, so we'll get public
input. If we want to modify it during that process, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what, I would love to
have the Planning Commission address it. I think that would be a
great idea. That would be the committee. If we had anybody address
it, they would do it. And when they -- when they get into it, they
really clean it up well -- and then give us a recommendation back. So
that would be the committee that I would recommend in the second
motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Restated motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Restated motion, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I accept your change to that
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Fiala. Do you have something else to add or --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. That was it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Let's -- I think you can
view the Growth Management Plan language of, nonconforming is
illegal nonconforming also, but that's a choice. You just need to
clarify it in the Land Development Code. It is nonconforming for a
particular reason.
MR. THOMPSON: Are you referencing the legal
nonconforming in the Future Land Use Element section?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay. And you're saying there needs to be
clarification there?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You clarified it in the Land
Development Code, you know, saying that, you know, that includes
these lots.
Page 103
November 27,2007
MR. THOMPSON: Sure. Land Development Code amendments
rather than Growth Management Plan amendment is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct, because that is just so
time consuming, GMP amendment, and we can just, you know, clarify
it in the Land Development Code.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, the Planning Commission can
take that into consideration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're going to give us some
great guidance, so I have all the confidence in the process and the
motion. Very good, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine.
MR. THOMPSON: Just a clarification.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it. Thank you very
much. I appreciate everybody's input on that. We're going to break
now for lunch.
MR. MUDD: Before you go, I just want to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. One more thing.
MR. MUDD: I just want to make sure I understand the motion.
The motion is to take this action as it stands right now and have it be
heard by the Planning Commission.
Page 104
November 27,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right, vet it at the Planning
Commission and get their recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not, it's not all the options,
right? It's just the option 3?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Option 3.
MR. THOMPSON: Option 3, the developable lots, Land
Development Code amendment. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that's --
MR. MUDD: Thank you. That's the guidance I need to have,
thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Thanks for asking for
that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll reconvene at a quarter after 1.
(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.
The next item on our agenda, Commissioners -- if you remember
correctly, 8A was continued till the 11th of item. That was on the
change sheet. The board voted on that particular issue this morning.
Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2007-338: PETITION CU-2007-AR-11970,
AMERICAN DREAM BUILDERS, REPRESENTED BY JAMES
MCCORD, IS REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE
EXTENSION OF A MODEL HOME/SALES CENTER, WHICH
HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE 1997. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ON
TRACT 119, IN UNIT 26, AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
13TH AVE SW AND COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951),
SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
Page 105
November 27, 2007
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED; STAFF GIVEN
DIRECTION TO BRING BACK TO FUTURE GMP AND LDC
FOR AMENDMENTS REGARDING MODEL HOMES
That brings us to 8B. This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members. It's petition CU-2007-AR-11970, American Dream
Builders represented by James McCord is requesting a conditional use
extension for a motor home/sales center which has been in existence
since 1997.
The subject property is located in Golden Gate Estates on Tract
119 in Unit 26 on the southwest corner of 13th Avenue Southwest and
Collier Boulevard, County Road 951, Section 15, Township 49 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Would all those wishing to
participate stand at this time and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And disclosure on the part of the
commissioners. Let's start with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Very well. With respect to item --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 8B.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- 8B, I have no disclosures. And
with respect to item 8C, I have had meetings with Bruce Anderson and
Jeff Perry, I've reviewed correspondence with the staff, and I've also
received correspondence concerning this item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's been a long lunch, hasn't
it. Thank you, sir. We appreciate that full disclosure. Okay. In case
we forgot, we'll probably ask you again when we come to 8C.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, Chairman. Under item
8B, I have no disclosures at this time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. 8B, I have disclosures. I've
Page 106
November 27,2007
had a meeting, correspondence, emails, and phone calls.
And Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have no disclosures and I would
like to thank you for entertaining us today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, thank you. It's not a hard job to
do. I find that it's very easy to entertain commissioners.
And just to prove it, we're going to go to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I met with Mr.
McCord months ago on this issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great. And with that--
MR. MUDD: Mr. McCord?
MR. McCORD: Good afternoon.
MR. MUDD: State your name.
MR. McCORD: James McCord with American Dream Builders.
I just have a real quick statement. This is our 11 th year in
business, and renewal costs have been increasing at an alarming rate.
The direct fees that we pay the county are a very small portion of the
renewal costs. We need to help with some of the regulatory costs.
Just for the -- this past year and the next two previous (sic) years,
my operational permit is going to cost me over $60,000. That's
$20,000 a year. In my opinion, that's a little excessive for just a
permit to open up a model and try to sell homes.
It's what I'd like to do is -- what I'd like to ask you, if you would
try to see if we can streamline the process. Right now, where I am
today, it took me 11 months to get here. I think that's a little long. It
shouldn't take that long to get here.
Businesses should not have to fight this hard for the opportunity
just to stay open. And I personally believe an existing model without
any changes does not have any additional impact just because a
temporary use permit has expired and a new one has to be applied for.
I'm not suggesting that this process should be free, but it should
be equitable. The costs that have been growing and growing are
Page 107
November 27, 2007
slowly driving nongovernmental affordable housing from Collier
County. Please help.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine.
MR. McCORD: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think you've said a lot, and I
see where the Planning Commission was in agreement with you. Our
staff isn't, but the Planning Commission is.
And it's something that I've watched for years. I've had zero
complaints from the residents in my area regarding the model homes.
You maintain them in better shape than the residents that live there,
for obvious reasons; you're trying to sell the product.
If we make you move from where you are, you have to rebuild
another model home in another location and it serves no purpose, and
especially at a time when the market is depressed the way it is, trying
to find a buyer for a home that's on a main thoroughfare where model
homes should be, and they are, it's extremely difficult.
So I make a motion for approval based upon the Planning
Commission's recommendation, and anything that we can do to
shorten the process in the future, I'm all for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Henning?
We have a motion by myself, Commissioner Coletta, and a
second by Commissioner Fiala, for planning -- Planning Commission's
recommendations.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How long is the extension for,
just for clarification?
MR. McCORD: Two years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Actually we're kind of -- I'm kind of
hoping with the LDC changes coming forward, that we might be able
to address that in a time period that will be for five years or longer,
and then make the process even simpler if we can. So it's something
Page 108
November 27,2007
that would be on the consent agenda in the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My own thoughts, Commissioner
Henning. Any way you'd like to add to the motion would be most
appreciated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I -- you know, I agree with
your statements. It is an appropriate place for it, and there hasn't been
any complaints from your neighboring -- my constituents and to -- I
think Mark Strain put it into perspective to proliferate these temporary
use model homes in other areas of Golden Gate Estates really wouldn't
be serving the residents. So two years it is, and we'll see what the n
where the LDC amendment goes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, and then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep. I was going to say most of
everything you said. One of the things that I think that's so nice with
mobile -- I mean, model homes. Why did I say mobile -- model
homes is, they keep them so nice and, of course, that's what you see
when you're riding down the road, and I don't think residential homes
would really want to be located there. It seems to be more of a place
for business and for model homes.
They always look nice and they're -- so I just am in full
agreement and I agree maybe it should be extended to more years than
that. It's a terrible amount of money to be paying, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Agreed. Commissioner Coyle and
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. McCord, can you give us a
little more specific information about why it has taken you 11 months
to get to this point, and why do you have to pay $20,000 to get an
extension for a model home?
MR. McCORD: Well, there are regulations in the -- built into the
code. The fees that we pay directly to the county are only about
Page 109
November 27,2007
$3,000 to $3,500. But I had to get a traffic impact study, which
doesn't make any sense to me for a house that's been finished for 10
years. I had to get a survey that showed vegetation, including
sprinkler heads.
I had to agree to put in an extra sidewalk, I had to agree to pay
for the sidewalk to be moved when 951 gets extended.
Representation, if I chose representation, is as little as 8,000, could be
as much as 20,000. Thank goodness, where we are in the economy, I
can take care of representing myself. I have to remove the exotics
yearly. And those are the main costs right there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And all you were asking for is an
extension?
MR. McCORD: All I was asking for.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you've been there 10 years?
MR. McCORD: We're working on 11 years right now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. McCORD: The county's hands right -- or the staffs hands
are tied right now the way the code's written. We have to go through
the whole process as if it's a brand new home, and it doesn't seem to
make much sense.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. McCORD: It's not a valuable use of staffs time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I agree. Is staff working on
a -- an improvement to this, or do they need direction from the board?
MR. McCORD: I believe they need direction.
MR. MUDD: Come on, Susan. Help us. I believe this came up
once before when Brenda Talbert came in front of the Board of
County Commissioners at the podium and talked about a specific
issue. I believe the board gave us the direction at that time.
MS. ISTENES: That's correct, yeah. Susan Istenes, Zoning
Director. Brenda did come before you. I believe it was a public
petition, I think a couple months ago, and you did give us direction to
Page 110
November 27,2007
look at this and, as well, it looks like you're going to approve this
today, and we're also going to take that as further direction. Weare
going to have to do a GMP amendment and an LDC amendment,
however. That's part of the reason --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So this won't be solved until
sometime next year.
MS. ISTENES: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have any other model
homes that need extensions?
MS. ISTENES: Sure, because of the limited time frame.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we waive these requirements?
Can the board waive these requirements?
MS. ISTENES: I'd have to look to the County Attorney's Office
to see how they could help you do what you want.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you can, sir. I think we all
understand where we're headed on this one, and we're going to be
removing the requirements as they come back. We'll be amending the
GMP, we'll be amending the LDC. And I'm not sure there's any need
for anybody to go through an II-month process and spend $20,000
just to get five people to say yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree, yeah.
MS. ISTENES: Part of the reason it took a while is because there
was a lot of staff debate about how to apply both the GMP and code,
and that -- and Mr. McCord is really -- we kind of told him he was the
guinea pig to come through the process because of staff debate, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations. I'm sure you
appreciate that.
MS. ISTENES: And it looks like he's coming through pretty
well, so -- but that's part of the reason it did take a long time to get
through.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I don't know what's
going to happen when the next person walks in. That's my only--
Page 111
November 27,2007
only concern. Is there anything that we as a board can do today that
would solve the problem for the next person who has to come in for an
approval extension? Can we say to the staff, don't require a traffic
impact statement? I mean -- you know, it's there. It should be built
into the impact -- or the background traffic projection already.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can direct staff to hold everything in
abeyance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Until that time?
MR. KLATZKOW: Until the time comes where we bring it back
to you for the GMP amendment and the LDC amendment. If at that
point in time you agree to amend the GMP and the LDC, then I think
we could be done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then -- but here's what's
going on happen. Let me see if this will work.
Another developer's going to come in and say they want to have
an extension. Now, if they're told to hold -- the staff is told to hold
these in abeyance, that means they're not going to get an extension, I
would presume, because they're not going to require these things to be
done, so the staff can't review anything. Can we get those people
immediately before the board and we can just approve their extension?
Would that be violating any ordinances?
MR. KLATZKOW: I kind of like the--
MR. MUDD: You'd be violating your GMP and your Land
Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, who cares about those?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is -- this is a dicey issue and it
happened -- when the Golden Gate Area Master Plan got approved,
they didn't -- they wanted a time limit for the model homes. They
wanted them to move along. They didn't want them to be there
forever, and that's the reason you've got a Growth Management Plan
change that you need to make.
Nobody looked at the unintended consequences of a slowdown in
Page 112
November 27,2007
the economy and other things, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that doesn't -- that doesn't
make any difference.
MR. MUDD: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay?
MR. MUDD: You could tell staff, if you're going to get a
conditional use request for an extension, two-year extension, okay, to
-- don't do the traffic study, waive it. You could tell us -- you could
tell us on the exotic issues to basically get it so it's bare bones so it
moves to the Planning Commission, use this particular meeting as a
reference as far as what you want to do, and I believe we can shorten
the process, okay.
But it would at least be publicly vetted in the Planning
Commission and then publicly vetted back to you, to the board, in
order to do that.
The other thing that Jeff was talking about was to tell us to hold
the present situation. If someone comes in for an extension, you tell
them that their -- they can still operate, okay, and based on your
determination of your Land Development Code and your Growth
Management Plan, whatever you decide at that time, if you say it's
extended to five years, then staff will take -- when they got the last
one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're going to toll the expiration
date.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If that's part of the motion--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Part of the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- I would be happy to support it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Part of the motion, part of the second,
too?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Part of the second, too.
Page 113
November 27,2007
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's an excellent suggestion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, very good. Great.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just for my own knowledge back
here, what's the life expectancy of a model home?
MR. McCORD: To this day we have not moved out of a model
home that we've opened. Until I stop selling them. I sell affordable
homes, and our budgets are very tight. The only way we can get the
traffic we need to get, have to put our models on high traffic roads
where there's lots of volume and lots of people going by.
And as long as we keep the houses up and we update them to
keep up with the current times, I don't see any end. Because we're not
building a custom home. Like I said, it's an affordable house.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: By affordable, what's the price
range?
MR. McCORD: It starts at 145- including lot.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Including lot?
MR. McCORD: Including lot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's amazing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So when you say you do updates in
the home, I assume then the cabinetry and all the little appertinents
inside the home, as things change, you just continually update?
MR. McCORD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But as far as the changing window
or design of the roof and anything like that, that remains the same?
MR. McCORD: That remains the same. The biggest update we
did two years ago, we changed our elevation. We added some stucco
bands and changed a column, minor.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just wanted to know what
Page 114
November 27,2007
the life expectancy of a model home was. Because normally when I
am associated with model homes, it's like a subdivision. It's put there,
and then after all the homes are sold, that's it, and the model home, it's
-- the developer starts someplace else. He builds another model home
that may be updated with the latest upgrades that are available.
MR. McCORD: Correct. And that makes sense in subdivisions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If! may, I can tell you that every
commissioner up here is pro affordable housing and they believe in
home ownership. 145- did you say?
MR. McCORD: 145- including land.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: $145,000 including the land, and you
can build a home like the model. And your model's located right on
951 --
MR. McCORD: 951 and 13th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 951 and 13th Street.
MR. McCORD: Southwest.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just wanted to make sure I knew
where the location was.
MR. McCORD: Yeah. One note on affordability -- and I know
you guys are going to talk about impact fees later. If you take
property (sic) away from my most affordable home, my impact fees
are 21 percent of the cost of the house. That's something to please
keep in mind.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I'm sure we keep that in mind
at all times. Thank you for that. Commissioner Halas, before you.
We'll come back to you, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's land going for right now, an
acre of land, acre and a quarter?
MR. McCORD: Mid to upper 30's.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mid to upper 30's, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
Page 115
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You understand that an impact fee
can be deferred for model home -- I mean, for an affordable home,
don't you?
MR. McCORD: To my knowledge, the only way is through
SHIP, isn't it? Is that the only way you can do it is through SHIP
funds?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. You need to find out about the
deferral. So if you feel that's causing you a problem, investigate the
deferral program and see if you can't get some relief there.
MR. McCORD: Okay, I will.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, we do that. We approve 10
or 12 every time we sit here at this dais.
MR. MUDD: You might do 13 today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Might do 13 today. So be sure to
get your -- get some information concerning that.
MR. McCORD: Okay. I'm not familiar with that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good work, Commissioner Coyle,
pointing that out and -- because we could make it even more
affordable.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, this -- people could
buy a home, 145-, if they qualifY by the income range, they could
have the impact fees deferred, which would make it even more
affordable, 145- less, what is it, 26,000 now?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thirty thou -- well --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's unbelievable. You could sell
the house for it. I don't know how you do it. People will be paying
attention. I wouldn't be surprised if you get a number of phone calls.
MR. McCORD: Hopefully we do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, we have covered this issue
quite well. Any questions from anyone? Any other comments?
Page 116
November 27,2007
(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, 5-1 (sic). Thank
you so much for staying with it and bringing it to a successful
conclusion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm going to come take a look.
MS. FILSON: 5-0.
MR. MUDD: 5-0, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 5-0, I'm sorry. Correction, 5-0.
MS. FILSON: He said 5-1.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What did he say?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He was opposed.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2007-75: PETITION PUDZ-2006-AR-I0698, A.
GROVER MATHENEY, TRUSTEE, REPRESENTED BY R.
BRUCE ANDERSON ESQUIRE, OF ROETZEL & ANDRESS,
LP A AND MARGARET PERRY, AICP, OF WILSONMILLER,
INC., IS REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS
THE GASPAR STATION PUD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
CONSISTING OF 17.7 ACRES, IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
Page 117
November 27, 2007
SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846), APPROXIMATELY
ONE QUARTER MILE WEST OF THE I-75/IMMOKALEE
ROAD, INTERCHANGE, IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -
ADOPTED W /STIPULA TIONS
MR. MUDD: Brings us to 8C. This item's continued from the
June 12,2007, and October 23,2007, BCC meeting. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte be provided by
commission members.
It's PUDZ-2006-AR-10698, A. Grover Matheney, Trustee,
represented by R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire, of Roetzel & Andress,
LPA, and Margaret Perry, AICP, ofWilsonMiller, Inc., is requesting a
rezone for a planned unit development to a commercial planned unit
development for a project to be known as Gaspar Station PUD.
The subject property consisting of 17.7 acres is located on the
south side of Immokalee Road, County Road 846, approximately
one-quarter of a mile west of I-75, Immokalee Road interchange, in
Section 30, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County,
Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those wishing to
participate in this agenda item, please stand at this time and be sworn
m.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And ex parte disclosure
on the part of the commissioners, starting with Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received a correspondence
from staff and received a phone call from somebody in the Strand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I received a phone call also. I
met with Bruce Anderson and with Jeff Perry, and I've spoken to staff.
Page 118
November 27,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. And I met with the same
individuals, received correspondence, emails, and phone calls.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I had meetings with Bruce
Anderson, also had email correspondence with that gentleman, and
I've also talked with staff on this, and basically I've really spent some
time with this -- with the transportation department.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want me to do it again?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we heard you -- well, yeah, you
better, just to make the record -- see if it's the same. We want to -- see
if you got --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I have had meetings with --
a meeting with Bruce Anderson and Jeff Perry, I've also received
some correspondence. I've talked with staff about this petition.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. For the
record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel & Andress law
firm on behalf of the applicant.
I have a one-minute version of my presentation, and I also have a
longer version, which I would reserve time to give you if necessary.
Short version is this: No changes to the allowed uses and
development standards of this already-approved PUD other than those
that have been requested by staff.
Number two, we are now in agreement with all staff
recommendations and conditions for approval. I would note that this
property owner has had a long history of cooperation with the county
on transportation matters.
And lastly, I would ask that you add a section or a sentence at
least to the PUD that states that the PUD sunset timelines are tolled
until the transportation condition has been completed. I have worked
on specific language with Mr. Casalanguida and our planner, Ms.
Page 119
November 27,2007
Deselem. I'll read that into the record.
The developer shall be able to proceed with a plat and site plan,
site development approval and construction, however, the county shall
not issue any Certificate of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy for any portion of this project until the I-75/Immokalee
Road intersection improvement through lanes are substantially
complete and open.
The PUD time limits and sunsetting provisions contained in
section IO.02.I3.D of the LDC shall not commence until the
I-75/Immokalee Road intersection improvement through lanes are
substantially complete and open. End of statement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. First I just wanted to check.
Do we have speakers on this?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great. We have -- and I'm not too
sure who went first. Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. When you say substantially
completed, would you clarify what you mean by substantially
completed on the lane, through lanes?
MR. ANDERSON: I'll ask Mr. Casalanguida--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
MR. ANDERSON: -- to answer that question, since it was his.
Nick?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Substantial.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida. I
seem to -- I'm the only one who can pronounce my name.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't even pronounce the
whole thing though.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Substantially complete means the
actual through lanes are operating. We talk about substantial
completion. If they're doing some landscaping or cleanup or, you
know, final signing, things like that.
Page 120
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And for Bruce again, you said tolling.
I've got no -- I haven't got any problem with that. I think we've been
tolling this for about 20 years now, right, this PUD?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, if we were, we wouldn't be here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it's been on the books for
about 20 years.
Do you agree with all the recommendations by the Planning
Commission?
MR. ANDERSON: I believe so, yes. I mean, they've been
incorporated, haven't they? Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval then.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. ANDERSON: I mean, their one reference to the cloverleaf,
which is no longer on the table.
MR. MUDD: Wait a minute, if! may interject. The Planning
Commission recommendations were never approved to go to you, so
there are no Planning Commission recommendations. This is a 4-4 tie
vote. So you have nothing from the Planning Commission, okay. So if
you're going to ask for recommendations from the Planning
Commission, Commissioner Halas, you've got to be very, very
specific here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My question is, the three
items that are on the -- from the Planning Commission, are you in
agreement with them?
MR. ANDERSON: All except number 3, because that got
modified by your staff.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct, okay. In replace
(sic) of that is the item that you talked about, and that was the
substantially (sic) completion of those --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- through lanes when they
Page 121
November 27, 2007
complete the bridge?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. All right. That's where my
motion is. Is that clear enough?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And that the sunset timelines
are tolled until transportation issues are completed, just like the
sentence that you read, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I was going to say, I kind of hope in
your motion you include the development commitments that they also
made.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's -- should be in there, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's understood by the second, too
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- that the development commitments
are also included?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The petitioner has already said that
they agreed to all of those development agreements, plus they've
added this sentence that takes care of the tolling, and the lanes that are
supposed to be -- what is it -- a portion of I -7 5/Immokalee Road
intersection improvement through lanes. So I think we've taken care
of the whole thing.
MR. ANDERSON: One additional thing we inserted between
the Planning Commissioning and coming to you folks is the very last
paragraph in the PUD which provides the 50 cents per square foot
affordable housing commitment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's part of the development
commitments?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, yes, sir. Thank you.
Page 122
November 27,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Fiala. Did
you finish what you had, or do you have something? You're next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I added that to make sure the toll
lines are tolled, sunset time lines are tolled, and that was it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think we need to clean this
motion up a bit.
Mr. Anderson, would you tell me once again what you said about
the tolling?
MR. ANDERSON: The exact language?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, please.
MR. ANDERSON: The PUD time limits and the sunsetting
provisions contained in section 1O.02.13.D of the LDC shall not
commence until the I-75/Immokalee Road intersection improvement
through lanes are substantially complete and open.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, how does that get you
approval to begin. If the -- if the tolling provisions don't begin until
after those through lanes are substantially open, it appears to me that
between now and that point in time, you don't have any permission to
proceed, but if you were to say that the termination or the sunset
provision itself would be tolled, that makes sense to me. But in
referencing the provisions of the sunsetting ordinance, you're the
lawyer. Maybe you understand this better than I, but it seems to me
that you're essentially saying that until those things are met, you don't
have an extension on your -- on this PUD.
MR. ANDERSON: No, no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not what you had in mind?
MR. ANDERSON: No. This is a brand new PUD.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
Page 123
November 27, 2007
MR. ANDERSON: And it's going to get a new timeline, but that
time line doesn't start until those through lanes are substantially open.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: See, that will give you five years
from the time that those lanes are substantially open before you have
to ask for any kind of an extension?
MR. ANDERSON: If the road is completed, the through lanes,
hopefully so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
that was clear to everybody. So let me -- let me just summarize where
we are with this, that -- that you are agreeing with the interconnection
to the property to the west.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're agreeing that we won't
penalize you because of the construction that's occurring on
Immokalee Road, that we will toll the sunset provisions until those
lanes on Immokalee Road are substantially complete and open to
traffic, that you will stipulate that the configuration, shape, size, and
location showing the lake adjacent to the preserve shall be retained.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- okay. That's pretty much it
except for the stipulations that you had in the developer's agreement,
right?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, what I just read. We don't have a
developer's agreement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, that's the extent ofthe
motion as far as I understand it. Staff had one other recommendation,
and that involved -- the two adjacent links to the interchange shall be
reduced to a four-lane capacity in the concurrency system until the
interchange is completed, and any new applications after that -- it
takes this action shall be subject to capacity restrained. That does not
affect you?
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. That's part of the earlier
Page 124
November 27, 2007
language that I read that was worked out with staff, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to make sure we're all
clear on what this motion includes.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And that's it for me. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a--
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem,
Principal Planner with Zoning. Just wanted to go on the record that
staff is recommending approval of the petition finding that it is
consistent with the GMP policy, and just to reiterate, you know, once
you have your motion ready, I want to be able to go over it just to
make sure we understand it perfectly, and I will reiterate that what
you're proposing at this point is you're recommending approval -- or
you're going to approve it with staff and the EAC recommendation.
The EAC recommendation is that condition for the lake configuration.
And then we have in the PUD document, as agreed to earlier by
the petitioner, section 5.2.1, which includes the intersection -- I'm
sorry -- the interconnection information for the parcel to the west, and
then the new language that was agreed upon today that addresses the,
one, the tolling issue as far as sunsetting, and the CO not to be issued,
but would allow them to seek and get approvals for SDP or plats with
the understanding that the COs would not be issued.
And building permit is what I'm also being told. I don't recall
that in there. And I no longer have -- we only have one copy of that
poor little piece of paper, so we're shuffling it back and forth.
But yes, if it said building permit -- may I borrow it again?
MR. ANDERSON: Sure.
MS. DESELEM: Okay. This is something that needs to be
clarified. I do not see in the language that it says building permit. It
Page 125
November 27,2007
say SDP or plat. And Mr. Anderson just represented to me that that
was Nick's intent. I don't want to speak to Nick's intent. I'll let Nick
speak to Nick's intent.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was that the developer shall be able
to proceed with an SDP plat and begin site construction; however, no
COs would be issued until those through lanes were substantially
complete. So they can proceed with all site construction, building
permit, applications, but no CO would be issued until that road was
complete.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So far, does the motion maker and the
second both agree?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Continue, please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Pretty much what we covered.
MS. DESELEM: Yeah. I just wanted to verifY.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. I'm glad you're clarifYing
it.
MS. DESELEM: Yes. And I don't have anything else to add. I
do apologize for the kind of last minute, but we were working out the
language today even, so that way we could bring to you a project that
you could approve without having to hash over issues that we could
address.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for that.
MS. DESELEM: And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to
address them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see no further questions. I think
we're ready to close the public hearing and put this to a vote.
With that, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Page 126
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, I need a little
direction on Commissioner Coyle's comments, because it wasn't
officially part of the motion. On your AUIR that you adopted
recently, shows additionally the six lanes of through capacity. We had
discussed that the four lanes would be a restriction because it's not a
project the county controls. So I need a little direction in that --
maybe you have the form of a motion, due to health, safety, and
welfare, construction of the interchange that's not controlled by -- as a
county project, that you will count it as a four-lane capacity until the
through lanes are substantially complete.
MR. KLA TZKOW: You'll need a motion for this because we
may be denying applications based on lack of concurrency because of
this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd make a motion that we approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
Page 127
November 27,2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, Nick.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just one second.
Jeff, would you check with John Norman and see ifhe'd be ready
to come in around two o'clock. Thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Mudd.
Item #lOQ
A FUNDING CHANGE FOR THE GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD
PROJECT (60005); COLLIER BOULEVARD SOUTH PROJECT
(60001); AND THE DA VIS BOULEVARD PROJECT (60073) IN
THE AMOUNT OF $2.279,900 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item IOQ. This is
a recommendation for Board of County Commissioners to approve a
funding change for the Goodlette-Frank Road project, 60005, and the
Collier Boulevard south project, 60001, and the Davis Boulevard
project, 60073, in the amount of $2,279,900.
And Mr. Norman Feder, your Transportation Services
Administrator, will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 128
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Good presentation, Norm.
Item #lOS
RESOLUTION 2007-339: A RESOLUTION (INITIATING
RESOLUTION) OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PURSUANT TO PART II OF CHAPTER 171, FLORIDA
STATUTES (FLORIDA'S INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY
ACT) TO COMMENCE THE PROCESS FOR NEGOTIATING AN
INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT
REGARDING 204.19 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS,
DESCRIBED AS THE HOLE IN THE WALL GOLF CLUB,
PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF NAPLES -
ADOPTED
The next number is IOS. It's a recommendation to adopt a
resolution, initiating resolution of the Board of County Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, pursuant to part two of chapter 171,
Florida Statutes, Florida Interlocal Services Boundary Act, to
commence the process for negotiating an interlocal service boundary
agreement regarding 204 acres -- no. 204.19 acres ofland, more or
less, described as the Hole in the Wall Golf Club, proposed to be
annexed into the City of Naples, and I'm going to present this
Page 129
November 27,2007
particular item.
We had come to the Board of County Commissioners during the
Collier Park of Commerce annexation and asked the board to go into
phase two, which is basically a negotiation, so to speak, between the
annexing, in this particular case, the City of Naples, and the county,
where the property was leaving from. We also had a second party to
that particular process, and that was East Naples Fire.
We went through a year. It was -- and sometimes it was
laborious and sometimes -- and Commissioner Coletta said he was
bored to tears one time. But it really did, because sometimes we were
out of it and it was the fire folks talking to each other as we're sitting
there and we listened, at least two meetings and it was strictly fire, but
everything got hashed out to everybody's satisfaction.
The public had an opportunity on many occasions to voice their
concerns during comment during those meetings, and it turned out to
be a rather good process. I believe we were probably the first ones in
the state to work the first phase.
The City of Naples is in the process of wanting to annex.
They've been asked to annex -- and it's strictly voluntary -- the Hole in
the Wall development.
The -- that's out there. If the board wants to enter phase two
negotiations, we have to do it relatively soon in order to get within the
window of the two readings in the City of Naples before they annex.
There is no Urban Services Report on this particular process like
there was on the Collier Park of Commerce so I can't tell you exactly
how they see the transition of services from the county to the city.
And in the newspaper article, Mr. Passidomo was quoted as --
there was an enclave issue in this particular annexation, and I'd like to
know how that's all going to get resolved because that's in the legal
process. You can't -- an annexation can't cause an enclave. And if it
does, it's an illegal annexation.
So there are some things that need to be hammered out. And in
Page 130
November 27,2007
this particular case, I'm asking the board to go into phase two
negotiations on the Hole in the Wall annexation issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Manager, do we know
what -- at this point in time what the impacts are to the county as far
as infrastructure?
MR. MUDD: Again, I've mentioned to you that there is no
Urban Services Report because this is a voluntary annexation. I
would say from the water -- water/sewer side of the house, there is
none because they're already on the city water and sewer. They do
have county garbage collection. They do have North Naples Fire as
their -- as their service agency.
I've mentioned the Enclave piece, and we'll go through the whole
process. And we'll talk about recycling and some other things as they
come up. During this, the CPOC item, recycling was a big issue for
Commissioner Coletta, and we got a concession that they would
recycle according to Collier County ordinance even though they
annexed into the city, and that was a good thing as far as the
environment was concerned. I don't believe that one will be much
different in this particular case.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I hear direction?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the county
manager's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
Page 131
November 27,2007
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MARY MAYVILLE,
COLLIER COUNTY AGRICUL TURAL FAIR & EXPOSITION,
INC., TO DISCUSS REINSTATEMENT OF A PERMANENT
BEER LICENSE - APPROVED
Let's go to 6A since we have Mr. Norman, who's going to be
presenting on the part of the Collier County Fair Board.
MR. MUDD: This is a public petition request from Mary
Mayville, and Mr. Norman is going to represent for the Collier County
Agricultural Fair and Exposition, Inc., to discuss reinstatement of a
permanent beer license.
MR. NORMAN: Thank you. For the record, I'm John Norman.
I'm the founding president of the Collier County Fair. I think it was
1980 we started it with the help of the Collier County Commission.
There had never been such an event in Collier County before.
It's been a tremendous success. Over the years, it's sent a
tremendous amount of money back into the community. They keep
upgrading it. They've put in a beautiful pavilion now, which cost a lot
of money.
They pay $50,000 a year on a note on that pavilion, which is on
Page 132
November 27, 2007
county property. Thanks to the commission, they have the property to
be there. They give out at least one $25,000 a year scholarship to a
student from Collier County schools.
And all in all, it's just a wonderful -- it's an II-day event. There
are all kinds of events taking place out there now. The Collier junior
deputies have a day out there at the fair, they take all of -- I think it's
all the fourth graders and run them through the fair for absolutely no
cost. Take them out there, feed them, and it's all on the fairgrounds.
The problem with any of it is, the fair grosses about a million a
year. Now, that's off of all the ticket sales and all the rest of the
concessions off of the Midway and that like, plus the other events.
Like they had a home show out there very recently, and they have a
lot of labor costs and things to spend.
When we put the fair together originally we were allowed -- we
had a beer tent, and the sheriffs people kept a close eye on it. To my
knowledge since 1980 there's never been a problem at the Collier
County Fair reference to the beer sales, not one. I never heard of a
DUI coming out of there. They're pretty careful about controlling it.
They have a problem inasmuch as the individuals who were
responsible failed to renew the permanent beer license at the
fairgrounds. They are asking now to renew it. The only other way is
they could get one of these one-day permits, which doesn't go very far
in II days of fair or, for example, the parks and rec. is going to be out
there next year with a country show that they normally have over at
the Vineyards, and the fair could use that operation with the
permanent license to help fund all these things that they do and make
it a better thing.
They're having one little problem, and that is making sure that --
they've been told by one of the county agencies that they're not zoned
to sell beer. Now, that place was selling beer before anybody that
works at the county came here, with no problems at all.
And we're just asking that the commission favorably consider the
Page 133
November 27,2007
request from the Collier County Agricultural Fair to renew or get their
permanent beer license back. That's all we're asking.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, Mr. Norman, let me go right to
the county attorney. What can we do to be able to make it -- help
them get their beer license reinstated?
MR. KLATZKOW: I guess you could find you have no
objection to this and would support this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would we have to bring it back at
another meeting or can we do it right now?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can do it right now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I make a motion that we do so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by myself, Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Discussion? Start with Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So County Attorney, we don't have
to go to the state in regards to this?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think it's up to the fair people to go to the
state on this. They're just looking for your support, is my
understanding on this.
MR. NORMAN: The state -- the state beverage department has a
license. That's what the -- the permanent beer license would be. It's
not from the county; it's from the state.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other question I have,
what venues would you be selling beer at?
MR. NORMAN: Well, when you say venues?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you got the fair.
MR. NORMAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You've got the -- I think you've got
boy scouts that use that park.
MR. NORMAN: Well, when the boy scouts are there, we don't
Page 134
November 27,2007
sell it. We only sell it when the deputy junior league comes out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. 4H club, I would imagine. I
guess we got to be specific on when you're going to sell -- have beer
sales there so we don't run into any problems with the public -- the
way the public would look at this.
MR. NORMAN: Okay. Well, for example, the rodeo out there,
they would sell beer at the rodeo. On -- I forgot which nights -- or how
many nights a month it is, but they have a demolition derby out there.
Don't have a huge crowd, but they have people out there and they
would -- they would sell beer then.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're saying all adult events?
MR. NORMAN: It's totally adult events.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Family events.
MR. NORMAN: Family is -- it's all a family deal. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to make sure that we're
talking about reinstating privileges that you've always had in the past
and not granting any new privileges; is that a correct character --
MR. NORMAN: That's totally correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're not doing anything more
than you have been doing for 27 years?
MR. NORMAN: Not breaking new ground at all. It's merely that
one of the employees of the fair neglected to renew the license, and
now the problem is with Collier County saying it's not zoned as a beer
area, which it was for -- as you said, for 27 years. I would think about
almost -- we're grandfathered in, but that's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion and we
have a second.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
Page 135
November 27,2007
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: The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you very
much.
MR. NORMAN: Thank you, appreciate it.
Item #IOT
A MODIFICATION TO AGREEMENT 07-EC-33-09-2I-OI-486
BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND COLLIER COUNTY,
ACCEPTING AN ADDITIONAL $1,693,940 TOWARDS THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW COUNTY EMERGENCY
OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC) WITHIN THE EMERGENCY
SERVICES CENTER (ESC) AND APPROVE THE BUDGET
AMENDMENT NECESSARY TO RECOGNIZE AND
APPROPRIATE $1,693,940 AS REVENUE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item lOT. It's a
recommendation to approve a modification to agreement
07-EC-33-09-2I-OI-486 between the State of Florida Division of
Emergency Management and Collier County, accepting an additional
I -- $1,693,940 towards the construction of the new county emergency
operations center, EOC, within the emergency services center, and
approve a budget amendment necessary to recognize and appropriate
the $1,693,940 as revenue.
Page 136
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. MUDD: And, Commissioner, that was the second half. 1.5
was before. This is 1.6. It brings us to the $3.2 million that we had
talked about previously.
Item #lOU
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FEE SCHEDULE OF
DEVELOPMENT-RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES
AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, SECTION 2-11 (COMPANION ITEM TO IOV)-
MOTION TO BRING BACK AT THE DECEMBER II, 2007 BCC
MEETING - APPROVED
Item #IOV
Page 137
November 27,2007
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FEE SCHEDULE OF
DEVELOPMENT-RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES
AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, SECTION 2-11 (COMPANION ITEM TO IOU)-
MOTION TO BRING BACK AT THE DECEMBER II, 2007 BCC
MEETING - APPROVED
Next item is IOU, and I believe Mr. Schmitt's going to talk about
lOU and lOV, hopefully simultaneously. And ifhe does and you
approve in that particular way this presentation, then we'll take
separate motions on each one of those particular items.
But it's recommendation to adopt a resolution amending the
Collier County Administrative Code Fee Schedule of
development-related review and processing fees as provided for in the
Code of Laws and Ordinances section 2.11. Again, this is also a
companion to IOV, and Mr. Joe Schmitt, your Community
Development, Environmental Services Administer, will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good afternoon. For the
record, Joe Schmitt.
As Mr. Mudd mentioned, we're here today to talk about the fee
schedule. You have two items, the related items, companion items
IOU and IOV. IOU deals primarily with land use review and
permitting fees, and IOV are building permit fees, review and
permitting fees.
And we separate them because -- mainly because of the length of
the executive summary, but also so we wouldn't confuse one from the
other.
We're here today to seek board approval for a resolution
amending the community development/environmental services fee
schedule covering various development-related review and processing
Page 138
November 27,2007
fees.
For your consideration, basically -- and I'm going to just
highlight -- okay. Go down. As I mentioned, there are two
applications, but basically we're here -- and these are fees that we've
been gathering since 2003. We really haven't come back to you and
amended any of our fee schedule except for updating some of the
building fee information.
But the changes are in your book in a spreadsheet, and we can
cover those in detail. I'll certainly entertain any questions. Forty-four
through 50 of your agenda book highlights by spreadsheet. Of course,
in there is also the strikethrough and underline version of the fee
schedule and the amended fee schedule.
Vehicle for hire, changes I through 4, contract licensing, and I'll
note, those fees hadn't been changed since 1992. One change,
comprehensive planning, many changes involving zoning,
engineering, environmental review and permitting. One fee dealing
with PUD monitoring. There was also a related fee with PUD
monitoring having to do with pulled PUD closeout and then
miscellaneous.
I do want to point out this was vetted before your DSAC,
Development Services Advisory Committee. September 5th, we did
an initial presentation. In October we went back. We talked to them
in detail, and then again in November.
I do note that the items that they disagreed with or we had
discussions on, they were removed from the fee schedule. What you
have in front of you was basically approved by unanimous vote, 10-0,
and deemed to be fair and equitable based on actual costs that we
incur in providing the services that we provide in community
development.
The PUD closeout fee was the only fee that was an issue. That
was as a result of our workshop, and you asked us to put together a
process for PUD closeout. The only reason we put the fee in there --
Page 139
November 27,2007
it's sort of the cart before the horse -- but we put the fee in there
because we don't come back that often about fee schedule changes.
They had basically a 5-5 vote where they failed to endorse. They
subsequently voted 8-2 to remove that fee and bring it back to you as
-- once we finalize the PUD closeout process. I have no problem with
that recommendation if that's the way you want to move forward, but
that's -- basically we did include it in there just so we would identifY a
fee.
And that's pretty much my presentation. I can certainly -- I have
slides if you want to go through anyone of the fees, my staff is here to
answer any questions you have regarding the specificity as to how we
arrived at those fees or what services are provided. We could
certainly answer that.
Mr. Gary Mullee is here and he can address the building permit
fees, if we want to go into that issue next.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have several questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: First of all, the fee resolution
refers to Exhibit B, and in fact, on the fee resolution, on page II in
building permit fees, but I don't see an Exhibit B.
MR. SCHMITT: Those are the ICB building valuation tables
which you approved in a previous resolution, and those are the ones
we're asking -- well, they've already been updated, but we're also
changing -- in the next item -- and Gary's going to talk about that --
we're changing from a valuation criteria to a square footage criteria.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we -- are we repealing the
previous resolution and adopting a new resolution? We are repealing.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And the exhibit -- Exhibit B are the
international building code valuation tables that were passed by you in
Page 140
November 27,2007
your most recent approval of fees -- would be part of this resolution
going forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we're repealing that
previous resolution, so we still need that resolution, don't we? That's
how we did it -- always did it before.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. It would be included. There will be some
permit fees that will be part -- based on building valuation. Those are
primarily remodeling.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the building evaluation (sic)
table changing?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir, it is not. It's not changing at all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the board needs an exhibit of
that before we -- if the board chooses to pass this at a revised fee
resolution? It's not a fee resolution. It's a new fee resolution because
we're repealing the old one.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. You are repealing it and
developing a new resolution, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So do we need that evaluation
table? Does it need to be a part of this resolution?
MR. SCHMITT: It will be inclusive of this. It was just assumed
-- there was no change to it. It's assumed that it was -- you had already
seen that recently, and that was already approved by the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But--
MR. SCHMITT: I understand what you're saying. You want it
included in here. I'd have to bring it back at the next meeting then
because it's not included in this packet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- because the resolution
says we're repealing the previous one, and that Exhibit B was a part of
the previous one.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. SCHMITT: And it also would be part of this one as well.
Page 141
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it doesn't say that in the
resolution. It only says Exhibit A. It doesn't say Exhibit B.
MR. SCHMITT: We're still using the valuation table, yes, yes. I
still have to use the valuation table. Some of my fees are based -- my
building permit fees are based --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It says, whereas, the -- June
27th, 2007 -- 26, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners approved
resolution 2000-160, established a fee schedule and service
performance of the Collier County Community Development
Services; whereas, recognize the board reviews and reflects the actual
change occurring in Collier County; therefore -- oh, let's see. Be it
resolved that the recording of minutes, this -- amended effective date
-- it does supersede by this resolution, so -- should we make a motion
that we -- when we do this, we strike the language out of this?
MR. SCHMITT: The motion would have to include --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exhibit B that we don't have.
MR. SCHMITT: -- Exhibit B, yes. It's the same Exhibit B that
you already had approved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, I have several
other questions. But go ahead if you want to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was just going to suggest,
Commissioner Henning, you're absolutely right. It's an incomplete
document. Why would we want to act on an incomplete document?
We don't even have the Exhibit B here. Let's move it to the next
meeting and have it brought back properly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I have other questions that
maybe we can go through.
In 2003, I believe it was September of 2003, you recommended
that the engineering inspection fees be removed out of fund 113 and
establish a -- an engineering inspection fee by a significant amount of
Page 142
November 27,2007
increase. Are those separated out of fund I13?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. The funds, 113, having to do with
building permit -- building review and permitting, is strictly dealing
with the -- basically vertical construction, horizontal construction, site
plan and plat, plan review, are all fund 131 (sic), and they've been
separated since 2003.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But these -- these are
engineering inspection fees due to site work, and in this particular
case, inspection of single-family residence.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, but they go into I -- they are
reimbursed into 131 (sic) fund. They pay for the services provided by
my engineering review staff mainly doing -- dealing with site plan,
final plan and site approval, basically what we call our 800 series
inspections.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In -- there was two substantial
increases in fees in 2003. One in September, one in March. You
added new ones, you increased some, and it was reported to the board
anywhere from 50 percent to a 1,000 percent increase.
From 2004 to 2006, there has been a substantial amount of requests
for permitting in your department. Where did these fees go?
MR. SCHMITT: They paid for the services provided, paid for
the staff, paid for the operation of the building, pays for everything
that I provide out in that -- in Horseshoe.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What happened in the -- since
we had evaluation of construction of housing and commercial? I
mean, we had an increase of steel, we had an increase in concrete, we
had an increase in fill. That should have reflected upon the permits
because the evaluation was per construction cost. Where do those
funds go?
MR. SCHMITT: I hear your question, but, I mean, basically we
increased staff to provide the services that were provided, and that
staff is now being reduced commensurate with the reduction in
Page 143
November 27,2007
permitting.
And I don't know if that answers your questions. I mean, the fees
pay for the service provided. Is pays -- the preponderance of the fees
that we collect, about 80 to 85 percent of the fees we collect pay for
personnel cost, pays for all the other costs that I'm asked to provide,
support for the County Attorney's Office, support for IT, support as
direct costs for the Board of County Commissioners, all those that --
the funding that I am asked to provide during the budget cycle and
part of the budgeting process, the fees pay for those activities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if it -- ifit was there to
support the cost of service requested --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and your activity is down by
how much?
MR. SCHMITT: Right now -- I can show you. Basically this
was as of the end of October. Well, actually the end of September,
going into the fiscal year. Permitting issued, down 36 percent;
residential, down 52 percent. And you can see the list.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So with that said,
wouldn't it be a more financial business approach to reduce your staff
by this amount?
MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. I have 35 positions frozen right
now that have not been filled, that either through retirement, attrition,
will not be filled, and I'm due to talk to the manager the first week in
December about additional measures that may have to be taken in
order to ensure that I have sufficient monies to pay -- to meet payroll,
or I have to refuse payroll. So those actions are being taken. That was
part of my --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're going to talk to the
county manager about your lack of funds and try to get more money to
MR. SCHMITT: No, no, no, sir. It's the other way around. It's
Page 144
November 27,2007
the -- if I don't have the revenue -- and most of these fees, there's very
few increases in fees here. The increases are primarily in the areas
dealing with the PV AC, dealing with contractor licensing, those areas
where separate -- your separate advisory boards recommended that
those fees be increased.
The rest of the fees, there are -- there are increases, but they're
not -- they're commensurate with the cost of living since 2003 and the
cost that -- the burden that I have to carry since 2003. But the fact of
the matter is, I have to -- if I don't raise the revenue and the revenues
-- not that I'm raising fees, but the permitting activity is what I
schedule and staff according to the permitting activities. If the
permitting activities go down, then I reduce staff accordingly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you ever looked into
privatizing some of your operations?
MR. SCHMITT: We've discussed that many years ago about
privatizing some of the review process, and the board directed that we
not even go down that road as far as plan review, environmental
review, some of the other things.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about your inspections?
MR. SCHMITT: Inspections would cost more money, quite
frankly. I can provide inspections cheaper than a private provider. I
think, hands down, we can -- we're cheaper than a private provider,
but certainly we can look at that. I can certainly look at a -- turning
over all of our inspections to a private provider.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: These funds -- the PV AC
increase for that operation, where are those funds going to go?
MR. SCHMITT: Those are funds needed to pay for the
requirements that this board has passed as far as background checks
and other type of activities associated with private vehicle, private
operators. Those are direct costs that I have to charge for that service,
or I have to pass that off to the general fund.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying these are put
Page 145
November 27,2007
into a separate fund?
MR. SCHMITT: That's -- those go into fund III. They are not
part of the building fees. Those are part of the fee schedule, but those
are reimbursement to the general fund.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about contractor
licensing?
MR. SCHMITT: Contractor licensing goes into building -- fee
131 (sic). They're part of my building permit fees. I'm sorry, 113, and
those are fees that, again, are incurred as part of our cost in doing
business.
As I noted, we have many contractors who come from the east
coast to come over here and go through the licensing process because
we're much cheaper, and there was a $3 transfer fee or $3 reciprocity
fee, which I can't even do a letter today for $3, and we were notifYing
the other counties of licensing.
Mike Ossorio's here from contracting licensing. Mike certainly
can address some of the issues. Your Contractor Licensing Board
unanimously endorsed the increase in the fees for contractor -- for
licensing and contractor licensing. As I noted, they hadn't been
increased since 1992.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, for me it -- the building
industry is slowed down enough, and actually what should happen is,
you should -- we should be reducing fees. And there is ancillary -- a
byproduct of effects to everybody, restaurants, just everybody across
the board.
I can't support an increase. I can support a decrease, even at the
next meeting. I think it's a good business decision to do so. If we had
competition, we probably would be doing that anyways.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Coyle, then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I've made -- already made
my observations. I think we ought to push this off to the next meeting
Page 146
November 27,2007
so we've got a complete document to work with.
I had asked for a tabular comparison of these rates and I got this,
which is virtually worthless. I'd just like to see something that says
driver identification card, $50 is the old fee, and if I look down the
page somewhere, I can find something to match it up, and $75 is the
new fee. I'd just like to have something that tells me that. Just list the
things.
What you've done is list the paragraphs in the ordinance, and
they don't match up. You know, I'm looking up here for driver's
license -- or driver identification fees for the old charge, and I have to
search down this column over here of things to try to find what the
new fee is. You know, that's worthless.
So I'd like to have something that's -- that is acceptable so we can
compare what the old fee was, what the new fee is, make some
reasonable decisions, and have a complete document and a complete
ordinance so that we can make an informed decision. We can't do that
with this --
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, the strikethrough and underline
didn't provide you that either?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I hope that we do bring this
back next meeting. I assumed -- and obviously my assumptions were
wrong. I felt that this was just to clear up some inequities in the
system and it wasn't really anything that was going to be addressed as
far as a whole new ordinance, but obviously I can see where it does
say that.
I do have some concerns in regards to the amount of staff that we
cut, and the reason I say that is, some of your key personnel have a
great knowledge base, and I would sure hate to lose those people. I
think that we need to make sure that we do everything we can to keep
Page 147
November 27,2007
that knowledge base.
Let's face it, this slowdown, recession, whatever you want to call
it, is a temporary thing. It's not going to be long lasting, and I really
believe that to get good people, it's hard to get, and a lot of these
people are probably going to leave on their own because of the fact
they might be able to find jobs out in the private sector once things get
picked up.
So I just wanted to put that out there, especially when have you
growth management issues, Land Development Code, and especially
planners in regards to what it takes to make sure that we do things
right in the county.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. My comments would be, I have
no problem with it coming back with a little more data that we can
take a look at and make comparisons of apples to apples, but one of
my concerns, if we're going to be looking at keeping the fees the way
they are or reducing them, I want to identifY where we're going to take
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- get the money from that would be
able to make up the shortfall. Where is that fund going to come from?
Are we going to no longer offer these services? Are we going to
have to go to ad valorem taxes to be able to make up the shortfall?
Those are the things I have to know.
In other words, I assume that if you're bringing this forward,
these are real numbers you need to be able to sustain your department.
I have no problem bringing it back. But before we go to that
point, we do have one speaker.
Would you go ahead, Ms. Filson, and call the speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Brenda Talbert.
MS. TALBERT: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Brenda Talbert. I'm the executive vice-president of the
Collier Building Industry Association.
Page 148
November 27,2007
In light of the fact you're probably going to table this, I'm going
to probably make some suggestions rather than support this.
First of all, the chart that Joe and his staff supplied to DSAC was
exactly what you probably want. It's what I referred to when I went
back and looked at this the other day. It does, side by side, compares
what it was, what's proposed after DSAC's comments.
The one I had just had my notes on it from the DSAC meeting. I
attended all the DSAC meetings. They did vet it. I can't say that we're
ever excited about fees going up, but we did go through each and
every one of them in detail, and we're willing to support DSAC's
recommendation with the one exception, and that was the fee for the
PUD review. We feel that process needs to be put into place before
you attach a fee to it, because how can you know what the outcome or
the end cost is going to be if you don't have a process attached to it.
You're approving something that you don't know what it's going to
actually be or what the cost is going to be to the county.
Also, I did have a concern about the square foot valuations as
opposed to -- or the fee as opposed to valuation. And my concern was
that it would go to affordability of housing. You go to a valuation
where the more expensive homes are charged a higher fee than a
house that's the same size but it costs less to build it.
For example, the American Dream Home, 140,000 as opposed to
one that's maybe at Mediterra that's the same square footage. But that
-- we did agree with this staff that that would stay revenue neutral, but
I'm not sure if that would equate into a good thing for affordable
housing. So when you bring it back, that would be something we all
need to look at more carefully.
Thank you very much for your time. If you have any questions --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear a motion to bring it back?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I make a motion we bring it
back the next meeting. Hopefully it will be complete.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Second?
Page 149
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala to bring this
back at the next meeting with the requested data to be able to
substantiate the increases.
Mr. Schmitt, do you have anything to add before we vote on it?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. I just, for clarification, the chart that
Brenda talked about is the chart that's in your book, 44 through 50,
and it is a side-by-side comparison of the existing fee and the
proposed fee, and that's the way it was laid out.
In fact, Commissioner Coyle, that's the copy that I believe was
sent to you, but I believe --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And let me tell you what's
side by side here. Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you'll look at the third item on
the left, it says, previous fee schedule section, and it says E, driver
identification card, $50. Do you see anything on the right side that
says driver identification card that is opposite that? No. You have to
go down to the section 4 and you have to find driver identification
card, $75 per driver.
It is not arranged in tabular form. It is a simple process. You list
the fees -- the title of the fees, and then you have a column that says,
present cost, and then you have a column that says proposed cost.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's real simple. I don't understand
why it's --
MR. SCHMITT: I can do that, Commissioner, but it's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- so difficult for people to
understand.
MR. SCHMITT: For clarification, it's the way it's set up is that
the -- the way this was split into different fees.
Page 150
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then it's set up wrong.
MR. SCHMITT: But we will do that. I understand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So I think we've given
sufficient direction on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I hope so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I add to that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, you sure may.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you provide the percentage
of increase --
MR. SCHMITT: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- or percentage of change?
MR. SCHMITT: We'll do that as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And also can you provide us --
this is going into the III fund. This is a code enforcement operation?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Can you give us what
code enforcement's revenues and expenses are for the total?
MR. SCHMITT: For each activity or for the total?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the total.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, all those in
favor of the motion to continue, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And let the record show that vote was
Page 151
November 27, 2007
4-1 with Commissioner Halas being in the opposition.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's items -- just for clarification,
that's items IOU and IOV.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
Item #lOW
RESOLUTION 2007-340: AMENDING THE COUNTY'S
PURCHASING POLICY TO FURTHER MODERNIZE THE
COUNTY'S BUSINESS PRACTICES - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Brings us to lOW, which is a recommendation to
amend the county's purchasing policy to further modernize the
county's business practices.
Mr. Steve Carnell, your Purchasing Department Director, will
present.
MR. CARNELL: Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the
board. This is a staff recommendation to modifY the purchasing
policy to officially recognize the on-line bidding electronic system
that you funded in the previous year budget that we successfully
implemented earlier this April.
A lot of the changes in here are really specifically addressing
recognizing that electronics system for soliciting bids and receiving
bids.
And as I indicated in the executive summary, that the
implementation's been very successful. We've had a nearly 200
percent increase in registered vendors who are pursuing our business
now electronically, and we're able to document the bidding process
electronically pretty thoroughly now. And we've also saved about
$16,000 on an annual basis by reduced labor costs and some other
material and supply cost reductions.
In addition to the electronic bidding aspect of this, we're also
Page 152
November 27,2007
recommending some other business changes to practices that are
intended to clarify the authority of staff to act with regard to
particularly purchases of $50,000 or less, and also to just try to
simplifY some things in terms of how we resolve various issues that
arise regarding -- mostly regarding smaller transactions.
With that, I'll answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions on the part of the
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coyle, 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, 5-0.
MR. CARNELL: Thank you.
Item #lOX
AN AMENDED SUB RECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER
COUNTY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
(CCHDC). THIS AMENDMENT EXTENDS THE TIMELINE FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIRRUS POINTE. THE HOME
Page 153
November 27,2007
GRANT WAS PROVIDED TO THE CCHDC TO ACQUIRE
APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES OF LAND, WHICH WAS
PURCHASED IN DECEMBER, 2005 INCLUDING THE
DEVELOPER'S FEE OF $30,000 FORA TOTAL OF $320,000.
CIRRUS POINTE WILL CONSTRUCT 108 UNITS OF WHICH 32
UNITS WILL BE FOR NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN
COLLIER COUNTY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is lOX, and this used
to be I6D I. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approve and authorize the chairman to sign an
amended subrecipient agreement with Collier County Housing
Development Corporation, CCHDC, this amendment is to extend the
timeline for Cirrus Pointe.
The HOME grant was provided to the CCHDC to acquire
approximately 10 acres of land which was purchased in December of
2005, including the developer's fee of $30,000, for a total of $320,000.
Cirrus Pointe will construct 108 units, of which 32 units will be for
new affordable housing units in Collier County.
This item was asked to be moved at Commissioner Halas's
request.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And maybe I can clear up why I
brought this forward from the consent agenda to the regular agenda.
As you know, we've approved an awful lot of affordable housing, and
none of it is coming forth where people can use it in PUDs, and here's
a good example where we basically gave the developer the money to
buy the land, and yet the 32 affordable housing units aren't there to be
used by the residents.
And so, I just wanted to bring this forward because I know -- I
think there's a couple of other commissioners on this board that are
concerned of all the affordable housing that's been approved and
nothing's been moving forward in the last three, four years.
Page 154
November 27,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's get clarification on that.
Marcy, would you care to comment? I thought we were getting some
built.
MS. KRUMBINE: For the record, Marcy Krumbine, Director of
Housing and Human Services. There are a number of units that have
come on board. We have completed all of Botanical Place, which
were 60 affordable units, and they're all owner occupied, and did 16
units, Bristol Pines, which were also owner occupied, same income
bracket and, of course, all the impact fee deferrals that you're
approving for Habitat.
There were newer ones that have -- that are on your inventory
list. It looks like it's taking about three or four years from the process
of when you first approve them to go through the entire approval
process and going vertical to the point of closing and putting them in
units. That's -- and you did a lot of approvals right around the same
time, which was 2004, 2005.
And so this particular amended contract we brought forward
because the previous contract had expired and we needed to be in
compliance by amending the contract and the timeline. They do have
up to five years through HUD's requirement to complete the project,
which is why we expanded the time line as we did.
And we also have Jim Fields, who is the developer, and Kathy
Patterson from the Housing Development Corporation here in the
audience, and maybe you'd like to hear directly from the developer to
see what he's done thus far, where he's at, and where he's going.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question would be, if it's
normally a five-year time line, wasn't that -- why wouldn't that have
been put into the original contract?
MS. KRUMBINE: Because we always hope for the best.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, obviously it doesn't always
work out that way.
MS. KRUMBINE: That is --
Page 155
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I would rather be more on the
conservative side so that we have an idea that this is moving forward.
I just have some concerns that there was a promise made basically,
because that's what the contract says, and it didn't really come to
fruition, so that's my concern.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Has anybody said anything
about sunsetting this project? It's a PUD, correct?
MS. KRUMBINE: No, nobody's said anything about sunsetting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- the last time -- and it's
been a while since I've been out there -- the sign said 108 luxury
homes. Is that sign still there; do you know?
MS. KRUMBINE: For the record, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that truth in advertising?
MR. FIELDS: May I? For the record, my name is Jim Fields.
I'm the managing partner of Cirrus Pointe.
I think when you -- when -- John R. Wood was the realtor at the
time marketing the program, we put up a sign to make sure that people
knew where Cirrus Pointe was going to be located, that type of thing.
They basically designed and developed the signage for the site, okay.
But, in fact, Cirrus Pointe is going to be a very high-quality
development regardless of -- let's also clarifY. Cirrus Pointe is a
mixed-income community, okay. I know we like to throw terms like
affordable and all these other good things. But in reality, successful
mixed-income developments are -- you cannot differentiate one unit
from the next.
Let's say, for example, I've got Corian countertops throughout,
nine-foot ceilings, eight-foot doors. I mean, it's going to be a lovely
development.
I think, Donna, you said when we met that one time, you wanted
to see something of quality there. And in this case, it's got to be
Page 156
November 27, 2007
durable as well because we've got a situation where I wanted to do
something very, very special. In other words, put up -- this is three
stories over parking with secured storage, secured parking, the
amenity levels, stainless steel appliances, you know, the Corian
countertops, Koehler fixtures. I mean, it's basically taking what would
traditionally be allocated to North Naples and putting it in Bayshore.
And the reason why we're able to do that -- I've been through a
number of things now where we are putting together -- I've got a
half-million-dollar grant, another additional half-million-dollar grant
out of -- with BB&T as my sponsor for the federal home bank. I think
I mentioned that several weeks ago when we were talking --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have other questions, too.
MR. FIELDS: Sure, sure, that's fine. I've got another -- and that
$500,000 grant will basically service 16 of those 32 units, provide
additional down payment assistant for people wanting to purchase
those units.
We applied for another $380,000 grant that will affect probably
10 more of those units, so it will be 26 of those units.
All in all, what we're doing is -- that project is costing me almost
$260,000 a unit to build, okay. We're in the market -- we haven't
formally marketed this thing, because obviously right now with the
market the way it is, we've got a housing crisis going right now, and
hardly anybody's selling anything.
It's requiring me to sell 100 percent of all those units --
traditionally a development sells 50 percent of those units and then
you're released, your bank financing kicks in, and then you go up.
In this case, it costs me $260,000 a unit to build, those 50 percent
units -- 50 percent of median income units are sold at, right now, at --
priced at about 150,000; the 60 percent of median income units are
priced at 175,000. So if it's costing me 260,000 to build, there's a
shortfall. So we're making that up through grants, through additional
resources.
Page 157
November 27,2007
I'm even exploring right now -- we're in discussions with a major
bank in the Midwest. We're talking about creating a hedge fund that
basically we'd use local investment to basically underwrite providing
down payment assistance for the purchase of housing, whether it be
market or affordable.
So we're going -- we are making inroads to make this -- when we
come out of the box in terms of marketing -- I'm working with block
and block (sic) to basically do that -- we're going to have a program
that is going to offer a variety of different opportunities for a lot of
very -- for a lot of different people to come in and buy a high-quality,
high-quality affordable home.
So that, you know, the luxury residences? I guess you'd probably
refer to the market rate ones as luxury, but quite frankly, there's no
difference in the spec between the two. That's the nature of a
successful mixed-income development.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you done?
MR. FIELDS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you saying that the
amenities in each of the units is going to be the same?
MR. FIELDS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Should that be in the
agreement?
MS. KRUMBINE: Again, this agreement is strictly to amend the
timeline. That's all we were doing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You said you're the
managing partner. Who are the other partners?
MR. FIELDS: My wife.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's just the two --
MR. FIELDS: Yeah. I'm not Bonita Bay, I'm not WCI --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't say -- it's just a simple
question, you know.
MR. FIELDS: I know, I know. I'm very sensitive. We're in a--
Page 158
November 27,2007
I would love to see this thing -- I was listening to Commissioner
Halas. I'd love to be breaking ground today, to be quite honest. I'd
love to. And we're committed to doing that. It looks, quite frankly,
more realistically, if we're talking 2008,200 -- you know, things
happen for a reason. I think we're coming into the market probably
about the right time when things are beginning to loosen up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was just going to ask -- I was
talking with the Clerk of Courts, and they noted that this 320,000
actually is in addition to the other developer's fee of 30,000, which
would be a total of 350,000?
MS. KRUMBINE: Yes. And I was going to make that
correction for the record. In the title, it says funding in the amount of
320,000. The -- we actually gave the nonprofit 350-; 320- was to buy
the land, and 30,000 was a prenegotiated administrative fee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks. You didn't mean including,
you meant in addition to?
MS. KRUMBINE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. And the other question I
wanted to ask you, do you think you could possibly clean up the
property a little bit anyway, just mow it up or something?
MR. FIELDS: Oh, yeah. No, we had people coming in pulling
stuff and -- yeah. I know we've got the growth in there. We cut the
exotics, all of that stuff so, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It just looks kind of messy. I
thought maybe, you know, at least get people aware that you're going
to try and clean it up and make it look better.
MR. FIELDS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sometimes just an appearance as
people drive by, because it doesn't really look very good at all, so --
MR. FIELDS: Sure, Donna. No problem.
Page 159
November 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve 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.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And let the record show the vote was
4-1. Commissioner Henning in the opposition. We're going to take a
IO-minute break. When we come back, we're probably going to deal
with county manager's comments and then -- we got a time certain at
-- well, no. We got one at three. We'll be fine.
MR. MUDD: You've got one at three.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then we have got one at four, too,
don't we?
MR. MUDD: Yes, you have one at four too, but the one at three
has got --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll work this all out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Before we break for a break, I just
-- the reason, as I said earlier, I just wanted to make sure that we were
getting value received and that this project was moving on, and I felt
that it needed to be addressed, and obviously Commissioner Fiala had
some issues on this in regards to the property. So that's the reason that
Page 160
November 27,2007
I wanted to bring this forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank 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. Back to you, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: On the last item, on lOX, Mr. Fields came to the
podium and made a statement about the price of a particular unit, and
he mentioned two different prices, but he said they were all the same.
And I'd like him just for the record to correct -- it's one or the other,
and I believe -- and I asked him about it, and he said, no, the first
statement I made was incorrect. And he just wants to clear it up for
the record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 660?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Fields, just so we can get the
record straight.
MR. FIELDS: For the record, Jim Fields, managing partner of
Cirrus Pointe. I made comment -- apparently too much caffeine -- of
$600,000, it's really $260,000 a unit average cost for the 108 units.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Fine. We're just about
ready to go.
I'll tell you what, Mr. Mudd, did you have something under
management -- manager's comments that were going to be very long
or any comments at all?
MR. MUDD: Sir, this comment will probably take a little bit of
a discussion, okay, because I've got to get some direction from you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. Just checking.
Mr. Weigel, did -- well, we've got about a minute. If you had
something, too, that was of any length, we can wait and hold that till --
Page 161
November 27,2007
MR. WEIGEL: I can give you a minute or less.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Just to let you know that the investigations that
you directed relating to Olde Cypress and Pebblebrooke Richland
PUD are expected to be coming back to the board, we think,
December II tho That is the aim with the outside counsel that is
working on it. So just to let you know that was the information.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions from the commission
regarding that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sue just put this down in front of
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, fine. I tell you what, Mr. Mudd,
by the time we introduce everybody, we'll be at three o'clock.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Item #lOA
DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ON ACCEPTING AFTER-THE-FACT
DEVELOPER APPLICATIONS FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION
TO STAFF TO AMEND THE CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ORDINANCE. BOARD DIRECTION ON THIS ITEM WILL
DIRECTLY IMPACT THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON TODA Y'S
AGENDA: lOB, IOC, IOD, IOE, IOF, lOG, IOH, lor, IOJ, lOK, IOL,
10M AND ION - MOTION TO ACCEPT AND HAVE STAFF
WORK ON IMP ACT FEE PROCESS - APPROVED
The next item on your agenda is lOA and is basically to obtain
Page 162
November 27,2007
direction from the Board of County Commissioners to accept
after-the-fact developer applications for deferral of 100 percent of the
Collier County impact fees for owner-occupied affordable housing
units and provide direction to staff to amend the consolidated impact
fee ordinance.
Board direction on this item will directly impact the following
items on today's agenda: lOB, IOC, lOD, lOE, lOF, lOG, lOH, lOI,
IOJ, IOK, IOL, 10M, and ION.
Ms. Marcy Krumbine, your Director for Housing and Human
Services from Public Services Division, will present.
MS. KRUMBINE: Commissioners, in September, I came to you
to talk a little bit about our impact fee deferral program, and I showed
you this slide explaining the different types of deferrals we had
through the impact fee ordinance.
We spoke about what developers were able to do, the
owner-occupied impact fee deferrals, and our rentals. And at that time
you had directed me and the Affordable Housing Commission to go
back and look at the impact fee deferral program, see what kind of
changes need to be made and come back to you.
Well, we have been looking at it, and as you know, I took over in
housing and human services in February and actually have a whole
new staff doing impact fees and the SHIP program.
And through our putting everything together and making sure
that we're doing things to the letter of the law and the ordinance -- and
as the commission has directed -- we find that there have been some
inconsistencies under the area of the developer, the third one down,
paying first and getting the refund after. And I'd like to just take a
moment to explain this to you.
Okay. For the paying first parameters, our ordinance says that
prior to receiving the building permit, the application must include a
name and address of the applicant, up-to-date legal description of
property, income level of owner, and square footage of dwelling unit.
Page 163
November 27,2007
As we began processing some reimbursements for impact fees for
Habitat for Humanity, what we found was that we had a number of
applications that were requesting reimbursements and deferrals for
owner-occupied units that did not put in an application first.
So rather than staff doing anything ourselves, we just felt that it
was beyond our purview of authority and that we needed to come to
you and explain what we found and get direction from the board as to
what -- what you want us to do.
And the three issues that I'm bringing before you is, one, the
noncompliance of the ordinance. The letters following lOA are 13
applications for owner-occupied deferrals that, again, have not
submitted an application previous to paying for the permit. 10 -- I'm
losing all the --
MR. MUDD: O.
MS. KRUMBINE: -- 0, thank you -- are 41 units that we've
already gone through the deferral process; you've already approved
them through your agenda. Now they're asking for refunds on them
and they never had the initial application. And we have at least 21
applications sitting back in our office of the same, so this is why we
need direction on how you want us to proceed.
And one of the things I wanted to bring to your attention is that
when we spoke in September, we spoke about the 50 units per
developer, and I just wanted to bring to your attention that through
kind of circumventing of getting impact fee deferrals, obviously
there's now 50 -- way more than 50 under -- under Habitat for
Humanity. And, again, we're just bringing it to the board's attention
so that you can decide, by policy, how you want to proceed.
And then there are also some fiscal issues that we'd like you to
learn about, and I'm going to turn this over to Amy.
MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Amy
Patterson, Impact Fee Manager from Community Development.
Related to the fiscal issues, obviously we have a tracking issue.
Page 164
November 27,2007
The way that we envision this, if you should choose to continue to
allow these applications to be made at the time of building permit
application, what we would need to do is establish a way to track
those applications.
What that will enable is the impact fee trust fund administrators
to know how many of these potential applications may receive an
impact fee reimbursement so that when the developer comes in and
asks for that reimbursement, they're not looking at a situation where
money's been put into the trust fund and now is being taken out, they
may have spent that money, there's budget considerations.
We do set aside money or -- in the budget process for things,
foreseeable refunds. That would be if a building permit's cancelled.
There's different types of reimbursements that we routinely do. And
we do budget for those, so this would be a situation that we would
need to consider as part of the budget process.
Related to the 3 percent cap. We have been very careful. All the
years that this program's been in place that we've tracked that cap that
we -- when the -- when the deferral agreement is recorded, that is the
time that that money is put against the 3 percent cap, and that would
continue.
So the recording of these deferral agreements would ensure that
the 3 percent cap is never exceeded. And again, as I addressed with
the reimbursements, we need to set up a tracking procedure in order to
make sure that the trust fund administrators are aware of the potential
for reimbursements against those accounts.
MS. KRUMBINE: So Commissioners, we are just looking at
your decision options. You can agree to accept the after-the-fact
developer applications or you can direct us to reject the after-the-fact
developer applications and deny the impact fee deferral applications.
And we'd also like future direction on amending the ordinance.
Do you want 50 only in the developer names, and would you like all
the agreements that come forward to have a qualified owner and
Page 165
November 27,2007
recorded lien agreement in place?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, I see
your light's on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I tried to find the application on
line, and I couldn't find it. Where do they have to go to get an
application?
MS. KRUMBINE: There actually is no application for that --
that portion of the ordinance. There is an application for the
owner-occupied and for the developer.
What the developer does when they want 50 in their name, they
send us a letter that says, you need to do this, this, and this, and they
want these lots to defer. And it would be the same thing, and that's
actually what we directed them to do. We gave them a sample of a
letter saying, just present us with a letter saying that you want to, in
the future, do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Well, if we're going to
go by the ordinance, shouldn't we develop a -- an application for
them?
MS. KRUMBINE: We can do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And maybe that's the
reason for the confusion today.
You know, my perspective, Habitat, you know it's going to be
affordable longer than other organizations. So, I mean, I don't have a
problem with, I guess what's called an after-the-fact application
myself, Marcy, and I think you're trying to do a wonderful job over
there, and I commend you for that, of going by the letter of the law.
So I'm sure we'll get there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The problem from my
standpoint is not approving some deferrals, impact fee deferrals, that
for some reason got dropped through the crack. I mean, I think we can
approve those kinds of things. The problem is, we cannot exceed the
Page 166
November 27,2007
cap for the year in which these approvals should have been applied
for.
And the other problem is that we have a limited amount of funds
that we can allocate to this program, and if we suddenly find that a lot
of money is being used for catch-up for things that weren't caught in
the past, we're not going to have money for the future deferrals of
impact fees for other developers.
So how do we make sure that we do this fairly? I understand the
difficulty in giving us precise guidance on the fiscal impact if you
don't know how many of these are lying out there waiting to pounce
on you, but for us to develop a policy, we need to know what the
fiscal impact is going to be. If we make the decision that we're going
to recognize all of these after-the-fact developer applications, we have
to understand what it does to the cap for the year in which these things
were, in fact, applied and we have to understand what it will do to the
cap for FY-'08; otherwise, we don't know what to do. Do you
understand what I'm saying?
MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey, Public Services
Administrator.
Commissioner, the direction that we've received so far has been
that we have a 3 percent cap, and so even if they come in the
after-the-fact and ask for the deferrals, we will not the exceed the 3
percent cap at all.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MS. RAMSEY: So they take a risk when they do ask for the--
to pay it up front and then ask for a refund because there may not be
money there to pay that. And if it's not in the fiscal year of which that
it's requested, then it's too late and they don't get it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you saying to me that if
someone paid the impact fee in fiscal year 2006 or 2007 and are now
applying for a refund, that we cannot pay them under any
circumstances? We cannot give them the deferral or refund the impact
Page 167
November 27, 2007
fee payment under any circumstance?
MS. RAMSEY: We would -- we would be paying that out of the
2008 funds because that's when the -- requesting of the deferral at that
point, and then there would be no -- if we're out of money, then we're
out of money at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so our only solution then is to
increase the cap --
MS. RAMSEY: Could, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- some way, or we just risk
spending all of our money for deferrals and refund in impact fees now
for one builder and we won't have any left for anybody else; is that a
fair statement?
MS. KRUMBINE: Again, going back to our September meeting,
one of the things that I suggested was that we, perhaps, look at doing,
instead of 100 percent deferrals, we look at 75 percent deferrals or 50
percent deferrals, options, to stretch our dollars longer. Because as
we're going now, we will probably be out of impact -- that 3 percent in
January or February.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. When you say the way
we're going now, does that mean if we take all of these after-the-fact
applications and approve them at their full value, we won't have any
money left for the nine remaining months of fiscal year '08?
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, the short answer is yes, but it's not just
because of the after-the-fact approvals. It's because that -- the impact
fees have increased, and so rather than doing an $8,000 or $10,000
impact fee deferral, we're now doing 19,000 and 20,000 and 26,000,
so the money is being used up faster.
So -- you know, so it's not -- now, the numbers on this, what you
have on the agenda right now is about 215,000, and then we have in
our office another almost 350,000, those 21 applications, and we're
estimating that Habitat for Humanity might have at least 40 or more
out there, which might be 660 or more thousand dollars.
Page 168
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. My count is it's about 1.3,
1.4 million dollars --
MS. KRUMBINE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that's just hanging out there right
now.
MS. KRUMBINE: Yeah. We have a million seven left for our
impact fees.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that will leave you with
$300,000 roughly.
MS. KRUMBINE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not very good for the eight
months remaining by January. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If! may come in right behind you,
Commissioner Coyle. You asked a question about increase it,
possibly, from 3 percent to 5 percent?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't say the number, but I said
that seemed to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, we got to put our
priorities in this world in the proper perspective. Are we trying to do
everything we can to provide for affordable housing, especially for
those people that are 60 percent and below, or -- we really serious
about doing it, or are we going to a point in time when the need is
even greater in that particular market, say that we can no longer
supply it? I, for one, would have no problem with going from 3 to 5
percent. I'm sure our county attorneys could come up with a legal
nexus to get us there.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I've got problems the way
we're set up now. We're starting to treat our impact deferral program
as if it were a tax. Impact fees are not a tax. Impact fees are basically
a user fee that everybody should basically pay the same, and the more
that you take away from that program, the more it starts looking like a
tax and you put the whole thing in jeopardy.
Page 169
November 27,2007
Now, I know times aren't good right now, but if we had an
outside funding source, whether ad valorem taxes or these affordable
housing monies we've been taking in for a trust account, and we utilize
that as some sort of revolving fund so that we didn't take it out of the
impact fees, then you could do whatever you wanted as far as this
program went.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So in other words, you're
saying that the voluntary donations that have been coming in that
we've been holding in a special account, I guess, we have the clerk's
office, might be able to be used to offset some of the --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- shortage?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think it creates like a revolving fund, so
you start taking it out of those monies, they would get paid back over
time and, you know, you'd have a closed system.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I like that. I like that. And as far as
whether the impact fees are recognized and identified at the point of
permitting or CO, I don't think that's the real issue. The real issue is to
make sure that the proper person, the person that's eligible, is the one
that's receiving this benefit.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I commend you for coming up
with that solution to the problem. That would definitely get us there.
Anybody know how much money we got in there at this point?
MR. MUDD: Fifty-six thousand dollars.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How much?
MR. MUDD: Fifty-six thousand dollars.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That doesn't go very far, does it?
MR. MUDD: No, sir, it doesn't. You have a lot of -- you have a
lot of promises out there, but they haven't come in either for the
permits or haven't got the COs, and it's all part of the slowdown that
we've got right now.
Page 170
November 27,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it was a good idea up to that
point.
MR. MUDD: No, it's still-- Commissioner, it's still a good idea,
and it's just -- it's just not the time to get into it, but I think we should
-- in this particular regard, I think we need to do a little bit of legal
work to make sure that we're on solid ground in this particular case
and work out all the kinks so that when those dollars do come into that
trust fund that you can use it appropriately to have that outside source
to help in this particular regard.
I don't think it's a bad idea. Jeff and I have talked about this a
while back. I mean, it makes all the sense in the world. It just -- the
dollars don't exist. We've got IOUs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there a possibility that we might be
able to come up with something whereby we would reimburse at a
later date such entities as Habitat for Humanity? In other words, we
run out of funds -- and they're definitely not going to stop building,
but of course they're not going to be able to build as much. It's going
to seriously hamper their ability to go forward if they have to pay for
it.
But we might be able to, at some point in time, recognize the fact
that we're going to off-write it and do it after the fact when funds
come in? Is that a possibility?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're going to have to work
through the legal aspects of this one, okay? I feel like you're using my
pink slip from my '57 Chevy, okay, and we're moving it around. Ijust
-- we've got some things we've got to make sure we're on solid ground
with, because you're basically saying, will you accept the IOU that we
have for a different developer, okay, in order to pay this off when you
put the lien down on the particular property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well--
MR. MUDD: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- before I turn it over to
Page 171
November 27, 2007
Commissioner Fiala, I'm going to make one statement. I think that if
we're ever going to have the last dollar that we've got, if we get down
to the point where it becomes push or shove, we have to recognize that
portion of the market that's most deserving and most in need.
I mean, the dynamics of affordable housing has changed
dramatically in the past year, a lot of what we've seen in the gap end
of it, what we've seen in the 100 percent end of it. There's market rate
houses out there that meet their needs. We just heard one developer
coming up with, what was it, I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 45.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- 145-, and ifthey got impact fee
deferrals, they'd be like a hundred and -- in the hundred and the teens,
when you get all through with it.
So do we really have to go far out of our way to try to meet the
whole market anymore? Maybe we need to be able to collectively
look at those providers that can hit the 60 percent and below, which
we're still above what they can afford to do. But just some common
sense thoughts that I'd like to share with you.
With that, let's go to Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner
Halas, then back to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With the 60 percent and below,
you're right, they're the ones that are most in need. I would love to
know -- and I know I've been asking for this for a long time -- what
percent of our workforce earns 60 percent and below so we know
what percent -- you know, how much of our workforce is needing this
help. I'm going to get that figure, by the way. I'm working on that
right now.
I wanted to know, Marcy, are any other low-income developers
violating this ordinance?
MS. KRUMBINE: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Before -- now this is -- I'm
going to say before but I'm saying two years, three years -- I know you
Page 172
November 27, 2007
weren't here -- but did we always before have agreements that
required a qualified owner and recorded lien agreement in order to get
their impact fee deferral?
MS. KRUMBINE: This is the original ordinance. Jeff, can you
answer that question? Is the ordinance --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The future direction -- you see that
second one there where it says all agreements; is that what we always
required before?
MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, for the record. Yes, the
Immokalee program required an owner to be matched with the unit in
order for them to record a deferral agreement, and that had to be done
prior to the issuance of the building permit. There were no developer
agreements in that program.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know how we pulled away
from that, but it seemed like that -- it seems like that would be the
most responsible way of doing things. Then we'd know what we have.
And not only that, it would give everybody a fair shot at it, too.
I know MDG is coming up to be building pretty soon, and this -- and
this guy, American Homes. You weren't here, but there was a guy
from American Homes talking about building affordable housing. He
didn't even know he could get an impact fee deferral for his people,
and people like that should be able to also qualifY. It shouldn't just be
taken, you know, in blocks so that nobody else can have any.
So my suggestion would be, that -- that our future direction
should be that all agreements require a qualified owner and a recorded
lien agreement to -- to qualifY for an impact fee deferral. That's my
suggestion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I could support you on that, very
much so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good, thank you. Thank you very
much. And I think that that's all I had at this moment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Halas, then
Page 173
November 27,2007
Commissioner Coyle. We'll come back to you if you had anything
else.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm going to direct this
question to Sam. Sam, how did we get into this situation?
DR. DURSO: For the record, my name is Sam Durso. As you
know, I've been an advocate of affordable housing for 15 years.
Habitat for Humanity is a very fiscally sound organization. We
always do things right by the book. We did do the Immokalee impact
fee deferral program and assign homeowners in advance. We didn't at
the time -- and I actually think that's a good suggestion going forward.
But we followed your county staffs recommendations --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And who gave you --
MR. DURSO: -- on this program.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And who gave you that
recommendation?
MR. DURSO: Originally Denny Baker, Cormac Giblin, and
Lauren Beard, three very competent people, told us that's how we
would do deferrals.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the problem is --
MR. DURSO: Then -- let me finish -- can I finish? Then when
the new affordable housing staff took over, they told us, just keep
doing it the same way.
I'm not sure you realize it, but 48 of these are ones that were
brought before you, you approved them, so you agreed with the
process because you approved them. Jim Coletta signed them, Dwight
Brock signed them, everybody signed them.
The lien has already been recorded on the property. We've
already sold the houses four or five months ago. We just haven't got
our money back, you know.
So I mean, the after-the-fact thing, I think -- I'm not sure what the
legal aspects of it is. I think on some of them we have a legal basis.
There certainly is a moral basis on all of them for us to be paid back
Page 174
November 27,2007
for all of these old ones. And the monies that -- going forward, I think
that's a great idea. I think that will be much more difficult for us to
assign a homeowner in advance, but that's the fairest way to do it, and
we will adjust. You tell us how to do it, we'll do it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There was a particular setup --
system set up in regards to this where you had to have the name and
the address of the applicant before you got the building permit.
MR. DURSO: No, that's not true. That was not true with this
program. With this program --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is in our ordinance though.
MR. DURSO: I see it in the ordinance now. I just looked at it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. DURSO: But your county staff missed that and you folks
missed it. Everybody missed it. We're all part of it, but we're not the
only ones. We missed it, county staff missed it, everybody missed it,
okay.
A couple weeks ago you approved some for Lennar Homes. I'm
not sure they made it either because, guess what, nobody has yet to fill
an application out.
As Commissioner Henning said, there is no application. For the
last month we've been scrambling around trying to find an application.
There is no application. What they've done is just put out a letter and
say, we're going to apply for an impact fee. That's not an application.
So there is no application. The process is wrong.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You mean you didn't have to go to
the -- to Marcy's office and fill out an application for one of these?
There's no application in her office that says the name and address and
MR. DURSO: Yes. But the process has been -- on the 50 that
were in our name, we actually went to Marcy before we pulled the
permit, okay, and we pulled them in our name and they actually did an
impact fee agreement in Habitat's name.
Page 175
November 27, 2007
Then when we found a homeowner for that, they then recorded
an impact fee in the homeowner's name. So there's no problem with
any of those.
But we don't build 50 houses a year. We're trying to build 150
houses a year. We're the only ones that build for 60 percent and
below. We've been the only ones that have done that for years. We
may be the only ones going forward that will do that. So we do do
that.
But to build 150 a year, we need to pull another 100, and one
way to do it, as Commissioner Fiala suggested, is to put a homeowner
to it before we pull the permit, but that wasn't what was required. We
were told, pull the permit. We were told by your staff, pull the permit,
make sure you don't get a CO until you assign a homeowner, and
that's the procedure we've used.
So that's why all these families, the 13 on the agenda today, we
don't have the COs on those houses yet. They're waiting to move in.
The only reason we didn't get the COs -- we were told by staff -- and I
know it went up to multiple layers of staff, and I'm not sure how high
it got -- that all we have to do is assign a homeowner before you pull
the CO. That's all we were told, and that's what we did.
But I mean, you've got 48 that are already recorded, the
agreements are already recorded in your name. So you people
followed the same procedure. It was not the correct procedure. We
agree. There should have been a correct procedure. You tell us what
the correct procedure is, we'll do it. We just take directions from
county staff.
We contract with the county staff from what they've told us. I
don't know if it's a legal contract, but we're doing what we are told by
county staff.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't feel comfortable at all with
this because I think that you should have -- there should have been
rules followed and there shouldn't have been any misdirection from
Page 176
November 27,2007
staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you want to talk to staff about it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Amy -- could we call Amy
Patterson?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MS. PATTERSON: Hi. I'm sorry. I missed the question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, my concern is that Mr. Durso
basically said that staff -- this is the direction that staff had given him,
and I -- then he said it was with Denny Baker and Cormac. What part
did you have to play in this?
MS. PATTERSON: At the time of -- Amy Patterson, for the
record. At the time of the adoption of this program, it was handled
under the housing and finance office or -- it's had several different
names -- under Denny Baker. It was a consolidated housing and
finance office.
We do handle the ordinance. But as far as the administration of
the housing programs, qualifYing of the application, maintenance of
the deferral agreements, all of that, was under Denny and under
Cormac and his staff.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I think what you're telling me,
those two people took it upon themselves to address the policy
however they felt it would fit the -- at the time.
MS. PATTERSON: I don't know that I would say it that way. I
think what we have is an oversight, a technical oversight of the
ordinance. There should have been an application made at the time of
the building permit application which identified these as future
affordable units. That wasn't done for whatever reasons, and I can't
say why; however, now we've found that, and in order for my office to
be able -- we have two separate issues, those that don't have recorded
deferral agreements, which is the 13, and the 41 that do.
In order for those to be processes -- in order for the file to be
complete and accurate, we need that now after-the-fact application.
Page 177
November 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Marcy, can I ask you a
question? In regards to this, when did you find this anomaly?
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, I think what happened was, we started
processing all the refunds once we got caught up. We're very anxious
to do your backlog of -- do Habitat's backlog of all the applications, so
we were processing all of them and trying to move forward, and we
put all the refund kind of -- all the refunds to the side, and then we
started doing them all together in the summer, sent them over to the
impact fee deferral office because they're the ones that actually
process it, and it was towards the end of August, beginning of
September, again, where some of this all started to come to light.
It was -- we're looking at the ordinance, as you directed us to do,
and we're like -- you know, we sat and talked with Amy, we sat and
talked with the county attorney. And so that's when it all started to
come to light. And then we went further. I went to -- we went to our
administrators, we went to the county manager, we said, how would
you like us to handle it? And the direction was, bring it before the
board so you can give us direction on what to do from this point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. County Attorney, we're in a
dilemma here, and I'm hoping that you can give us guidance. It's
pretty explicit in regards to the procedure that needs to be taken for
application of these, and it's before the event takes place, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So how do we get out of this
dilemma?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think there's past and I think there's
future. As far as the past goes, when you come right down to it, when
this program was set up, Habitat for Humanity was pretty much the
only customer of this program. They were the ones who were out
there actually building these homes.
And I don't know if there really was anybody else doing it so that
it really wasn't an issue then. It's become an issue now because we've
Page 178
November 27,2007
got more people now trying to get a slice of an ever-decreasing pie,
quite frankly.
And so if you were to accept the after-the-fact developer
applications, we can put the past to bed. Now it becomes, from a
going-forward basis, I've always been much more comfortable with
just dealing with the actual homebuyer so we knew that it was going
to be an affordable house, we knew that the family had legal residency
and, you know, the whole bit.
And I would like to see the ordinance amended so that we get rid of
this developer agreement system we have here and we simply only
give these deferrals when we have an actual family in place.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I also want to make sure that we
have a level playing field for all of the people out there that come up
with affordable housing, and right now we don't have a level playing
field.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I think if you weren't simply giving
them to the -- at the stage where you had a family that was identified
for the home, you would have your level playing field, although it still
would be first-come first-served basis. And if Habitat's out there,
they're the ones who are first, so be it.
The only way you could spread it out, I suppose, would be
instead of having the money go until it's gone, you just break it down
to one-twelfth so every calendar month you'd only have so many
dollars available.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. If! may chime in about a level
playing field, it will never be a level playing field. No one out there
could ever compete with Hospice -- or not Hospice. My God,
Maryann, forgive me -- with Habitat, for the simple reason they've got
so much volunteer help, so many donations.
So when you get down to a level playing field, it doesn't exist. I
agree with you, everybody should have a shot at it. But as long as
Page 179
November 27,2007
Habitat's got the ability to be able to build a given number of homes,
we need to recognize the limits of their ability. Anyone else that
could come at a level of Habitat, great, let them come in there, then
that would be a level playing field.
My own personal feeling. I didn't mean to disrespect what you
said though.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. We can't solve this problem
today because we don't have all the answers. We particularly can't
solve it for going forward today, but we do have a moral obligation to
refund impact fees. If people who are living in those homes meet the
requirements, they're entitled to this impact fees refunded if they've
already been paid or have them deferred if they haven't been paid.
So I would suggest we do what Jeff Klatzkow has suggested,
treat it in two parts. The first part is, let's clean up the backlog. The
right thing to do is to refund it to the extent the money is available.
And if the fund is depleted by January, or in January, that we use the
time from today until January to have the staff and the County
Attorney's Office research ways and sources of funds that we could
use that would not put us in jeopardy, particularly with the use of
impact fees.
And so I would make a motion that we -- that we recognize our
moral obligation to refund these deferrals to Habitat for Humanity, do
so with whatever we have under the cap at the present time, and then
on a parallel track ask the county manager and his staff, ask the county
attorney staff to begin researching a way to fund this process properly
in the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion if you
include that only owner-occupied affordable housing apply for the
deferrals.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's fine with me, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I mean -- and that way it
Page 180
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Versus what, rental?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no, no, no, I'm sorry. On
this deferral program where you have deferrals of owner-occupied,
that the -- that the owner would apply for the deferral instead of the
developer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, one of the problems though
is that in this case Habitat for Humanity has already paid the impact
fee and they've got -- they've got a person -- a qualified person living
in the home now. There's a lien against that property because we've
granted a deferral, but actually Habitat for Humanity's paid the
deferral fee. They want their money back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So in those cases, we've got to give
them their money back or remove --
MS. KRUMBINE: Or release the lien.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or remove the lien.
MS. KRUMBINE: And that's the 41.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. KRUMBINE: That's item O.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we've got a couple of different
things here, but it's all the same issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But how about put in your
motion don't accept any further developer impact fees. I mean, as far
-- because you have several of them out there, they don't have people
to qualifY but they want to build a unit and then find an owner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I just don't think that's a
good process that we should be getting into.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I agree, and I know what
you're getting at, but the problem is that a builder will sometimes go
ahead and pay that impact fee, as Habitat for Humanity did, so they
Page 181
November 27, 2007
can begin to build, and then when they build it, they've got something
they can make available to a qualified applicant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But here's the problem. You're
going to run out of --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, money.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- funds before that actually is
done. And, you know, I have confidence in Habitat to find the owners
in advance; is that correct?
DR. DURSO: In actuality, you know, we would be very
appreciative to get the old money back and stop it as of right now,
okay. It will be much harder for us to find the homeowners in
advance, but we should be better at it than anybody else.
But I'm planning to pull -- and I hate to tell you this, but I'm
planning to pull 50 permits in December. And guess what, we're
going to pay the impact fees on those 50, and we'll never get that
money back. I don't plan to get that money back. I mean, I'd like you
to come up with a proposal in the future to give us that money back,
but unless you have an application or some way I can do it, I need to
pull those permits.
Now, you know, I probably will get homeowners for some of
them, and the ones I get homeowners for, we will put their names in.
You know what I'm saying? But it is a little more difficult to do it that
way, but I think it's the fairest way. If you want to be the fairest way
to everybody, sure, unless there's a homeowner, you don't get a
deferral.
So that means, get rid of the 50 developers also so that the only
way you have an impact fee deferral is the way the old Immokalee
program worked. The old Immokalee program, we had to actually
have a homeowner before we picked up the permit, and that's the
fairest way to distribute your impact fee money. It's still going to be
harder for all of us to do it that way, but I think that's the fairest way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, just to continue, Mr.
Page 182
November 27,2007
Chairman, I agree with that, but the problem is that there are other
developers here, and so if we're going to start establishing a policy, we
need to take the time to take into consideration all of the people who
are involved in affordable housing development.
And so I'm merely responding to issues that are before us on this
agenda item and I'm saying, I think we have a moral obligation to
refund those impact fees to the extent we can with the funds we have
available and then to ask the county manager's staff and the county
attorney's staff to work on a longer-term solution that takes into
consideration the situation and the interest of all of the people who are
building affordable housing, and that will give us a month or two
months to come up with a longer-range policy that does what
Commissioner Henning would like to do and do what Sam Durso has
suggested, but let's -- let's give this thing a chance to be heard publicly
and get some of the other developers' opinions and see what we can do
about developing an effective program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I still support the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, a second by Commissioner Henning.
And we also have how many speakers?
MS. FILSON: Nine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, you see the way -- the
direction the commission's going, so you may want to designate a
couple of spokespeople.
Sam, you're supposed to sit down now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The chance -- the chance for
approval is inversely proportional to the number of speakers that you
have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So what -- I'm sorry, Sam, did you
have some last-minute thing you need to add?
DR. DURSO: I just want to make sure that the 13 families are
Page 183
November 27,2007
included. So A through 0 is all included. That's the word I've got
from the audience. So if that's the case, I'm waiving. Is everybody
else going to waive along with me? Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we just call out their names,
Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, we have to do that. We'll do
that, but let's first make sure we understand it's A through 0, okay.
Both the motion maker and the second agree.
And now call off the names, and we'll see if anyone wants to talk
us out of it.
MS. FILSON: Monica Martinez.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You just lost it.
MS. FILSON: She'll be followed by Pat Jilk.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay, dear.
MS. MARTINEZ: Hi. For the record, I'm Monica Martinez.
My name is Monica 1. Martinez. I was born and raised here, Naples
Community Hospital, born. I've been here 29 years. Nowhere else.
I work at Lely Elementary School, now going on seven years. I
started out as a general assistant, now I run the front office. Proud to
say, you know.
I was selected to become a Habitat for Humanity owner in April
of 2007. My two children, Nyssa and Marissa, who are 10 and seven
years old, were ecstatic to know that we would have a decent house to
live in. Right now the girls and I share 300 square feet of living space,
a small addition to my landlord's house.
Our unit consists of a tiny living area, one bedroom, and one
bathroom. The girls sleep together in one bed and I sleep on a futon in
the living room. When we shower, we have to take all the clothes out
of the bathroom so I can take a show the girls can. That's the only
closet that we have. For this we pay $550 a month, here in Naples.
I worked my 500 hours for sweat equity. I paid my $1,000 deposit,
and my application of impact fee deferral was submitted to the county
Page 184
November 27,2007
on September 14th of 2007. On October 8, 2007, Habitat for
Humanity was notified that I had been approved and I was eligible for
100 percent deferral of impact fees. This is very important to me,
because if I have to pay the impact fees, I could no longer afford the
house.
Now I understand that something is in the process that has been
changed. I may not qualifY for the impact fee deferral and, therefore,
may not be able to buy the house. I have already given my notice to
my landlord. My children were looking forward to the first Christmas
in their new home. Now I don't have the heart to tell them that we
won't be there. So I ask you, please, carefully consider this decision.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Pat Jilk.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I need to ask a question. Ifwe -- if we
move this forward today, can we get these people in their house by
Christmas?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you'll get -- if the direction is to
accept after-the-fact developer's applications -- and I believe that's
what it is, that's what you did, it's the first bullet, and you told us to
work on the future direction. You've already given us previous
guidance to go back to your Affordable Housing Commission and
work through the ordinance and what it is --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. MUDD: -- there's been some discussion on the dais today,
and we'll take that into account and go back to the Affordable Housing
Commission with your concerns, because I believe what they were
going to tell you in January was, leave the system alone and -- the way
it is, and I'm not too sure that's what this board was talking about
today.
But if it's to accept the after-the-fact developer application, then
you would -- you would approve B, C -- and you would approve the
refund to Habitat for Humanity and at the same time you would be
Page 185
November 27,2007
approving the deferral with the applicant that I'll read into the record
when you -- before you take your vote.
And in this particular case, those deferrals will be there. And
then, Sam, if you had those deferrals and they were -- and they were in
and the agreements were signed, would that lady that just spoke,
would she be able to move into her house before Christmas?
DR. DURSO: I was already promised by your affordable
housing staff they will process the paperwork fast enough that that
person will be in by Christmas. The house is ready.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Pat Jilk?
MS. JILK: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Thank you. Karl Wyss?
DR. DURSO: Don't speak.
MR. WYSS: Nope.
MS. FILSON: David Pash?
MR. P ASH: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Maryann Durso?
MS. DURSO: Waive.
MS. Filson: Doug Rankin?
MR. RANKIN: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Sam Durso?
MR. DURSO: Already spoken.
MS. FILSON: Cormac Giblin? He'll be followed by Bill Klohn.
MR. GIBLIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I did have some
prepared remarks, but in light of the motion, I did want to just -- I am
on your -- for the record, Cormac Giblin. I'm a member of your
Affordable Housing Commission, and we have been assigned the task
by you to review this impact fee ordinance and its procedures.
And I just wanted to bring you up to date that we have been
diligently working through that, and can -- the county manager is
correct, in fact, that at our very last meeting, we formed -- started to
November 27,2007
form some recommendations, and some of our recommendations were
to leave much of the same in place.
The -- some of the reasoning behind that -- and I understand the
direction that's been given is to explore an amendment to the
ordinance to require that someone be matched with a name, a qualified
applicant, at time of application that would be before the time of
building permit issuance.
For an organization like Habitat for Humanity, who has a waiting
list of 100 or 1,000 applicants a year, that may be relatively easy. But
when we start talking about affordable housing providers in the private
sector, like an Ave Maria or Heritage Bay or Waterways
Development, these developers are building multi-unit, multifamily
buildings, of which they would need to have -- if it's an eight-unit
building, they would need to qualifY all eight potential buyers before
they can even pull that permit to pour the slab.
And when you look at multifamily development or planned unit
developments, that's not really the way they work. They usually build
the building and then sell it either during the construction phase or
after -- in some cases after it's already been constructed. So that was
the reason why the initial program allowed the developer to pull 50 --
maximum of 50 permits in their own name without a -- before
identifYing the potential applicant. So I just wanted to raise that issue.
And one of the reasons that the Affordable Housing Commission
voted to leave the program pretty much intact was that, you know, the
problem here is that we have affordable housing providers here who
are building houses faster and more than the county program allows,
and we saw that as a good thing. You know, any time we have the
private sector doing more and faster than the county could ever
imagine, we saw that as a good thing, and we don't want the county to
be a roadblock in the way of the private sector providing affordable
housing. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Bill Klohn.
Page 187
November 27,2007
MR. KLOHN: For the record, my name is Bill Klohn, President
of MDG Capital Corporation.
First of all I want to applaud this commission and staff for their
hard work in the -- recognizing the need and importance of impact fee
deferrals, whether it's under 60 percent or under 50 percent or a gap
person.
As an example, a deputy sheriff that's earning 40-, $50,000, may
be laden with college debt or medical debt. He's just as much in need
of an impact fee deferral as the folks that are under 60-. So all folks
are different.
I agree 100 percent with Cormac so he saved me a few minutes
here. But I want to stress that multifamily is different. More
importantly, as an example, buildings that we build, 21 units, three
stories, those buildings take nine months to build, six to nine months
to build, and a user, they're income might change during that period,
and they may have been qualified in the beginning and not qualified
when the building was done or vice versa. Maybe they wouldn't have
qualified in the building but qualified at the end. And these types of
folks that are occupying these units, they can't wait nine months.
Sam, I think you'd agree, someone that's coming out of an
apartment might say, gosh, I'm ready for my unit in 30 or 60 days, so
you've got to build that inventory ahead and keep moving, and I think
the program where the developer pays the impact fee up front and
receives a credit when he identifies an appropriate person is the way to
go.
And multifamily's much different. We can't identifY 21 people in
a 2 I-unit building ahead of time. And I think there's even criteria that
there's a six-month time period where they'd need to be reevaluated
again from an income limitation.
Thank you very much. Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Fiala.
Page 188
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let Commissioner Fiala go. I'm--
I got -- my question is before we take the vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bill, I wanted to just ask you. We're
talking about fairness here and you're talking about what you're
building and Ave Maria and Lennar Homes and so forth, and you're
talking about building in units.
Maybe not at this time, because this isn't the time to do it, but I
think there needs to be a discussion and maybe a committee of people
who build affordable housing units to discuss how this should be
handled so this it's equitable, so that everybody gets their fair shot at
those impact fees, because you're right, it's not only the lowest of low
income that need it, it's other people as well. And just because they
make $2,000 more than, say, the $2,000 limit, that doesn't mean that
they have any more money.
So I would love to see a committee formed somehow to come up
with a solution that you might recommend as to how we should handle
the impact fee distribution. And maybe you could just talk to Marcy
or something and give input and maybe -- I don't know if that seems
like a good thing to do -- because you guys know the best.
MR. KLOHN: And whether it's Sam or companies like our
company, we can project out just about within five units of how many
units we're going to build that year and all get in a circle and say, how
many do you need, so that we're not being unfair or fighting. And I'd
be happy to serve on that committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for letting me go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's okay. That's what we're
here for is to try to make things -- Commissioner Henning, did you
want to wait till they finish?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, the fairness is,
is first-come first-served. If somebody builds eight unit and they don't
Page 189
November 27,2007
have all applicants, say, they have 70 percent, is that going to stop
them from building it? I would say not.
You know, the bottom line is, you want to get somebody in a
house. And first-come first-served, I think, is a fairest -- the best way
to do it.
So I kind oflike the direction that the board said initially, and it
does need change because you're going to have a lot of commitments
out there but we're going to run out of money, so you've got to do
first-come first-served.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have another speaker?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The vote that we're going to be
addressing here is A through 0, is that correct, or A through--
MR. MUDD: Sir, I would suggest that you give us the direction
on A, tell us what it is. Once I have that, then we'll go to each one
individually, because you're not only doing the refund, but you're also
doing the lien, okay, and then we'll just take votes individually on
each one of those items.
Because what A's asking for is your guidance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: 0 is a little bit different, okay, than B through N,
okay, because in that particular case you have a lien on the property
already. You're not -- you're not approving the lien -- excuse me -- a
deferral. You already have the deferral that's already been filed in the
county records on 0 for 41 properties, and now we're looking for the
refund. What you have in B through N are -- they're asking for the
refund and they're also saying here's -- here's the -- here's the qualified
owner of the property, and we want the deferral to be filed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So County Attorney, you agree, B
through N, we can't roll together?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you could if you wanted to, but I think
Page 190
November 27,2007
Mr. Mudd's absolutely right, you should vote on A first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So our motion is for A
standing alone; is that correct, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You agree, Commissioner Fiala, the
second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show the vote's 4-1;
Commissioner Halas in the opposition.
Item #IOB
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH GARRY JEAN BAPTISTE AND
SYNDY JEAN BAPTISTE (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100%
OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
26, BLOCK II, NAPLES MANOR LAKES AND AUTHORIZES A
REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FEES PAID BY HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY INC ON BUILDING
PERMIT 2007041982 IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,204.83-
APPROVED
Page 191
Item # lOC
November 27,2007
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ARACELI RAMIREZ (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 8, LIBERTY LANDING AND
AUTHORIZES A REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FEES PAID BY
HABIT A T FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY INC ON
BUILDING PERMIT 2007020738 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$12,442.52 - APPROVED
Item #IOD
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ROBERTO MACIEL CHAVEZ
AND GLORIA MACIEL (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100%
OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
15, TRAIL RIDGE AND AUTHORIZES A REIMBURSEMENT
OF THE FEES PAID BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY INC ON BUILDING PERMIT 2006064370 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $13,616.20 - APPROVED
Item #IOE
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH DA VID LICOT AND NANCY
LICOT (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 121, TRAIL
RIDGE AND AUTHORIZES A REIMBURSEMENT OF THE
FEES PAID BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER
COUNTY INC ON BUILDING PERMIT 2007012026 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $19,372.52 - APPROVED
Page 192
November 27,2007
Item #IOF
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JEAN S. JEAN NOEL AND MARIE
1. MONTFORT (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
5, LIBERTY LANDING AND AUTHORIZES A
REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FEES PAID BY HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY INC ON BUILDING
PERMIT 2007020743 IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,442.52-
APPROVED
Item #IOG
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH CLAIRICIA ACHILLE (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 7, LIBERTY LANDING AND
AUTHORIZES A REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FEES PAID BY
HABIT A T FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY INC ON
BUILDING PERMIT 2007020740 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$12,442.52 - APPROVED
Item #lOH
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MONICA MARTINEZ (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 14, TRAIL RIDGE AND
AUTHORIZES A REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FEES PAID BY
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY INC ON
Page 193
November 27,2007
BUILDING PERMIT 2006064365 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$13,616.20 - APPROVED
Item #Ior
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MIGUEL VERA VERA AND
MARIA ELENA VERA (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100%
OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
16, LIBERTY LANDING AND AUTHORIZES A
REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FEES PAID BY HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY INC ON BUILDING
PERMIT 2007020728 IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,442.52-
APPROVED
Item #IOJ
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MARISE OMEUS (OWNER) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 18, TRAIL RIDGE AND AUTHORIZES A
REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FEES PAID BY HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY INC ON BUILDING
PERMIT 2006064384 IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,616.20-
APPROVED
Item #IOK
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH GUERLINE MATHIEU (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 13, LIBERTY LANDING AND
Page 194
November 27,2007
AUTHORIZES A REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FEES PAID BY
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY INC ON
BUILDING PERMIT 2007020732 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$12,442.52 - APPROVED
Item #IOL
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH INEL TANIS AND ALMONISE
TANIS (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 19, BLOCK
14, NAPLES MANOR LAKES AND AUTHORIZES A
REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FEES PAID BY HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY INC ON BUILDING
PERMIT 2007052698 IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,240.68 -
APPROVED
Item #IOM
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH NICOLAS HUERTA LARA AND
JUANA CORTES ALVAREZ (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FORAN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
16, TRAIL RIDGE AND AUTHORIZES A REIMBURSEMENT
OF THE FEES PAID BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY INC ON BUILDING PERMIT 2006064377 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $13,616.20 - APPROVED
Item #ION
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JEAN C. JEAN PIERRE AND
MARIE JOSE JEAN PIERRE (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF
Page 195
November 27,2007
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FORAN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
II, BLOCK 6, NAPLES MANOR LAKES AND AUTHORIZES A
REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FEES PAID BY HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY INC ON BUILDING
PERMIT 2007041987 IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,204.83-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Okay, Commissioner. Then, based on the board's
direction, we'll take lOB through ION, because they're all for a
reimbursement to a particular impact fee that was put down when the
permit was pulled, and then you're also approving on those separate
items the deferral for each qualified owner on the particular item, and
that's lOB through ION.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Henning.
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: Let the record show, 5-0.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Then it -- and I'm just crossing them off.
Page 196
November 27,2007
Item #1 00
DIRECTION RELATED TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF AFTER-
THE-FACT DEVELOPER APPLICATIONS FROM HABITAT
FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INCORPORATED
FOR 41 PROPERTIES AND THE REIMBURSEMENT OF
IMPACT FEES PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING
PERMIT AND EXECUTION OF AN IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL
AGREEMENT - APPROVED (IN THE 2007 CAP)
Brings us to 100, and today we had a correction to this particular
item, and it had originally stated 48 properties, and we put into the
record 41 properties.
Sam, it's okay. We'll figure out where those other seven are at.
And this is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners provide direction related to the acceptance of
after-the-fact developer application for Habitat for Humanity of
Collier County, Incorporated, for 41 properties and the reimbursement
of impact fees paid prior to issuance of building permit and execution
of impact fee deferral agreements.
Now, all the deferral agreements on these 41 properties have
already been approved by the board and they're already on file with
the county records, so that part's done. Now we're looking for
reimbursement for the 41.
Now, I want to make sure that the board understands one thing.
These impact fee deferrals were put on the properties in '07, so they
will not be coming out of your 3 percent cap. This reimbursement
will come out of the 3 percent cap in '07, and you had around
$700,000 left of that cap. You didn't exceed it; you were short of the
cap.
So I just want to make sure that in this particular item on 0, it's
Page 197
November 27,2007
coming out of the '07 cap money, not out of your '08 cap.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
MR. MUDD: That had to be put on the record.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show the vote was 4-1,
with Commissioner Halas being in the opposition.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, that, pretty much, outside
of lOR, completes what we had, and we're now to either -- public
comment, Ms. Filson, on II?
MS. FILSON: I have no public comment.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we've got one more.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Time certain.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Strada Bella.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But that's a four o'clock time certain.
MR. MUDD: Is he here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
Item #IOR
Page 198
November 27,2007
RESOLUTION 2007-341: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF STRADA BELLA (OLDE CYPRESS
PUD). THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Oh. We're ready, that's fine. lOR is -- this item to
be heard four p.m. It's a recommendation to grant final approval of
the roadway, private, and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Strada Bella, which is the Olde Cypress PUD. The roadway and
drainage improvements will be privately maintained. Mr. Stan --
MR. DeANGELIS: Steve DeAngelis.
MR. MUDD: Steve, okay. Stan Chrzanowski.
MR. DeANGELIS: Oh, you're going first?
MR. MUDD: Yes, I think so -- Stan Chrzanowski for -- the
Senior Engineer -- Engineering and Environmental Services
Department, Community Development and Environmental Services
Department, will present. I believe Mr. DeAngelis will have an
opportunity, I promise, to speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice tie.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. Good afternoon,
Commissioners, Stan Chrzanowski. If my voice goes, I've been
nursing this for a couple of weeks now. It will go away eventually; my
voice probably.
What this is, this is the final release on Strada Bella, and the
reason you're seeing it instead of having it come through on consent
agenda is because recent board decisions have made staff decide that
if there are any questions at all, we should not put these on consent
agenda.
And the few questions on this one, I think, had to do with PUD
monitoring, outstanding PUD commitments. Even though they don't
Page 199
November 27,2007
affect this particular project, they are for the entire PUD. And there
was some type of opinion that any bond inside any PUD could be held
for any commitment of the PUD. We're not sure we ever got a firm
direction on that one way or the other.
But if you look at this, this one is fairly straightforward. The
bond was given over to the homeowners association, and the
homeowners association wants the bond released so they can pay the
contractor. It's that simple. I guess Mr. DeAngelis might want to add
a little to that.
MR. DeANGELIS: For the record, my name's Steve DeAngelis,
and I'm the management company for Strada Bella at Olde Cypress.
And to bring you up to speed about what happened there, the
developer disbanded the area, and an investor came in. Investor sold
the lots to a builder, and nobody claims to be a developer.
So long story short, the homeowners association, along with the
investor, worked out a deal that the bond money would be assigned to
the homeowners association, and the builder and a couple other
representatives would work to get through the issues and get the
county to release the bond money.
Well, during that period of time, the builder didn't do what he
was promised, and I ended up as the management company taking it
over and making sure that everything got done.
We brought in vendors from other resources that I have, and they
haven't been paid in over 200 days. We finally finished off the
project. We got the approval from the county. And we thought the
bond money would be released to the homeowners association to pay
the vendors off, but we got looped into the PUD issues. And that's my
story. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's -- you know, the bond was
for building the roads within the -- this particular part of the
community, and I don't -- I don't think that we should try this case. If
Page 200
November 27,2007
you want to try some -- try one on a developer who is owed the bond,
so I'm going to make a motion to release this bond.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
And we have two speakers.
MS. FILSON: Two speakers. Rich Yovanovich. I don't know
how he registered. I don't see him.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Maybe he's out in the hall. Could you
stick your head out there?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I haven't even seen him.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd hate to make the man lose his
opportunity .
Who's the second speaker?
MS. FILSON: Second speaker is Blaine Spivet (sic).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Blaine?
MR. SPIVEY: I'll wait just a minute to see if Rich is going to be
here first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to deny.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No? I guess you're on.
MR. SPIVEY: I'm it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You just saved a lot of money in
attorney fees.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. He can't bill you.
MR. SPIVEY: Can I charge the same fee?
Thank you. My name is Blaine Spivey. I am an employee of
Stock Development. I run their community services division, which
handles their association management throughout their developments.
We've been asked to step into this situation. We were involved
with Mr. DeAngelis and Strada Bella community in assisting them to
come to a resolution with the former developer and agree with his
Page 201
November 27, 2007
assessment, that his bond should not be held up with -- because of
outstanding PUD issues within the entire community. And that's kind
of where we come in.
We're looking -- as county staff indicated, we're looking for some
guidance also on this new rule of whether it's part of the LDC or not
part of the LDC, requiring homeowners to sign off on what the county
has approved, asking that they sign off -- sign a particular letter saying
that they agree with that.
We've had homeowners that didn't sign off because they want to
hold us hostage for other improvements unrelated to the PUD
commitments. We have another homeowner association that is not
comfortable signing it because they don't feel qualified and feel that at
some point in time somebody may come back on them from a liability
perspective.
The other issue is that what if a developer -- an association or a
homeowners group does not sign the letter? There's no provision right
now for us to take the next step. There is no next step.
And then from a legal perspective, we feel that it's not part of our
construction and maintenance agreement that we signed with the
county from the get-go. It's like we ran a lOO-yard dash and now
you're telling us we've got to go another 10 yards.
We feel we're getting burdened with something that we shouldn't
have to deal with at this particular point. Now, if that becomes an
issue with the -- later on and it becomes a permanent part of the LDC,
so be it. We would just like to kind of be held at the standard that we
started out with in this particular situation.
And I think that's about all I have to say about that. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Mr. Yovanovich, last
call.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, he lost his chance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You lost your place in line, but we'll
Page 202
November 27, 2007
let you come back up, now.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Who said I was a good guy? Sorry for
being late. I was stuck in traffic. Discounted rate. Okay.
I don't know what Mr. Spivey just got done saying, but -- I used
your stairs. I'm getting out of shape.
The issue we see is one of a legal nature. The documents that we
signed are all related to subdivision improvements. The documents
specifically say we get our money back when we perform the
subdivision improvements, yet we're not getting our money back. The
county staff is refusing to give the money back.
So what we need is direction to your staff to live up to the legal
documents and not require others to sign off and approve unrelated
improvements or even related improvements because they're not
qualified to sign off on those documents.
Stock Development and many other developers have millions of
dollars tied up in bonds. They'd like to get that money back. What
we've been told from staff -- and I'd sent an email to Mr. Schmitt. I
don't know if it's in your agenda package or not -- outlining some of
the issues we've seen.
And I did hear some of what Blaine said, that we're having
trouble having people sign off on subdivision improvements because
they're not qualified to do that, or they decide that this is an
opportunity to get a little additional out of the developer and see it as
an opportunity to renegotiate.
So we're, quite frankly, finding it difficult to live up with the new
mandate as we've been told from the commission, that until we can get
someone who's unrelated to the developer to sign off on the
subdivision improvements, we cannot have our money back.
And this was really the only opportunity we had, short of a public
hearing or a public petition request, to make this issue known to the
commission. And we hope that the commission will direct staff to no
longer require us to get the signoff from an unrelated resident, live up
Page 203
November 27, 2007
to the documents we're required to sign as part of this subdivision
platting process, release the monies once we meet final inspection,
which not only requires our engineer to say everything's been met, but
your own inspectors to say everything's been met, and at that point let
us deal with whatever issues there may be unrelated to the subdivision
issues through the proper process and not hold our developer monies
for a purpose that really they're not designed to protect, and the
protection is for infrastructure for subdivisions and not PUD
commitments.
And I hope I didn't repeat too much of what Blaine said. But
again, I apologize for being late. But the documents themselves, if you
look closely, tell you what they're for. We've lived up to that and
we're entitled to have the money released.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If! may.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'll answer any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Henning's the
motion maker, and has his light on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Give you an example of
Olde Cypress, Stock community, they have some commitments that
are not fulfilled that, you know, I don't think staff checks whether
those commitments are made or not, and that's the landscaping --
permit of landscaping buffer that's not there. There is a park, 3.2-acre
park that is not there that's on a built-out community that's not on the
plat that probably should be on the plat, then you have jogging trails
that Mr. Spivey and I are trying to work out.
And from what I understand is, the district is not going to allow
them to do it in the preserves. So you have commitments out there and
you can't fulfill it. So how do we -- when you, Rich Y ovanovich,
stands up there and says, Commissioners, I want you to approve this
PUD ordinance and you have commitments in there, how do we keep
those commitments?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, there's a couple of things that come
Page 204
November 27,2007
to mind. First of all, there's an annual PUD monitoring report that
we're required to file. If there's a commitment in that PUD, it should
be on the monitoring report, and your staff gets the monitoring report
every year, and every year we have to answer where we stand on
those commitments. And if we've met the commitment, we say we've
met the commitment on -- and how we've met the commitment. An
example might be a roadway dedication. That's always on a PUD
monitoring report. We say, that's been satisfied.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about a 3.2-acre park? Is
that on Olde Cypress?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know. I don't -- I haven't seen it,
but if there's a commitment in the PUD document, it should be as part
of the PUD monitoring report.
To use subdivision bond monies, which are specifically
referenced in the document to address subdivision improvements, your
staff does review the construction plans to make sure they meet your
code, and they do inspect all of the improvements to make sure
they've been, one, constructed according to the approved plans and,
two, meet county code.
And when that happens, the construction part ends, we get 100
percent of the money back, and 10 percent stays for the one-year
maintenance. At the end of the one-year maintenance, another
inspection is done to verifY that the subdivision-related improvements
are done.
So there is the guarantee. That bond is very specific. If you read
the documents, if you read your form letter of credit, if you read your
form performance bond, or you read your form construction and
maintenance agreement, they all reference the subdivision
improvements, and it says when we've met those requirements for the
public subdivision improvements, we get our money back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And those --
Page 205
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would say a park is a
subdivision improvement, but it's on the plat. It's in the PUD, and I'm
sure it's on the DRI, but it's not in the plat.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not a required level of infrastructure
provided pursuant to your subdivision regulations. And this bond is
provided pursuant to your subdivision regulations.
You're trying to address an issue -- and I don't think there's
anything wrong with trying to address that issue as far as developer
commitments, but you're trying to grab money that's been put aside for
different improvements, and you're clearly violating the language in
the documents that we're required to provide to you and violating the
subdivision regulations.
So the form of -- you have the PUD monitoring report, which is
one mechanism. I think your staff is probably -- I know they've said it
to other clients of mine, that if they don't live up to their commitments,
they're going to withhold issuing building permits if the requirements
aren't met.
There are enforcement mechanisms out there, but one of them is
not going after the subdivision improvement bond. That's not the
mechanism that's provided for in the Land Development Code or
provided for in the documents themselves.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I haven't heard a solution.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My motion still stands.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion. We have a
second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tell me -- would you restate the
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to release the bond.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can you modifY that motion?
We'll -- the item -- the item is basically grant final approval of the
Page 206
November 27,2007
roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat for Strada Bella.
When you do that, we release the bond.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does the second agree?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who's the second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does that include the traffic signal,
too?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That's another
commitment on that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. There's a traffic signal on
here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, there's several
commitments, but it doesn't pertain to this particular bond. I mean --
and like I said, it's not held by the developer. It's held by the residents
of the homeowners association.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I guess what we were also hoping
for is if we can get some guidance as to what is going to be the
county's standard operating procedure when other -- and we have
other plats in this situation where we're ready for final acceptance but
we're told we can't even come to the Board of County Commissioners
unless we have this letter.
What are we supposed to do if we can't get a letter? We never
get our money back? I mean, that's part of the issue that -- I'm sure it's
not part of the motion in this particular item, but it would be -- it
would be nice to have some guidance as to what we do in other similar
situations. Or does every item just -- every subdivision -- could we at
least get on the agenda for all these others?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you're asking me, come up
with a solution of the commitments under the Olde Cypress PUD.
I mean, we had a dialogue, and I didn't -- I didn't see any answer so,
you know, how can I help you out if you're not going to help me out?
Page 207
November 27,2007
MR. SPIVEY: Can I step in for just a minute, please? First of
all, we're not trying to run away from any of our -- as most of you
know, we assumed that development after it had been platted. It had
already been platted, and in that plat there was no allowance made for
a 3.9-acre park anywhere in there.
When we got it, all of the land was platted for a particular use.
Our monitoring reports were filed. We've discussed every year
whether or not they were handled at stafflevel appropriately. It's not
my call to make.
When we turned those in and never got any notice -- we have yet
to get an official notice of a deficiency in any of our commitments.
We realize there are some deficiencies. We aren't running away from
those. We know there's a traffic light out there. We haven't gotten an
invoice for that. We're fully prepared to pay that whenever that does
arrIve.
The same with the park and the hiking trails. We're trying to
work that out. There is just physically no place to put a 3.9-acre park
in there without taking somebody's home, or several homes.
We're -- we need guidance on how to deal with that situation now that
we've gotten to this point, and I think we all have to share in that
responsibility a little bit for getting to that point.
The other issue is that we have other developments in the county.
Lely, for example. Ifwe have to wait until all of the PUD
commitments are completed before we get one neighborhood
performance bond back, we'll be without that money for a very long
period of time.
And if you have any other questions about anything -- you know,
we're not -- if anybody thinks we're trying to run out on these
commitments, they had to have their head in the sand for a while
because we're very much aware of what those issues are, and we're
doing everything we can to deal with them, to include trying to get the
definition of a park.
Page 208
November 27,2007
What can we use as a criteria to try to establish a park in that?
Do we take a driving range away from the golfers and convert that
into a park? Do we take the old aqua range? What do we do? That's
what we're trying to get some guidance on here. We're trying to work
with you on this thing for a variety of reasons.
Steve DeAngelis is -- that whole neighborhood up there did a
wonderful job of making the system work the way it's supposed to
work. When a developer goes belly up and doesn't fulfill its
commitments, they stepped in. We assisted with that, got the bond
assigned to them. They were able to do the work at great effort and
successfully, and then they were held up up until that point, and I
appreciate that action at least. I'm sure they do also.
If you have any other questions, just ask, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Okay. Let's go to
Commissioner Halas and then Commissioner Fiala. I think I got it
right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, as you know,
we've had some problems in the past. We've had the different
homeowner groups that come before us in a workshop, and I think all
of us are concerned that we want to make sure that the commitments
that were put in place are addressed before it's turned over to the
homeowners association.
And I think that all of us are concerned that if we turn this
performance bond over, will this developer come back and address the
commitments that were still out there, such as the traffic light
whenever that needs to be put in?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, the agreement -- agreements that
they are talking about, the construction and maintenance agreements,
they take various forms of either -- either a bond or letter of credit or
an escrow funding.
They were crafted approximately 16 -- 15, 16 years ago and
Page 209
November 27,2007
became exhibits to the Land Development Code, were adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners and for many, many years were
interpreted and applied as a contract specifically referring to the
subdivision improvements, typically water, sewer, road, sidewalk, and
those were the elements for which the bond or the escrow amount was
determined.
There is a value that's put in place. As Mr. Y ovanovich
indicated, 100 percent is put in place, and after that capital
improvements are completed and reviewed by the county staff to
conform with county standards, then that bond or escrow amount or
letter of credit is reduced allowing for 10 percent to remain for one
year during a maintenance period, and after that one year is up, there
is a reexamination of all of that infrastructure, water, sewer, road,
sidewalk, as an example, to determine if, in fact, they are still meeting
county standard.
And if they are meeting county standard, that 10 percent
typically, over many years, the practice has been for the remaining 10
percent, bond or escrow amount or letter of credit amount, to be
released.
Often, but not always, at that time that infrastructure became the
property of Collier County, and, of course, that was the reason why it
was to be built to county standard in the first place, or at least one of
the reasons, was if the county were to take over the roads, take over
the water and sewer, sidewalk, or not -- because in some cases with
gated communities, not all of those things come over to the county,
but the idea was that the value put in place in the contract in the first
place related to the value of that infrastructure and not to every other
element of value within that community that was to be built.
So, again, there's been a practice over many years that the
construction and maintenance agreement relates to that which is
specifically described within the document.
There are other means for the county to assert remedial measures
Page 210
November 27, 2007
when they're a failure of commitment on behalf of developers and
succeeding property owners. And, of course, what we've been
wrestling with a long time here is the county becoming involved to
some degree with the private property rights that come with
homeowner associations and persons that purchase property.
And we have -- and the county has had certainly great concern
and provided assistance to achieve positive results in the completion
of those commitments that are there within the PUD. But I think there
are contractual limitations. And this board -- I should say previous
boards within the LDC had adopted a format that it had a fairly
uniform practice until recent time. And I would suggest that that
practice continue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The practice that we presently have
or the old practice?
MR. WEIGEL: The old practice that the agreement specifically
described and had a value related to the subdivision improvements, the
capital improvements that were there. Weare maintain -- attempting
to maintain a leveraging of the bonds or escrow amounts for elements
that are outside of the value of the original determination of the bond
in the first place. I just think there's a certain logic to that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. That was the question I was
going to ask.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we still have a motion, we
still have a second.
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.
Page 211
November 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Okay.
Mr. Mudd, I believe that completes the agenda.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we go to your report?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We've had a series of requests that we
speak to at least two homeowners associations about the upcoming
property tax amendment, and I -- and one request is for Pelican Bay
and the other one is for Pelican Marsh.
And I will tell you, it's very difficult to figure out how you get
the information out. I mean, if you saw the public announcement, it
was a full page piece in the paper, and it had a one-line sentence that
basically says, reduce taxes, and then it went through a series of things
to try to read, and it was very difficult to make heads or tails out of the
details that were behind it. And some folks out there would like some
clarification to that particular language.
There are some things in the amendment that cause me some
concern. There are promises made to the interior counties that they
would be made whole based on a doubling of the homestead
exemption on the third quadrant, okay. The first quadrant from 0 to
25, you get it now, and the next one you'll get it 50 to 75, and you'll be
taxed between 25 and 50, and that's a doubling of the Save Our
Homes.
Well, where does that money come from in order to make the
Page 212
November 27,2007
interior counties whole? Because most of them are already at the 10
mill cap or close to it. And when you start talking about that kind of
money and property values that aren't that high in those interior
counties, you talk about some serious financial issues within those
counties.
The other -- the other piece that is unanswered is, we know based
on the financial estimates that were passed out prior to this
amendment being voted on in Tallahassee that our school district in
particular is going to have a $5.7 million shortfall on the given year
that it gets implemented.
Well, how does that school system get the monies to make up for
the 5.17 Because they're supposed to come out ofthis whole. And
those are unanswered questions. And if we, staff, go out and talk that
particular issue, I would be just as frank with those homeowner groups
as I am right now with you about the holes in the particular legislation
as they vote on them. And that's about as much as we want to do.
Or does the board not want to involve staff, and would the board
like to designate one of the -- one of the commissioners in order to try
to fulfill, or does the board want us to just stay away from the
particular issue?
I just need some guidance here because I know if I go into
Pelican Bay and give a presentation, I'll get 20 editorials, half of them
will be saying you did a great job and half of them would say you did
a bad job, and they don't agree with whatever the heck we talked
about. And I've been there once before, and it's not pleasant, and I'm
not too sure I want to go there again.
I need to get some board direction on what you want us to do
with these requests.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Henning
first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Abe Skinner is going out to the
community and explaining the constitutional amendments or the
Page 213
November 27,2007
questions on the ballot. That would get you out of the situation, if you
want to defer those to Abe Skinner.
MR. MUDD: Okay. What Leo just told me is Abe's being
invited along as far as a panel is concerned. So I'm just -- I'm just
trying to get some direction, does a board member want to go and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas next and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll be glad to go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what we need to do is find
out what is the largest question and try to answer that, or if there is a
series of questions that are the same type of questions and try to
answer them in regards to what we can best figure out what's been put
on the ballot or what this amendment's all about.
And as you said, it's a whole newspaper article and very fine
print so there's a lot to it. And it's almost, you need to have legal staff
get involved in trying to answer the questions. I think that's where it
really needs to be addressed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One of the things I've learned
over the years is that your whole audience will hear what you have to
say, many of them will hear only parts because their neighbor just
talked to them so they missed part of it. They'll hear out of their own
mindset, so they're going to interpret what you said as they then repeat
it to their neighbor, who then interprets and repeats it again. The story
changes every time it's interpreted.
My suggestion would be -- I think it's good that you go out.
More and more and more people are telling me all the time they don't
understand it and they wish somebody would tell them, but I think we
ought to have some kind of a handout. Just bullets. Not a lot of
writing, bullets, tells you exactly what this, this, and this is for every
audience member to pick up, and you ought to ask them to pass those
Page 214
November 27, 2007
bullets on through their email system so everybody reads the same
thing. They can interpret what they wish, but at least they start from
the same starting point.
And anyplace you go -- and same with Abe Skinner. Anyplace
he goes, hand out bullets so that people can actually read rather than
interpret.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we have to go out and try to
educate the public about what this bill will do. The problem is that
we're only one agency among many.
Abe Skinner is going to discuss the effects upon the assessment
process and the Save Our Homes cap and things of that nature. He's
not going to address the impact on county services and what we can or
cannot do about it.
And the same thing is true of any other elected members of
government when they go out and talk. Nobody is going to tell our
story. And let's face it, we don't have all the answers either, but what
we can certainly do is tell people what we think is going to happen.
We can interpret it to the best of our ability, and then if we don't -- if
we really cannot define the impact on us, we need to tell people that.
We cannot understand how the transfer of funds by the state
government to interior counties will impact our revenue. We have no
way of knowing that. We have no way of knowing what the impact
will be for making the Save Our Homes eligibility transportable.
There's no way to know that, and we have to tell people what the
possible alternatives are. And if we don't do it, they are going to be
more and more confused and less and less capable of making a
decision.
I think bottom line is, how can you vote against transportability
of the homeowners -- or the Save Our Homes thing? I mean, they're
good things that appeal to taxpayers. The point is, they need to
understand the implications of that vote, and unfortunately it is not a
Page 215
November 27, 2007
complete package. It is not comprehensive tax reform. It's, you
know, just a couple bells and whistles for Christmas presents for
voters so they'll vote for appropriate people at the next election.
So it's -- it doesn't solve our problem is the point. And I think
you've got to it tell people that the problem was that there was five
years of wild speculation and out-of-control development that resulted
in huge increases in property values which meant higher taxes and
higher assessments, and there's nothing about this bill that will stop
that.
And until we -- until we get a bill that will deal with that issue,
we will have the same thing occur in three or four or five more years
when this economy begins to turn around. So we're going to just go
through peaks and valleys, peaks and valleys, and people are going to
get hurt every time.
But I think you've got to tell somebody this. We've got to get out
and talk to them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will the sheriffs office be with you
also? Because they're going to have an important story to tell as well.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, from what I understand, they're -- I
can't tell you on this particular one. There's a panelist group that's
supposed to be going in this forum, and this one's the Pelican Bay
Property Owners Association I'm talking about specifically. I can get
with Mr. Trecker, the president of the property owners association, to
find out exactly who he's inviting to be on this panel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I would suggest if you have
any input at all, you invite the sheriffs office along because it's
definitely going to affect them as well as the fire service.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fire department.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And so I think -- because you
can speak for EMS, but these others must be included because people
are very concerned about their safety and their welfare. So anyway,
that would be my suggestion also.
Page 216
November 27,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's a good suggestion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But do you need a little more
direction than that?
MR. MUDD: I just want to make sure you're okay if I'm going
to basically talk about the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- absolutely. And go to anybody
who invites you and take the whole entourage with you, accept every
offer, if you wife will let you, to go out that much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If I have a flac jacket, I'll go with
you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you have what?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They're going -- they're going to
talk about beach access there, too.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Let's hear from the
commissioners. Let's start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do have something. I'll go last.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I have just one item. You
will recall that some time ago we decided that we wanted to get the
input from the Planning Commission on the Cocohatchee settlement,
the agreement that we were negotiating at that point in time.
There continues to be a lot of confusion about what it is we want
to do, and I'm not at all sure that it's been properly implemented yet.
It has been postponed at least once.
And I'd like for us to give some guidance so that we can get this
Page 217
November 27,2007
moving along, otherwise, it's just going to linger for a lot longer period
of time.
Basically this is my concern. When I read the settlement, it is
difficult for me to determine what the potential impact of the
settlement will be on our Land Development Code and its
interpretations and whether or not we're going to get back into a
situation like Cap d'Antibes.
So I would like to get the Planning Commission to take a look at
this so they can tell us what those provisions in that agreement are
likely to do, both negative and positive.
I am not interested in the Planning Commission telling me
whether I should have a settlement or not. That's not the Planning
Commission's job. Settlement issues are legal issues and they're issues
to be determined by the Board of County Commissioners.
I don't mind if they venture an opinion on it, but that's not my
reason for getting it to them. My reason for getting it to them is for
them to look at what we are saying in that settlement agreement and
advising us whether or not there are disadvantages to the county
contained within that agreement, and I'd just like to understand that.
So what I'd like to do is to get us to say to the Planning
Commission, look, schedule a workshop so that you can all get
together and talk and share your ideas about this in public, and then
after that's happened, have the chairman come here to our meeting
where this will be discussed to provide a summary of the consensus of
the members of the Planning Commission and that way we get the
benefit of their input. They can also talk with any of us and all of us
independently, and I would encourage them to do that.
So basically that's where I was thinking we would go with this.
And I'd just -- I wanted to bring it up because it just seems to be
lingering and going on and on and on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I like what you're saying.
There's only thing that troubles me a little bit is that we do put a lot on
Page 218
November 27,2007
the Planning Commission. I would -- I would think that their written
opinion would be more acceptable than having to have another person
leave work to be able to come in and explain it to us. They might
willingly do it, but I'm afraid we're getting to the point we're going to
overburden a voluntary group.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand. As long as we
get their input, whether it's in writing or in presentation. I just want --
they're good at their job. They know what they're doing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they do it more thoroughly
than we do it. And I don't want to miss the opportunity to let them
review this agreement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Fellow commissioners, I agree
with it. How do you feel?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, yeah, I just -- I was going to
chime in there; that's why I've got my light on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good. We'll come -- Commissioner
Henning, I don't know if you came before Commissioner Halas or not,
but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was next.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Since this is in my district
and, of course, all of us on this dais, we spent probably the better part
of two and a half hours discussing negotiations to move this thing
forward -- at the time we assumed that we had a logical agreement, all
the parties that were sitting here and going through the motions of
discussing what needed to be done and directed. It was voted on,
everybody concurred with it.
Then, of course, it came back, and I believe at that point in time
is when Commissioner Coyle made the suggestion that this be moved
down to the Planning Commission, and obviously we've run into a
stalemate here.
Page 219
November 27, 2007
I believe this needs to go to the Planning Commission to be
vented (sic). And as Commissioner Coyle brought up, is to make sure
that the LDC, as it was written at the time this was approved, along
with the GMP, that everything fits accordingly. I think that's where
you're going with this thing.
So I feel that -- and I think that the Planning Commission is
looking forward to looking at this issue. I know I've had a number of
calls from different people on the Planning Commission that would
like very much to look at this whole PUD.
So I hope that we've got support here so that this moves forward,
and I believe there's already a date established and I believe it's been
advertised or about to be advertised, December the 12th.
MR. MUDD: December 13th. It's like the 12th or 13th of
December.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. So I would hope that we can
move in that direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, our staff could
evaluate it on seeing if there's any deviations from the Land
Development Code and the impacts of it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want to really discuss that
here and now? I would -- if I can respond?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll just be quite honest with you. I
don't trust the staffs evaluation on these. It was staff that made a
decision on Cap D'Antibes.
Now, I'm not trying to be personally insulting, but I want -- I
want somebody who looks at the larger issues. Time and time again
we have -- we have had people come before us and tell us that there's a
certain interpretation that should be applied of our codes.
And just recently I saw one where there was a difference of
Page 220
November 27,2007
opinion between the staff and the County Attorney's Office, and the
county attorney was good enough to point out, no, that's wrong. Now,
we all do that. You know, none of us has a perfect interpretation of
these codes.
And so I don't want to sound like I'm being critical of staff
because I think the comprehensive planning staff does a pretty darn
good job and they've been -- they've been carrying a heavy load. The
problem is, I want the broadest possible interpretation or broadest
possible review. That's all I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you accept staffs
recommendations also in addition --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Of course.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I understand where you're
coming from, and I'm glad you clarified, it's not demeaning to the staff
because some of us up here don't like that, but I understand where
you're coming from now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, and that's why I didn't want
to discuss it because I didn't know how to say that without having it
interpreted as being critical of staff, and that's not my intent.
I just think that a lot of times we all focus on things that are
specific to our job assignment and we don't necessarily look at it from
a broader perspective. I do that. I think lots of other people do that,
too.
And so I just want the Planning Commission to have a shot at
this. They are very capable. They delve into these issues in details. I
want to know if there's any inconsistent language, anything confusing
about this that's likely to be misinterpreted. I am right now somewhat
confused about how the agreement and the PUD document correlate
and whether or not there are any possible ways to interpret changes
there. And I need to get that sorted out, and I'd like to have the
Planning Commission's help.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you've got enough support to
Page 221
November 27,2007
have that happen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd understands. There's no
questions? We're clear enough?
Anything else, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. That's it for me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did we resolve that? I mean, is it
okay?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's exactly where we need to
go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that I think that
this morning's discussion with the South Florida Water Management
raise a lot of flags, and I'm looking forward to working or listening to
them at the workshop, and I think that will give us the ability to make
sure that those people understand that we have done due diligence in
this county as far as trying to provide the adequate water resources for
the citizens here. So I look forward to it, and I hope that we can
hopefully change their mindset. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. I got one item. On
November the 8th I received a letter from the North Naples Fire
Control and Rescue District. I think this is going to be dear to
everyone's heart.
Dear elected officials -- and they sent this letter not only to
myself, but to Mayor Barnett, to City of Marco Island, to the chairs of
Immokalee Fire Control, Big Corkscrew, East Naples, and also the
Fire Service Steering Committee.
This letters serves to identify the commitment of the Board of
Fire Commissioners of the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue
District to pursue the study of possible merger of independent and
Page 222
November 27,2007
dependent fire districts, city fire departments, county fire and
emergency services in Collier County, into a single, independent fire
district.
All interested parties have spent a great deal of time discussing
and debating the consequences of merger of emergency services
within the county.
It is our belief that the time has come to specifically identify the
serious commitment to pursue a study of this issue possibly by an
external consultant specializing in mergers of fire districts and
departments.
We can all agree that the primary goal of each provision of
emergency services within the county has been to deliver the best
service in the most economic and efficient manner to our taxpayers.
With the recent and proposed property tax reform legislation and
the accompanied revenue reductions for local government, it would
seem timely to actively investigate the feasibility of establishing joint
servIces.
This letter represents the desire of this district board of fire
commissioners to proceed with the efforts to pursue the study of joint
servIces.
We respectfully request written verification from any other entity
desiring to participate so we can actively proceed with those entities'
similar commitments.
And this is signed by Chris Lombardo, the chairman of the North
Naples Fire Department and a number of his committees and a number
of commissioners on that. And he sent copies to all the fire chiefs in
the area.
Well, I think the interest has sufficiently picked up now where
there's public acceptance and a lot in the way of the fire departments.
A lot to be said for what the unions are doing now.
I don't know if you're aware or not, but the unions recently have
consolidated their efforts countywide, and they're moving towards the
Page 223
November 27,2007
same direction. There's even talk taking place now about possibly
combining Corkscrew and Golden Gate under one common chief.
All this is going forward, and I know in the past this commission
has been very supportive of the idea of the consolidation. And I'd like
to bring this up for discussion. And Commissioner Halas, your light's
on first.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I had a meeting with Chief
Brown of North Naples Fire District, and he's very much in agreement
that we need to start moving forward. And I told him that we needed
to at least get one or two other districts to talk to one another, and
hopefully that something can move in that direction, and then at that
point in time we can probably discuss the combining of the fire
departments. Ifwe can get two or three of them to go together, then
we can probably make a discussion in regards to the EMS portion of
it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think Commissioner Halas
is absolutely correct. We're not going to get them all to participate.
There are some that just will not do it unless they are dragged into it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And they'll cave.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- but there are some that
recognize that it's the right thing to do for them, and I think we need to
encourage them to begin working together in whatever way we
possibly can.
We must be careful, however, that EMS is not fragmented and
the quality of service that we provide is not compromised. And so
what I'm saying to you fairly plainly is, we cannot let this process
become a subterfuge for taking over EMS unless it's going to be done
for the entire county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we need to impress upon the
fire departments that we wholeheartedly support their willingness to
Page 224
November 27,2007
work together and consolidate, and under those circumstances, I
believe we've communicated in the past that we would be happy to
take EMS and transfer it to a central fire EMS organization. But until
we get that combination, it is dangerous for us to start piecemealing it
from the standpoint of EMS.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can we respond to this letter?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think you should. I would
encourage it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's the first thing. I got one
other issue I want to bring up about this. But is there enough support
for directing me to write a letter?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll send a draft of the letter to
the commissioners before it goes out to make sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Copy everybody on there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You better believe it. Commissioner
Henning, then --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are you going to say in the
letter?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to say that we agree with
the principle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I will draft it in such a way that it
will be non -- what do you want to call it?
MR. WEIGEL: Binding.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Non-binding to the point where any
commissioner should feel offended by it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Just make it evasive,
okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want to write it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Another thing that I'd like to
Page 225
November 27,2007
talk to you about is --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got the county manger.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When I'm through, Mr. Mudd. I'll be
right to you.
MR. MUDD: It will be the same item on fire?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, the same item on fire.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. There's a certain old guard out
there that, for reasons unbeknownst to me -- of course, I think I
understand what it may be. It's the old business of protecting the
feasten -- that are going to do everything possible, as they have done
in the past, to try to waylay this along the way, to plant the poison
pills as they go forward to make sure there are guarantees that this will
not happen and that they'll be able to maintain their own ineffective
feasten out there in perpetuity.
Now, there's something that we can do, and I'd like the
commissioners to think about it and to discuss it, and that would be to
put it on the ballot as a referendum -- it would be a straw poll -- to be
able to get the sentiments of the community out there who, I believe,
would be very supportive for this particular thing to take place, a
countywide referendum to be able to give direction to all the fire
commissioners, the county commission, to all entities out there that
should be influenced by that, what they should do. Please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: May I?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's a very good idea. I think
strategically what it will do is it will flush out those people. We know
who they are, but it will flush them out for the public so the public
will know who they are because they will feel inclined to encourage
the public to vote against the referendum against the consolidation.
I, like you, believe there's enough recognition now that having so
many independent fire districts in Collier County is not in the best
Page 226
November 27,2007
interest of our taxpayers. It is too costly. It is not the right way to
provide for important health, safety issues. Can you imagine if we
had six or seven sheriffs departments located in Collier County? You
know, that doesn't make sense, does it? And so it doesn't make sense
for the fire departments.
So, yes -- we can't make them do any of this. They have to do it
themselves, but we can certainly help them and encourage them, and I
think your idea is a good one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there a possibly a referendum could
be placed on the January 29th ballot or has that opportunity gone by?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It might be too late.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Too late?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know. It might not be too late. We
can certainly contact the Supervisor of Elections right away and get
that right back to you.
MR. MUDD: Deadline -- I think the deadline's December 4th.
And see, my problem with it is, you want to look at the language to
vote on it --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: -- before it gets there. But I believe the 4th is the
deadline.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I know we're close.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Could I suggest an
alternative? You need some time to plan for this, and you don't really
have much time over the holidays to do this and get people organized.
If you put it on the November election, you've got plenty of time and
you could get it organized, and those fire departments that want to
support it would have an ample opportunity to generate support for it
and we could help them.
And so I would suggest, let's not rush too quickly, although it
would be good to know, but let's maybe plan it for November of next
Page 227
November 27,2007
year as a referendum question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's good. That's good.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's a smart way of doing
it. A smarter way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good. Any other input on this?
Mr. Mudd, I didn't mean to cut you short, but I didn't want to lose my
train of thought.
MR. MUDD: No, no. The referendum piece, we'll start working
on the language with the County Attorney's Office, and then we'll
come back as time progresses here in January, February, get you to
tell us, yes, it's the language that you -- that you feel comfortable with.
It might take you a couple of meetings to get through that, so
then that will give us enough time to make sure we make the cutoff in
July and to get that on.
The North Naples response. Part of that request was, would you
like to participate in an outside consultant coming in to study a unified
fire and EMS. And in that particular regard, I think that's within the
intent of this board. And I believe in that reply you should talk about,
yes, we would be -- we would be a player in a unified fire/EMS, one
department, for the county in that study. And I believe -- and that way
you won't be evasive but you'd be right on -- right on target with them,
and I think that's --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And it's still not committing anyone
until we find out exactly what the plans are for a consultant, what the
ramifications would be and, of course, how the costs would be shared.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I love the idea of a private
consultant that's not going to come up with anyone particular point of
view, but just be able to deal with the facts. Just the facts, man.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else, Commissioner Coyle?
I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning, I missed over him.
Page 228
November 27,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Commissioner Henning
wanted to say something earlier.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I think it's a good idea to
-- I mean, obviously you're talking to people that I haven't had the
privilege to have information. But don't you think it would be a better
idea for certain members of the fire department family to petition the
board to put the question on the ballot? And, you know, it's -- I just
think it's a cleaner process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Myself? I don't. I think the best idea
is to start working towards that direction and receive their input. I'd
rather them not carry it through the door.
Once again, there's a certain element within the fire community,
they'll try to plant a poison pill to guarantee that the thing will fail.
That's my concern. I've seen this -- I've seen this happen many times
before when they were looking at consolidation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Obviously that -- you've talked
to somebody that says, we're in favor of consolidation. Wouldn't you
think it would be better to talk to whoever you talked to and say, why
don't you come to the board and ask them to put a question on the
ballot, should we have a consolidated EMS and fire department in
Collier County? That's all I'm saying, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, of course, we want everybody's
feedback we can get, Commissioner Henning, anyone that wants to
come forward and be able to offer us whatever advice they can. This
commission's always taken everybody's opinion into consideration
before it made a final decision to go with it.
And once again, too, what we're talking about -- we may not
even need it. As we start to move forward with it, we may find this
thing takes up enough momentum on its own where it might not even
need a straw ballot, that the answer will be evident. We don't know. I
mean, having all the way to November gives us plenty of time for a lot
of things to flesh out.
Page 229
November 27,2007
I'm sorry. Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'll be very brief. First, the
consultant issue is a really good one. There are a number of fairly
recent consolidations of this type that have occurred in other states,
and they seem to be working out very well. And I believe some
consultants were involved in those. So it's a good idea we get some
expertise involved in the process.
But secondly, I'd encourage you to reconsider Commissioner
Henning's suggestion. Fire departments, sometimes justifiably, get
irritated if they think that we as county commissioners are trying to
make decisions for them. And we don't have authority over them.
And it would probably be a good thing if they were to initiate a
referendum process, and if they were to come before us and petition
for this, and we could assist them in that respect, and that way it
wouldn't appear like we're just trying to jam something down their
throats whether they like it or not.
You always have that option of putting it on the ballot anyway if
you don't get the appropriate petition, but it might be a good gesture to
ask them to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, suppose the talks that are going
forward now don't materialize in the referendum, if they don't carry
the option forward to be able to come before us and offer something?
I mean, you have several different entities out there that have different
OpInIOns.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If North Naples came through the
door, they'd probably be very supportive of very exact language. If
another entity came through the door that is not supportive of it, they
would probably have other language.
Now, we have a fire steering committee that's been meeting for
how many years?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, I think you
Page 230
November 27,2007
missed my point -- is have the fire commissioners or chiefs just sign a
petition like they do everything, or a public comment; Commissioners,
would you get the sense of the community? Are we on the right
direction? Should we consider consolidation? That's what I mean.
I'm not talking about a signature ballot, and for the perception
Commissioner Coyle just said.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I understand where you're
coming from, but what I'm asking is the populous, do they want it.
That's the people. I mean, the fire commissioners mean a lot to me, so
do my fellow commissioners that serve on the school board. But
when it gets down to it, I think we need to serve the public's best
interest. And what's the public's interest on this? Do we want
something that's manipulated to the point that it has little or no
meaning? That was my concern.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- then we'll come back to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In keeping with what you were just
saying, Commissioner Coyle, first of all, the public wants the best fire
department and EMS they can ever have. They don't care how it's
formed, they don't care who heads it. They just want it to be the best.
They want to know that they're safe. They want to know that they're
rescued or that they're cared for. That's what they care about.
So it gets back down to what you began to say and what
Commissioner Henning's been saying, what we haven't done is we
haven't asked the fire commissioners what they want to do. And I
don't see any problem with inviting all of the fire commissioners here
one day, to just sit here and talk with them. What do you want to do?
And they can just tell us right out. Yes, we do. No, we don't.
If they say they want to continue to talk, maybe that isn't the
thing, but we can all say what we have to say. Instead of -- instead of
Page 23 1
November 27,2007
us and them, let's make it a "we" decision, and I don't see why we
can't do that pretty soon. We could set aside an hour or a half an hour
right here at a commission meeting or even a separate day to meet
with them and ask them what their feelings are.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, why don't we go ahead and
place it on the agenda sometime after the first of the year.
I'm sorry, what's -- suggestions, Leo?
MR. OCHS: No. Mr. Chairman, I'm just reiterating, the content
of this letter seems to be asking that very question to each one of the
individual elected fire district boards. They're asking, are you
interested in pursuing an evaluation of a consolidated fire and EMS
operation. If so, please respond back and let us know what level of
interest, if any, you have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Halas, and
then --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Coyle was first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But here -- the problem is that
Commissioner Coletta has suggested we put something out for the
public to comment on, okay? Now, that is a good tool for those fire
commissioners and fire chiefs who want to combine because it gets a
sense of what the public wants.
We have already gotten a sense of what the fire departments
want. Like you said, we've asked them to study this, and it's been over
a year that they've been studying it, and we don't see any movement at
all. We see just the opposite, that there are people who are making --
coming up with reasons why you cannot do this.
So there are some fire districts that want to consolidate. So if
those fire districts were to come to us and say, let's find out what the
people want to do, let's put it on a referendum, then I would be
inclined to support that, and that achieves Commissioner Coletta's
objective because it's getting input from the people. It is also
Page 232
November 27,2007
supporting what Commissioner Henning thinks we should do, and that
is get the fire commissioners involved in supporting that referendum
process.
We don't have to have all of them agree on it. I don't think you
would get all of them to agree on it. But if some of them will agree
that they will support putting it on a referendum to get the public's
input, that is better than if we just unilaterally decide to do it. But -- I
think we'd get more support from the fire departments by doing it that
way.
So to seems to me that talking with some of the fire
commissioners or the fire districts that want to pursue consolidation
and asking them if they would like to petition us to put this on a
referendum would be the right thing to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. In that context it makes a lot
of sense, but let me make a couple suggestions here. One, that I write
the letter that you're going to deal with. Let's let everything lie for --
at least maybe till February, reason being is, they may get, on their
own accord, get this going and get to that point that all this discussion
and additional meetings here in this chamber would be of no need.
And at that point in time, if they come to an impasse that everything is
dead stop, let's go ahead and do a meeting at that point in time. We
bring everybody here and just try to get them on the same page to go
forward.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That sounds good to me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just want to kind of
reiterate that there's a lot of inequities in the systems that we have at
the present time with all the different fire commissions, and I think
that Chief Brown realizes that.
And I think that these talks may move faster than we realize, so I
think we should just let things develop and see where it goes.
I know that, for instance, Corkscrew doesn't have the equipment
Page 233
November 27,2007
or -- that North Naples has, and so they realize that and I think they
realize that this is very beneficial for the taxpayers. So just -- that's
about all I'll say about it, but that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- there is some movement afoot,
and I think it's in the positive direction. I think it's going to move fairly
smooth or fairly quick, and if we can get two to three of these to fall in
line, I think the dominos will all fall into place.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So I think we're all in
agreement that I write the letter and that we wait and see.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's what needs to be
done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine.
Anything else that has to come before this commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Guess what? We're done, adjourned.
****Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
PRIORITIZING THE WATERSHEDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANS - TO BE
COMPLETED BY JANUARY 2008
Item #16A2
THE RELEASE AND SA TISF ACTIONS OF LIEN FOR
Page 234
November 27,2007
PAYMENTS RECEIVED FOR THE FOLLOWING CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS - RECORDING COST OF $10.00
PER RELEASE, TOTALING $790.00
Item # 16A3
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR FALLING WATERS NORTH
PRESERVE - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
RELEASE AND SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN - RECORDING
COST OF $10.00 PER RELEASE, TOTALING $500.00
Item # 16A5
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE
- W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITY FOR VERONAWALK, PHASE 2A - W/RELEASE OF
ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR VERONA WALK, PHASE 2B - W /RELEASE OF
Page 235
November 27,2007
ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
CONVEYANCE FOR VERONA WALK, PHASE 2C -
W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR HERITAGE BAY, PHASE 1B - W/RELEASE
OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A10
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR FOREST PARK, PHASE 4 - W /RELEASE OF
ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A11
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR NORTH NAPLES RESEARCH AND
TECHNOLOGY PARK - W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A12
FINAL PLAT OF AVE MARIA UNIT 6, BELLERA WALK PHASE
1B, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
Page 236
November 27,2007
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY-
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1
RESOLUTION 2007-328: A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (LAP)
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT A TION, ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY, FOR
RECEIPT OF FEDERAL DOLLARS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$134,000 FOR LANDSCAPING ENHANCEMENTS FOR SR 93/ I-
75 AT GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
Item #16B2
A FUNDING SOURCE CHANGE FOR PAST AND FUTURE
EXPENDITURES IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,000 FOR FLEET
MAINTENANCE EXPENSES AND THE COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT FACILITY REPAIR AND RENOVATION EXPENSES
Item #16B3
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERING FUNDS INTO A
NEW STORMW A TER PROJECT KNOWN AS THE GOLDEN
GATE CITY STORMW A TER OUTFALL REPLACEMENTS,
PROJECT NUMBER 510291, IN THE AMOUNT OF $66,500 - TO
REPLACE 145 UNDERGROUND STORM SEWER PIPE
SYSTEMS THAT HAVE EXCEEDED THEIR LIFE SPAN
Item # 16B4
AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF A
DRAINAGE, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
Page 237
November 27,2007
FROM THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER
COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING THE
CURRENT DRAINAGE PATTERN IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP
49S, RANGE 26E - AT THE FUTURE SITE OF ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL "G" LOCATED EAST OF GOLDEN GATE HIGH
SCHOOL OFF OF MAGNOLIA POND DRIVE
Item #16B5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO MOVE UNSPENT LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE FEES THAT ROLLED FROM FISCAL YEAR
2007 INTO FISCAL YEAR 2008 TO THE BRIDGE
REP AIRlREHABILIT A TION PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF
$621,721.61 - FOR IMPROVEMENTS/REPAIRS NEEDED TO 5
BRIDGES LOCATED WITHIN THE COUNTY
Item #16C1
BID NUMBER 07 -4192, THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION
OF ONE 200 KW GENERATOR FOR THE GOODLAND
REPUMP STATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,999 TO POWER
PRO TECH SERVICES AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT
WITHIN THE GOODLAND WATER DISTRICT FUND 441 - THE
CURRENT GENERATOR IS OUTDATED AND REPAIRS HAVE
BECOME COSTLY
Item # 16C2
RESOLUTION 2007-329: THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE
Page 238
November 27,2007
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE
SA TISF ACTION OF LIEN
Item #16C3
BID NUMBER 07-4181, FOR LANDSCAPING OF PUBLIC
UTILITIES DIVISION FACILITIES IN THE ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $400,000 TO FLORIDA LAND MAINTENANCE,
AMERA-TECH INCORPORATED, AND GROUND ZERO
LANDSCAPING - TO PERFORM UNSCHEDULED SITE
REPAIRS AFTER DISRUPTION OF SERVICE THROUGH THE
MAIN OR SERVICE BREAKS
Item # 16C4
FIVE WORK ORDERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2007
MASTER PLANS FOR A NOT TO EXCEED TOTAL OF
$781,940. UNDER CONTRACT #05-3785, FIXED TERM
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL UTILITIES ENGINEERING
SERVICES, WITH GREELEY & HANSEN LLC FOUR WORK
ORDERS FOR THE 2007 WATER, WASTEWATER,
IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER AND WATER SUPPLY
MASTER PLANS FOR A TOTAL OF $678,940. UNDER
CONTRACT #07-4071, FIXED TERM CONTRACT FOR
FINANCIAL CONSULTING SERVICES, WITH PUBLIC
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. ONE WORK
ORDER FOR THE 2007 WATER, WASTEWATER AND
IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER RATE AND IMPACT FEE
STUDIES FOR $103,000. PROJECTS NUMBERS 70070, 75007,
73066,72516,75005 AND 75018 COVER THESE WORK
ORDERS - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 239
November 27,2007
Item #16D1 - Moved to Item #10X
Item #16D2
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF THE ATTACHED OLDER
AMERICANS ACT GRANT APPLICATION TO THE AREA
AGENCY ON AGING PROVIDING NUTRITION
PROGRAMMING, IN-HOME SUPPORT SERVICES AND CASE
MANAGEMENT FOR ELDERLY RESIDENTS IN COLLIER
COUNTY - GRANT TO RUN FROM JANUARY 1,2007
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2010
Item #16D3
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND BENDERS ON DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY ALLOWING THE USAGE OF THE GOLDEN GATE
KMART PLAZA FOR PARKING DURING SNOWFEST - HELD
ON DECEMBER 1, 2007, AT THE GOLDEN GATE
COMMINUTY PARK
Item #16El
REPORT AND RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS
COMPENSA TION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED
AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004-15 FOR THE FOURTH
QUARTER OF FY 07 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16Fl
Page 240
November 27,2007
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES
TO LEASE OFFICE SPACE FOR USE BY THE COLLIER
COUNTY FILM COMMISSION OFFICE - THE LEASE
AGREEMENT IS FOR A THREE YEAR TERM, BEGINNING ON
JANUARY L 2008
Item #16F2
AWARD OF RFP #07-4175, COLLIER COUNTY TOURISM
DEPARTMENT PUBLIC RELATIONS ASSISTANCE, AND
CORRESPONDING TOURISM AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND BCF OF FLORIDA, INC. IN THE
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $140,000 - TO EMPHASIS
PROMOTIONAL PROGRAMS IN KEY FEEDER MARKETS,
LIKE NEW YORK AND CHICAGO
Item #16G 1
CRA RESOLUTION 2007-330: A RESOLUTION TERMINATING
A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CRA AND SONA GALLERY AND ECHO, LLC DUE TO
APPLICANTS FAILURE TO MEET TERMS OF THE
AGREEMENT
Item #16G2
UPDATE ON A PROPOSED PUBLIC REFERENDUM
ALLOWING THE CRA TO INCUR DEBT AND DELAYING THE
DESIRED REFERENDUM UNTIL NOVEMBER 4, 2008 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 241
November 27,2007
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
A TTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE COLLIER CITIZEN OF THE YEAR
EVENT ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15 AT THE NAPLES
ELKS LODGE; $35.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item # 16H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED AS A "CELEBRITY
SERVER" AT THE FARM CITY BBQ ON NOVEMBER 21,2007.
$18 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET - HELD AT AVE MARIA
Item # 16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDING THE LEADERSHIP
COLLIER 20TH ANNUAL PLATINUM HOLIDAY PARTY ON
DECEMBER 6,2007. $45 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETT A'S TRAVEL BUDGET - TO BE HELD AT THE
NAPLES HILTON
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
Page 242
November 27,2007
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDING GREATER NAPLES
BETTER GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE HOLIDAY SOCIAL ON
DECEMBER 18,2007. $10 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETT A'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT VERGINA ON
FIFTH AVENUE
Item # 16I1
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 243
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
November 27, 2007
FOR BOARD ACTION:
A. Districts:
1. North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District: Annual Local Government
Financial Report FY 05-06; Districts Audit for the FY End September 30,
2006; District Map; Registered Office and a Registered Agent Letter;
Meeting Schedule 2008; Public Facilities Report.
2. East Naples Fire Control & Rescue District: Minutes of September 27,
2007.
3. Department of Communi tv Affairs: Artesia Naples Community
Development District, Established by Collier County Ordinance No. 2006-
33
B. Minutes:
1. Pelican Bav Services Division MSTBU: Agenda of November 7,2007;
Minutes of September 5,2007
a) Budget Committee: Agenda of October 23,2007; Minutes of May
22,2007
b) Clam Bay Committee: Minutes of August 15, 2007.
2. Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of August 23, 2007; Minutes of
September 27, 2007
3. Affordable Housing Commission: Minutes of April, 12,2007; Minutes of
May 10, 2007; Minutes of June 14,2007; Minutes of July 12, 2007;
Minutes of August 12,2007; Minutes of September 13, 2007.
a) Sub-Committee: Minutes of August 29,2007.
4. Floodplain Management Planning Committee: Minutes of November 15,
2006; Minutes of December 4,2006; Minutes of January 5, 2007; Minutes
of February 5, 2007; Minutes of March 5, 2007; Minutes of March 19,
2007; Minutes of April 9, 2007; Minutes of May 7, 2007; Minutes of May
21,2007; Minutes of June 4,2007; Minutes of June 18,2007; Minutes of
July 9, 2007; Minutes of July 30,2007; Minutes of August 6, 2007
Minutes of August 13,2007. .
H:Data/Format
H:Data/Format
a) Special Information Gathering Meeting: Minutes of January 22,
2007; Minutes of January 24, 2007; Minutes of January 29, 2007;
Minutes of February 5, 2007; Minutes of February 5, 2007 (2nd
meeting); Minutes of February 12,2007; Minutes of February 27,
2007; Minutes of March 5, 2007; Minutes of March 12,2007;
Minutes of March 19,2007; Minutes of March 22, 2007; Minutes
of March 26, 2007.
5. Citizen Corps Advisory Committee: Minutes and Agenda of September
19,2007; Minutes and Agenda of August 15,2007; Minutes of July 18,
2007; Minutes of June 20, 2007; Minutes of May 16,2007; Minutes of
March 21, 2007; Minutes of February 21, 2007; Minutes of January 17,
2007.
6. Public Vehicle Advisory Committee: Minutes of October 1, 2007
7. Librarv Advisory Board: Agenda of October 23,2007; Minutes of
September 26,2007.
8. Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes and Agenda of September 27,
2007.
9. Environmental Advisorv Council: Agenda of November 7,2007; Minutes
of October 3, 2007
10. Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council: Minutes of October 11,
2007.
II. Black Affairs Advisorv Board: Minutes of October 23,2007; Minutes of
January 22, 2007; Minutes of February 26, 2007; Minutes of March 26,
2007; Minutes of September 24,2007.
12. Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue Advisory Board: Minutes of October 4,2007
13. Collier County Government Productivity Committee: Agenda of June 20,
2007; Minutes of June 20, 2007; Agenda of May 15, 2007; Minutes of
May 15,2007; Agenda of March 21, 2007; Minutes of March 21, 2007;
Agenda of April 18, 2007; Minutes of April 18, 2007.
a) CDES Budget Review: Agenda for June 15,2007; Minutes of
June 15,2007; Minutes of June 1, 2007
b) Efficiency and Effectiveness: Minutes of April 18, 2007
c) Transportation Construction: Minutes of March 1,2007; Minutes
of March 15,2007, Minutes of March 29, 2007
d) Value Engineering Review Of The Collier County Emergencv
Services Center: Minutes of May 24,2007
14. Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda of November 15, 2007;
Minutes of October 4,2007; Minutes of September 20,2007; Minutes of
September 6, 2007.
15. Tourist Development Council Meeting: Minutes of September 24,2007;
Minutes of June 25, 2007; Minutes of May 29, 2007; Minutes of April 23,
2007; Minutes of March 26, 2007; Minutes of February 26, 2007; Minutes
of January 16, 2007.
16. Collier County Airport Authority: Annual Financial Report for FY 06-07.
C. Other:
1. Fire Review Task Force: Minutes of October 8, 2007; Minutes of
September 28,2007; Minutes of August 28, 2007; Agenda of October 25,
2007.
2. Collier County Special Magistrate: Minutes of September 7,2007;
Minutes of September 21,2007.
3. Citv of Naples/Annexation of Collier Park of Commerce: Urban Services
Report October 17, 2006.
4. State of Florida Department of Health: Activities and expenditures of the
Collier County Health Department for the period of October 2006 through
September 2007.
5. GUY Carlton, Tax Collector: Financial Report for 2005-2006; Combined
Statement of Position Form DBF-AA-402; Fund Group Form DBF-AA-
403.
H:Data/Format
November 27,2007
Item # 1611
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 3, 2007
THROUGH NOVEMBER 9, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 10, 2007
THROUGH NOVEMBER 16, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16Kl
ARE-CONVEYANCE OF UNUSED PORTIONS OF CERTAIN
DEDICATED RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN IMMOKALEE'S
NEWMARKET SUBDIVISION - LOCATED ON CHARLOTTE
AND BROW ARD STREETS
Item # 16K2
RESOLUTION 2007-331: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SINGLE F AMIL Y HOUSING REVENUE
BONDS TO BE USED TO FINANCE A QUALIFYING SINGLE
F AMIL Y PROJECT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE
HOUSING
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2007-332: PE-2007-AR-12164, KEITH BASIK,
LARRY BASIK, JEFF BASIK OF NAPLES BIG CYPRESS
MARKET PLACE, REPRESENTED BY PATRICK WHITE,
Page 244
November 27,2007
ESQUIRE, OF PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS AND ARTHUR,
LLP, A PARKING EXEMPTION FOR AN IRREGULARLY
SHAPED PARCEL OF JUST LESS THAN TEN ACRES TO
ALLOW OVER FLOW PARKING FACILITIES OF
APPROXIMATEL Y 372 TOTAL ADDITIONAL PARKING
SPACES IN EXCESS OF MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING FOR
NAPLES BIG CYPRESS MARKET PLACE. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 220 BASIK DRIVE, AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF US 41 AND TRINITY PLACE,
SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2007-333: PUDEX-2007-AR-12177 (NG)
HAMMOCK WOODS, LLC, REPRESENTED BY DAVID R.
UNDERHILL, JR., OF BANKS ENGINEERING, AND RICHARD
D. YOV ANOVICH, ESQUIRE, OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN,
AND JOHNSON, P.A., A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION FOR THE
SIERRA MEADOWS PUD FROM DECEMBER 14,2007 TO
DECEMBER 14, 2009 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION
10.02.13.D.5(A). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 90.8
ACRES AND IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
THE INTERSECTION OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD
(CR 864) AND COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951), IN SECTION
22, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17C
ORDINANACE 2007-74: AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE
SECURITY OF CERTAIN CONVENIENCE STORE BUSINESSES
Page 245
November 27,2007
TO PROTECT THE PHYSICAL SECURITY OF CONVENIENCE
BUSINESS RETAIL EMPLOYEES AND INDIVIDUALS WHO
PATRONIZE SUCH BUSINESSES
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:02 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECI~~ER ITS CONTROL
JIM COLETTA, Chairman
A TT~S.T;(c
...'.... .,.. ("r
DWIGH'tE"BROCK, CLERK
~\~~ ~:S~c
< .!.',I.'.,' , ',.>'
. ALt.:.o'5t t!S to Cna'ruA "
. ., ~,~gll~ture 00 1-
These minutes apRr~ by the Board on \ L <)i DB , as
presented ~ . -- or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INe., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 246