BCC Minutes 12/11-12/2007 R
December 11-12,2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida,
December 11-12, 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
Derek Johnssen, Office of the Clerk of Court
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
0\.",\//11,
f'fl~~
f" ( . "-',,,
)1 ,,\
AGENDA
December 11, 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
December 11, 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 A V AILABLE 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. November 5, 2007 - BCel AUlR Meeting
C. November 7,2007 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Stephen
Cunningham
D. November 9, 2007 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Mark
Pelletier
E. November 13, 2007 - BCC Regular Meeting
F. November 19,2007 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Gerald
Lagace
G. November 19,2007 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Scott
Watson
Page 2
December 11, 2007
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) Noemi Fraguela, EMS
B. Advisory Committee Service Awards
5 Year Recipients
1) James Elson - Collier County eitizens Corps
2) Deborah Horvath - eollier County Citizens Corps
3) Walter Jaskiewicz - eollier County Citizens Corps
4) Michael Murphy - Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council
5) Rob Potteiger - Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation for Ron Pennington Day to be recieved by Councilman John
Sorey and Coastal Advisory Committee member Murray Hendel.
B. Proclamation for Bill Neal, "Mayor of Bayshore" Week to be accepted by
Bill Neal.
C. Proclamation acknowledging Lavigne Kirkpatrick and Dr. Leonard Ferenz
for their efforts to strengthen the moral and ethical fiber of our Community.
To be accepted by Lavigne Kirkpatrick and Dr. Leonard Ferenz.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation by Janet Watermeier, Vice Chair of the Florida Transportation
Commission regarding State Road Funding. (Commissioner Coletta's
request)
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Page 3
December 11, 2007
A. Public petition request by Debbe Faunce to discuss inappropriate business
practices by a Collier County Licensed Contractor.
B. Public petition request by Vivian Jimenez to discuss eminent domain issues
relative to property owners on Oil Well Road.
C. Public petition request by Ron McSwiney to discuss the Youth Haven
Campus Expansion Project.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item has been continued indefinitelv. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by eommission
members. This item continued from the November 13,2007 BCC Meeting.
PUDA-2007-AR-11283 (NG) Wing South, Inc., represented by Heidi
Williams, AlCP ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., requesting an
amendment of the ShadowWood Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Ordinance No. 82-49 to increase the number of single family dwelling units
from II units to a maximum of 16 units by increasing the Single Family
Residential (Tract B) from 3.7 acres to 5.68 acres and reducing the acreage
ofthe Private Air Park district (Tract C) from 37.8 acres to 35.82 acres. The
subject property is located along the north side of Rattlesnake-Hammock
Road, approximately one mile west of Collier Boulevard (CR 951),
northeast of the intersection of Rattlesnake- Hammock Road and Skyway
Drive, in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.
B. This item continued from the November 27. 2007 BCC Meetine:. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided bv Commission members. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-I0648:
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
Page 4
December 11, 2007
Development District (epUD) 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, CoIlier County, Florida.
C. CPSS-2007-1: Petition requesting a small scale amendment to the Future
Land Use Map Series ofthe Growth Management Plan, to show an increase
in acreage of 9.95 acres for Activity Center number 13. The subject
properties, containing 9.95 acres, is located at the southwest corner of
Airport Pulling Road and J & C Boulevard, in Section 11, Township 49
South, Range 25 East, eollier County, Florida.
D. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of
eounty Commissioners consider adopting an Ordinance amending Chapter
74 of the CoIlier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, which is the CoIlier
County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, establishing an impact fee
deferral program for approved participants in the Community Workforce
Housing Innovation Pilot Program (CWHIP) set forth in Section 420.5095
of the Florida Statutes. (This is a companion to Items 10M and l2C).
E. Recommendation to approve a eompliance Agreement between the
Department of Community Affairs and eollier eounty, including
Petitioners-in-Intervention, setting forth proposed Remedial Amendments to
the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan,
Ordinance 89-05, as amended.
F. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDEX-2007-AR-
11485 (NG) Bryan W. Paul Family Limited Partnership, represented by D.
Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., is requesting a
two-year extension for the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD from November 16,
2007 to November 16,2009 in accordance with LDC Section
1O.02.13.D.5(a). The subject property consists of616+1- acres and is located
on the north and south sides of Oil Well Road (CR-858) approximately I
mile east of Immokalee Road (CR-846) in Sections 13, 14 and 24, Township
48 South, Range 27 East, and Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 28
East, Collier County, Florida. (This is a companion to Item 101).
Page 5
December 11, 2007
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Historicall Archaeological Preservation
Board.
B. Appointment of members to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Collier County Planning Commission.
D. Appointment of member to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
E. The Annual Performance Appraisal of the County Attorney.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation that the Board approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
a Right of Way Agreement for Underground Conversions with the Florida
Power & Light Company pertaining to the conversion of certain overhead
electric distribution facilities located within the Vanderbilt Beach Municipal
Service Taxing Unit (the MSTU) to Underground distribution and to
approve payment to Florida Power & Light eompany in the amount of
$56,712.00 in order to obtain Engineering Estimate for project. (Diane
Flagg, ATM Director)
B. This item continued from the November 27, 2007 BCC Meetine:.
Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier eounty
Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development-related review and
processing fees as provided for in The Code of Laws and Ordinances,
Section 2-11 (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development&
Environmental Services Division)
C. Recommendation to award Contract 08-5008 - Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project (LASIP) Royal Wood Lake Interconnect to Mitchell &
Stark Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $1 ,697,387 (Stormwater
Management Department Project #5110 I). (Jerry Kurtz, Principal Project
Manager and Gene Calvert, Director)
Page 6
December 11, 2007
D. To provide the Board of County Commissioners with the status of efforts to
resolve mineral rights issue, provide additional information update and to
make recommendation regarding the Starnes Agreement for Purchase in the
Conservation Collier Program. (Alex Sulecki, Senior Environmental
Specialist)
E. Recommendation to approve the purchase of Group Insurance excess
coverage and vendor services for calendar year 2008 in the amount of
$4,453,417. (Jeff Walker, Director, Risk Management)
F. Recommendation to award Bid No. 07-4107 Sidewalk Replacement and
Installation of Roadway Lighting on Davis Boulevard (SR 84) between US
41 (Tamiami Trail) and Airport-Pulling Road to Quality Enterprises USA,
Inc. in the amount of$997,213.49. To also approve a transfer of $200,000
from Collier County eommunity Redevelopment Agency (eRA) and a
budget amendment to move the balance of funding needed, plus a
contingency for utility conflicts of $50,000.00, from project 601721 to
601761, for a total funding amount of$I,047,213.49. (This is a companion
item to 14A, which must be approved prior to consideration of this agenda
item). (Bob Tipton, Traffic Operations Director)
G. Recommendation to award and approve a contract for RFP-07-4l3l Design
Services for Gordon River Greenway Park in the amount of $ 1,240,041.00
to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and approve the necessary budget
amendment. (Amanda Townsend, Public Services; Margaret Bishop,
TransportationlStormwater Management; Gene Calvert,
TransportationlStormwater Management)
H. Recommendation to approve the Collier eounty Floodplain Management
Plan 2008 for inclusion as Section 7 of the Collier County Hazard Mitigation
Plan. (Robert Wiley, P.E.,C.F.M., Principal Project Manager, Engineering
and Environment Services Department, CDES Division)
I. Recommendation to approve a Developers eontribution Agreement (DCA)
between Pulte Home eorporation and The Bryan W. Paul Family Limited
Partnership (The Developers) and Collier County to grant a permanent non-
exclusive drainage easement and provide water quality treatment and
attenuation for stormwater run off for the future expansion of Oil Well Road.
(This is a companion to Item 8F) (Nick Casalanguida,
TransportationlPlanning Director)
Page 7
December 11, 2007
J. Recommendation to Deny Approval of a $452,984 Clerk Invoice for
Services Provided to the Board of County eommissioners during the Month
of October 2007. (Mike Smykowski, Director, Office of Management and
Budget)
K. Recommendation that the Board not proceed with the closing contemplated
pursuant to the Purchase Agreement for 2.5 acres of improved property,
approved by the Board on October 9, 2007, which is required for road right-
of-way for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project. Project No. 60168
(fiscal impact: Funds in the amount of $420,000.00 plus $10,000.00 in costs
not expended at this time.) (Jay Ahmad, Transportation/ECM Director and
Kevin Hendricks, ROW Acquisition Manager)
L. Recommendation to approve the FY 2007-08 agreement between Collier
County Board of eommissioners and the David Lawrence Mental Health
Center, Inc. in the amount of $1,10 1,120 and authorize the Chairman to sign.
(MarIa Ramsey, Administrator, Public Services)
M. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and
authorizes its Chairman to sign, a Resolution amending the State Housing
Initiative Partnership (SHIP) Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) for
Fiscal Years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, to allow SHIP Purchase
Assistance when funds are allocated to a development that has been awarded
funds under the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program
(eWHIP). (This is a companion to Item 8D and Item 12C). (MarIa Ramsey,
Administrator, Public Services)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Investigative Report of Outside
Counsel Lawrence A. Farese, Esq. of the firm Robins, Kaplan, Miller &
Ciresi L.L.P., to the Board of County Commissioners Regarding Richland
PUD (Pebblebrook) I Olde Cypress PUD.
B. Recommendation, pursuant to Collier County Resolution No. 95-632, that
the Board of County Commissioners authorize the office of the County
Attorney and the Risk Management Department to retain outside counsel to
Page 8
December 11, 2007
represent individual county employees sued James and Sherry Marshall v.
Collier eounty, Jess Letourneau and Michelle Arnold, Case No. 07-4455-
CA, in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judical Circuit in and for Collier,
County, Florida, and waive the purchasing policy to the extent it applies to
the selection of outside counsel.
C. Recommendation that the Board of County eommissioners of Collier
eounty, Florida, adopt a Resolution recommending MDG Capital
eorporation and the Essential Services Personnel Housing Coalition of
Collier eounty (ESP) as the Collier County applicant for the Representative
Mike Davis Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program
(CWHIP) for the 2008 application cycle. This is a companion to Items 10M
and 8D.
D. Recommendation that the Board of eounty Commissioners accepts payment
in the amount of$2,907.50 in exchange for a Release and Satisfaction of
Lien in the eode Enforcement action entitled Collier County v. Robert T.
Lockhart, Case No. CEB 2004-026.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of November 17,
2007 through November 23, 2007 and for submission into the official
records ofthe Board.
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY ANDIOR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to approve a
CRA Resolution to support the Collier County Local Agency Program
(LAP) Agreement to undertake a roadway lighting project on State Road 84
(Davis Blvd) in the Gateway Triangle Area; to approve a monetary
contribution of not to exceed $200,000 from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
CRA Fund 187 to Gas Tax Project No. 601721 to assist in funding the
roadway improvement; and approve all necessary budget amendments.
(Companion to Item 10F must be approved prior to 10F)
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 9
December 11, 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 approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facility for The Majors, Phase One.
2) Request approval by the Board of County Commissioners for a
Special Land Development Code (LDC) amendment cycle for the
2008 calendar year to address an urgent amendment to the Land
Development Code specificaIly addressing Section 1.04.04, Reduction
of Required Site Design Requirements to address the severing of
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) related to lands identified for
a Transportation right-of-way.
3) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility
facility for Jaegar Road Warehouse Condos.
4) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility
facility for Cedar Hammock, Tract F-4.
5) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfactions of Lien for
payments received for the foIl owing Code Enforcement actions.
6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Mediterra, Parcel 100.
7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Tuscany Cove Sales and Model Center.
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facility for Tuscany Cove Temporary Construction and
Administration Facility.
9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
Page 10
December 11, 2007
utility facilities for Tuscany Cove.
10) Recommendation to Board of County Commissioners to authorize the
preparation of a strategic operational plan for the Immokalee Local
Redevelopment Advisory Board. (Companion item to item 16G3 to be
considered following action on l6G3)(Thomas Greenwood, Principal
Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department, Community
Development & Environmental Services Division)
11) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Capri Commercial Center No.
2.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Florida Commission for Transportation Disadvantaged
(CTD) and the Collier eounty Board of County Commissioners
(BCC).
2) Recommendation to rescind award of Bid 08-5001 to eommercial
Fence eontractors, Inc. for $60,073.52 and award it to USA Steel
Fence, Inc. in the amount of$77,352.60.
3) Recommendation to accept a Quitclaim Deed from Lennar Homes,
LLC, to lands dedicated to the County as a public right-of-way.
(Fiscal impact: $18.50) Project #60018.
4) Recommendation to award Bid #08-5004 Radio Road Phase I
Landscape Irrigation Project- to Hannula Landscaping, Inc. in the
amount of $464,434.62.
5) Recommendation to award Work Order # PBS-FT-3987-08-01 under
Collier County Contract number 06-3987 for Fixed Term Professional
Construction, Engineering and Inspection (CEI) Services for the
Freedom Park in the amount of$458,904.00 to PBS&J, Inc.
6) Recommendation to approve an agreement between Collier County
Page 11
December 11, 2007
and Ibis Club for a sewer service interconnection from the Collier
County CAT operations facility into the Ibis Club sewer system.
7) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman
of the Board of County Commissioners to execute the attached
Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 grant application and
applicable document, and to accept the grant if awarded.
8) Recommendation to reject all bids received under Bid #08-4196
Cleaning & Documentation of Storm Drains.
9) Recommendation to authorize the ehairman of the Board of County
eommissioners to sign an easement instrument with the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), for the installation
and maintenance of prefabricated pedestrian bridges crossing the
Cocohatchee River and one of its tributaries on the west side of
Vanderbilt Drive within the existing right-of-way.
10) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman
of the Board of County Commissioners to execute the attached
Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 grant application and
applicable document, and to accept the grant if awarded.
11) Recommendation to approve and execute a contract amendment
between Collier County and the Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged for funding in the amount of $264,201 for the
provision of transportation for qualified Medicaid recipients.
12) Recommendation to approve the purchase of improved property
(Parcel No. 133) which is required for the construction of the
Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension project. Project No. 60168 (Fiscal
Impact: $728,655)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to Authorize submission of Amendment One (1) To
The State Revolving Fund Loan Agreement (DW 1111 020) through
The Florida Department Of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for
Lower Hawthorn Wells 18N, 19N, and 20N, Project #71006.
Page 12
December 11, 2007
2) Approve A Resolution Authorizing The Declaration of Official Intent
for the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF)
Expansion To 24.1 MGD; Solid Stream Project 739502. The
Approval of this Resolution Will Allow The Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) To Reimburse The eounty Using
Notes and Bond Proceeds in the amount of$l ,708,505.
3) Award annual contract for UtilitieslFacilities electrical component
testing pursuant to RFP#07-4l56 in the estimated amount of
$200,000.
4) Recommendation to approve Contract 07-4116 to OptelIios,
Incorporated, for $458,820, for perimeter security systems at the
North and South Regional Water Treatment Plants as welI as future
Water Department facilities, Project Numbers 710091 and 710092.
5) Award Contract 05-3870 to MWH Constructors Inc. for Construction
Management-at-Risk services for construction of the Northeast
Facilities, and approve preconstruction phase services in a total not-to-
exceed amount of $850,000, Projects 70902, 73156, 70899.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign the Declaration of
Restrictions for East Naples Community Park Senior Center Addition
as required by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Norge Del
Sol and Doraisy Del Sol (Owners) for deferral of 100% ofeollier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 128, Trail Ridge.
3) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$886,000 to ensure continuous funding of the Older Americans Act
grant.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
Page 13
December 11, 2007
the Chairman to sign an agreement in the amount of $223,802 with
Collier Health Services, Inc. (CHSI) and the Agency for Health Care
Administration (AHCA) to participate in the Low Income Pool
Program. Participation in this program wiII generate an additional
$294,619 in Federal matching funds to be paid directly to CHSI for
services for the most medicaIIy needy in CoIIier County.
5) Recommendation to approve a request for permission to apply for a
Historic Preservation Grant in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for
design services related to Mar-Good Harbor Park.
6) Recommendation to approve the Community Libraries in Caring
Program Grant Agreement to the Florida Department of State, State
Library and Archives of Florida for an Immokalee Library Homework
Help Grant, in the amount of $9,292, and approve needed budget
amendments.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Richard R. Berger, Trustee ofthe Robert K. Berger and Ruth A.
Berger Trust Agreement dated 5/14/99 for 1.14 acres under the
Conservation CoIIier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $27,820.
2) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Ricardo Camero and Maria Elena Carnero for 1.14 acres under
the Conservation CoIlier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $27,820.
3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with William J. Fognini as Trustee ofthe William J. Fognini
Revocable Trust Agreement dated 9/26/96 for 1.14 acres under the
eonservation eoIIier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $27,820.
4) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with James A. Haschker for 1.59 acres under the Conservation CoIIier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $38,170.
Page 14
December 11, 2007
5) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Vonda V. Hunt for 1.14 acres under the eonservation CoIlier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $27,820.
6) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Bernhard Langhart and MarIene R. Langhart for 1.14 acres under
the eonservation CoIlier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $27,820.
7) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Jane Bryan Lewis for 1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $27,820.
8) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Antonia Medina for 2.27 acres under the Conservation CoIlier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $44,730.
9) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with GuiIlermo Paz for 1.14 acres under the Conservation CoIlier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $27,820.
10) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Osvaldo Regalado for 1.14 acres under the Conservation CoIlier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $27,820.
11) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Graciela Sanchez for 2.27 acres under the Conservation CoIlier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $44,730.
12) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager or his designee to
sign police affidavits against trespass activities that are inconsistent
with objectives identified in approved Conservation CoIlier Preserve
management plans.
13) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Ronald Frazier, James Frazier, Stephen Frazier, and Matthew
Frazier for 1.14 acres under the Conservation CoIlier Land
Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $27,820.
Page 15
December 11, 2007
14) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Brihaschand Mohabir and Sursatti Mohabir for 1.14 acres under
the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $27,820.
15) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with David W. Crookall and Constance J. Crookall for 2.73 acres
under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost
not to exceed $53,470.
16) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved ehange Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve Memorandums of Understanding
between CoIlier County and the foIl owing agencies; Guadalupe
Center and the Florida Alert Response Team.
2) Approve budget amendments.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY ANDIOR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) To approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement(s)
between the eoIlier County eommunity Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) and a Grant Applicant(s) within the Bayshore Gateway
Triangle Community Redevelopment area.
2) To approve and execute Sweat Equity Grant Agreement(s) between
the eoIlier County Community Redevelopment Agency and a Grant
Applicant(s) within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment area.
3) Recommendation to the Community Redevelopment Agency to
authorize the preparation of a strategic operational plan for the
Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board. (Companion item
to item 16AI2 to be considered before item l6A12)
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 16
December 11, 2007
1) eommissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended the League of Women Voters Luncheon and participated as
a guest speaker at the Collier Athletic Club on Monday, November
19,2007. $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
2) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending the big Cypress Basin Holiday Luncheon on Friday,
December 14,2007, at the Big Cypress Basin office in Naples,
Florida. $10.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
3) eommissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending the Urban Land Institute of SWF - Transportation:
Understanding Regional and Local Issues and Initiatives meeting on
November 29,2007. $35 to be paid from Commissioner eoletta's
travel budget.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended the Citizen of the Year Banquet and participated as a guest
speaker at the Elks Club on November 15,2007. $35.00 to be paid
from Commissioner eoletta's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended the Leadership ColIier Agriculture Day in Immokalee and
participated as a guest speaker at the Immokalee Ranch on November
29,2007. $9.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
6) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending the Florida Engineering Society Calusa Chapter Dinner as a
guest speaker on January 31,2008. $30.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
7) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
serving a valid public purpose. Renewal of Leadership ColIier
Page 17
December 11, 2007
Foundation Alumni 2008 Dues. $100.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
8) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the BiII
Moss FarewelI Luncheon on Wednesday, November 28,2007, at the
Hideaway Beach Club; $25.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's
travel budget.
9) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. WilI attend The
Greater Naples Better Government Committee Holiday Social on
December 18,2007, at Vergina's on 5th; $10.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
10) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended The
Naples Historical Society Victorian Christmas Gala on December 7,
2007, at the Palm Cottage; $300 to be paid from eommissioner Fiala's
travel budget.
11) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended The
Marco Island ehamber Christmas Gala on December, 9, 2007, at the
Island Country Club; $70.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's
travel budget.
12) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
Friends of the Museum of the Everglades Annual Members Luncheon
on December 3,2007, atthe Everglades Museum; $10.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
13) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution superseding and replacing
Resolution 2006-287 in order to reappoint CoIIier County
Commissioner James Coletta to another term on the Southwest
Florida Expressway Authority to commence on February 16,2008
through and including February 15, 2010.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
Page 18
December 11, 2007
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation that the BOCC accept the report of interest for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007 pursuant to the Florida Statute
218.78 and Purchasing Policy XIE. For the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2007 no interest was paid pursuant to Florida Statute
218.78.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
November 24, 2007 through November 30, 2007 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve the Stipulated Order of Taking and Final
Judgment for Parcel 1 83RDUE and 1 83TDRE in the lawsuit styled
CoIIier County v. Jorge B. Echezarraga, etal., Case No. 07-3278-CA
(Oil Well Road Project No. 60044). (Fiscal Impact $100,232.00)
2) Recommendation to approve the Stipulated Order of Taking and Final
Judgment for Parcel 1 73RDUE in the lawsuit styled CoIlier eounty v.
Jorge Romero, etal., Case No. 07-2681-CA (Oil Well Road Project
No. 60044). (Fiscal Impact $110,150.00)
3) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for the
taking of Parcel No. 131 in the lawsuit styled Collier eounty v.
eharles R. KeIIer, et aI., Case No. 06-0876-CA (County Barn Road
Project No. 60 I 0 I). (Positive Fiscal Impact of $29,500)
4) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Order of Taking and Final
Judgment for Parcels I 26FEE and I 26TDRE in the lawsuit styled
CoIlier County v. Michael J. Crouch, et aI., Case No. 07-3691-CA
(Oil Well Road Project No. 60044). (Fiscal Impact $45,762.05)
5) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms
and conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the amount
Page 19
December 11, 2007
of $113,378.00 for the acquisition of Parcel 115 in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc., et aI.,
Case No. 06-0567 -CA (Santa Barbara Boulevard Project No. 62081).
(Fiscal Impact: $64,828.00)
6) Recommendation to approve the Stipulated Order of Taking and Final
Judgment for Parcel I 69RDUE in the lawsuit styled CoIIier County v.
Jose Munoz, etal., Case No. 07-2823-CA (Oil WeII Road Project No.
60044). (Fiscal Impact $59,694.35)
7) Recommendation to approve the Stipulated Order of Taking and Final
Judgment for Parcel2l3FEE in the lawsuit styled CoIIier County v.
Jose Munoz, etal., Case No. 07-2823-eA (Oil WeII Road Project No.
60044). (Fiscal Impact $85,150.00)
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDEX-2007-AR-
12149 (JDM) Livingston Professional Center, L.L.e., represented by Robert
L. Duane, AICP, requests a two-year PUD Extension for the Hiwassee PUD.
The subject property is located on the west side of Livingston Road, south of
Pine Ridge Road, in Section 13, Township 49 South, Range 25 East of
CoIIier County, Florida.
B. A Resolution by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) of CoIIier
County, Florida, designating the parcels ofIand associated with the
Crestview I and II affordable housing development as a Brownfield Area
Page 20
December 11, 2007
within the Immokalee enterprise zone of Collier County for the purpose of
economic development and environmental rehabilitation; authorizing the
County Manager or his designee to notify the Department of Environmental
Protection of said designation; and providing for an effective date.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 21
December 11, 2007
December 11-12, 2007
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners'
meeting for December 11, 2007.
We'll begin this meeting like we begin all meetings, with a prayer
by Reverend Jim Mudd.
Please stand.
MR. MUDD: Heavenly Father, we come to you today as a
community thanking you for your blessings that you have so
generously provided.
Today we are especially thankful for the dedicated elected
officials, staff, and the members of the public who are here to help
lead this county as it makes the important decisions that will shape our
community's future.
We pray that you will guide and direct the decisions made here
today so that your will for our county will always be done. These
things we pray in your holy name, amen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, will you lead
us in the Pledge.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, Mr. Mudd. We'll start
off with you and the changes to the agenda.
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' meeting, December 11, 2007.
First item, withdraw item 6C. That was a public petition request
Page 2
December 11-12,2007
by Ron McSwiney to discuss the Youth Haven campus expansion
project. That item is being withdrawn at the petitioner's request.
Next item is item 9D. On the executive summary, the name
Randy D. Mason is listed twice in the matrix. The fourth name in the
table should read Jason Bailey. That correction is at Commissioner
Coletta's request.
The next item is item 16A5. On the executive summary, the
fiscal impact should read, release and satisfaction of lien estimated to
be $10 per release rather than $46 per release. The total effect of this
particular satisfaction of liens is $460. And that clarification is at
staffs request.
Next item is item 16C2. The title on the resolution reads,
resolution 2008. It should read resolution 2007, at staffs request.
And just on a lighter side, hopefully that will be the last time we make
that mistake this FY, or this calendar year.
Next item is item 16E15, and that -- in the executive summary
under considerations, the sixth paragraph, second sentence, should
read, the land costs for the 2.73-acre parcel is $51,870 rather than
what's printed on the page, 2.27-acre parcel, and that clarification is at
Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is to withdraw item 16G 1, to approve and execute
a site improvement grant agreement between Collier County
Community Redevelopment Agency and the grant applicant --
applicants within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle community
redevelopment area, and that item is withdrawn at staffs request.
Next item is to move item 17B to 8G. That's a resolution by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,
designating the parcels of land associated with the Crestview I and II,
affordable housing development, as a brownfield area within the
Immokalee enterprise zone of Collier County for the purpose of
economic development and environmental rehabilitation, authorizing
the county manager or his designee to notify the Department of
Page 3
December 11-12,2007
Environmental Protection of said designation, and providing for an
effective date. That item is being asked to be pulled by Commissioner
Halas.
We have several items of note. First, item 6B and 10K are
related items.
The next item, item lOA, the FP&L right-of-way agreement has
been approved and assigned -- and signed by the chairman of the
Vanderbilt MSTU. Copies of the signed agreement have been
distributed and are available for review.
And then we have two time certain items today. The first is item
8D. It will be heard at one p.m. It's a recommendation to consider
adopting an ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Code of Laws and Ordinances, which is the Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, establishing an impact fee
deferral program for approved participants in the Community
Workforce Housing Innovative Pilot program, which we call CWHIP,
set forth in section 420.5095 of the Florida Statutes. This item is a
companion item to items 10M and 12C in your agenda packet today.
Next item that's time concern is item 12A, and that's to be heard
at 11 a.m. this morning. It's the investigative report of outside
counsel, Lawrence A. Farese, Esquire, of the firm Robins, Kaplan and
Miller and Ciresi, LLP, to the Board of County Commissioners
regarding the Richland PUD, which is Pebblebrooke, and the Olde
Cypress PUD.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Mr. Weigel, anything before I go to the commissioners?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, but no, nothing further.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now I'm going to go to the
commissioners for their ex parte disclosure on the summary and the
consent agenda and any changes that they wish to see made to the
agenda. We'll start with Commissioner Henning.
Page 4
December 11-12, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, good morning --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Mr. Chairman. I received an
email from Tom Taylor on 17 A, as far as my ex parte
communications.
Also, Mr. Chairman, on 12A, I would like to continue the report
on Olde Cypress, and the reason for my request is the report leaves me
with more questions than providing answers, and I don't think it's fair
to the public or the Board of County Commissioners to go through a
laborious question session that might not be answered.
Being that we have a long agenda today, I would like to continue
that one and work with the county attorney through the County
Attorney's Office to hopefully get those resolutions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear you, Commissioner Henning,
and I still think it would be a good time to bring it forward and hear
what we have on it and then direct them, if we feel it's necessary, to
come back with more. I'd like to be able to hear what you've
discovered in addition to the report when it comes forward, that's why
I personally would like to hear it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, here's -- actually it's not
only mine, but some of the -- some of the members of the public, and I
-- the report is at 11 o'clock. It's to deal with two issues. The
Pebblebrooke issue, I think that's going to take enough time, and
therefore, I would like to have the Olde Cypress discussion continued
to a further date.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's hear the other
commissioners. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think ifhe has things that he wants
to discuss rather than hear it all now and then hear it all again, I would
prefer to just postpone it till the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I read the report, and I think that
Page 5
December 11-12, 2007
the report ought to come forward today. I think there's a lot of people
out there that would like to get an understanding. Ifthere's additional
items that need to be discussed at a later date, I think that's when it
should be -- it should be brought back, at a later date.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I don't have any problem
with doing it at a later date.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we have three
commissioners that have no problem. Now you're talking about the
full report or just the part with Big Cypress?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Olde Cypress --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Olde Cypress.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just to continue the discussion
of the report ofOlde Cypress.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But to handle the rest of the
disclosure?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Report, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, do you want to mark that
down, we're going to proceed in that direction. It's the will of the
commission to continue the part of that report, Olde Cypress, to
another meeting.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, anything else,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have no changes or addition
to the agenda, but I do have something to declare on 17 A, that is the
Hiwassee PUD, and I met with Rich Y ovanovich and Bob Duane
Page 6
December 11-12, 2007
once. Looks like it's once. Twice, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And let's go to Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do
have a question concerning the agenda. I did not see a correction to
this item. It had to do with the acquisition of some property. It
referenced two different owners in the property.
I raised the question yesterday. It was answered. It was
acknowledged that the wrong names were used in the discussion of the
property. And I didn't see a correction on the agenda for doing that.
Is there -- don't you think we should correct that before we approve
this agenda?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I don't think it needs to be
corrected. The case name is one name, and we may have, depending
upon these cases, five or six or seven different parcels, and we're just
settling one of those parcels and that would be for that particular
homeowner. This is how we normally do this to the board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. We are talking about two
different things apparently. And I -- if! hadn't received an answer that
said that it was an error, I would have brought my questions with me
this morning and I would have the reference to this specific item.
But it very clearly says that it is a -- it is a settlement for the
owners of the property, and the property owners' names are included
in the heading and in the objective portion of the executive summary.
Someone else's name is included under the organization, or the
discussion portion of the executive summary. Is it necessary to
correct that or are we just going to approve it as it is and let you sort
out the names properly later?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think we're okay as we are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Then in that case,
consent agenda item 16A, I have no disclosure, and for summary
agenda, the 17 A, I have no disclosure, and that is it for me, Mr.
Page 7
December 11-12,2007
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I don't have any changes on
today's agenda. I don't have any disclosures on 16A11. I do -- did
receive an email from Tom Taylor on 17 A, and that's it as far -- and
there's no other additions or corrections to today's agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I myself have no
disclosures on the consent or summary agenda and no changes to the
agenda.
And with that, do I hear a motion to approve today's regular,
consent, and summary agenda as amended?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Halas, 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, 5-0.
Page 8
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING. 2007
December 11, 2007
Withdraw Item 6C: Public petition request by Ron McSwiney to discuss the Youth Haven Campus
Expansion Project. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 90: On the Executive Summary, the name Randy D. Mason is listed twice on the matrix.
The fourth name in the table should read: Jason Bailey. (Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Item 16A5: On the Executive Summary, the Fiscal Impact should read, ". . . . Release and
Satisfactions of Lien estimated to be $10.00 per release (rather than $46.00 per release) totaling
$460.00 . . .." (Staff's request.)
Item 16C2: The title on the resolution reads "Resolution 2008" but should read "Resolution
2007". (Staff's request.)
Item 16E15: In the Executive Summary under Considerations, the 6th paragraph, 2nd sentence
should read "The land cost for the 2.73 acre parcel is $51,870" (rather than 2.27 acre parcel).
(Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Withdraw Item #16G1: To approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement(s) between
the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and a Grant Applicant(s) within the
Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment area. (Staff's request.)
Move Item 17B to 8G: A Resolution by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) of Collier
County, Florida, designating the parcels of land associated with the Crestview I and II affordable
housing development as a Brownfield Area within the Immokalee enterprise zone of Collier
County for the purpose of economic development and environmental rehabilitation; authorizing
the County Manager or his designee to notify the Department of Environmental Protection of said
designation; and providing for an effective date. (Commissioner Halas' request.)
NOTE:
Items 6B and 10K are related items.
Item 10A: The FPL Right-of-Way Agreement has been approved and signed by the Chairman of
the Vanderbilt MSTU. Copies of the signed agreement have been distributed and are available
for review.
Time Certain Items:
Item 80 to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Recommendation to consider adopting an Ordinance amending
Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, which is the Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, establishing an impact fee deferral program for approved
participants in the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program (CWHIP) set forth in
Section 420.5095 of the Florida Statutes. (This item is a companion to Items 10M and 12C.)
Item 12A to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Investigative report of outside counsel Lawrence A. Farese,
Esq. Of the firm Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., to the Board of County Commissioners
regarding Richland PUD (Pebblebrook)/Olde Cypress PUD.
December 11-12,2007
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F and #2G
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 - BCC/ AUIR MEETING;
NOVEMBER 7,2007 - V AB SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING
WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CUNNINGHAM; NOVEMBER 9,
2007 - V AB SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING WITH SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE PELLETIER; NOVEMBER 13,2007 - BCC
REGULAR MEETING; NOVEMBER 19,2007 - V AB SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE HEARING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
LAGACE AND NOVEMBER 19, 2007 - V AB SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE HEARING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
WATSON - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Now, do I hear a motion to approve the November 5, 2007
BCC/AUIR meeting; November 7,2007, Value Adjustment Board
Special Magistrate Steven Cunningham; November 9,2007, Value
Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Mark Pelletier; November 13,
2007, BCC regular meeting; November 19,2007, Value Adjustment
Board Special Magistrate Gerald Lagace; and November 19,2007,
Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Scott Watson?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 9
December 11-12,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Service awards, Mr. Mudd?
Item #3A
SERVICE AWARDS: 20 YEAR ATTENDEES - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, service awards. We have one
20-year attendee, Noemi Fraguela from EMS. IfNoemi could come
forward, please.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Twenty years is absolutely
wonderful. Thank you so much for your service to the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You must have started when you
were SIX.
MS. FRAGUELA: Three.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hi, Noemi. Good to see you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll take a minute and get a picture
here, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #3B
SERVICE AWARDS: 5 YEAR RECIPIENTS - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to Advisory Committee Service
Page 10
December 11-12, 2007
Awards, and we have several five-year recipients here today for your
presentation to them.
The first five-year recipient is James Elson from the Collier
County Citizens Corps.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Here's your five-year pin. Thank you
so much for the time you spent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hi, Jim.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your service.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good seeing you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, could we get a picture, please?
We take one every five years, see how much you age.
MR. MUDD: The next five-year recipient is Deborah Horvath
from the Collier County Citizens Corps.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the good times roll. Once again,
thank you for what you do for the county.
MS. HORVATH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hi, Deb.
MS. HORVATH: How are you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Merry Christmas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Most importantly, what you do
for Red Cross.
MS. HORVATH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. HORVATH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations, thank you.
MS. HORVATH: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Merry Christmas. Thank you.
The next five-year recipient is Walter Haskiewicz from the
Collier County Citizens Corps.
MS. HORVATH: You go, boy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Page 11
December 11-12,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hi, Walter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, Walter, appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much for your
help, appreciate it.
MR. JASKIEWICZ: Thank you very much. My pleasure.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next five-year recipient is Chief Michael
Murphy from the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council.
(Applause.)
CHIEF MURPHY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Michael, thank you for your service.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: These Marco Islanders coming up
here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks, Chief.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, Michael.
CHIEF MURPHY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you for your service.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Hi Chief.
MR. MUDD: Congratulations.
The next five-year recipient is Chief Rob Potteiger from the
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council. Chief?
(Applause.)
CHIEF POTTEIGER: Where's my check?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hey, check this out. Thank you,
agam.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, you are really good this
mornmg.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. Appreciate your help.
Page 12
December 11-12, 2007
MR. MUDD: Chief, good to see you. Merry Christmas.
Commissioner, that completes our service awards and brings us
to proclamations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to say before we go on
with the proclamations how much we appreciate all these
organizations that function on behalf of the Board of County
Commissioners, and they are a real asset to this community. I want to
thank each and every one of them, even the people that aren't here
today. But the -- for their -- their dedication to serving the people here
in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hear, hear.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
Item #4A
PROCLAMA nON FOR RON PENNINGTON DAY TO BE
RECEIVED BY COUNCILMAN JOHN SOREY AND COASTAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER MURRAY HENDEL -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Brings us to proclamations. Our first proclamation
is for Ron Pennington Day, to be received by Councilman John Sorey
and Coastal Advisory Committee member, Murray Hendel.
Would you please come up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: John, Murray, would you please
come up and accept this on behalf of Ron Pennington, who happens to
be a very good friend of mine. I've known him for many, many years.
He has devoted many, many years of his life to serving the
people of Collier County.
I regret that he cannot be here today, but I will read this
proclamation.
Page 13
December 11-12,2007
Whereas, Ron Pennington has been a resident of Collier County
and active in the Greater Naples Community for over 25 years; and,
Whereas, Mr. Pennington served as a member of the Naples City
Council from 1992 to 1996; and,
Whereas, Mr. Pennington was honored as the 2007 recipient of
the Sam Noe Award for outstanding services as a member of the
Moorings Bay Citizens Advisory Committee, as a City of Naples
representative on the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee,
and for more than two decades of service and numerous other
volunteer capacities in the City of Naples; and,
Whereas, Mr. Pennington has been active in community issues
over this period of time, taking particular interest in beach and coastal
issues; and,
Whereas, Mr. Pennington was the chairman of the Naples Beach
Committee, the forerunner to the Coastal Advisory Committee, and
was instrumental in the development of the County Coastal Advisory
Committee and the use of tourist tax funds for beach renourishment
and inlet maintenance; and,
Whereas, Mr. Pennington was a member of the county's Coastal
Advisory Committee serving from May, 2001 to May, 2007 and also
served as chairman from 2002 to 2007; and,
Whereas, Mr. Pennington was instrumental in the development
and success of the recently completed $25 million beach
renourishment program completed in 2006; and,
Whereas, Mr. Pennington is generally regarded as Mr. Beach
throughout Collier County.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that December 11,2007,
be designated as Ron Pennington Day.
Done and ordered this 11 th day of December, 2007, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James Coletta,
Chairman.
Page 14
December 11-12, 2007
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
seconded by Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. No surprise
there.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: John, Murray, it's a pleasure to see
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we take a minute and just
get a picture so we can give it to Ron and show him what he missed.
MR. SOREY: Can I say a few words?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please.
MR. SOREY: Mr. Chairman, fellow commissioners, thank you
for this proclamation. It's an honor for me on behalf of my fellow
members of the CAC and all of Ron's friends, to accept this
proclamation.
Unfortunately, Ron's not able to be here today. He happens to be
at the doctor this morning and is in a struggle with his health, but we
wish him the best.
Ron loves the City of Naples, loves this county, and is the
Page 15
December 11-12, 2007
ultimate volunteer. He's the type of individual that you have to admire
for his effort. But the thing that he gave the most of was his time.
Dr. John Quinn captured the essence of Ron's time commitment.
Take time to think; it's the source of power. We all know that Ron
was a thinker.
Take time to play; it's the secret or perpetual youth. We've all
been fishing with Ron, know how much he loved the outdoors.
Take time to read; it's a fountain of wisdom. Ron was always
prepared. He knew what he was talking about. He was the expert.
Take time to love and be loved; this is our greatest privilege.
And as I said earlier, Ron not only loved the city, the county, but his
fellow man.
Take time to be friendly; it's the road to happiness. Ron was
always willing and ready to help anybody that he could.
Take time to laugh; it's the music of the soul. He always could
find humor in the most serious situation.
Take time to give; life has too short a day to be selfish. And he
always gave of himself.
Take time to work; it's the price of success. Nobody outworked
Ron Pennington as a volunteer.
Take time to do charity; it's the key to Heaven.
Ron, we thank you for what you've meant to this city, this
county, your fellow board members, and all the citizens of Collier
County.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, John.
(Applause.)
MR. HENDEL: Good morning, Commissioners. I would just
like to pay a little tribute to Ron Pennington.
I served with Ron on the CAC, and he was knowledgeable,
reliable, and imaginative. He knew every outlet, every pass, and
every estuary. He taught me about groins, jetties, shoals, dunes, and
Page 16
December 11-12, 2007
hard bottoms.
We would fight every -- he would fight every year with Jack
Wert in order to get the most bed tax money for the beach.
When Ron finished his term of the CAC, he was appointed to the
board of directors for the Gulfshore Association of Condominiums,
and I made him membership chairman.
We have picked up, in Ron's brief tenure, seven new
condominiums in our association, and Ron had to resign unfortunately
from our board. But we got more members from Ron in three months
than we got from my organization for over five years.
I am proud to be associated with Ron. He was a wonderful
public servant, and I wish him well.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4 B
PROCLAMA nON FOR BILL NEAL, "MAYOR OF BA YSHORE"
WEEK TO BE ACCEPTED BY BILL NEAL - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next proclamation is for Bill
Neal, Mayor of Bayshore Week. To be accepted by Bill Neal.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this is another tribute to a
long-time friend of mine, Bill Neal.
Bill, would you like to have your lovely wife come up to accept
this with you?
MR. NEAL: I would love to. My lovely wife.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good morning.
Whereas, Bill Neal is the founder and leader of the Bayshore
Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency Local
Advisory Board. Additionally, Mr. Neal helped form the Bayshore
Beautification MSTU in 1998 and served as its chairman for 10 years;
Page 17
December 11-12, 2007
and,
Whereas, his efforts in the installation of an effluent water system
for irrigation was a savings to taxpayers, his acquisition of Bayshore
Drive bus shelters for CAT bus drivers and acquisition of the FDOT
grant to increase the lighting system on the Bayshore Bridge, adding
streetlights and decorator banners to Bayshore Drive, and successfully
changing the public's perception of the CRA community from the
negative Kelly Road image to Bayshore Drive have all been greatly
appreciated improvements for the area; and,
Whereas, Mr. Neal led the community initiative to create a CRA
to eliminate slum and blight. He created a stand-alone CRA office
that serves the community needs, hired a CRA executive director to
facilitate a master plan and expanded the CRA staff to three
professionals; and,
Whereas, his efforts in funding the median landscape on Davis
Boulevard, his assistance to the county for FDOT traffic safety
lighting on Davis Boulevard, and effort to help the county acquire
land in the Davis triangle for stormwater solutions as well as the
acquisition of land to facility catalyst projects have all greatly
contributed to the improvement of the CRA.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of December
the 10th, 2007, be designated as Bill Neal, Mayor of Bayshore, Week.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Done and ordered this 11th day of
December, 2007, Board of County Commissioner, Collier County,
Florida, Jim Coletta, Chairman.
I would like to make a motion to join Commissioner Halas's
second --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hear, hear.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that we accept this proclamation
for a man who has done a great deal for our community.
Page 18
December 11-12,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Coyle, second 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: The ayes have it, Mayor.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You get this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What a fight.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You get to do this too. He couldn't
have done this without you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hey, Donna. How are you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for his time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, wait. You have to get in this
picture, too.
(Applause.)
MR. NEAL: Certainly this comes as a surprise, and it is
humbling, I must say that, even though my personality probably belies
that at times.
But anyhow, any reward that I receive and recognition that I get
in this area goes to a lot of people, and I mean the folks on Bayshore
who put up their own money to make a lot of it happen, and the folks
in the CRA and the MSTU are continuing to improve Bayshore.
Those of you that haven't come to Bayshore lately, please come
down. It's one of the prettiest streets in Collier County. We have not
stopped. We are putting in lighted crosswalks, you will soon see
Page 19
December 11-12,2007
those, and we're putting royal palms on the sides, as well as we have
them in the median.
We also now are developing a program to continue the expansion
of Bayshore all the way down to Hamilton Harbor. So you're still
going to see the finest street in all of Collier County, and we're going
to work hard on it.
Couldn't have done it without help from the county staff and
couldn't have done it without you guys. Thank you very much for
your help. God bless.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMA nON ACKNOWLEDGING LAVIGNE
KIRKPATRICK AND DR. LEONARD FERENZ FOR THEIR
EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN THE MORAL AND ETHICAL
FIBER OF OUR COMMUNITY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is
acknowledging Lavigne Kirkpatrick and Dr. Leonard Ferenz for their
efforts to strengthen the moral and ethical fiber of our community. To
be accept by Lavigne Kirkpatrick and Dr. Leonard Ferenz.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it's my pleasure to read this
proclamation.
Whereas, between 2004 and 2006 under the leadership of
Lavigne Kirkpatrick and Dr. Leonard Ferenz, the Character Council of
Collier County created a character education program for Collier
County public schools that is fully compliant with Florida state law;
and,
Whereas, in 2006, the CCCC, that's the Character Council of
Page 20
December 11-12,2007
Collier County, created and copyrighted a perpetual calendar called
the Circle of Excellence that identifies and defines the key character
traits of positive behavior, i.e., the virtues and their related qualities,
including those required by Florida state law; and,
Whereas, beginning with the school year in August, 2006, the
Circle of Excellence has been displayed at all Collier County school
campuses and has been used by teachers to focus attention on the
central features of the character education program created by the
CCCC; and,
Whereas, several private schools in Collier County have
incorporated the Circle of Excellence into their character education
programs; and,
Whereas, over 100 local businesses are displaying the Circle of
Excellence; and,
Whereas, the Ritz-Carlton, Naples, has incorporated the Circle of
Excellence into its ethics training; and,
Whereas, the Boys and Girls Club of Collier County has adopted
the Circle of Excellence and the character education program created
by the CCCc.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Lavigne Kirkpatrick
and Dr. Leonard Ferenz be recognized for their efforts to strengthen
the moral and ethical fiber of our community.
Done and ordered this 11 th day of December, 2007, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James Coletta,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Fiala and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
Page 21
December 11-12, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Appreciate you staying with it all
these years.
MS. KIRKPATRICK: I'm going to say something very quick,
and then I want to let Dr. Ferenz.
First I'd like to thank the Collier County Commission for
recognizing the work we're doing with character, and the only other
thing I would suggest is that each and every one of us, I encourage
you, to try to find a way you can help in some area to help with
character because we know it's the beginning and the end of
everything we do in the county.
So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
DR. FERENZ: I need to echo the sentiment that any recognition
received on our part is really not -- or is due to tremendous efforts by a
number of people that preceded us, especially the Board of
Commissioners in 1999 who resolved that this Collier County become
a community of character, and we have simply taken that resolution
and tried to implement that through a character education program for
the Collier County public schools.
And I'm also happy to say that that impetus and initiative will
empower and enable students today to become active and worthwhile
Page 22
December 11-12,2007
citizens in our community in the future, so we're happy to see that.
And I especially think this is a wonderful opportunity to thank
not only the Board of County Commissioners, both present and past
who have brought this about, but also the sponsors who have made it
possible for us to create a character education program that is
available to the schools and to the public, to the community at large,
for free, because it's a grass-roots effort supported by the sponsorship
of the Ritz-Carlton, through Mr. Ed Staros at the Ritz-Carlton, Cohen
and Grigsby law firms, Hodges University, which you know now is--
received a wonderful gift from the Hodges family, and Ironstone
Bank, and our state representative Garret Richter. So we've had a real
grass-roots support for this effort.
I am happy to say it's really something that has taken off as an
initiative, and I think we will see the Circle of Excellence probably as
a very visualable -- visible, sorry, tool for our community, and I'm
hoping to see it on everybody's refrigerator door. It's nice and big and
will be lots of fun for you all to use at home.
So, again, thank you very, very much, and it wouldn't be
possible, really, without your recognition and your support throughout
this endeavor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
PRESENTATION BY JANET W A TERMEIER, VICE CHAIR OF
THE FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
REGARDING STATE ROAD FUNDING - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to presentations. We
have a presentation today by Janet Watermeier, the Vice-chair of the
Florida Transportation Commission regarding the state road funding.
Page 23
December 11-12,2007
This item was asked for by Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Janet, welcome. Thank you so
much for taking the time out of your day to come to talk to my fellow
commISSIOners.
Back about 10 days ago Janet gave a presentation at the Urban
Land Institute transportation update, and I thought it was extremely
informative, so I asked her to put the show on the road and bring it to
the commission and the public to be able to better understand some of
these situations that are out there and that we have to face up to in the
coming years. Janet?
MS. W A TERMEIER: Thank you very much. It's such a
pleasure to be here. I've served on the Transportation Commission for
six years filling Valerie Boyd's position when she moved to California
from Collier County, and I have to say that it says Janet Watermeier
vice-chair, but this might be the last vice-chair activity I take because
as oflast Wednesday, there's a whole new chair and a whole new
commission, and I'm no longer on it.
But I wanted to have this opportunity to spend a few minutes,
and I'm doing this in very brief format. This is a 45-minute
presentation, so we're going to get this down to 10 minutes, as we kind
of go through it.
The Transportation Commission was created by the legislature in
1987. It's nine members representing all areas of Florida, and I
represented 12 counties, which is most of the rural counties in the
center of the state, and Southwest Florida from Manatee to Collier
County.
You're appointed by the governor, confirmed by the Senate.
You're not involved in the DOT day-to-day operations, and you really
don't have anything to do with allocation of funding. So those of you
that are concerned that we don't have enough money in Southwest
Florida, I agree with you, but it's not something that I can help with on
a particular road.
Page 24
December 11-12,2007
We recommend major transportation policy and we review major
policy initiatives. We serve as an independent oversight board, and
what we really do is set performance measures and state -- and I will
tell you that your District 7 transportation meets and exceeds its
expectations every single time, so you can be very proud of them.
We also serve as a nominating commission for the secretary of
transportation, and in the six years I've been there, I've done that three
times. So I guess the average length of time for a secretary of
transportation is about two years as we move forward.
What I want to talk about are some transportation trends,
particularly funding. And our demand for services is growing faster
than we can deliver them. Costs are increasing. We're just not
keeping up with demand.
And what we've done with our transportation funding system, as
-- I want to almost talk about it like the doctor's office -- we pace it.
There's not enough money so we put it into 1 O-year plans and we
break it into five-year plans and then one-year plans, and then we go
through a little bit of right-of-way and a little bit of funding of this.
And the real reason we do that is because there's not enough money
and you're pacing it.
When I first went on the Transportation Commission, my first
activity was, what about new corridors? What about emerging urban
areas like Southwest Florida? What can we do?
And one of the concerns -- they would take me into a darkroom
and show me all these plans because they just didn't have enough
money to do the things they needed to do, and this is really why.
One point three percent Florida lane miles. That's what we're
adding each and every year in Florida, but our population is growing.
And even though we might have had a slight dip, we're really
projecting to continue that.
But what the real telling issue is, is 5.4 percent is the growth in
the vehicle miles traveled. We're traveling further, we have more cars.
Page 25
December 11-12,2007
And about in 2004, the Transportation Commission did a study to try
to figure out how short are we in this budget? Because up until that
point, we really didn't have a number, and we found we have a
shortfall of $23 billion in our 10-year transportation funding plan, not
to bring our roads up to where we want them, just to maintain today's
conditions. And that gap continues to grow each and every day.
So this is what you're seeing here. The lane miles traveled is
exceeded by the population growth, is exceeded by the daily vehicle
miles traveled, and ultimately what that means is, we're spending
longer and longer times in personal hours of delay and congestion.
Now, this new governor that we have, Governor Crist, would like
congestion to be his major focus of transportation as we move
forward.
But here's where we're headed where the doubling -- this is the
doubling of Florida's future. Our freight is going to double by 2025,
our visitors are going to double by 2030, our population's going to
double by 2050, our vehicle miles traveled is going to double by 2050,
but we are not doubling the amount of money we have for
transportation.
Right now if you look in 2005, this is the congested corridors in
the State of Florida, and this is where we are projected to be if we
spend every time that we have on our strategic intermodal system that
is planned. This is what you're going to see.
So it's not a pretty picture as we move forward, and part of the
reason for that is that construction costs are increasing and revenues --
and if I were to draw this today, they're actually going down. And I'm
going to talk a little bit about what the future holds.
But this is what's happened. Since 2003, the cost of highway
construction materials has risen 42 percent. And you can see, up until
that point in time, it was very, very flat. It started with the cost of
steel, and it almost doubled. And then it moved on to core highway
construction materials.
Page 26
December 11-12,2007
And one of the issues is crushed stone, and one of the concerns
we have is not just the cost of crushed stone, but the supply of crushed
stone, which is what all the roads are basically based on.
What's happening right now is in the lake belt mining region,
where we get 90 percent of our crushed stone, we're finding that
because growth is coming to where that lake belt area is, there's a
good chance that we will not be able to continue to mine there. And if
we have to go to Mexico to bring in stone and we can't get more mines
open in the State of Florida, then we're going to pay even more for
crushed stone than we are now. Ready-mix concrete as well. Asphalt
paving mixtures.
Well, what you can really see is that the cost per mile to build a
road -- I -- my background is economic development. I was the
economic director for Lee County for seven years, about the same
time Susan Perigas was here. And prior to that, I worked for
Westinghouse Communities.
And when we used to develop a community, we used to use a
rule of thumb, a million dollars a road a mile. It's not there now. You
can see. New construction projects average $7.8 million a mile.
There are some improvements over what we used to build, but
for the most part, it's relative cost. And if you go down to the rural
areas, it's a little better.
There are three primary funding sources of funding for
transportation, particularly roads. Federal, the gas tax, which up until
about 2002, represented about half of everything that we had; state
funding resources, and the only new funding source we've had in quite
a while is our regional funding source, which is the Transportation
Regional Improvement Program, and that has been very well received,
requires a local match; and then the local sources of funding.
And if you kind of take a look, this is the funding plan for
2006/2007 to 2010/2011. And I really want to show you this to break
it down. In 2002, that 24 percent federal aid would have been close to
Page 27
December 11-12, 2007
a 50 percent number. So you can see how things have been shifting
and how we often think the state is not providing additional funding.
And I will agree, we're not keeping up with demand, but I want to just
show you the breakdown.
Forty-seven percent of the funds is coming from state funding;
2.5 billon or 7 percent, from tolls and local; and 3.8 billion from the
turnpike.
The federal aid is decreasing, and that 11 percent doc. stamps,
when Representative Mike Davis was here, he led the growth
management -- the growth management bill, and when he did, he put
-- we were -- for the very first time, we were able to get a portion of
doc. stamps out of general funds actually be used for transportation.
I want you to kind of pay attention to that one because that one
will probably go away, that 11 percent money will probably go away
in the next round of budget cuts at the state level. It almost went away
in the last cut, and through a lot of private/public people and cities and
counties together, we were able to keep that.
But I also want you to look at that federal aid, that 24 percent.
Right now, the way the trust fund at the federal level is running, will
go broke in 2009. So if we don't come up with another way at the
federal level to fund or increase the gas tax or do something, we're
going to not have that federal funding in future.
And then if you look at the revenue estimating conference, just
came out with the way we calculate our taxes in the State of Florida,
there will be a 1.5 billion dollar shortfall just because of declining
property values, sales taxes, and what's happening in our economy
today.
So I guess the picture that we're painting is, it's going to get
worse before it gets better unless we do some new things with
funding.
This is the breakdown of state revenue by category. If you look
at the bottom, that's the fuel tax, and you can see how in 2002 it was a
Page 28
December 11-12, 2007
much larger percentage share. The blue bar above that is a state tax,
and then you get to the light blue, which is vehicle registrations.
Makes up a very large portion and it's growing because we're
registering more and more vehicles.
The little yellow bar is aviation, very small percentage. The
rental cars surcharge is the gray. The local option, which Collier
County does have a local option tax, is in the peach. That
documentary stamps, that's the new money that we talked about going
in place with growth management. So we expect that blue bar to go
away.
And if you see that little purple bar, when Representative Davis
helped pass the growth management legislation, there was a one-time
shot of growth management money supposedly to take care of the
backlog, and that is not recurring funds. So if you look at that light
blue bar, you can see that it's a significant amount.
I often hear people say, the state is not increasing money. They
are increasing money. The problem is, it's not enough to cover our
demands. And if you look at the five-year periods, you will see that on
a yearly basis so -- say, for instance, since 1994 they have continued
to increase in billions of dollars, but billions of dollars is not meeting
our gap and it continues to do that.
The federal gas tax right now is 18.3 cents per gallon, and this
just shows you, with the costs rising and with inflation, that right now
the same gas tax buys nine dollars -- 9.6 cents worth of value for us.
And so in order for us to bring that up to being able to purchase
what we were able to purchase in 1993, you'd see that we would have
to increase the gas tax to 28.8 cents. And I don't know about you, but
I don't think our Congress right now is ready to increase the gas tax,
particularly with gas running about $3 a gallon. It's just not going to
happen politically at this point in time. But you can see the challenge
of where we are.
Now, I told you that the funding state -- the shortfall was $2.3
Page 29
December 11-12, 2007
billion a year, but that's really in 2003/2004 numbers. That equates to
about $120 a person per year in the State of Florida; 4 billion brings it
up to an improvement level where we would feel the difference. In
fact, that would bring our strategic intermodal system, which is the
state's highest level, at least up to what we would like to see it be.
If you add the local systems -- and we don't have those numbers
exactly because they're very different ways of calculating it
throughout the state, although we're trying to standardize it, we think
it's double that. And if you add airports, ports, rail, transit, all of the
other modes that are competing for these same dollars, it's probably
double that.
So what we're talking about is a very big issue and a very
long-term challenge to funding. And if you're looking at future trends,
we see federal funds going down, we see state resources going down,
and with tax reform and the change in our economy, we see local
resources going down. So the trend is not a wonderful trend as well.
I had the pleasure of participating in this 2025 Florida
Transportation Plan, which brings together people from all walks of
life, cities, counties, environmental citizens, transportation folks, to try
and look forward, and for the very first year in the transportation plan
for the State of Florida, there was a funding goal. Usually you don't
have a funding goal. You have goals and you fund to meet it. But we
did.
Provide incentives to maximize the use of funding, offer greater
choices in flexibility for raising, investing local resources.
You know, when the growth management bill went in, the piece
that was missing were the local resources. We did not do that. It was
in the bill and it got taken out, and we need to find those local
resources. We need to recognize the shortfalls at the state, the
regional, and local level, and we need to recognize the need for new
corridors and alternative funding.
Because I come from an economic development background, I'm
Page 30
December 11-12,2007
always looking at competitiveness. Competitiveness of our region. In
the U.S., the regions, the states, if we're going to compete in this
global economy, we have got to invest in our infrastructure.
So what we're seeing more and more of is innovative funding
strategies, public/private partnerships, leveraging public dollars,
leveraging funds at all levels. You don't get a road built today unless
you get counties and cities and states and the private sector to all come
together to make things work, and we're seeing more and more user
fees and tolling.
As a matter of fact, about 90 percent of all new capacity roads in
the United States over the last decade were actually done with user
fees or tolling.
Right now we have an opportunity to try and do something
different with transportation funding. The Constitutional Taxation and
Budget Reform Commission, which I'm sure you're well aware of, it's
a 25-member mission -- commission that can actually put issues on the
ballot for November 28th -- November 2008. It's going to take 16 of
the 25 members to do that.
Former speaker of the house Allen Bense chairs that, and he,
working with the Transportation Commission, said that his three
primary goals were to better administer property tax, streamline sales
tax -- and that really means exemptions -- but the third one was better
fund transportation.
So the road builders for -- Florida Association of Road Builders,
Floridians for Better Transportation, the Transportation Commission,
the Department of Transportation, all sat down and said, what could
we do to propose to the legislature and to the Constitutional Taxation
and Budget Reform Commission to come up with $2 billion a year in
recurring funds to at least help bring us up to the level that we are not
-- that we are maintaining our roads where we need to be.
And this is the funding options that we came up with. It's a
menu. If we were to double in index the motor vehicle registration
Page 31
December 11-12,2007
fees -- these are the tag fees, these are dealer fees and truck fees -- we
would raise $700 million a year. Ifwe would increase an index to cost
of living, the title fees, from $24 to 50, we would raise $200 million a
year for the state.
If we would index local and federal gas taxes -- some of the state
is. But if we did that, we could raise 325 million. And one of the
proposals is that we create something that indexes the federal gas tax,
but we keep it locally, we don't send it up. So we would actually have
a tax that indexed the federal gas tax and bring it back to the state.
Ifwe were to equalize the l2-cent local option gas tax, that
means the counties that have not used that, then we would raise 320
million. If we were to eliminate all the transportation trust fund
diversions, that would be $200 million.
And then to get up to the other 255, we'd have to do multiple
options. Maximizing private/public partnerships. I-75 right now is
the first private/public partnership, that expansion, that $43 I-million
expansion, that the state has done, and that came out of work of
changing the legislation so that you could allow a design/build finance
within the State of Florida.
I will tell you that although that's the largest project, there are
two that are about to eclipse us. One is the Jacksonville outer beltway,
and the other is Interstate 595. So although we were out in front, there
are others right behind.
You're going to see increased tolling projects through the
Turnpike Enterprise and transportation authorities. In fact, we're
seeing more and more growth of transportation authorities. As of last
year, all of the transportation authorities around the state have come
under the Transportation Commission to watch the ethics and the
purchasing and their standards, so you're going to see that become
much more important as we move forward. But if you add that all up,
you get $2 billion a year in recurring funds.
I had the pleasure on Friday to present this to our legislative
Page 32
December 11-12, 2007
delegation and task them to go up there and make sure that they start
to work on this if it doesn't go through the tax commission.
What are the future trends? And we're really wrapping up here.
Future trends are a whole lot more regional systems and corridors,
focus on transit in a different way, new corridors, bypass toll roads,
congestion management -- you're going to see a lot more of that --
intelligent transportation systems.
If -- and for funding, the more creative funding strategies we can
use, the better. You're going to see much more leveraging of
resources and much more in user fees. Transponders, open-road
tolling, variable pricing. That's in the short term.
In the long term it's very likely that we're going to see a switch
from gas-tax focused funding of our transportation system to vehicle
miles traveled. There are a lot of issues with that. The dialogue is
beginning, there are privacy concerns, but in some of the states they
are doing it, and there's some pilot projects, so that's something you
ought to be watching for in the future.
So with that, I want to thank you for listening to me, and if you
have any questions, I'm here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. We have three commissioners
that have questions. Commissioner Halas first, then Commissioner
Henning, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand the transportation
problem as you brought forth. I believe the state has an obligation
into coming up with five-year capital improvement element, just like
the counties do. And obviously they haven't done this.
Also, in the growth bill, the 360 bill, I believe there was supposed
to be $1 billion involved in that. We didn't see a cent.
The other thing, FDOT had a five-year program, and we were
supposed to get our fair share in regards to Davis Boulevard.
Obviously we didn't see that.
So I think the state and FDOT is looking for other ways out so
Page 33
December 11-12,2007
that they don't have to be concerned with managing growth in this
state, so what they want to do is they want to set up a regressive tax __
and that's what you're here for today is a regressive tax -- in regards to
tolling. And as far as I'm concerned, that's a regressive tax.
When you start tolling people -- lane miles of seven cents to 28
cents a mile, that's just starters, and I've got a problem with that.
If our legislators in Tallahassee feel that we are in a crisis state,
then instead of picking on the 67 counties and cutting taxes, they need
to go to Washington, load up on buses and go up to Washington and
start lobbying for more gas taxes down here in the State of Florida.
When there're states up in the northeast that get $2.80 for every
dollar that they send to Washington, there's something wrong. And
this is one of the fastest growing states. And I've made that very clear
when I've gone to Washington. And it's about time that those people
up there understand that if they're going to get money, they need to go
up to Washington, they need to go up there and lobby, and we'll get
the money down here.
MS. WATERMEIER: Commissioner, I agree with you, okay. I
am -- I am 100 percent with you. There's not enough -- there's not
enough money. We need to -- in fact, I spent a lot of time with the
Department of Transportation up in Tallahassee the last go-around.
I will tell you though that my sense of being up there right now is
that there isn't a lot of support at the congressional level. I do believe
that there's support at the state level. But just like the counties, they
are challenged right now with where their funding is going to come
from, with Medicaid and all the other competing activities, education,
human services, but I do agree with you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning, Janet.
MS. W A TERMEIER: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, your presentation
showed that the increase in demand for our infrastructure,
Page 34
December 11-12, 2007
transportation infrastructure, has increased, but yet the income stream
has declined. And you're shaking your head yes on that which, you
know, doesn't make sense.
If you've got people using the transportation, roads, they're going
to spend -- you're going to purchase more gas. The more gas they
purchase, the more gas tax is -- should be allocated.
So what the bureaucrats are telling you is what they want for the
public to hear. But the bottom line is, like Commissioner Halas stated,
we're not getting our fair share, and that's the bottom line. That should
be, really, the message to the bureaucrats is, we need to go after our
fair share, not that we have depleting funds. We have depleting funds
because it's a choice of the bureaucrats not to go after that money.
And, you know, big government needs to understand it's about public
service instead of other service.
So I'm not going to accept a report that obviously is flawed and
skewed showing problems up in big government.
MS. W ATERMEIER: Commissioner, and there's one challenge
with the gas tax. One of the things that's very good for our
environment right now is that we're getting better gas mileage, we're
going to hybrids. We're actually -- there are certain types of
specialized fuels that are not subject to the gas tax. And so what's
happening is, we're actually getting less and less gas tax per mile per
car driven, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't agree with that because
what I see what we're getting in local gas taxes every year in our
budgeting, Commissioners, has increased. So the gas tax hasn't
changed. It's just the formula has changed. You know, our budget
director's provided that information for years and years. It's the choice
of others to hold -- put their head in the sand and, therefore, we're
punished because of it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. A couple things. I think there
Page 35
December 11-12,2007
are some things that could be fixed pretty easily. For instance, I was
taking my husband to the airport on Saturday, and we got held up -- a
fuel truck had caught fire, the back end of the fuel truck.
By the time we got there, the fire had been out, there were fire
engines sitting around and the traffic, of course, was backed up all the
way. We couldn't really tell what was wrong, but it was on an
overpass and they diverted all the traffic.
By the time I was coming back, the line of traffic was over two
miles long, all backed up, but I could see now what was going on
because I'm coming back. They're all sitting around on the bridge
talking, everybody's having a good old time, they're waiting for a
tanker to come in from Fort Lauderdale, they knew it was going to
take a while for the tanker so they could unload this thing, and there's
the lanes wide open, no fire, no hazard, nothing, and they kept
everything diverted.
Now, people are saying or complaining, look at our roads, we
need to have bigger roads. I think if we had better -- ifFHP had better
policies about how to divert traffic rather than tie up everything like
that, senselessly -- and you see this over and over again. This is just
one instance. That's my first thing. I think we should -- I think the
state should get after FHP and suggest better ways of keeping the
traffic moving.
And then, second thing, why are we diverting $200 million worth
of transportation dollars to something else? Now we're short of
money. We should not be diverting anything to anything. If that's
transportation dollars, stay there.
I think also, with construction prices decreasing -- thank Heavens
-- and we've noticed it here -- I think that makes a difference in --
possibly in your calculations.
We -- there's a great effort right now to reduce illegal
immigrants. That means, you know, when you have a few less million
people coming in, and maybe your -- maybe there's a few less -- you
Page 36
December 11-12,2007
know, a few -- you know, even 100,000 in our particular area alone,
and all of Southwest Florida, that helps also with the impact on the
roads.
And then with the housing crunch as it is, not many people are
moving down here right now. Not many people are moving at all,
quite frankly. So this gives us a chance to catch up.
And lastly, when I think of tolls and then you see them diverting
those tolls right away to big business people, buy those things, and
they're the ones that increase the tolls, but our state doesn't get the
advantage of those tolls because big business is getting it. I just -- I
just -- I'm repulsed by that, as a matter of fact. Thank you.
MS. W ATERMEIER: Well, please let me remind you, I'm a
private citizen now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that. I know that.
MS. W A TERMEIER: I do not write the laws or the rules, but I
have fought for Southwest Florida for the last six years, and I think
we've done relatively better over the last few years than we have in the
past. But please don't underestimate the challenges ahead of us,
because as easy as it is to try and push it off on somebody else, the
truth of the matter is, we're the ones that live here day in and day out,
and we need to be able to figure out where it's going -- where we're
gomg.
And I am not promoting tolls. Please, believe me. That is a
decision that others make. It is simply the wave of how things are
getting done in the funding structure of today.
I would advocate that we need a whole new funding structure. I
do not believe that this funding structure works.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Ms. Watermeier, thank you
very much. Wonderful presentation, I appreciate it, and I understand
you're not -- you're not responsible for these things, but I hope you're
getting the flavor that we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it
Page 37
December 11-12, 2007
anymore.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That we've reached our limit.
And I think it's important and -- that we all understand the real
issues here. You've talked about the problems we have, but there's
nothing here that deals with the root cause of this -- this funding issue,
and it's certainly true that Florida is a donor state to all the other states
in the nation. Nobody's doing anything about it.
Collier County is a donor state (sic) to all the other states (sic) in
Florida. Nobody's doing anything about it.
The Florida legislature is working at cross purposes with the
Budget and Taxation Reform Commission. How in the world are you
going to vote on a tax reduction package in January when this
commission is going to be presented more referenda for November?
You have no idea how they're going to work together.
The state legislature is reducing revenues and reducing funding
source for local governments. You're talking about finding additional
funding sources for local. That's not going to happen. The -- there are
too many leaders in our legislature at the state and at the national level
who are more concerned with getting themselves reelected and getting
headlines about how well they're reducing taxes than they are about
solving the problems. And until we start getting honest about that,
we're never going to solve the problem.
We've got a credibility issue with legislators who pretend that
they're trying to solve problems, and they're doing nothing more than
trying to get their name in the newspaper so they can get elected to
some higher office, and that goes from the governor right on down as
far as I'm concerned.
The -- can you imagine -- we spend a minimum of $70 million in
Collier County for direct expenses as a results of illegal immigration, a
minimum of $70 million. Can you imagine what we could do with
$70 million if we didn't have to spend it on people who should not be
Page 38
December 11-12,2007
in this country in the first place? It's a real problem for me.
And by the way, can you imagine how many cars you'd take off
the road every day -- I'm talking about tens of thousands of road trips
every day in Collier County -- if you didn't build student parking lots
at schools? How much gasoline would you save?
You've got a bus system. Children can still get back and forth to
school. It's a wonderful convenience. Is it necessary? I don't think
so, but that's not going to happen in my lifetime. But people are not
thinking about those kinds of things.
They're looking for ways to transfer these problems onto the
backs of local taxpayers. That's really what this all is. And that's why
we're concerned about it, and that's why we're a little angry, and it's
not at you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not at you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We appreciate -- it's a wonderful
presentation. It was very informative. It was helpful for me to
understand some of these things, but the real problems, again, are with
our elected representatives who are not representing us.
MS. W ATERMEIER: Sir, I do not disagree with you. I am from
this area. I've lived here for 20 years. I've lived in four of our
Southwest Florida counties. It's a beautiful place. But we are feeling
growth pressures that we have never felt before.
And as much as I would love to have faith in our Congress and
faith in our legislature to do the things that need to be done, I find that
the place you really get things done is at the local level.
So, you know, hopefully you all will try and help figure this out
from the local level, because I really don't have confidence that we're
going to figure it all out at the state and the federal level.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not until they begin to listen, and
they're not going to listen until they know that the people are fed up.
And when people start speaking out and holding them accountable for
the decisions they make, I think they'll start making better decisions.
Page 39
December 11-12,2007
But so far nobody wants to deal with them, okay. We're willing
to bear the brunt of all their shenanigans on the local level, and we still
held them as conquering heros when they come back to visit us once
in a while when they're out of session.
I'm not buying it anymore. I think we need to be very direct and
honest with these legislators, and we're going to find out how -- how
much they really care very soon when the legislative session begins
and we find that not one of our legislative priorities that we've
communicated to them is being sponsored by our local legislators.
We're going to understand that very clearly very soon.
MS. WATERMEIER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We still have Commissioner Henning,
then Commissioner Halas, but before we do that, I -- the reason you're
here today is to share data out there, not only with the five
commissioners up here who are pretty knowledgeable about what the
real world is made up with, but for the listening public, and we have
quite a following of people out there that do watch this meeting on a
regular basis.
And I think the only thing -- the only way we can keep this in
front of the public and to -- to reach some sort of resolution down the
road is through this continued public exposure of what's taking place.
I mean, we have a serious problem that exists, and it's going to
continue to get worse unless somebody, like Commissioner Coyle
said, somebody does something about it.
And the truth of the matter is, what the Collier County
Commission has in the way of power is extremely limited. We only
have a very limited amount of funds. And if I remember correctly,
we're in the hole, one heck of a lot. I can't remember what the number
is now, but it's up there, it's way up there, like a half a billion dollars
or so shortfall, and it's going to get worse as we get into the years __
into the coming years.
And we have to keep this in front of the public at all times. Wet
Page 40
December 11-12,2007
have knowledgeable commissioners and they need to share this
information.
And so I would encourage my fellow commissioners to officially
invite somebody here too to make further presentations so that we can
keep this particular effort going forward. A knowledgeable public is
the public that's going to carrying the ball at the end of the day.
And with that, Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner
Halas, then we're going to wrap this up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- and the public needs to
be aware of the fact that in 2000, the legislators in the State of Florida
had a $20 billion budget. This working year, even with the cutbacks,
their budget is 74 -- over $74 billion.
So I think it's a choice of where they prioritize their funds, and I
haven't seen anybody talk about the federal budget being reduced. It's
all about priorities, and want to be everything to everybody. But the
fact of the matter is, everybody's affected by our network of
transportation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, then we'll wrap
it up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: First of all, I hope that you realize
that I'm very passionate about this issue, about the obligations that the
state has as far as funding goes.
It's my understanding that the State of Florida right now has
about $18 million, or 18 million people, and we're looking at probably
another 18 million people somewheres in the time frame of 2030 to
2040.
I would think that the state then has to realize that they have an
obligation of figuring out what the load carrying capacity of this state
is and just how -- how many people can really be in this state, and
how they're going to address the transportation issues.
As you brought out, the transportation issues and trying to fund
them are going up at an exponential rate. So I think that they really
Page 41
December 11-12, 2007
have to realize what's going on, and it relates back to, each of the
counties has to come up with a Capital Improvement Element, and I
believe that the State of Florida should have that same obligation and
they should realize what Florida's going to be when it grows up.
So I think that they've got a strong obligation to address this. It
shouldn't be all on the local people to figure out how they're going to
address transportation needs.
I think it's a partnership. And as Commissioner Coyle said, until
they get the message up there in regards to what needs to take place
here in the State of Florida, I don't think we're going to get very much
accomplished. But I think that they've got to come to the reality that
there's 67 counties, and what we've gone through in the last year has
put a tremendous load on us in trying to figure out the best way that
we're going to address future transportation problems and future
growth here in the State of Florida. Thank you.
MS. W ATERMEIER: There is a 50-year look right now going
on called the Florida's Future Corridors Initiative, and it is looking out
50 years and looking where the connector roads need to be, not only
within the state, but state to state, and actually putting the dollars with
it.
Because of that effort, that is part of the reason that I-75, our
design/build finance is happening. That's part of the reason the
Jacksonville outer beltway is happening, as well as the I-595.
So there are some things happening. It's just a very complex and
very big and very expensive issue. And it's not just roads. It's our
ports, it's our rail lines. The state has just finalized an agreement with
CSX to purchase some lines because that passenger rail line is less
money than building roads. So it's priorities and tradeoffs, and I
totally agree with you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Janet, if! may make the closing
statement on this. I think it plainly comes down to one thing, if we
can't provide the infrastructure, if we're not given the tools to do it,
Page 42
December 11-12,2007
locally, if the state won't assume the responsibility, if the federal
government won't assume the responsibility and we're going to have
more people coming to the state without the infrastructure in place, at
some point in time the State of Florida has to come up with a Growth
Management Plan that says enough's enough. Until the
infrastructure's in place, you won't be able to come down to Florida.
You won't be able to expand your projects. In other words, the state
would have to be forced to place a moratorium.
But they'll never build that in for one reason; the people that
drive the state are the money people that build the homes, and they're
trying to keep that cost down as much as possible by not providing the
infrastructure. And it's the people that will follow them that will bear
the consequences of the sins of the people that were there in the
beginning.
But Janet, once again, thank you so much for being here. You
can see it's a very passionate issue for this commission. And when it
comes back again, and I'm sure it will be from other venues, I'll make
sure you're notified so you can be here to join in if you'd like to add
something to the conversation.
MS. W A TERMEIER: Thank you. And as a private citizen, I
offer my assistance when you're trying to strategize. So if you want to
pick up the phone and call, I'll be glad to come in and help on a
complementary basis. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're going to end this whole
thing with Mr. Feders (sic). No, I'm sorry, Mr. Feders. You were
standing there like you had something very important on the -- to say,
but you don't?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He was just falling asleep at our
discussion, I think.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's why he's standing up and
moving around now. Okay. I'm glad we could entertain you. Thank
you so much, Janet.
Page 43
December 11-12, 2007
MS. W A TERMEIER: Thank you.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY DEB BE FAUNCE TO
DISCUSS INAPPROPRIATE BUSINESS PRACTICES BY A
COLLIER COUNTY LICENSED CONTRACTOR - DISCUSSED
AND CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD TO KEEP THE
BOARD UPDATED ON PROGRESS OF THIS CASE SINCE
CONTRACTOR IS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE STATE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public petitions.
Our first public petition is a request by Debbe Faunce to discuss
inappropriate business practices by a Collier County licensed
contractor. Ms. Faunce?
MS. FAUNCE: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm speaking
today about permit number 2005100523.
MR. MUDD: State your name, please, ma'am.
MS. FAUNCE: My name is Debbe Faunce. I live at 13585
Collier Boulevard here in Naples.
In May of 2005 my husband and I hired a Florida licensed
contractor, Carlos Pio of Deco Homes, to build a guesthouse on our
property for my mother. The house was under 1,000 square feet and
was supposed to be a stand-alone house with separate electric and
sewer at a cost of $83,000. The permit was not issued until December,
2005, and construction did not begin until January of2006.
To shorten a very long and agonizing story, the contractor -- who
was asking for early draws during construction so the job would not be
delayed, the county passed the placement of the foundation of the
house too close to the main home so the house could not have a
separate meter, and a roof attachment had to be designed and added
extra expense and delay.
Page 44
December 11-12, 2007
After paying the contractor, Carlos Pio, and his subcontractors
who put liens on our property because he didn't pay them over
$90,000, he abandoned the job and left us with a deteriorating shell
that had about $20,000 worth of work into it.
We filed a complaint with the DPBR and with the Economic
Crimes Unit in Collier County, and I took over as owner/contractor on
May 31, 2007.
After paying retail prices on every piece of material purchased to
complete the construction, we have now paid over $150,000, and the
house does not have solid wood cabinets and granite countertops or
any of the extras that were included in the original contract.
We applied for the CO on November 7,2007 and were informed
that we had to pay an additional $860 for 12 failed inspections under
Carlos Pio, revisions and permit fees due to the delay in construction
while under the licensed contractor, Carlos Pio.
Not only was a theft and fraud committed against us by a
licensed contractor, but we were forced to pay for his and the county's
errors as well. In speaking with -- to Sergeant White and Detective
Moscotto of the Economic Crimes Unit, we learned we were one of 26
victims of Carlos Pio.
In order to prosecute Mr. Pio in Florida, law enforcement must be
able to prove intent because Florida is one of three states in the United
States where the contractors have had intent written into the state
statutes.
It is apparent that the laws in Collier County are written for the
contractors, and there is no incentive, as far as I'm concerned, to hire
licensed contractors in this county or in this state.
What I'm here today for is that I believe that the county should at
least return the $860 that we were forced to pay for all of Carlos Pio's
failed inspections -- we did not fail any inspections while I was the
owner/contractor -- and go after Carlos Pio like we have to.
Thank you.
Page 45
December 11-12, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Questions, comments from the
board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to hear from the county
attorney about what jurisdiction we have in this issue.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the matter -- the matter, of course, can be
referred to the Contractor Licensing Board as an avenue. And her one
statement she made about the laws of Collier County or the laws of the
county not being sufficient, I believe that the Contractor's Licensing
Board can hear in regard to the performance and provide a forum for
all parties that are interested that wish to come before the board a la
the contractor as well, and that they independently can, in fact, make
decisions relating to the licensure locally here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if the company is out of
business --
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- there's probably not much the
Contractor Licensing Board could do.
MR. WEIGEL: That is true. And if it is out of business, of
course, to the extent that there are no corporate shells or individuals
related to the business that might be pursued from a civil lawsuit
possibility, those are things that are outside of what local government
can do.
And she has indicated she's, of course, spoken with the Economic
Crimes Unit and the police, but private counsel may be able to provide
her some assistance in regard to civil action she may wish to maintain,
and as is always the case, the individual who may wish to embark on
such activity has to recognize the cost, risk analysis of, there will be a
cost for the services that are pursued through attorneys or other
organizations and the potential for benefit such as, you know,
remuneration back to her on the damages that she may be able to
prove in a civil suit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If -- well, just two quick questions,
.
Page 46
December 11-12, 2007
Mr. Chairman, and I'll try to wrap this up.
With respect to the licensing of this individual, do we even know
if this individual was licensed by the State of Florida or by Collier
County?
MS. FAUNCE: State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then it doesn't make any
difference what we do. We cannot revoke his license to operate ifhe's
licensed through the State of Florida; is that true, County Attorney?
We can make a recommendation.
MR. WEIGEL: I think that there is -- I think that there is a
recommendation that could be made, but the ability for that person to
practice the profession in the county can be stopped.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, okay. And the law
concerning intent to defraud, is that a county law or is it a state law?
MR. WEIGEL: It is a state law.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we can't change the law.
Did you have something different you --
MS. FAUNCE: My question is that the county go after Carlos
Pio like I have to and return the $860 to me. They were his failed
inspections while he was the contractor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what is our legal standing with
respect to being able to do that?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm not sure I understand the question. If the
question is to go after the inspection fees --
MS. FAUNCE: Every time you fail an inspection you must pay
a fee. The contractor has to pay a fee when you fail an inspection.
And if you fail the inspection more than one time, the fee doubles or
triples, or whatever it is. While he was the contractor, he failed 12
inspections. When I became owner/contractor, I didn't fail any
inspections.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
MS. FAUNCE: The county, before they issued a CO, I had to
Page 47
December 11-12,2007
pay the $860 for all the failed inspections that were under Carlos Pio
since he was my contractor. And that's what I'm asking for, the $860
back.
And I have to go after him civilly which is not worth it. I've
talked to numerous attorneys. He has nothing. I was in law
enforcement for 25 years in New Jersey, the chief investigator of
Internal Affairs. I tell you, he would have been arrested and in jail
already. I have a contract. He defrauded me, but the county says that
you must be able to prove intent, that that was -- from the beginning
he intended to defraud his 26 victims.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who from the county said --
MS. FAUNCE: I spoke to the State Attorney's Office.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, that's not the county.
MS. FAUNCE: Okay. I spoke to Detective Moscotto and
Sergeant White from your Economic Crimes Unit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. They're not ours. They're
not subject to county commission rulings or management or decision
making. Those are state agencies.
MS. FAUNCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there's nothing we can do about
that.
Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we refer this to the
contractor review board and see if they can't take some action with
respect to this man's license and see what they can do about resolving
this issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Has that been done yet?
MS. FAUNCE: I'm sure it has been. If you talk to the Detective
Moscotto, I'm sure it's been referred. But my issue --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, no. The detective would not
refer it to our county board. If they did, it's a regular procedure we go
through. I think what we can do here is direct --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's Mike Ossorio.
Page 48
December 11-12, 2007
MR. MUDD: I think Michael Ossorio can tell you if it's been
referred to the Contractor Licensing Board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. OSSORIO: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Mike Ossorio, Collier County Contractor Licensing Supervisor. It's a
pleasure.
There are -- I just want to reiterate something back, what
Commissioner Coyle said. There are two kinds of contractors. There
is a state-certified contractor, there's a state registered contractor. If
you are a state registered contractor, your license is held by the Board
of County Commissioners.
We have a much more broader scope of activities we can go
ahead and place on restrictions on a contractor. So if this was a state
registered contractor, we wouldn't be here today. But if you're a
state-certified contractor -- and I guess this is a theme through the state
legislation and all up there in Tallahassee, they like to keep control of
state contractors, and there's rules and regulations pertaining to that.
In the ordinance it's pretty explicit that tells us -- and the
contractor license has been amended over the years. It said, if you are
a state certified contractor under 4.2, there are two avenues the local
governments can take against a state certified contractor.
One is suspend his building permit privileges. And that's the only
thing we can do. We can't fine him, we can't tell him to leave the
county. The only thing we can do as a state certified contractor is pull
his building permit privileges. He can still work, he just cannot pull
building permits in the City of Naples or Marco Island or Collier
County.
That is sad. We've been working with the legislature for many
years, and the licensing association officials. We've been trying to
advocate that for many years to gain more local control over state
certified contractors.
I'm not going to talk in general -- I'm going to talk in general, but
Page 49
December 11-12,2007
I'm not going to talk in specifics because there is an ongoing
investigation with the State Attorney's Office.
Typically, if you are a state-certified contractor and there's -- and
this seems to be a fraud case. We deal civilly. We are a civil board.
We do civil. We go after anything we can pertaining to licensed
contractors' monetary futures.
If you do something criminally, we refer it to the Economic
Crime Unit because they are better equipped to do so. They have
subpoena powers. They go through the intent, and it takes a while.
Nothing's overnight, especially with the State Attorney's Office when
they review for criminal investigations, especially fraud or scheme to
defraud.
If, indeed, that -- it does come back that Mr. Pio did get charged
with fraud, we would step in under 4.2 and we would go to the
licensing board and charge him with fraud under our 4.2 civilly and
pull his building permit privileges. Then we would have a finding of
fact and we'd send it to Tallahassee, and they would take a stance on
his state license as well.
Pertaining to a tier-one contractor, state certified contractor, is
that if there is no intent to fraud, say has a bad business or goes out of
business, there is what you call a state recovery fund. It's not easy.
But every citizen in Florida has the ability to go to the state recovery
fund. It's not overnight. It's not in six months. It might not be in a
year.
The only thing that they need is a civil judge to say that, yes, you
are out $800 or, yes, you're out $2,000, or yes, you're out whatever X
amount of money you are, whatever it is, or you get a finding of fact
from the state licensing board, there's a recovery fund.
And the state doesn't make it easy. They don't like giving money
away, but it does happen, and she will be able to claim -- we have the
forms in our office -- claim on the state recovery fund. And it's up to
$25,000 per occurrence.
Page 50
December 11-12, 2007
So there is some avenues up there to go ahead and alleviate some
pressures; however, right now we're in the local stage. This particular
company or qualifier is in an investigation for fraud. So in terms of --
we just can't discuss that particular item, but in general terms, I wish
we had more responsibility with state-certified contractors, but we just
don't.
And the licensing board has -- we fought for many years for -- to
get more local control over state certified contractors.
But right now, her case is pending. We're not going to do
anything in particular right now until the state completes its
investigation. And when it does, we will review it with the sheriffs
office. And if it has a good outcome, we'll go in front of the licensing
board, which meets every third Wednesday of the month. If not, then
she needs -- he or she needs to file for the state recovery fund.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Can you keep us posted on the
progress of this or the lack of progress, all the commissioners? In
other words, this is where we are, and do it on -- every time some
direction changes on this or a new step moves forward?
Because something like this shouldn't lag behind. I mean, people
get caught in the bureaucracy of the system between state and local
government, and it seems like there's absolutely no -- no final solution
to this because of the process you have to go through.
I appreciate you sharing all that with us. But would you be able
to in your department work directly with the petitioner to see that
every possible stone is turned over to see what's available, and then
keep the commission apprised of that situation as you move forward?
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, you're correct. Just because we
just don't have the jurisdiction, we still take those complaints, and we
will mitigate or do any kind of thing we need to do to facilitate the
homeowner's needs, versus either going after them for permit fees or
whatever it is. Just because we can't bring it to the board, we'll still
take that complaint.
Page 51
December 11-12,2007
And most of the times we do get some good resolve out of it. I
think we collected over $500,000 last year in monetary money. So,
you know, that's not small change, but it's, for some homeowners,
getting their money back, that's all they're really looking for.
But this particular -- and there are one in -- there are diamonds in
the rough, but in this particular case that Mr. Pio is under investigation
-- but you're absolutely right. Once the investigation's closed, we will
mitigate this to the full length. We will bring this PON and we'll try to
collect his money for this homeowner. There's no doubt about it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a quick comment. This is just
one other example of how state laws interfere in our ability to properly
provide efficient service to our residents. Thank you.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Coyle, you're absolutely correct. We
fought with a couple senators on the other coast about getting more
local control over state certified contractors. And, you know,
licensing officials were trying to get more lobbyists up there in
Tallahassee. So if you know anyone up there, you know, we need to
get more aggressive down here for anything, registered or state
certified contractors, in the future.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we thank you for being
here today. This is the reason for the public petition process, is to be
able to come before five commissioners and have staff available so
that we can understand the limitations of what we can do, and also
know what we can go forward with.
I think staffs been duly directed to be able to keep working with
you and also to give us an appraisal of the situation as it moves toward
the process.
MS. FAUNCE: I do want you to know that although I've heard it
several times that you can go after the state recovery funds, first of all,
you have to be -- you have to have a judgment against him, so you'd
have to go after him civilly. To hire an attorney with a $5,000 retainer
Page 52
December 11-12,2007
and $350 an hour, or whatever it is, I've been told, we needed the
money to finish my mother's house. We did not have the money to
hire a civil attorney and get a judgment against them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
MS. FAUNCE: And my husband is still working in New Jersey
because he cannot afford to move down here after $150,000 was
stolen from us, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand, and also, too, I'd like to
introduce you to some of the representative aides from the state that
are in this building, and you might want to also try to pursue it in that
direction while the county still goes forward with what it can do. But
I thank you for being here today.
MS. FAUNCE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Mr. Mudd, let's go right on to the other petition to get that out of
the way.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY VIVIAN JIMENEZ TO
DISCUSS EMINENT DOMAIN ISSUES RELATIVE TO
PROPERTY OWNERS ON OIL WELL ROAD - DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next petition is a petition
request by Vivian Jimenez to discuss eminent domain issues relative
to property owners on Oil Well Road.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Whichever podium you want to go to.
If you have something you want to show us on the visualizer, please
go to this podium. The reason I -- we normally take a break now, but
I'm afraid if I miss your petition now, it would be sometime in the late
afternoon before you could be heard, so it was -- I thought it was
important to get you out of here so you can go about your work.
Page 53
December 11-12, 2007
MS. JIMINEZ: Okay. Thank you very much. I would like to
thank all the commissioners today in hearing me speak. My name is
Vivian Jiminez, and I have helped the property owners of Collier
County as a translator and a Realtor in the process of eminent domain
as well as serving as a voice for other property owners involved.
I would like to take the chance in thanking you and letting you
know that all the property owners that are here and others that will not
be able to come, that are sitting back there, have been frustrated and
disappointed with the injustice and discrimination happening here in
the Collier County eminent domain procedure.
There are many issues involved. One of the issues is drainage
issues which will incur hundreds of thousands of dollars if not fixed in
the engineering master plan. Drainage ditches must be done in order
for water not to overflow onto properties.
Two, constitutional rights issue. Property owners who do not
understand or speak English should be given the right to have a
translator throughout the eminent domain procedure that deals with
mortgages, constitutional rights, mediations, settlements, and lawsuits,
and have that translator get paid.
As the statutes say, all reasonable fees will be paid. What more
reasonable is it when you do not understand what someone is saying
to you?
I have worked this whole year translating to these owners, and all
I heard at the end of the conference by their attorney was, they will
not pay you. You have to go to court to get paid.
I call this injustice. Whether it's me or any other translator in the
United States, they should get paid or else who will translate this
whole procedure to the property owner for as long as it takes?
I've helped some of these property owners since October 16,
2006, till today, and it still goes on. Months and months and months.
They call me day, evening, weekends. They want to know the
procedure. They don't understand what's holding it up.
Page 54
December 11-12,2007
Some cases have been settled. They still haven't gotten paid.
They still call me, what's holding it up? Why isn't there a court
hearing?
Number three, their settlement issues. In one of the conference
settlements, County Attorney Ellen Chadwell told me, take your story
to the meeting and contact the commissioner if we wanted, so that's
why we're here.
The power of eminent domain abuse was instilled here by not
having good faith mediations.
Number four, initiation speeches. Opening remarks issues,
conducted in these conference settlements are so scary that even the
most intelligent person would be scared not to accept the ridiculous
county settlement offers.
By the time they finished telling, you can choose to go to court,
but you will probably end up getting half and paying your entire
attorney and experts fees yourself, who in their right mind, okay,
would even gamble to these odds? Clearly, they're abusing their
power.
As one property owner left the mediation saying, I feel I have
been stabbed in the back and then accused of carrying an illegal
weapon. There's not a winning situation here.
In one case where the purchase of the property that was going to
be demolished was agreed upon, the assistant county attorney, Heidi
Ashton, wanted the county to back out of the agreement because a
Realtor was involved. In this case it was me.
The bank had agreed to pay a commission and change to a
negotiated short sale with the bank. Tell me this is not irrelevant to the
purchase of a full take property being purchased by the county at
below appraisal price, bank appraisal.
Again, showing injustice to the property owner, which is here,
that needs to sell due to personal reasons and cannot because the
property is in the line of homes being acquired for the expansion of
Page 55
December 11-12, 2007
Vanderbilt Beach Road. His property is a full take. County
employees want to postpone the purchase using fiscal impacts are not
extended at that time, growth management impact recommendation is
consistent with the Growth Management Plan as an excuse yet his
front door neighbor has already been settled, which -- I spoke to his
attorney and also got the same response. Collier County is very
difficult to deal with.
This particular case has taken months back and forth, costing the
county hundreds in salaries, not to mention all the time I have spent
with this property owner that speaks no English, and I have helped
with all the bank negotiations.
In another case where the property owner is here, property
owner's attorney, Bella Ypatel (phonetic) asked the county's attorney,
how did your engineer find a solution to come into the property when
there will only be seven feet left to the property line? Worst-case
scenario of Everglades Boulevard North.
On one-and-a-quarter-acre property, 75 feet across that has no
space on either side for a car to get into, the response from the county
attorney, Ellen Chadwell, they didn't have an answer.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a crying shame. The owner feels
the attorney's appraiser did not do justice here. Here I would have
bought this entire property to be demolished or would have moved it
back to legal limits.
By the way, there's three children that live on this property.
Okay?
The solution we all want is for property owners to be served with
good faith mediations, translations to be available, and justices made
in each case. Whether it's a partial take, full take, property owners
should be made whole. Property values should be conceived as in its
highest potential value in order to do justice to that owner.
Like in the case of a five-acre corner property owner, which is
also here, he and his father bought knowing this had commercial
Page 56
December 11-12, 2007
potential in the future. He bought this parcel instead of buying a car
when he was young, 25 years ago, for future development, is now
facing acquisition for a retention pond and is forced to sell at
residential value. He is not obscuring the purchase but would like to
be purchased at the highest and best use.
Again, here is the case where the county is playing games, one
day they offer one price, another day another.
The case of the Rock Christian Church, Pastor Sylvester
Gonzalez, also here, is tired of paying for preapplications over
$15,000 in the past four years. Here is a 35-foot take by 330-foot
take. He is tired of not receiving permits due to the expansion of
Collier Boulevard.
The case ofMr. Hernandez, full take house on Wilson. The
county won't respond after numerous contacts by his attorney. His
wife holds a day care center here. They're also here.
The case of Mr. Alonzo. His case was settled in September but
the court won't give him a date till January to release funds. Attorney
said, due to too many foreclosures in Collier County. All of these
property owners feel they were not justified, even when using an
eminent domain attorney.
By their decisions, we have contacted Mel Martinez in the United
States Senate, Mario Diaz-Ballart, and yesterday Burt Saunders was
also emailed suggesting him to please participate in this meeting.
Collier County property owners want justice rights, not
discrimination, county choosing and picking who they want to settle.
If you don't choose to have an attorney represent you, your case is
settled first.
Gentlemen and ladies, I would like for you to please help us, and
the property owners of Collier County that are taxpaying citizens
would like for you to hear them, and each case is different. It's like a
baby being born; every property is different. One is one-and-a-quarter;
one is one-and-a-half.
Page 57
December 11-12, 2007
They want justice. They want good faith mediations. They
want, if they have a rock, to have a rock. If they have a fence, they
want to have a fence, if not, they want to be compensated for it. They
feel like they leave these mediations and there's nothing they can do,
and I think that you as the Board of County Commissioners can -- you
know, can help with this situation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think we're confused
between eminent domain and early purchase of somebody's property
prior to eminent domain, and -- because if it goes through eminent
domain, it's my understanding that expert fees can be considered, and
that's up to the judge. Am I correct?
MS. JIMINEZ: Yes. We have a proacquisition, a pre- -- early
acquisition in the case of Jabeto Morales Galvez (phonetic), which is
the house and then --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you keep on saying
eminent domain.
MS. JIMINEZ: Eminent domain is for, let's say, what--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand what it means.
MS. JIMINEZ: On Everglades and Oil Well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand what it means, and
that goes through the court system. Is that your understanding?
MS. JIMINEZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you could submit
your bills to the Court for consideration.
Now, if it's anything preeminent domain negotiated, what this
board set up to try to get the property earlier so that the residents don't
have to go through the laborious process of eminent domain, that's
another issue.
But what I request of you -- do you have a business card?
MS. JIMINEZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could you leave it with that
Page 58
December 11-12,2007
gentleman sitting there? Thank you.
MS. JIMINEZ: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think the problem is that
you're throwing a whole conglomeration of issues here, all of which
have different reasons for, perhaps, delays. Of course something is
going to be settled faster if there's no court and lawyers involved. We
do that every day here. We offer attractive prices to people to avoid
all the costs of court and the delays of court, and of course they settle
faster.
If somebody believes they're not getting a fair offer, they can go
through court. They can get a lawyer to represent them, and you come
-- there are laws which establish what a fair offer is. We're obligated
to get appraisals.
If the appraisals say that month that the prices are worth $70,000
an acre and two months from now we get other appraisals that shows
the price has dropped, of course we're going to be offering different
prices for it because that's the law. That's what we have to do.
Now, I guess my feeling is that, you know, your attempts to turn
this into some kind of racial discrimination issue is way out of bounds,
and I would say to you that since you have contacted our senator and
representative to solve this problem, then I would like to have them
solve it. So I don't see any reason why I have to take any action.
Representative Diaz-Balart and Senator Martinez, you've asked them
to solve it, fine. Let them solve it.
MS. JIMINEZ: No, I haven't asked them to solve it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You just said you had contacted
both of them and asked them to attend these meetings and get that
worked out. That's what you said. Would you like to have that read
back on the record?
MS. JIMINEZ: No. That's okay. I have my notes here.
Page 59
December 11-12,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then that's what you said.
Now, did you do that or not?
MS. JIMINEZ: Yes. We contacted them and they said they had
no -- you know, they transferred me to Burt Saunders, which is -- he
handles eminent domain procedures here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Give me a break. Okay. Maybe
Senator Saunders can work it out, okay?
MS. JIMINEZ: Yeah, maybe.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Mr. Chairman, these things
are going to come before the commission in due course.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They have to come before us.
Once the Court makes a decision what we should pay and what we
shouldn't pay, they'll come to us. We will make a decision.
We're doing this for every person where we are having to take
land. We do not like to take land, but we're having to do that. So
we're doing it for everyone in Collier County and we're doing it
equally for everyone in Collier County. We have a law that we have
to abide by.
So I think what we'll find as we go through these is that there are
different reasons in each case why something has taken a little more
time. But they'll come to us for a final decision.
So I think we just let the matter take its normal course and we get
it resolved, not only -- but this issue about -- about translation fees is
one that is very key to an item that we are to consider today. We can't
afford to make a decision on this petition when we haven't even heard
the case which this petition will address, okay.
So I think we just let these go through the normal course, and
they'll come to us, we'll make a decision. And if somebody is in any
way discriminated against, there are laws to prevent that, and we're
subject to those laws.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if! may add, I found it a little bit
Page 60
December 11-12, 2007
offensive the fact that you said that Collier County refuses to work
with people. The people we have worked with so far and settled for
their land, the ones that have houses on it and have been greatly
impacted the most, it's been a very difficult process for them but many
of them have come back to me afterwards and said they appreciated
what the county did. They thought they got treated fairly. They got
paid way in excess of the valuation of their property, making
allowances for everything, right down the line, and I assure you, it was
not based upon their particular ability to be able to speak English that
these decisions were made.
You have one of the most equitable governments that Collier
County has ever had that represents these people. And I personally
take offense when somebody tells me that we're discriminatory
towards people. Weare not, and I represent the largest amount of
Spanish-speaking people, and you better be assured that I've always
gone way out of my way to make sure that they get all the
representation that they can get.
So please, in the future, when you make such statements, be
prepared to be challenged when you make those kind of statements.
Thank you very much for being here today.
MS. JIMINEZ: Well, my -- you know, my suggestion was, you
know, because I've been helping them for over a year --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, the 10 minutes
are up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I agree, but we're going to let
her finish. You know, this is part of the process. Please continue.
MS. JIMINEZ: That's okay. I appreciate your understanding.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And with that, we're
going to take a 10-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Page 61
December 11-12, 2007
Item #12A
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL,
LAWRENCE A. FARESE, ESQ. OF THE FIRM ROBINS,
KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P., TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THE RICHLAND
PUD (PEBBLEBROOK)/OLDE CYPRESS PUD - MOTION TO
DIRECT COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO MEET WITH THE
PARTIES INVOLVED (APPLICANT, DEVELOPER AND
NEIGHBORS) TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS AND
PREP ARE A SCRIVENER'S ERROR FOR THE RICHLAND PUD
(PEBBLEBROOK) - APPROVED
Commissioner, this brings us to our time certain item, which is
l2A. Based on board direction earlier today, this presentation will be
limited to the Richland PUD findings, and we will reschedule the Olde
Cypress PUD findings at a later -- at a later time.
This item to be heard at 11 a.m. Investigative Report of outside
counsel Lawrence A. Farese, Esquire, of the firm Robins, Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi, LLP, to the Collier County Commission regarding the
Richland PUD, Pebblebrooke and the Olde Cypress PUD. Again,
Olde Cypress PUD will be continued to a future agenda item.
Mr. Farese?
MR. FARESE: Good morning. My name is Larry Farese. I'm a
partner with the firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could you get the mike right in front
of you, sir. Thank you.
MR. FARESE: 711 5th Avenue South here in Naples.
Our Collier County attorney has asked me to conduct the
investigation into both the Richland PUD and the Olde Cypress PUD.
I understand that this morning we'll focus our attention on the
Richland PUD issues.
Page 62
December 11-12, 2007
I delivered a report late Friday afternoon. I apologize for its
length. I didn't have time to write a short one in time for this
presentation today.
I'm not going to go through the entire report in detail. I'll try to
hit the highlights, answer your questions, and take this discussion
wherever you'd like it to go.
With regard to the Richland PUD, also known as Pebblebrooke,
there were three issues that I was asked to focus attention on. Number
one, there is a two-story commercial building set back approximately
30 feet, or actually exactly 30 feet, from the residential neighborhood
of Pebblebrooke. How did that happen?
Secondly, there is a buffer, 30-foot vegetative buffer between the
building and the residences, but that buffer is not consistent with the
conceptual plan that is part of the PUD and set forth as Exhibit B to
the PUD. How did that happen?
And thirdly, we have Stevie Tomato's restaurant, sports bar,
whatever you want to call it, in the southern section of the
Pebblebrooke shopping center close to the neighbors causing the noise
concerns that you've all heard about most recently at the October
meeting.
Concerning the building height issue first, the issue came before
the Planning Commission in January, 2002. There were several
residents that appeared at that meeting expressing concerns about a
number of things, one of which being the height of the commercial
structures in the commercial section of the 3.2 acres that were then
going to be rezoned.
As a result of that, the planning commissioners asked the
applicant if they would be willing to reduce the height of commercial
structures from two stories to one story. The applicant agreed on the
record.
When the Planning Commission voted and moved to approve the
rezone, there were several stipulations to the motion, one of which
Page 63
December 11-12, 2007
being the reduction of building height from two stories to one story,
and that is what was approved by the Planning Commission by a vote
of7-0.
The problem is that that stipulation and that agreement did not
find its way into the revised PUD document that the board reviewed in
February of2002. Ray Bellows was the chief planner assigned to that
particular project as a result of a termination of a prior employee, and
he simply admits that he missed it.
In his notes at the Planning Commission meeting he did not catch
the two story to one story. His understanding was that there was a
reduction in the building height from 50 feet that was provided in the
PUD document down to 35 feet.
So in his staff report to the Board of County Commissioners in
February of2002, he summarizes a staff recommendation of reducing
building heights from 50 feet to 35 feet but allowing two stories.
When he presented his report to the board, again, he described
the recommendation of reducing it to 35 feet, indicated that that issue
was discussed at the Planning Commission level. From reading the
transcript, you would have gotten the impression that the Planning
Commission had agreed to that reduction when, in fact, it was a
different recommendation, that is to reduce it to one story.
And so the board approved the PUD as written not knowing that
the Planning Commission had, in fact, recommended a reduction to
one story and, in fact, the applicant had agreed to reduce it to one
story. So your approval of a document was not consistent with what
the Planning Commission had approved.
No one corrected Mr. Bellows' staff report or his oral
presentation to the board. There were several staff members that
attended both meetings. No one caught that. The applicant did not
volunteer that there was an error, and the plat was -- excuse me -- the
PUD was approved.
So two years later the new then owner of the commercial
Page 64
December 11-12, 2007
property -- because that was sold shortly after the PUD was rezoned __
comes in with a Site Development Plan. It has a two-story building
shown. The staff looks at the PUD which says two stories -- as a
matter of fact, it still said 50 feet. That 50 feet was still in the PUD as
approved -- and the SDP is approved with the two-story building.
So the -- what we have is a two-story building that resulted from,
in our opinion, a miscommunication between staff and the board as to
what the Planning Commission had recommended.
With regard to the buffer, at the Planning Commission meeting in
January of2002, the applicant presented a buffer plan to the Planning
Commission. The date of that document is January 16, which is the
day before the Planning Commission met. Staff had little, if any, time
to look at this document before it was presented to the Planning
Commission, and the Planning Commission saw it for the first time at
that meeting.
You'll see -- well, you can't see it very well, but there is a 30-foot
buffer.
MR. MUDD: You will in just a second, sir.
MR. FARESE: Okay. The conceptual plan shows a 30-foot
buffer between the residents and the commercial building. You'll see
the building, by the way, is still shown as two-story. This was not
revised between the Planning Commission meeting and the board
meeting.
You also see that the building is set back some undefined
distance from the 30-foot buffer, but nowhere in the PUD document or
in this exhibit is there a specification of any additional setback. The
only language in the PUD document is the 30-foot buffer area.
You'll see that there's a berm of some dimension that is higher
than the floor slab of the building. There's a six-foot wall on top of
the berm. At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant
described the berm as having a 3-to-l slope.
So if you have a 3-to-l slope in a 30-foot area, you're going to
Page 65
December 11-12,2007
get a berm of about four to five feet, and then you have the six-foot
wall, so you'll have a buffer in the height of nine to 10 feet. But again,
nowhere in the document is that specified. It was just discussed at the
Planning Commission level.
So the document -- I mean, the motion of the Planning
Commission was to accept the buffer as presented consistent with
Exhibit B, which is what you're looking at. The document is changed.
The PUD document is changed to refer to a 35 -- a 30-foot
vegetative buffer with a six-foot wall. See Exhibit B is what the
document says.
There's no reference in the language of the PUD document to the
berm itself. The only place you'll see a berm is in the photo. And
that's what was approved both by the Planning Commission and this
board in 2002.
So then 2004, the applicant comes in for his Site Development
Plan and initially does not show any berm in the buffer area. Staff
catches that. There's a note in the staffs notes about, looks -- Exhibit B
looks like there's a berm. There's no berm specified in your plans.
Come back and redesign it.
That is done. I don't think you're going -- what I'm focusing on is
the top right-hand corner of this particular page. It's page 11 of 15.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Farese, let me show the exhibit, and then I'll
go focus into that particular area.
MR. FARESE: So here's the revised drawing in response to
staffs comment. There's a reference to a 10-to-l slope beginning after
five feet from the property line. Well, 10-to-l slope in that area would
result in maybe a foot of berm, and that's what is drawn out here. But
you'll see that the berm is actually below the floor slab of the building,
so it's not consistent with the drawing that we just saw, Exhibit B.
But I spoke to the staff personnel that was involved in this
application, and they didn't see any specification anywhere as to how
high the berm was supposed to be. They saw the drawing but they
Page 66
December 11-12, 2007
didn't feel they had a basis to require the developer to have the berm
of any particular height. Again, no reference to this 3-to-l slope. The
only place you'll find that is in the transcript of the Planning
Commission meeting which was discussed early orally. So staff
approved this berm, if you will.
The result of that is what you're seeing in a moment. That's what
actually exists. You have what I believe is approximately an
eight-foot wall. The wall is higher than specified on the plan. But
you'll see very little, if any, berm area. What you're seeing there is a
swale that goes down and then it goes up again. Little hard to see
because of the shading. There's another photo basically showing the
same thing, so the berm is very, very small.
The result of all of that -- here's another photo -- is what you see
here. This particular photograph, I believe, is owned by a lady who
appeared in front of the Planning Commission and raised a concern
about how high the commercial building was going to be next to her
property, and that is the result of that.
Here's another photo that shows the vegetation. But really the
two-story building dwarfs the buffer, and that's really, I believe, the
heart of the problem.
Now, Stevie Tomato's. At the Planning Commission meeting,
there was extensive discussion about bars and restaurants in this
commercial shopping center. Commissioner Strain in particular was
concerned about the noise that would emanate from a bar if permitted
in this shopping center. He asked the applicant, would you agree to
strike drinking establishments or bars in this shopping center. The
applicant declined to do so.
When the motion was made, the stipulation -- there was a lot of
discussion, and I quoted it in my report to you. Several
commissioners thought that we have to at least permit restaurants with
liquor licenses and eliminate bars.
They use the standard industry codes. 5812 is a code that relates
Page 67
December 11-12, 2007
to restaurants but would include liquor licenses in restaurants. 5813 is
a category for, I would say pure, bars, taverns, beer holes, but, again,
even that definition provides that a substantial portion of the revenue
could be from food sales.
So really a sports bar, which is what Stevie Tomato's might be --
I mean, it's not defined anywhere but you know it when you see it.
There's televisions all over. There's people cheering, clapping, and
reacting to the excitement of the sporting event, but it's also a
restaurant. It serves a full menu of food items for lunch and dinner.
So I don't think this type of facility really fits neatly into either
one of those codes. But what happened at the Planning Commission
meeting was, we will strike 5813, pure drinking establishments, but
we would allow restaurants with liquor licenses in this commercial
shopping center, and that's what was approved.
So two years later, Stevie Tomato's comes in for a building
permit. Stevie Tomato's is a restaurant, licensed to be a restaurant,
classified as a restaurant, is given the approval to build at the southern
end of this shopping center, which is the closest distance to the
residences. If this restaurant were at the northern end, we might not
have the problems we have now. But it was given the permit.
Stevie Tomato's then came in for an accessory use of outdoor
seating and was told by staff that that's typical for restaurants to permit
outdoor seating, so that was approved.
And as a result, you have an outdoor bar area open till two
o'clock in the morning. You heard the videotape at the, I believe, the
October meeting with the noise that generates from that facility, but
that's how that was approved.
So our conclusions basically, our principal conclusions are -- on
Richland PUD are basically these: With respect to the building
height, it was a pure, in our opinion, failure of communication
between staff and the board that was not corrected by anyone,
including the applicant.
Page 68
December 11-12,2007
We find that there was no evidence and no suggestion in our
mind of any intentional misleading by staff to the board. That did not
occur. It was a pure error and freely admitted to by the person who
made it, that he just -- he just missed it.
That error was compounded by, in our view, the applicant's
failure to make sure that the PUD document was corrected as they had
agreed, to correct staffs presentation to the board as to what they had
agreed, and the document didn't stay consistent with what the
agreement was, so that error compounded the situation.
And then, as I said before, the board approved something
believing that there was no controversy in it. No individual residents
from Pebblebrooke appeared at the board level. I guess they were
satisfied with what happened at the Planning Commission level, so
they weren't there to speak up. And it was one of those things -- it was
an issue error, and that's what happened to lead to the two-story
structure.
When the SDP came in, we really can't fault staff for approving
it. I believe if we're going to require berms of specific dimensions --
and I do believe the height of the berm was important at the Planning
Commission level -- that the height should be specified somewhere in
writing, either in a drawing or in the document. But here staff just had
a photo or a conceptual drawing to go by and didn't think they had the
authority to require a specific size berm.
The Stevie Tomato's -- again, restaurants with liquor licenses
were permitted by the PUD. Staff approved a building permit
consistent with the PUD. We really can't fault staff in that particular
approval.
So our investigation has convinced us that all the issues that I've
just discussed with the Richland PUD, although errors were made,
there's no evidence to suggest that there was any intentional
wrongdoing. There's no evidence to suggest that favors were given to
particular individuals involved or any improper influence of any kind
Page 69
December 11-12, 2007
was made. I think staff called it as they saw it at the time and made
the error that I described.
So that's the -- in summary, the report on Richland PUD. I
understand I'm not to address Olde Cypress, but I'd be happy to
answer any question on either of those PUDs that you might have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions on the part of the
commissioners?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Yeah, I have two questions.
This exchange between the planning commissioners concerning
drinking establishments is so confusing to me that I don't know what
they were even voting on. What is your interpretation of their vote?
MR. FARESE: My interpretation of their vote is that
Commissioner Strain was leading the charge to disallow any type of
pure drinking establishments, but even he pointed out, this wouldn't
apply to restaurants with liquor licenses. There were comments by
other commissioners that, in many places, there's always a place to
have a couple of beers and watch a sporting event. So I mean, one of
the commissioners even had in mind a sporting event.
But at the conclusion of the meeting the vote, as I understood it,
was we would strike SIC code 5813 and allow 5812, and that's exactly
what the PUD document does. 5813 was stricken, so pure taverns,
bars, not allowed, but restaurants with liquor licenses are allowed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's -- I can't get that
from that discussion, but certainly there's a lot of that transcript I
haven't read. So I understand that, and that's -- that answers my
question.
With respect to the height restriction, it is clear that the
petitioner's agent agreed to the height restriction before the Planning
Commission? What is the legal significance of an agreement by a
petitioner while the petition is being heard if staff fails to transfer that
obligation or stipulation to the county commissioners?
Page 70
December 11-12,2007
MR. FARESE: In my opinion, the board was never presented
with the idea of reducing the height from two stories to one story. So
what the board specifically allowed was what was before it, which
was two stories.
The applicant had agreed to a stipulation which didn't find its
way. That applicant sold the property after the PUD was approved.
So the new owner of this plaza was not a party to any agreement at the
staff -- at the PC level. If this were owned by the same owner, you
might be able to revisit -- in my opinion revisit that question and say,
there was an error, a scrivener's error, in the document. You agreed to
one thing, the document says something else. We're going to change
that by a scrivener's error correction. I think you'd have difficulty
doing that now with the new owner who was not put on notice by the
document as to what the restrictions were, other than what the
document said.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Thank you very much for
your report. I found it to be very clear and concise. What it points out
to us -- and I'm going on to a little bit of different direction, is that we
sure need to amend our Land Development Code so that when it
addresses outdoor drinking establishments that have TV s,
entertainment, and so forth -- and I realize we have something in our
code, but it doesn't -- it doesn't do very much, especially with the
distance between that and residential units and where they should be
located in shopping centers, et cetera. We need to correct that and we
need to do that rather quickly.
We also need to do something about these residents. And I don't
know what we can do to protect them, but we certainly need to
address that because they shouldn't have to live with that. And the sad
thing is, each time I read about it, the really sad thing is that the people
Page 71
December 11-12, 2007
in these bars taunt the residents, and that's despicable.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Farese, I'm assuming that
you read all the Planning Commission meeting minutes?
MR. FARESE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you know the owners of
the 3.2-acre parcel, correct?
MR. FARESE: I don't know them personally, no, no. I don't
know them personally. There was a Kenco Corporation that was the
applicant --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. FARESE: -- and then a corporation, DAD Corporation,
acquired the land afterwards.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you know the owners of
DAD?
MR. FARESE: I do not. I know their names.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You know their names?
MR. FARESE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you see in the Planning
Commission minutes where Karen Bishop, the agent for the applicant
to -- for the government to take action referred to DeAngeles.
MR. FARESE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't it true that the owner of the
property now, the partner name is DeAngeles?
MR. FARESE: Yes. The -- and I've been asked to correct this. I
referred, in my report as DAD, as the DeAngeles Diamond entity.
Yesterday I was contacted by the attorney for them suggesting that
that's an inaccurate representation.
I looked at the State of Florida records as to who are the officers
and the directors of this entity, and I find John DeAngeles and
Diamond as the president and vice-president. So when I refer to them
as DeAngeles Diamond entity, I was referring to them as an entity in
Page 72
December 11-12, 2007
which DeAngeles and Diamond are officers and directors.
There is another shareholder whose name I don't have in front of
me that's not associated with the DeAngeles Diamond construction
entity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. FARESE: So they wanted me to clarify that -- they do not
consider this to be a DeAngeles Diamond entity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is a partnership with -- at least
one of the partner's last name is DeAngeles.
MR. FARESE: It is a corporation, and the president is John
DeAngeles. The vice-president is David Diamond. The direct --
another director is Ray DeAngeles, and the fourth director is Chris
Allen.
As to who owns the shares, that's not information that's publicly
available at the State of Florida. I'm told that Mr. DeAngeles and Mr.
Diamond are minority shareholders. But there are four shareholders,
so I guess they're all minority shareholders.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me get back to my
questioning and conversation about the Planning Commission
minutes. It's clear to me that the new owners were aware of what took
place at the Planning Commission; is that a fair statement?
MR. FARESE: It's a fair statement because the transaction to
acquire the commercial property followed within a week or two --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. FARESE: -- of the rezone, so I think that's a fair
assumption.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we can only assume there
was a contract prior to the creation of the ordinance.
But it seems strange to me that the partners who own it now was
not aware of it when, in fact, the petitioners agent referenced their
name in the Planning Commission. In fact, it said, DeAngeles is not
going to like this. I think it's -- is it Ron DeAngeles? I'm not sure
Page 73
December 11-12, 2007
what it says in the Planning -- I don't remember what it says.
MR. FARESE: Nor do 1.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it says DeAngeles is not
going to be happy with this. So I think we can assume that the new
owners was aware of it, but more -- what really strikes me of your
report, it says, Chairman James Coletta -- chairman then, chairman
now -- signed ordinance number 2000-7 on February 12,2002;
thereafter, the PUD document was edited by Margie Student, the
County Attorney's Office, and Karen Bishop, to clean up some little
things.
Now, the applicant's representative, Karen Bishop knew at the
Planning Commission what was it agreed at (sic) but failed to correct
this document.
MR. FARESE: That's a correct statement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She was hired by Kenco and she
had knowledge of Mr. DeAngeles' disliking of what the Planning
Commission recommended to the Board of County Commissioners.
And you can see in the minutes of the BCC where I stated, as far as
disclosures, that I viewed the Planning Commission's meeting at that
time.
I was aware of what happened and I had trust in our staff that
they would carry this through. I had trust in the applicant of what --
the recommendations by staff and by the Planning Commission
represented what we're reviewing, but we don't have that today.
So now the board gets to decide how we correct this. But I think
it's fair. I think we have a lot of public that we need to hear from first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, first we'll go to Commissioner
Halas, and we do have three speakers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: First of all, I'd like to say I think
you did a thorough investigation on this particular item.
Commissioner Henning did bring up some concerns that have been
bothering me for a number of years since I've been here on the Board
Page 74
December 11-12,2007
of County Commissioners.
There was a PUD in my neck of the woods that we're still
working on today that there were items that were discussed at a board
meeting. It was supposed to be put in the motion and, of course, it
didn't get there. Two items, one was in Pelican Bay and another one is
up in North Naples area.
And, again, this same individual that represented the developer
was instrumental in regards to when the PUD was fashioned. I think
where some of the problem lies here is the fact that maybe what we
need is a proofreader when we go through these documents that,
instead of people being assigned 10 or 15 jobs to follow up on, do you
agree that maybe if we had a proofreader plus someone from the
County's Attorney's Office that would have sat down and listened to
the minutes verbatim on both of these issues, that we could have
possibly addressed this? Would that be possible; do you think?
MR. FARESE: Yes, I think that -- you know, it probably won't
eliminate 100 percent of the errors, but it would catch several. I think
if someone would have reviewed -- I'm told at that time, in 2002, we
didn't have the CD videotapes, and of course, the minutes, the
transcript of the meeting, is not prepared in time to -- for staff to look
at that. But now that we have technology that's improved, if you had a
proofreader whose job is to make sure that the agreements are put in
the document, that certainly would help.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think at that time we were
ramping up. I know that starting around 2000, that's where a couple of
issues that came before this board were -- a lot of citizens were very,
very upset about what took place in District 2, and now Commissioner
Henning has some concerns here in District 3, and rightly so.
And what we need to do is figure out what we need to do to fix
the system so we can proceed. And do you have any
recommendations? Other than a proofreader and maybe somebody
from the County Attorney's Office that also oversees this proofreading
Page 75
December 11-12, 2007
ability?
MR. FARESE: I don't. And in my interviews with the assistant
county attorneys, I can tell you that they don't consider it to be their
job to make sure that the language is put in the document. They
consider that to be staffs, and I think that maybe if we put the County
Attorney's Office on notice that we expect the county attorney to not
only review the form for legal sufficiency, but to make sure that the
documents are consistent with what was agreed to, I think that may
help.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I would think that it would
be the responsibility of the County Attorney's Office to make sure that
that's taken care of because there's representation by the developers
who are attorneys also, and obviously, it's where it's one versus the
other, and I think there should be some tie-in with community
development and the attorney's office in regards to exactly what was
put in the PUD and what is -- what's being referred to to protect the
citizens.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I may comment on that before
I turn it over to Commissioner Coyle. I think you're onto something,
that we have to have some sort of level of responsibility assigned out
there, and the County Attorney's Office would be the entity to be able
to do that, to make sure that the intent of the commission was followed
and if they do the research to go back to make sure that everything's in
place and that there's explicit directions to developmental staff as far
as what to expect. I mean, there's too many of these things in here.
I think what it is everybody's assuming the next person is going
to take control of it. And let's just face it. The developer, the
petitioner, is going to take advantage of every situation they can with
the idea that we'll never catch it. God knows how many of -- items
might be out there.
What I would like to see -- and I'd like to hear some discussion
on the part of the commission -- is to assign it to the county
Page 76
December 11-12, 2007
commission office to come back with an action plan to be able to
follow this in the future.
Let's go to Commissioner Coyle and then we'll get to the
speakers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Based upon what
Commissioner Henning has said, I certainly believe that there's some
action that could be taken. I mean, if you have at least one
commissioner whose position was swayed by what he or she saw or
heard or read from the Collier County Planning Commission, it would
appear to me that there is some legal recourse here if we wish to
pursue it. But I'm not a lawyer, so I'll have to leave that up to legal
staff.
But let me make sure that in our -- in our eagerness to get a
proposal to solve this, we have to remember that we are sometimes the
reason for this and the Planning Commission is at fault, too. Just as I
became very confused reading this transcript about who was voting
for what here, what were they really talking about, it was not clear.
And I am convinced some of the planning commissioners voted for
something they didn't understand what they were voting for based
upon these transcripts.
But we have a tendency to sometimes have a long discussion and
then vote for approval of something without specifically listing all of
the conditions of that approval.
Now, in recent years the county manager has been writing down
the things as we discuss them, and we try -- we do our best to go
through the process and say, okay, did we cover them all? Is
everything included in that motion? We need to -- we need to
continue to do that and maybe do a better job, but we need to get the
Planning Commission to do those things, too.
I think Commissioner Mark Strain is very, very meticulous about
that sort of thing on the Planning Commission, but it is not always a
normal course of action. It's something we have to make an effort to
Page 77
December 11-12, 2007
do.
And I believe that if we have someone specifically designated in
this room and in the room with the Planning Commission to write
down all of the things that are discussed and/or agreed to, then when
the time comes for the motion to be made, those things should be read
and the motion maker should be asked to indicate if his motion
includes all of those items. And we've tried to be more careful about
that in recent years, and we just have to watch it.
But that's where it all starts sometimes. We have the discussion,
and then we say, okay, I make a motion for approval, it's seconded, we
vote, it's done, and our assumption is that everything that was
committed to on record is going to go into that -- is going to be
covered by the motion, and here we have a situation where someone
could argue that it wasn't really acted upon by us.
So yes, if we had someone from staff to take these things down,
reiterate them when we make a motion, have the county attorney
review these things to make sure that the final documents reflect that
-- that vote, then I think we can cover the bases on most of these.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, I just wanted
to -- I believe the responsibility lies with the county attorney and not
with the county manager in making sure that when the motion's made
and we're ready to vote, that's where the responsibility of the county
attorney needs to come in.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I agree, but what I'm
suggesting is a primary and a backup. If someone is actually writing
down these things and keeping track of it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County attorney.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the county attorney then could
also serve as a backup to review it, and that's what I'm suggesting.
If the county attorney makes a mistake on writing these things
down, who then is going to pick up the error? Nobody. If the county
Page 78
December 11-12, 2007
manager or someone that he designates is writing these things down
and the county attorney is reviewing them, there's a chance the error's
going to be caught, and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The court reporter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the court reporter doesn't
really -- she doesn't get paid for correcting our errors, do you?
Maybe if we petition for a salary increase, we could get you to do
that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We may want to -- we're going to go
right to you, Commissioner Henning. I appreciate your patience, but
we may want to direct staff to do certainly things to bring it back at
the next meeting with a little bit more of an action plan based upon
what we've been talking about.
Go ahead, Commissioner Henning, then we've got three speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'll tell you where I'm
going with this. And the discussion is a good discussion, but in this
case I don't blame us for making errors.
And here's the motion at the Planning Commission level. It was
Commissioner Russell Budd who made the motion to keep it to one
story in this 3.2 acre site, and then Mark Strain seconded the motion
by striking out bars; 5813, bars and lounges. It was clear through the
discussion what the recommendation and what the discussion was at
Planning Commission. There are certain things that just was not
carried forward to this level.
And when somebody makes a representation that they agree with
stipulations, and it's not carried forward, we need to correct it. And
what I'm thinking is for the board to vote to do a scrivener's error on
this ordinance to reflect what was agreed on -- agreed upon by the
applicant and the recommendations from the Planning Commission,
because my motion was to -- to accept staffs recommendations and
the Planning Commission's recommendations, and the stricter shall
apply.
Page 79
December 11-12,2007
So -- but before I go into that, let's go to the public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're almost there. But Ijust want to
ask counsel if he agrees with what Commissioner Henning just said?
MR. FARESE: To be honest with you, I didn't -- I didn't analyze
the options of what you might do. I just reported on what I found and
how this happens. I really haven't formed an opinion on whether you
can really take action --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, no. The question we're
asking, sir, is Russell Budd made a motion --
MR. FARESE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- it was seconded by Mark Strain.
Russell Budd wanted it limited to one story, Mark Strain went in with
a second to also make sure that the -- it was limited just to bars -- or
no bars allowed and then from there it went forward. Do you agree
with that or not?
MR. FARESE: Oh, absolutely. No question that everyone at the
Planning Commission meeting agreed to reduce it from two story to
one story. There was some debate about, I think it was Commissioner
Abernathy, wanted to allow bars as well, but that was compromised
and the vote on that was, we would not allow bars but we would allow
restaurants with liquor licenses, and that's what was approved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now going fast forward to the
commission. When Commissioner Henning said he accepted the
Planning Commission's recommendations as well as staff to be
combined for whatever the most -- what was the word?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Strictest.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- strictest would be, do you also
agree with that?
MR. FARESE: My interpretation from reading the transcript was
that what was presented to the board basically gave the impression
that everything had been agreed to, the two story, the one story, the
elimination of the drinking places, so there was no controversy.
Page 80
December 11-12,2007
So when the motion was made, I move to approve consistent with
staffs stipulations and Planning Commission stipulations, I don't think
there was any conflict between those two if, in your mind when you
were making that motion, you understood that everything was agreed
to.
And it was at the Planning Commission meeting, everything I --
well, the drinking places were stricken, the buffer, I've explained the
buffer. I mean, this PUD document as written is not a model of
clarity, but the two story, one story, we simply just missed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, based upon that, I'm going to
ask our county attorney, do we have justification based upon the fact
that explicit instructions were given by the Planning Commission and
then were repeated by the commission, to be able to go back and
correct this grievous error that was made?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And could I just interject
something before he answers that question to clarify it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Budd didn't make a
recommendation to reduce the heights of buildings. He made a
recommendation to limit them to one story. The normal height for a
one-story building is 35 feet, okay. That is, a maximum permitted
height is 35 feet for one story. That's where the problem was.
Nobody said, we're going to reduce the height of this building. We
said we were going to limit them to one story. Is that not true?
MR. FARESE: That's true.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you see -- so before the
county attorney answers that question, we've got to recognize that. If
Mr. Budd had said, we're going to reduce the maximum height of the
buildings to 18 feet, now, that's a different story. But all it said was,
it's going to be limited to single story, and agreed with that and we
passed it on that basis. We didn't say what the height was supposed to
be. That's where we've got to be more specific in these motions, and
Page 81
December 11-12, 2007
staff has got to give us more specific direction on those kinds of
things.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, back to you.
Is that what you understand, too?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's what I read into it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. That clarifies it. You
know, they did exactly as they were instructed to do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That seems to be the case, but the
county attorney might have --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I really -- the question's almost
moot now unless we have some of our facts wrong. Probably not. I
think we've got it.
Let's go on to the speakers, and then we can ask questions of
county attorney, or whoever else after that.
Please call the first speaker.
MS. FILSON: We have three speakers, Mr. Chairman. The first
one is P.l. Obrecht.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. When you come up --
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Walter Bruno.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you'd be so kind to state your name
for the record and make your presentation within the three-minute
time frame allowed.
MR. OBRECHT: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for
letting me come speak again. I am P.l. Obrecht. I live at 293 Spider
Lily Lane, which is adjacent to the issue that we're discussing today.
The -- couple of the things that were mentioned -- and I just
pulled these out. We do have the minutes from that thing, and I'll just
read those real quickly. When Commissioner Henning was
mentioning whether or not it was known that the -- what was going to
be done at this property, as to when the owners of the property now
knew about it.
Commissioners Strain -- this is from the planning meeting
Page 82
December 11-12, 2007
minutes of January 17,2002. Mr. Strain says, I heard the property is
being considered for sale. If that's the case, the new, or one of the new
companies that may be purchasing, as I know, is a quick mover. This
might get built out rapidly. Do you know anything about that? And
he's talking to Ms. Bishop.
Ms. Bishop says, I know there is a contract on it. As of this point
I know that it is with DeAngeles Diamond. So that clarifies that right
there.
As to -- the question as to whether or not Stevie Tomato's is a
restaurant or a sports bar, I have advertisements here, and you see
them on television, that state they -- they boast that they've been voted
best sports bar in Southwest Florida since 1999. They've just shot
themselves in the foot there.
And just so people can have a better representation of what the
building looks like -- kind of gives you an idea of -- that's from our
neighbor's back yard that's a little closer than we are.
So anyhow, point being you guys discussed it very well. We -- I
think you're on the right track here. We would -- it would seem that
after this investigation, that there is a serious problem, missteps have
occurred and we, as a group of homeowners who were there first,
really have no idea which direction this needs to go, and we're hoping
that you guys are going to step up and do the right thing.
Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Obrecht, can I see those
minutes? Just -- just walk it right up here and I'll give it back to you
when we --
MR. OBRECHT: Do you want -- I've got your minutes from
your meeting as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I want the Planning
Commission minutes.
MR. OBRECHT: The one I mentioned is marked right there.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Walter
Page 83
December 11-12,2007
Bruno. He'll be followed by Kim Kish.
MR. BRUNO: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Walter Bruno, 288 Spider Lily Lane, and I'm across the street from
Mr. Obrecht.
I'd like to at this point request copies of the exhibits from the
attorney's report, that we have not been able to receive those so we can
look into them.
And I think P.J. pretty well summed it up, you know, mistake's
made, and we just need to know what you think, where to go, how this
can be resolved.
I read from the letter of Ken Saundry, the contract purchasers of
phase four property have not made definite development plans but are
known us -- to us as very high-quality business people. So now we're
looking at these developers who quickly sold off the land to another
entity, for them to step up and be part of the solution. So far they've
avoided us like the plague. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Kim Kish.
MS. KISH: Hi. Kimberly Kish, 289 Spider Lily Lane. I live
next door to Mr. Obrecht and I back right up to the situation.
First of all, I'd like to commend all of you. I really appreciate
your efforts here. It gives us hope and hopefully soon a good night's
sleep.
My issue is in regards to Stevie Tomato. I -- in the report that the
attorney did -- which, by the way, was wonderful, thank you very
much -- can somebody please explain to me when the Stevie Tomato
bar was approved for that unit? Then they had to come back and
request the removal of the three outside walls to put this outside bar
area in. So I'm having a real difficult time justifying bar versus
restaurant in this square that, you know, imposes in on us as far as
what you saw on the tape.
And so that's where I'm having -- nowhere in the attorney's report
did we get a real clarification as to, you know, the okay from the
Page 84
December 11-12, 2007
removal or, you know, the ability to come into that unit being closest
to all of us when the other end of the building, as stated before, was
available.
Now, of course, we've been told that it never was available, but
yet it didn't receive a restaurant until, I think, maybe six or seven
months ago. So that's my question.
And again, our homes have basically been made unsellable, you
know, at a level. We do have a resident that has had three possible
purchases of her home, and all have been rejected do to the fact of this
two-story building and the outside bar.
The other question I have is if you look at the pictures that P.J.
submitted, in all of the years that I have been involved in construction,
never have I seen a two-story building that backs up to residents, that
you would put windows on the back side that overlook into residents'
homes.
We currently have three situations -- I believe that I emailed all
of you this information -- where we have the construction workers
currently following the resident as she moves about her home with a
stud finder, one of those lasers. So this is really disintegrating (sic)
into a really, really serious problem when we also have -- you know,
we have families with small children, we have young women, and it's
really being a big concern.
The final thing I'd like to say is, I'm having a real big, hard
problem here letting Karen Bishop off the hook. This was a woman
that was paid to make this presentation. I not only sat at the January
2nd meeting at Pebblebrooke's community, which Mr. Saundry
conveniently scheduled so -- hoping that most of us would be still on
vacation or not available. It was a hostile meeting. We were basically
told we're going to do what you -- you know, you're going to do what
we say and this is just the way it's going to come down, and if you
don't like it, you're going to get low-income housing.
And as the proceeding -- meetings, you know, progressed we
Page 85
December 11-12, 2007
were at all of the meetings. We did attend all of them. We did not
speak at the county commissioners when you finally voted because,
again, I guess our fault, we assumed that all of the documentation and
all the wording was correct.
But again, thank you very much for the opportunity.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. This is more of a question for
the County Attorney's Office, I believe. Health, safety, welfare, light,
sound, these are all important things when we're voting on anything.
When somebody is a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of a
neighborhood, to their light and to their sound, can we pull their
occupational license? Putting it right where it is.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the occupational license doesn't issue by
the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it's issued by the county, right?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, yes, through the Tax Collector Office. It
has a new name now statutorily, but at any event, a business license.
So I think -- I think the quick answer is, I don't believe you can. I
would need to research that further to give a definitive answer as far as
the occupational or business license, business tax receipt, as it's called
currently.
Now, when you talk about in terms of health, safety, welfare, that
does come under potentially public nuisance, which is referenced and
addressed in Florida Statutes Chapter 162, which we embody in our
code enforcement area.
Again, nothing is going to line up very clearly here. It's
something that would have to be looked at very closely because, yes,
this board is responsible for the health, safety, welfare of the residents,
citizens of the county, but we have to always take into contention the
constitutional real property rights that exist as well.
And to the extent that these -- the business, or they should say,
Page 86
December 11-12,2007
the construction has been permitted through a process, it would
probably -- it would be a significant process to attempt to probably
bring things to a halt.
There are two different levels that -- really what we're talking
about right now. One is operational. For instance, the Stevie Tomato
restaurant or sports bar. It is operating in a particular way, and that is
typically what you come in -- what one comes into with an analysis of
nuisance and public, health, safety, and welfare.
The second issue you've all discussed, Mr. Henning particularly,
has to relate to the actual construction approval itself, and to what
level or if there is an opportunity for this board to determine that what
it approved is different than -- what this board approved is different
than what has, in fact, been approved from the administrative
permitting standpoint thereafter.
The point Mr. Henning raises, that his -- it would appear that he
is stating that his review of the Planning Commission, having viewed
the commission himself personally and that statement to his -- to the
effect that that is what his recommendation was, as Mr. Farese has
noted, is different than what was brought to the board as the Planning
Commission recommendation in the executive summary and backup
documents, and so we have issues we must look at so very closely
relating to his motion to approve relative to what the board thought
was being approved because apparently they were not privy, did not
see the Planning Commission's discussion but were operating on what
was before the board that very day alone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But I'm just trying to find out
-- find a solution, David --
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- for what we can do here. And
you said property rights, but whose property rights weigh more, the
restaurant or all of the affected properties that are dealing with the
problems the restaurant has foisted upon them? Something has to be
Page 87
December 11-12, 2007
done.
If we can't pull the licenses, can we not renew the license, or is
there some way that we can deal with this problem? I'm just trying to
find a solution here.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. And I'm not saying -- I'm not saying that
there aren't ways to deal with the solution. I'm actually kind of trying
to work my way to some potential solutions here. But in regard to --
in regard to the -- what has been called the occupational license, now
has a new statutory name, I do not believe that that is available for you
to pull at the first point. It is not applied to the county. It is applied to
at the Tax Collector's Office per se.
But one of the speakers mentioned that the developer, the owner,
and there are different -- there's current owners and there is the agents
on behalf of the original owner that was bringing this forward that
may be able to come forward to reach some solutions in regard to the
operation and/or reconstruction of the Stevie Tomato's for one thing.
We know that they applied to the county previously for amplified
music permit. That was turned down, but during that discussion in
which the video is shown showing the operations and how it affects
the neighborhood there, one could see that there were significant
problems in that operation relative to the -- relative to the residential
context so very close there.
And I do not know if there has been a dialogue set up, or one
certainly could be directed by you to be set up through staff, through
the County Attorney Office, with the current ownership as well as the
-- Ms. Bishop and others who were involved in bringing this before
the board and/or not speaking and making corrections to the board
with knowledge they had beforehand of the Planning Commission
stipulation, to which they agreed, and it may be that in the context of
discussion and leverage prior to absolute legal action at this point in
time, some solutions may be brought back to the board to consider,
which would probably involve some permitting or revised permitting
Page 88
December 11-12,2007
on premises to try to bring it closer into an arrangement that works for
all of the parties, residents as well as the businesses.
The point Mr. Coyle brought up relating to the 35 feet and the
single-story aspect, I personally would want to look at a little bit
further. Jim Mudd or the CDES staff may want to jump forward.
Another attorney in my office may wish to indicate in regard to
questions of clarity of 35 foot, is that absolutely indicative of one
story. My understanding is, I think we have, you might say, sort of
like a two-story or two- floor operation constructed in that building
there.
That's something I'd want to look at it a little further and report
back to the board about and provide some -- provide some suggestions
for remediation there as well.
Issues about the berm. Again, I won't speak absolutely
definitively at this point, but the berm and the wall, it does seem like
representations were made. Approvals came thereafter which did not
reflect the representations of the height and size of the berm and the
wall that was to go thereon.
This, again, may be elements that are subject to correction either
through discussion and/or coercion. But in light of the fact that the
building itself to which the berm and the wall were supposed to
provide some -- some buffer is different than, arguably, considered at
the Planning Commission level. May mean that the idea of the wall
and the berm, it's not just three feet. There may be something
significantly different than that that needs to be looked at right now to
provide a genial relief to the residents nearby there.
I think it has to be looked at kind of big- picture-wise and come
back with some big-picture suggestions. If those suggestions are not
-- are not considered appropriate or relevant by the parties, it would
have to affix those to the property and make -- and make remedial
construction; at the same time the county, through the County
Attorney Office, would be looking to provide you with the more
Page 89
December 11-12, 2007
specific legal alternatives that may exist at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you. The residents
asked for certain things. One thing was the exhibits. And after the
break, I'd be happy to make a copy of that.
But also, Mrs. Kish asked some questions about details that the
board doesn't get involved with, so I ask the county manager ifhe
would provide his staff to get those to her.
But definitely -- I couldn't find the exact thing that I was trying to
be find, but Karen Bishop in the Planning Commission, it says -- she's
talking about, you know, interconnections and traffic and so on and so
forth, and she states, if it's necessary for stick -- to stick a speed bump
on the other side because we feel there is a problem coming from the
commercial, I don't believe Don DeAngeles will have a problem with
the speed bumps close to the gate within the buffer area outside the
parking area.
So obviously there has -- the new owner and present owner was
well informed and their agent was well informed of what transpired
for this -- for the approval over the change of the PUD.
So I think the county attorney, David Weigel, made a great
suggestion. So I'm going to make a motion that we direct the County
Attorney Office to gather the parties together, including the residents
-- I think they have a stake hold in this to find out -- to try to come to
resolution of this issue of the impacts and the commitments that were
made, that they made to the government, also in my motion, to direct
the County Attorney's Office to prepare a scrivener's error reflecting
what was a commitment by the representation of the petitioner to
government and bring that back to the board to approve at a later date.
That is my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Page 90
December 11-12,2007
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
We'll go to Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think one of the areas that we
need to look at very carefully -- and I think this is one way that we can
kind of bring in, circle in the wagons here -- let's face it, the horse is
out of the barn, so I'm not sure what you're going to do as far as the
building goes.
But I think what we need to do is come up with a stricter noise
ordinance, and I think this will bring those people into more
compliance. If we have a stricter noise ordinance, then they're not
going to have TV s and everything else outside blaring away to bother
the occupants or the people that live in the surrounding community,
and I think that's what we -- one of the areas we need to look at very
carefully.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The last speaker asked another
question. She said, how did it happen that Stevie Tomato's got
approval to tear down the walls and build an outside sports bar,
essentially. And I'd like to have that question answered. I suspect it
was not something that came before us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I would like to understand if
there is a deficiency in our code. You will recall that several meetings
ago when we were discussing this issue, I said that restaurants should
not be permitted to just arbitrarily decide they're going to move out of
the -- out of the confines of their original establishment onto sidewalks
and back yards and start setting up outdoor residence or outdoor
restaurants or bars without going through some fairly rigorous
approval process. So I'm still concerned about that, and I'd like to
know where we are with that.
MS. ISTENES: For the record, Susan Istenes, Zoning Director.
My review of the site plan approval process was -- showed that Stevie
Page 91
December 11-12, 2007
Tomato's came in for what we call an insubstantial change to their site
plan after their in-door portion was approved, and there was no tearing
down of walls; there was an existing outdoor space there that they just
converted and got approval to put tables for seating and a bar out
there. So there was no removal of any walls.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the -- what are the criteria
for approving outdoor establishments of this type?
MS. ISTENES: Well, the use has to be permitted in the zoning
district or it has to be an acceptable accessory use, and this was
deemed an acceptable accessory use, outdoor seating, for a restaurant,
and it has to meet the parking requirements, which typically aren't an
issue in a shopping center because there's usually more than adequate
parking.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And outdoor music, amplified
music, is -- is that a criteria for approval?
MS. ISTENES: They have to get a separate permit for that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And do they have a permit for that?
MS. ISTENES: Well, to my knowledge, no. They did come
before you for one, and you did turn them down, if! recall correctly.
The televisions, I don't -- and Michelle Arnold is here. She can
correct me if I'm misspeaking. I don't even know that the televisions
are really turned up. I mean, there's probably -- you know, there may
be 15 or 20 of them, I'm not quite sure. So even if they were all turned
up, I don't think the people sitting there could even hear them or
understand them. I think the noise comes largely from the cheering or
the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: From the crowd itself?
MS. ISTENES: The crowd itself, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I still think we need
to do something about that. I think this -- this ability is too easily
granted, and I would like to find some way to have better control over
it, particular when it's right next door to people's residences.
Page 92
December 11-12, 2007
MS. ISTENES: That's part of the reasons we brought forward
that outdoor seating proposal to you, and it's -- it is a very complicated
issue, and the Planning Commission spent a lot of time on it, and it's
not dead. Weare still bringing back another form or a variety of
forms for you to kind of choose from to -- as to what you think would
best solve solutions (sic) like this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, okay. Thank you.
MS. ISTENES: Other thing, may I just suggest -- I know
Commissioner Henning made a motion and, Commissioner Coyle,
you had before asked about re-reading motions back into the record.
That worked really well for the City of Cape Coral when I worked
there some 11 years ago, and I've actually been suggesting we do that
here for a very long time, and it's unfortunate that a bad situation has
to bring an opportunity such as that to light, but it worked very, very
well there, and I can just -- I'd like to just share that experience with
you. But perhaps that could make it into Commissioner Henning's
motion as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you, Susan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was wondering if you
wanted to give a time limit on this motion to the County Attorney's
Office to be working with these people so that there's -- so that we
have some -- some time in sight so the people don't have to put up
with this too much longer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- and I think that's a good
request, and I would ask for guidance. Personal feelings, a couple
months would be most appropriate, and correct me if I'm wrong from
the county attorney's desk. And I'm hearing -- I'm seeing heads going
up and down, that will be sufficient.
But let me tell you, reading the motion into the minutes was not
the problem here. It is not the problem. The problem is, is we got
erroneous information by two parties. One from staff and one from
Page 93
December 11-12,2007
the applicant. It had nothing to do with what the Board of County
Commissioners did.
It was clearly -- and I don't think it was intentional, but it was a
misrepresentation. But I do appreciate and recognize Ms. Istenes'
recommendation, and I think that Chairman Coletta's been doing a fine
job at doing that. So I apologize. I just thought I needed to address
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, did
you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, turn it off. I'm done.
Ready to go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. One of the things that was
brought up by Susan, and that was insubstantial changes, and I think
sometimes we need to tighten up the LDC in regards to what is
considered an insubstantial change, because I think sometimes this can
lead us down the wrong road also.
So I would like to see if there's any support here by fellow
commissioners in looking at what is considered an insubstantial
change and maybe addressing that in some of the upcoming cycles of
the Land Development Code.
I think that's an area, but I -- in -- I feel that we need to find a
way to protect the citizens here, especially with the noise and the
harassment that they're getting, and I'm hoping that we can get support
here to address the noise ordinance, because I think if it's strict
enough, they're going to take their venue inside and not leave it
outside there to distract the citizens in this community. And not only
here, but all through the whole county of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, we have a
motion, we have a second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we read back the motion so
Page 94
December 11-12, 2007
we know exactly what it contains?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Actually, I got a better idea,
Commissioner Coyle. We're going to make you the responsible party.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, no, you're not. That goes --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You'll repeat the motion back to us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That goes -- you want it backwards
or forwards?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we're all very aware of the
motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: The motion was for the county attorney to gather
the parties back, the applicant, the developer, and the neighbors, to try
to get a solution to what was promised and the situation that exists
today, and the next part of the motion was to have a scrivener's error
to correct the PUD document to address what was promised.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And a time limit.
MR. MUDD: And I believe there was -- there was a time limit
on this process of -- it said a couple, but I see two fingers up in the air,
two months.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Halas had asked if
the motion maker would consider one additional provision, which
would be to instruct staff to bring back some proposals concerning
insubstantial changes and how they would be approved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion maker?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I think that's very fair. I
think we need to understand how that's done.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Include it in my second as
well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I need -- I need some clarification
Page 95
December 11-12,2007
from the county attorney. When we make a change in the scrivener's
error, what does -- where does this lead us to? Does this mean that
we're going to go back and tell the person to tear the building down or
what's this going to lead to?
MR. WEIGEL: I think I'd rather discuss that with you privately
than at the meeting right now, quite frankly. But there's significant
ramifications that would come from a scrivener's error; let's everyone
understand that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: -- that all sectors, you know, owners, residents,
and to the Board of County Commissioners, is that it's not a mere
document that's created that has no relevance. It will have significant
relevance and great bearing on the -- on the ability, I'll call it -- for
lack of another term I'll say for the status quo to be maintained or not
at that -- at that 3.2-acre commercial site.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. 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.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show that the
motion passed 4-1 with Commissioner Halas being in opposition.
We're going to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I just clarify why--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please, briefly.
Page 96
December 11-12,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- I went in regards to this, because
I think it's leading us down a slippery slope here, and I think that we
could have some great ramifications on this whole issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, well stated. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not a clarification.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
MR. MUDD: There's only one piece on this agenda item that we
still have to get resolved, and David, you might have it. This was --
the first part you got was the Richland PUD.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. The question then is, when would you
like Mr. Farese to come back in regard to the Olde Cypress PUD?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would imagine that the
communications that we have -- and I don't want to change the report,
but I think these questions need to be answered before it comes back.
We could probably have it before the next meeting; don't you agree
with that, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: 15 January.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, we're
adjourned until 1:15.
(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.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2007-84: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS
Page 97
December 11-12,2007
AND ORDINANCES, WHICH IS THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING
AN IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM FOR APPROVED
P ARTICIP ANTS IN THE COMMUNITY WORKFORCE
HOUSING INNOVATION PILOT PROGRAM (CWHIP) SET
FORTH IN SECTION 420.5095 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES-
ADOPTED W /STIPULA TIONS
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine, Mr. Mudd. Next item is our
time certain.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 8D.
MR. MUDD: 8D. This is a -- and Commissioner, what I would
ask, while we do this item, we do 8D and then we go right to 10M and
12C because they're all -- they're all related to the Community
Workforce Housing Initiative Pilot program.
This item to be heard at one p.m. It's a recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners consider adopting an ordinance
amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, which is the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance establishing an impact fee deferral program for approved
participants in the Community Workforce Housing Initiative Pilot
program, CWHIP, set forth in section 420.5095 of the Florida Statutes.
And, again, this is a companion item to 10M and l2C. And Ms.
Amy Patterson -- okay. I'm not going to try your title anymore. I'm
always wrong, okay, from community development/environmental
services that basically handles all your impact fees, will present.
Did I miss anything?
MS. PATTERSON: No. Again, Amy Patterson, I'm the impact
Fee Manager, for the record.
We're here for board direction to bring back an impact fee
deferral program for participants in the statutory CWHIP, which is the
Page 98
December 11-12, 2007
Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot program.
I have a brief presentation. It doesn't do much more than go
through the highlights out of your executive summary. If you'd like
me to go through that, I can do that, or if you want to go right to
questions, we have lots of staff and others here to answer your
questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's go right to questions. We've
read the executive summary.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Coyle is going
to take it right over.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. That was from the last time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You didn't have your light on. I just
figured you had something important to say.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Staff is recommending approval?
MS. PATTERSON: Staff is recommending approval based on
the board's direction to bring it back in accordance with the Affordable
Housing Commission's recommendation. There were a couple of
issues outlined in the executive summary related to water and sewer
impact fee deferrals that need to be addressed one way or the other by
the board. If you'd like to speak with the public utilities people,
they're here to answer your questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've already talked with them.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it's my position at least that
we grant the deferrals we can grant, but water and sewer deferrals are
not those that I would be willing to grant, okay. Water/sewer is
mandatory. We really can't postpone those kinds of things. The rest
of them, I'd be happy to grant deferrals for this project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's do this. Why don't you
start right off with a motion and we'll see if we get a second, then we'll
decide how the motion gets shaped from there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I make a motion that we
Page 99
December 11-12,2007
approve this petition in accordance with staff recommendations and
provide the guidance that water and sewer impact fees will not be
deferred.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a double second, but
we have a motion by Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Give it to the lady.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we'll do that. Ladies first,
right? Commissioner Coyle made the motion, Commissioner Fiala
will be recognized as the second, and we do have a speaker, and let's
go to you first, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. It's my understanding that
presently out of ad valorem taxes we put in about $750,000 for impact
fee deferrals; is that correct?
MS. PATTERSON: There's $750,000 set aside to pay for the
water and sewer impact fees that are deferred through the
owner-occupied program, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What about -- do we have
deferrals for impact fees for roads?
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, we do, and there's a 3 percent cap of
prior year collections for all of the other impact fees excluding fire
impact fees for the independent fire districts. We have no jurisdiction
to defer those.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: So there's two separate -- or two funding
sources, essentially, we deal with.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My second is, I think the CWHIP
program is a great program, but I'm concerned about the amount of
people that are coming forward that want additional funding, and I
don't think we can accommodate everybody that has desires to have
impact fee deferrals.
Page 100
December 11-12, 2007
And I'm not inclined to address any additional tax dollars to this
program as far as -- I know we're at 3 percent now. We don't want to
go any farther than that, but I still have some concerns about how
we're going to take care of everybody. So maybe you can help give
me some comfort level here.
MS. PATTERSON: Sure. In can explain what we have right
now and then what we're proposing, and we have, as we discussed, the
owner-occupied program, which is addressed by the 3 percent cap on
prior year collections and the $750,000 of money set towards water
and sewer impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ad valorem.
MS. PATTERSON: In addition to that, we have a program for
affordable rentals. Currently there is no cap on that program, there is
no ad valorem funding, and it is offered for water and sewer.
What we're proposing through this ordinance amendment is to
expand that rental program to include the CWHIP participants, but to
put a cap on that program of 225 units per year cumulative between
the two types of dwellings, and also, as Commissioner Coyle pointed
out, we were looking for direction on how to handle the water and
sewer impact fees, be it to set up a separate revolving fund or to
exclude them from participation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I -- it's my belief that over a
10-year period on -- based on these 225 units, that we're looking at
over $4 million.
MS. PATTERSON: That'd be, if the two--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Per year.
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, that's $4 million per year if it's fully
utilized to the 225 units. That number may vary up or down a little bit
depending on the size and type of units that are deferred, but that's a
good ballpark figure per year. Now, there have been years we haven't
used any of the rental program and there's been years that we've used a
lot because there is no cap. So it fluctuates from year to year.
Page 101
December 11-12,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is this rental program something
similar to what they offered with the housing authority?
MS. PATTERSON: I don't -- no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. If you don't know the
answer --
MS. PATTERSON: No, I don't, but Marcy is here if you'd --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: She's saying no. It's different. In
other words, this is a stand-alone program, the housing authority for
the rental?
MS. PATTERSON: Right. This is a stand-alone program
offered by the county. It's just a straight deferral program.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, let's -- a couple
questions. The deferral of the impact fees for sewer and water that
they're also requesting in addition, is that part of the deal that they
have with the state that they need that to be able to make that a part of
their working mechanism to be able to qualify for the CWHIP
program?
MS. PATTERSON: I believe Mr. Klohn is here to address the
needs of his project related to the CWHIP program. I don't know if
the water and sewer can be done another way or if that's essential. He
would -- he would need to address that as far as his application to the
state.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Klohn?
MR. KLOHN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Bill Klohn.
Over the past summer, we've been working very hard on this
project. We've even landed a bond resolution, a bond resolution
inducement, for $25 million for this project. And if funded today, the
interest rate would be in the neighborhood of 5 and-a-quarter to 5
and-a-half percent, and that money would be 30-year money.
And as the units are resold, would be assumable by subsequent
purchasers. We think that's a wonderful component and
Page 102
December 11-12, 2007
accomplishment over the summer.
We -- the bringing of the CWHIP program is important to bring
that money to Collier County, coupled with the commitments and
contributions of this county.
Commissioner Coletta, is it a requirement that we get the water
and sewer? No. The way that the CWHIP program works is that you
have county match or county contributions, which in this case is the
impact fee deferrals, no matter what their limit is, whether it's
everything but water and sewer, that is scored in the CWHIP
calculation, and the higher the match, the higher the score.
So with water and sewer would naturally be better. Without the
water and sewer, we stand a good chance of still receiving a good
score. Without any impact fees whatsoever, we probably stand a
chance of failure in bringing the CWHIP money to Collier County.
As I've shared with you in past meetings, the dollar amount that
we'll be requesting in our application is $5 million. That divided by
the 147 units of for-sale product that we're proposing to build would
be $34,000 per unit. Additional buy-downs of cost would be the
impact fee deferral programs that you would hopefully authorize
today.
It would be our wish that you would include the water and sewer.
I think it's real important. If you look at a 30-year amortization of
what the interest costs would be on the $4,900 which represents the
water and sewer, it's about another 5,000. So the cost to an ESP
employee member for the water and sewer component basically goes
from 4,900 to 10,000. So it -- it's double in the eyes of the occupant of
that unit.
Have I answered your questions, Commissioner Coletta?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You did. Let me ask you another
question, in may. Just a couple more questions, then I'll go to you,
Commissioner Fiala. Appreciate your patience.
Mr. Klohn, there is some concern that these units that are going
Page 103
December 11-12,2007
to be out there may be difficult to fill. We heard from Commissioner
Coyle at the last meeting that he had concerns over the fact of the
location and everything, and you're looking for people like in the up to
140 percent of the median income, which is a little bit over $100,000,
if I'm not mistaken, to move to an area that may be considered --
considered something not appropriate for them to be in. We don't
know that. I mean, that's an unknown factor. But Commissioner
Coyle did bring up a very good point by asking the question.
My concern is, is that when we direct our impact fees to your
project, they're no longer available to go anyplace else. I mean, these
impact fees will be spoken for your project. How can we be
reasonably assured that you're going to rent these units out? Because
you are asking for the impact fee by the unit rather than by the
recipient that would actually move into it.
How can we get that assurance that these units will be occupied
by the people they were meant for? And providing the fact comes up
that the people that are in the upper ranges, closer to the 140 percent
median income, if they don't occupy it, will these be able to go to the
people closer to the 60 percent?
MR. KLOHN: Be happy to answer that question.
I believe that based upon Collier County's average median
income, that we're -- the 140 percent would be $89,000, not over
100,000. The team that we've put together, as you know, is the Collier
County Sheriffs Office, the school Board of Collier County, NCH
hospital, Regions (sic) Medical Center Hospital, and the City of
Naples.
Certain ESP members have the ability to bring before their
boards a guarantee of occupancy. Certain other ESP members, such as
the Sheriffs Office and the school board, do not have the ability for
any form of a guarantee.
We have been in discussions, which are now hopefully coming to
near conclusion with the City of Naples and NCH, and discussions
Page 104
December 11-12,2007
with Regions Medical for their commitment of an occupancy
guarantee.
The numbers that we've been discussing have been
approximately 30 units per entity times the three entities, would be a
90-unit occupancy guarantee.
We actually have a workshop with the City of Naples on the 17th
of this month to bring the necessary documents for their consideration
related to their guarantee.
I think Gregg Smith, Chief Gregg Smith with the Sheriffs Office,
if we could have him speak briefly his belief of the merits of the
project.
And by the way, I think the project is in a wonderful location. I
think that the fact that we're still going through zoning, which will
likely not be complete until July -- it takes a year to build the first 147
units, so we're really talking about a year and a half from now before
these units are ready for occupancy. And I think we'll see -- I hope
we'll see. I think we'll all hope we'll see -- a change in the real estate
market.
Are there values out there right now? There are. I've been here
since 1980, and I've never seen a market downturn of this nature, but
we're all confident that we're at the bottom and this will be coming
back.
Some of the components that we've also included besides the
30-year affordability with our bond, our fixed bond, is also in addition
to the CWHIP money, there may not be another CWHIP program.
This is our window of opportunity. And the impact fees are very, very
important to get the score on our CWHIP application.
Chief Smith, if you could give your opinion on the uniqueness of
the project and your feel for the demand.
CHIEF SMITH: For the record, Gregg Smith, Chief of
Administration for the Sheriffs Office.
As Mr. Klohn alluded, this is a very important project for the
Page 105
December 11-12,2007
community, we feel. We've been working since the very stages
involving conception of this idea. We've worked with Representative
Davis, we've worked tirelessly with the other partners, the school
board in particular, and the hospitals to try to bring this to fruition here
in Collier County.
I think it's very important to understand that unlike a lot of
projects that are out there, even affordable housing projects that's been
done, you know, you sell them once and then you don't have an
inventory anymore. This will live on in perpetuity. These units are
co-op owned rather than rented or leased. And although the
evaluation is capped, there is still some home ownership attached to
these -- these units.
Naturally we would hope that in a couple of years someone may
want to move out of the co-op and move into a better permanent
situation. That's to our advantage because then we have that unit
coming back into inventory, which then can be resold and managed by
the co-op.
We feel that this is a very good product. We feel it's essential for
the community. I think that it's of particular interest because it's the
community, the private sector, the public sector, all partnering
together to try to solve the community's problem, and more
importantly, trying to garner $5 million worth of grant money from
Tallahassee and bring to this community.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many of your deputies live
outside of Collier County?
CHIEF SMITH: Currently almost 200 of our deputies live
outside of Collier County of the 1,350-size agency.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you have some sort of reasonable
commitment from some of these deputies that they would take
advantage of this housing?
CHIEF SMITH: I can't make a commitment, Commissioners,
but I can only say that there is great interest. We're -- you know, by
Page 106
December 11-12,2007
statute, we can't own real property and we can't make a commitment,
you know, that would hold or bind the sheriff to some monetary level.
But I can tell you that there has been considerable interest in this
project. Quite frankly, there's -- I probably have 20 or 30 employees
that can't wait to see this come out of the ground.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's great. Mr. Klohn, one last
question, and I'll let Commissioner Fiala go from there.
Let me make sure I understand now. If for some reason the plans
go astray and these units are empty, they'll be open -- they'll be made
available to those people making the 60 percent and above?
MR. KLOHN: Yes, sir. The way that the CWHIP program
works is, there's a 50 percent commitment that you offer the units to
the essential services personnel, and we know who all the five are.
And with that commitment, you can then go to the workforce in
general and to the 60 percent or 70, 80, 90 percenters, yes, sir.
I'd like to add one more thing. When the chief was talking about
the interest that he believes that he has from the deputies, over the
Thanksgiving holiday weekend, in preparation for the City of Naples
workshop, the human resource department of the City of Naples sent
out a survey of interest to their employees. Just over the Thanksgiving
holiday weekend they received 39 responses of interest for housing at
Fountain Lakes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me. I keep writing. I was
only going to ask one question. After that, I've got about seven. Sorry
about that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have rental units there?
MR. KLOHN: No. These are for-sale units.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There will be no rental units in
there?
Page 107
December 11-12, 2007
MR. KLOHN: We believe that there is a provision within the
CWHIP legislation that during the sale period, that some interim
leasing will be allowed, like a lease option. If an individual is not
quite ready for the purchase, that they can occupy the unit with a lease
option.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, it doesn't have to
be owner occupied?
MR. KLOHN: At a certain period of time, and I think that the
term is within 36 months, that that lease option needs to convert to the
purchase or be sold to another ESP personnel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm still trying to get my hands
around this thing. So it isn't really a rental or lease program; it's an
owner-occupied program?
MR. KLOHN: That's correct, under the co-op.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then what does co-op mean?
MR. KLOHN: A co-op is a recognized form of home ownership.
We had a determination from the Florida Housing Finance Authority
in a memorandum which indicates that a co-op is an acceptable form
of home ownership for CWHIP. It provides an occupant with all of
the same forms of home ownership that you would enjoy in your own
home, such as interest deductions and depreciation, there's no sales tax
like a lease would have, and also the limited appreciation that we've
put in. So your pride of ownership and all the other forms of home
ownership.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you -- are you homesteaded in
there?
MR. KLOHN: Yes, qualifies for homestead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So your homestead exemption
would -- Save Our Homes would also be involved. I'm not quite sure
about -- is there any way that I can learn more about what co-ops are
of this type, or do you know of any that I can research?
MR. KLOHN: Yes. I can provide you with a book that's
Page 108
December 11-12,2007
produced by the National Co-op Bank. They were founded for the
purpose of providing affordable housing. In the booklet it touts the
fact that the co-op is the wave of the future for affordable housing, and
I'd be happy to send you that book. I've got a half a dozen of them in
my office.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll borrow it from you. I'll return it
after I read it. I'd like to learn more about this, because I think those
are key words, and I don't think any of us have dealt with that before.
So that will be interesting.
Do you have amenities on this property for those people,
swimming pools, things like that?
MR. KLOHN: Yes. As a matter of fact, as part of our purchase,
there was a partially completed community center. We've since
received a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for that structure. It's
about 3,200 feet, two stories. We'll also be adding a swimming pool,
and there will also be a children's playground.
One of the other features of the property is that it offers a
one-mile walk trail. So there will be a community center, swimming
pool, children's playground, and a walk trail.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yet it will be -- you'll have -- it will
be a gated community with kind of like a wall around it; is that
correct?
MR. KLOHN: We haven't concluded the fact that it's either
gated or not gated, but we're certainly going to make provisions so that
it can be gated in the future.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what -- last question is, what
do they sell for?
MR. KLOHN: The average price ofa two-bedroom unit is
approximately $214,000. With the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. KLOHN: -- buy-down of CWHIP, subtract 34,000, with a
full impact fee deferral of $20,000, it would bring it down to about
Page 109
December 11-12,2007
$138,000. Then ifthere is SHIP eligibility beyond that, the numbers
go even lower.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you.
MR. KLOHN: Oh, good point, Chief. And then 30 years from
now, if we have the impact fee deferrals and -- which I've done
calculations at 20,000, not eliminating the water and sewer, but 30
years from now with the CWHIP buy-down and with the impact fee
deferral benefit, the unit that would be at $162,000 today, net of those
buy-downs, would be at 312,000 30 years from now, and in 20 years,
$222,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, they might live there
that long. Heck, I've been in my house 34 years, so some -- other
people might do that, too. Thank you.
MR. KLOHN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let me review very quickly,
just to give some of the other commissioners some comfort, what the
elements really are.
Number one, in order to participate in the deferral program, it
must meet the requirements of Florida Statutes, the CWHIP program;
must be designated by the Board of County Commissioners as a
CWHIP proj ect; must be awarded CWHIP funds; the owner must be a
citizen or legal resident of the United States, or if it's a rental, the head
of the household must be a citizen or a legal resident of the United
States; the dwelling must be owner occupied and be granted a
homestead tax exemption, or if it's a rental, units must be the
household's permanent residents; total annual household income may
not exceed 140 percent of the median income; and some things that
don't necessarily affect just this development, but the deferral period is
10 years, and we are, for rental units, we are extending the deferral
from six years and seven months, I believe --
Page 11 0
December 11-12, 2007
MR. MUDD: Six, nine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- six years and nine months to 10
years. So in both cases, whether it's rental or for sale, the deferral will
be 10 years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He just said there weren't any
rentals.
MR. KLOHN: The commissioner's talking about the
consolidated program, I believe.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. What we're voting on here is
a consolidated program which will provide a project-specific process
to get these things done. So what we're voting on does that, does those
things.
So I will bet you there will be some rental here, okay. But it will
depend on how many -- how many -- how much a demand there is for
purchases.
The thing that -- the only thing that bothers me a little bit is that
if we don't have the demand for the workforce housing that we expect,
then it's going to become something else, and the people who need
workforce housing are not going to be there. So we're going to have to
build another project to deal with workforce housing. That's my only
concern.
It should be a place where we expect that workforce housing
occupants will live, where police officers and teachers and
middle-management personnel will live. So if it's not that, we have
not accomplished our -- our objective of serving the workforce
housing market. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner--
MR. KLOHN: One thing I'd like to add, if I may. The
Affordable Housing Commission recommendation included the caveat
that it -- that the impact fee deferral program be recommended and
approved by the BCC with a 10-year deferral with repayment
beginning in year 11 and full repayment in year 30.
Page 11 I
December 11-12, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not a 10-year deferral.
MR. KLOHN: No. The consolidated ordinance stopped at 10
years. The request that we've got today for the CWHIP program is
repayment beginning at year 11 with full repayment in year 30.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not what my executive
summary says. What is it that's happening here? Are we changing
horses in midstream?
MR. KLOHN: No. Amy? Jeff, you want to--
MR. KLATZKOW: I drafted this to be 10 years for repayment
rather than 10 years with another 20 years after that. A 30-year
repayment, by the time we got those monies back, the value to the
impact trust fund would be relatively nominal.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So what are you saying?
It's a 10-year deferral?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a straight 10-year deferral for this
program or for our current program, which is the rental housing
program.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And there's always the ability that if
some unusual circumstances prevail, that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can extend it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- we can extend it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it specifically says, it will be
for 10 years unless otherwise extended by the Board of County
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we do have the ability to
recognize and adjust to specific requirements. But right now it's a
10-year deferral, right?
MR. KLA TZKOW: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So that's what we're voting
on.
Page 112
December 11-12, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then we
have one speaker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm going to make a
motion to approve, and basically all we're doing here is --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you do? Okay. I was late.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. We're glad you're with
us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll support the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whatever it was.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, you want to
call our speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Kenneth Kelly.
MR. KELL Y: Good afternoon. For the record, Kenneth Kelly,
Chairman of the Affordable Housing Commission.
I believe we have support. I was here just to let you know that as
the commission, we did support it in full and we went over it in detail.
And to answer Mr. Coyle's question, Commissioner Coyle, last
time when we were here you had a question reference number 3 on the
application, and I want to let you know that basically we're not
guaranteeing the million dollars directly to the program. What we're
doing is we're saying that there is a competitive bid process already in
the county, and we suggest that, you know, Mr. Klohn and MGD (sic)
follow that process.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much for coming
today. I appreciate you taking off of work to be here.
MR. KELLY: Welcome.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
Page 113
December 11-12, 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: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Amy, do you have one last thing you want to add to the record or
clarify?
MS. PATTERSON: I was just clarifying that we are excluding
water and sewer impact fees from the deferral program.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's our understanding.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Item #lOM
RESOLUTION 2007-349: A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) LOCAL
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN (LHAP) FOR FISCAL YEARS
2007-2008,2008-2009 AND 2009-2010, TO ALLOW SHIP
PURCHASE ASSISTANCE WHEN FUNDS ARE ALLOCATED
TO A DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS BEEN A WARDED FUNDS
UNDER THE COMMUNITY WORKFORCE HOUSING
INNOVATION PILOT PROGRAM (CWHIP) - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10M, which is a
companion. Remember there's two companions. There's 10M and
there's 12C.
10M is a recommendation the Board of County Commissioners
Page 114
December 11-12,2007
approves and authorizes the chairman to sign a resolution amending
the State Housing Initiative Partnership, SHIP, Local Housing
Assistance Plan, for fiscal year 2007 through 2008, 2008 through
2009, and 2009 through 2010, to allow for -- to allow SHIP purchase
assistance when funds are allocated to a development that has been
awarded funds under the Community Workforce Housing Initiative
pilot program, CWHIP.
This is, again, a companion to 10D, which you just heard, and the
next, which will be 10C, and I believe Marcy Krumbine, your Director
of Housing and Human Services, will present.
MS. KRUMBINE: For the record, Marcy Krumbine, Housing
and Human Services, and I'd just like to open it up for questions on
this companion item.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll close the public hearing on
this. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you
very much.
Page 115
December 11-12,2007
Item #12C
RESOLUTION 2007-350: A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING
MDG CAPITAL CORPORATION AND THE ESSENTIAL
SERVICES PERSONNEL HOUSING COALITION OF COLLIER
COUNTY (ESP) AS THE COLLIER COUNTY APPLICANT FOR
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DAVIS' COMMUNITY
WORKFORCE HOUSING INNOVATION PILOT PROGRAM
(CWHIP) FOR THE 2008 APPLICATION CYCLE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item, companion item, is 12C, and this is
a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, adopt a resolution recommending MDG Capital
Corporation and the Essential Services Personnel Housing Coalition of
Collier County, the ESP, as the Collier County applicant for the
Representative Mike Davis Community Workforce Housing Initiative
Pilot, CWHIP, for the 2008 application cycle. And I believe Mr. Jeff
Klatzkow will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Move to approve 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.
Page 116
December 11-12,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, now we go back to paragraph 8
again on your agenda.
MR. KLOHN: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: 8A is continued indefinitely. It's on your agenda.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2007-85: PETITION PUDZ-2006-AR-I0648,
NAPLES MOTORCOACH RESORT INC., REPRESENTED BY
ROBERT L. DUANE, AICP, OF HOLEMONTES, INC., AND
RICHARD D. YOV ANOVICH, 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,
APPROXIMATEL Y THREE QUARTERS OF A MILE EAST OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951), IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP
51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -
ADOPTED W /STIPULA TIONS; MOTION TO ACCEPT
DONATIONS - APPROVED
Page 117
December 11-12, 2007
So it's 8B. This item was continued from the November 27,
2007, BCC meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn
and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's petition PUDZ-2006-AR-I0648, Naples Motorcoach Resort,
Inc., represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, 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
district to the commercial planned unit development district for a
project to be known as 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, County Road 951, in Section 3,
Township 51 south, Range 26 east, Collier County Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And before we begin, how
many speakers do we have signed up to speak on this item?
MS. FILSON: Two.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I know we do have quite a
contingent from the former Graystone Park that was out there. If you
wish to speak on this item, there's speaker slips out in the hall. You
can sign up and turn it in up here to speak your mind. Okay.
MR. MUDD: Swear them in, ex parte.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ex parte and swearing in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, forgive me. You're correct.
Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
Ex parte on the part of the commissioners, starting with
Commissioner Coyle.
Page 118
December 11-12,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Swear them in first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. We've got to swear
everybody in. Okay. By the numbers, folks. Would all those wishing
to participate in this particular agenda item please stand at this time
and be sworn in by the court recorder (sic).
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now ex parte disclosure on
the part of the commissioners, starting with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have had meetings
and discussions with representatives of the petitioner, I have read
various amounts of correspondence concerning objections to the
motorcoach resort, and I have received telephone calls.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much, Chairman.
I only received emails on this item. I've had no contact with the
petitioner on this. I have talked with staff in regards to this project.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And myself, I have had many,
many meetings, and I mean preceding this particular item going all the
way back to when Graystone was going through the issue of removing
the tenants that lived there, all the way through. There's been more
meetings than I care to count, but I do have a folio that's complete up
here and has all the meetings, in place.
Received numerous phone calls, emails, and met with the people
from Graystone and the petitioner that is carrying this item forward
several times and had phone calls with many of them and in between.
And with that, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've met with the petitioner's
agent, I've received many -- Rich Y ovanovich, being one of them --
excuse me. I've received many emails, many phone calls. I've talked
with people. Actually I was very intensely involved in it when it came
Page I 19
December 11-12,2007
to us the first time and -- because I have friends that lived there, and
they're sitting in the audience now.
And so -- let's see. I've talked with staff about it as well. I've
driven by the property. And I think that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'd like to add that I also talked
to staff numerous times, and that includes the county attorney.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have email correspondence
from constituents, staff members. I had one phone call from a former
resident of Graystone Mobile Home Park. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Okay.
Ready for the presentation, Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. Good afternoon. Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
I have with me Randall Henderson, who is a principal and the
petitioner; Bob Duane, George Hermanson, and Jerry Neal from Hole
Montes to answer any questions you may have.
Briefly, you'll see a location map on the visualizer. This is a
parcel of property that's approximately 23.2 acres in size. It's located
on the south side of U.S. 41 about three-quarters ofa mile east of the
intersection of Collier Boulevard and u.s. 41.
The property is the former Graystone RV Resort. It's never been
a mobile home park. It's been an RV park that was constructed well
over 40 years ago -- constructed well over 40 years ago. And,
candidly, the infrastructure was in not a good state of repairs.
The property currently has three zoning designations on it, as it
exists today. The majority of the property, 19.13 acres is zoned
mobile home. It's a -- has the zoning designation of mobile home
rental park. It also has about -- a little over two acres is TTRVC, and
finally, about two acres is zoned C-5. That's a site of a former
convenience store on the property. So there are three zoning
designations on the property as it exists today.
Page 120
December 11-12,2007
What we're requesting is a PUD to allow for an RV resort. The
RV resort would allow, under the PUD document, up to 200 RV
parcels with associated amenities, pool, clubhouses, and the like.
There will also be a -- and I'll put the PUD master plan up next.
The PUD master plan depicts clubhouse locations, as well as a
boat storage facility. That boat storage facility is basically adjacent to
-- and I'll go over here. Basically the boat storage facility on the
master plan -- I'm pointing to -- this is the exist -- or the former
Graystone RV Resort, but this is the aerial that kind of puts it in
perspective.
On the master plan the -- oops. I thought you were looking at it
on the visualizer. The boat storage facility would be in this location
right here, which would be closest to the church, which is to -- I think
that's east. As you know, I have problems with directions. But closest
to the church, which is on our east.
We worked with your staff -- and if you look at the Planning
Commission report, you'll see that originally the boat storage facility
was going to be a two-story boat storage facility.
We worked with your staff to reduce the height of that boat
storage facility not to exceed 15 feet in height. And with that, that
eliminated a concern of your planning staff.
The project, in our opinion, is an improvement for the property in
many respects, and I'll take you through those. Jumping back over
here for a second.
This is a rendering of the site plan that I -- that has been
submitted to the county. So the site development plan is in, and I will
tell you that we will not make 200 units. We'll only reach 184 units
based on the site plan.
But as you'll see on the site plan, it provides nice amenities on the
site. The boat storage facility is in this area over here. It will be in
two buildings. It will limit the number of boats that we can have on
site to 32 in the boat storage facility and 27 in the docks that can go on
Page 121
December 11-12,2007
the creek.
So there's a reduction in boat traffic over what currently or what
formerly existed on the site. That reduction is, I think, in furtherance
of your Manatee Protection Plan, so there's an obvious benefit to that.
Also the former Graystone RV Resort had 312 units there. Now,
of those 312 units, 50 were mobile home units. Of those 50 mobile
home units, only 16 were permanent residents. The remainder were
people who came seasonally to enjoy Naples, like many people do.
But as far as permanent residents, our records indicate that 16 of
those mobile homes were permanently occupied, so that means about
262 of the other units were RVs.
Now those RVs were in various states. They were not what we're
proposing. What we're proposing is motorcoaches, minimum 35 feet
in length, maximum of 45 feet in length. You know, the RVs you're
used to where people drive in them and then leave with the RV when
they're leaving.
What you had there in the past was, you know, things that kind of
evolved into almost permanent structures. We're not proposing that.
What we're proposing is to reduce the number down to 200 so that
would be a reduction of 112 units.
With that, we will be providing better hurricane preparedness,
because if there's a hurricane watch, people will be told they have to
leave. That's part of the PUD condition. So they will not be around
during a hurricane so there will be no structures there during a
hurricane. So we believe from a property damage standpoint, we are
furthering the goals of your Comprehensive Plan regarding hurricanes.
There will also be a reduction in traffic because we're going from
312 occupants of the area to 200. So if you -- and your staff report
indicates we're essentially giving back traffic capacity to a roadway
segment that has its issues.
We've provided that the units cannot be occupied for greater than
six months, which means from a property tax standpoint these units
Page 122
December 11-12,2007
can't be homesteaded because these are mobile structures. Under the
old scenario, people could basically remove the wheels, tie these
things down, and they would become -- from a taxing standpoint, they
would be eligible for homesteading. What we're doing is prohibiting
the ability for homesteading.
So one, we'll have -- we'll avoid that issue from a tax standpoint,
but most importantly, they'll be able to leave when hurricane issues
occur.
With the reduction in units, we're reducing the impact on the
water and sewer system facilities of Collier County.
As I mentioned, there are some significant environmental
improvements. One, there will be less boats because we're capping
ourselves at the 59, so that's a benefit to the manatees in the area.
Two, the old park had no water management system to speak of.
Water was just basically flowing into the creek. We will be required
to treat that water before it goes into the creek. And in fact, when the
site was cleared of any structures that were abandoned, we were asked
to go ahead and build a water management lake now, which we've
already done. So we've already taken care of water management in
that area that didn't exist before.
We've met with our neighbors, and the neighbors -- we haven't
heard any objection from our neighbors. We believe we're compatible
with our neighbors and, in fact, we've got a petition that, if necessary,
I can enter into the record with several signatures of people in the area
supporting the rezone.
We, most importantly, will be reinventing this park. And with
reinventing this park, we will be putting in water and sewer that meets
current standards, we'll be putting in electrical that meets current
standards.
The park was, as I said, you know, an older park. The
infrastructure had warn out. We were having problems with the water
and sewer system. We were also told by the fire department that there
Page 123
December 11-12, 2007
are no fire hydrants in here, so there are issues from a fire safety, and
the roads were so narrow that really they couldn't get their fire trucks
in there. So we're basically reinventing the park and improving the
infrastructure and addressing fire protection issues that needed to be
addressed.
The bottom line is, this park needed to be redone anyway, and
having to redo that, we were going to have to bring everything up to
current standards, which meant that we were going to have to ask
these people to leave while we did that. And then, of course, if they
wanted to come back, they would have been allowed to come back,
but there was going to be a re -- there was going to have to be a
relocation of individuals anyway to meet the current standards.
Now, my client was not the former owner of the property. He
purchased the property. And there's been a lot in the newspaper and
there's a lot of letters, angry letters about people who have been
displaced. There's no question about that.
My client is willing to step up to the plate and do things that,
frankly, I don't think he is legally obligated to do, but in recognition of
some of the claims that this was an affordable housing development --
which it was not an affordable housing development. It was an
inexpensive place for people to come to Collier County and enjoy
Collier County, but it was not an affordable housing complex.
My client is willing to do what other residential developers have
done and what other commercial developers have done and make a
donation to the county's affordable housing trust fund equal to $1,000
per pad that ultimately gets permitted, and when he sells the unit, he'll
make the $1,000 per unit donation to the affordable housing trust fund.
So that will be, I believe, giving back to the community like
many others in recognizing a need to address affordable housing. So
that's essentially $184,000 commitment from my client today that
they're willing to make in recognition of issues raised in the letters that
are in your packet.
Page 124
December 11-12, 2007
In addition to that, there were 15 permanent residents and mobile
homes. My client -- maybe it was 16. Was it 16? It was 16, I'm
sorry. It was 16 permanent residents. Four of those permanent
residents were relocated by the previous owner, so they were taken
care of in addition to the monies they were paid by the previous owner
for their structures.
My client will establish a fund within 30 days of the effective
date of this PUD in the sum of -- the sum of 5,000 per unit for those
12 people to assist in their relocation expenses. Now, this is above
what they've already been paid for their units. But, again, in response
to the letters that were in the backup, my client is willing to try to go
above and beyond to address the issues that they had to deal with.
And they were significant issues and we know, you know, they were.
They were relocated. Nobody wants to be relocated. That would have
needed to be done anyway, but my client is saying, okay, I believe I
should give back above and beyond what the state mandated had to be
done by the previous property owner.
So he'll establish that additional fund. I'm trying to find an
agency to monitor those funds. In can't, then, you know, my firm
will handle that through our escrow account, and when those 12
people that were not relocated by the previous property owner can
come prove to me they were the ones who lived there, then we'll go
ahead and release those funds to them, you know, to help share in the
burden that they had to deal with.
And they have been relocated. I don't know -- I'm assuming
they've already found another place to live, but this money, I hope,
will help ease some of the issues that they had to deal with.
So we are requesting that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the rezone. Your board -- your Planning Commission
unanimously recommended this proposed project. I think -- and so did
-- your staff is recommending it as well. It does reduce traffic
impacts. It does address hurricane issues. It does address
Page 125
December 11-12, 2007
environmental issues.
So we're requesting that the Board of County Commissioners
approve our rezone request. And that's my brief overview of the
proposed project, and I or anybody else on the team can answer any
specific questions you may have regarding the PUD document or the
proposal.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In may go in front of you just for
one moment. I just want to make sure that there's no
misunderstandings about this. What you're offering here today is of
your own free will and it hasn't been extorted or suggested by anyone
of the people sitting up here?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it hasn't. And frankly, it's in
response to the bad press that we've gotten from the paper. And
finally, when we got to sit down with the paper and explain our side of
the story, I think those were the accurate facts. But be that as it may,
my client said to me, Rich, I feel like I need to do something; not
because he was asked to, because he wants to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And this -- this is -- I'm just
making sure, because in the past some people have said that one of us
-- and usually it's me -- has been guilty of contract zoning, make these
deals on the side. This has not been a deal that you and I sat down and
worked out. This is something your client's freely coming of his own
will forward with to be able to meet the demands?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, Commissioner. This is something
that my client is doing of his own free will to address -- and, frankly, I
didn't get to see any of these letters before the Planning Commission.
The first time I saw them and the reason I requested the continuance
was when the agenda package came out for the Board of County
Commissioners.
So at that time -- I mean, I knew there were unhappy people, but
I didn't know about all those letters, okay. So at that point I said, time
out. Let's talk about addressing these concerns, and that's why I asked
Page 126
December 11-12,2007
for the continuance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Fiala, then Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Just a few questions.
First, could you tell me, when you say that your people relocated these
people --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Guidish, the previous property
owner, relocated four of the 16 permanent mobile home dwellers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Because you used relocated a
lot, almost sounding like somebody helps them find places, and I
know that wasn't always the case.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was just for four of the people. The
other 12 he did not, and that's why my client --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And how about everybody else in
there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about everybody else in there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know about the individual RV
users. But in my -- in my mind, those individual RV users were not--
those were not permanent residences. That was not the people who
were, quote, affordable housing dwellers. We were focusing on those
Issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just a few questions. First of
all, does this property adjoin another property or is it owned by the
same person that owned this one called Paradise Point?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Does it adjoin it? I don't think it adjoins
it, but I do believe the owner of Paradise Point, Mr. Guidish, owned
this one as well. But the petitioner does not own Paradise Point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that. Not right now
anyway. And I had understood that they were talking about doing
this. My point is -- and it doesn't make any difference who's doing
what. I want to make sure that this doesn't happen to people again
Page 127
December 11-12, 2007
where -- it's their home. It's -- that is their home. And all of a sudden
-- they can't move their home. They just don't have it anymore. It's
thrown into the garbage, and they have no place to go, and they get a
thousand dollars to say, here. Now find yourself another house.
So I want to make sure that there's something that takes place, if
Mr. Guidish decides to sell his next place -- and that's up to him -- but
there should be something on the record that says that the people who
are living there now have the first right of refusal.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, you bring up a very good
point. Even though the law does not provide that these people get the
first right of refusal, they were given the first right of refusal to buy
this property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't think so. They tried to.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me finish, and then you can tell me
where I -- somebody may have told me something different. There
was an offer proffered by Mr. Henderson's company. The people who
owned the park were given an opportunity to match that offer.
What they did is they counteroffered by saying, we're going to
put up a small amount of money that was secured by a note, so they
weren't even putting up any cash. So they weren't matching the offer.
They were given an opportunity to do that, even though the law
doesn't say they have to.
They couldn't match it, they couldn't come up with terms, and
then -- and this went through the court system. The judge agreed that
the property owner, Mr. Guidish, had followed the law. He had
actually gone one extra step by making this right of first refusal, and it
wasn't matched.
So Mr. Guidish already did above and beyond. And I don't know
what he's going to do on Paradise Point ifhe ever decides to sell.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't know either. And you
can interpret it any way, and I can --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine.
Page 128
December 11-12,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- can interpret it any way. I don't --
you know, I've heard one thing. You've heard another thing. The
thing is, I don't want to see this happening to anybody again where
they're just forced out and they have nothing to fall back on. So that's
my first thing.
The second thing is, if they -- if people are forced out at -- they
should at least get a fair market value for the property that becomes
garbage. I mean, let's face it, you can't move these mobile homes
anyplace because they're older, and so -- but it is their home. So they
should be able to get, not the highest and best use, but the fair market
value for their property.
I'm putting this all on the record only because I'm afraid that it's
going to happen again. It feels to me as though this is just the first step
of many steps. I don't want to see that happen again.
I know that my friends -- they're sitting right here. When my
friends were forced out, they -- it was their home. They'd lived there,
I don't know, 20 years or something, 30 years; 30 years they'd lived
there, and they didn't know what they were going to do, and they're
elderly and they've got health problems.
Anyway, God kind of watched over them. He found a place for
them. They're happier now than they've been and I'm satisfied with
that, and I believe that other people are also relocated. It wasn't done
very fairly. And I just want to make sure that it doesn't happen to
anybody else like that again. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. When this was the
Graystone, did these people own the property or did they just rent the
property?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They were renters.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They were renters.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm hoping that if this other park
Page 129
December 11-12,2007
that Commissioner Fiala's talked about, I'm hoping those people own
the property. If they don't, then there's really no way that they can
protect that item because they don't own the property. I understand
their concern, but I don't know how we can comfort those people
when they don't own that particular property.
The other issue that I'm wondering about is that originally, before
this went to the Planning Commission, I believe that you were in
agreement that you were going to set aside some land for a wellfield, I
think one area. I'd like to know if that's back on the table, if that's
negotiable.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was -- it was never off the table from
our perspective. We had agreed to that. It was the Planning
Commission's motion that took that out. We didn't say we didn't want
to do it. We had agreed to it so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The reason is, is this is not just for
the citizens out there. This is for all the citizens of Collier County in
regards to making sure that we have adequate supplies of water. So if
there's a motion down the road for approval of this, I hope it includes
also the wellsite for the rest of the county.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the county going to give you
impact fee credits on that portion of the site? Are they going to
purchase it?
Well, let me just say, if it's for all the citizens in Collier County,
then the county should purchase this site, because the rational nexus
for the staff to ask, whether it's a park, whether it's a well site or
whatever, it should have some rational nexus for your impacts. And,
you know, has anybody from the county ever represented how many
gallons of water that you're going to require?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, this is a -- this -- we
worked with your staff to minimize the impact of the location of this
well. And this has become -- as we go through the process, this isn't
Page 130
December 11-12, 2007
the first PUD you've seen that has agreed to step up and assist with
this water issues.
We didn't have an objection to doing that. We were never
offered impact fee credits for it. The impact to us was minimal. So
from a dollars and cents standpoint, it doesn't really make any sense to
us to push an issue to try to get impact fee credits on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But they did ask, correct?
Government asked for it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They did ask for it --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- as part of the review process. It's a
standard -- I'm not going to -- it's a standard request depending on
where the property is located from your utilities department.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And there has to be
rhyme and reason why we need that. I mean, just like transportation
does. I mean, we have those rational impacts, a traffic study.
Now, the water department hasn't done that kind of analysis, and
it goes into the Nolan case in California. You have to have that
rational nexus, otherwise, if it is a community benefit, then the
community must buy it. There's several cases out there.
But anyways, what I was going to ask, is this site plan -- is it the
same as the pictoric site plan that you're showing us?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is. Is this the same one that
was provided to the Planning Commission?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We didn't get into the level of details
with the planning commissioners as far as the layout of the individual
sites. They saw -- I'm sorry. I know what you're pushing. Yes, the
visualizer, the one you're holding up, is the one we showed to the
Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That hasn't changed?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Other than we've agreed to some
Page 13 I
December 11-12, 2007
additional setbacks some planning commissioners requested and that
we limited it to one story, the boat storage. Those are the only
changes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this reflects what the
Planning Commission voted on?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does the rest of the PUD reflect
what the Planning Commission voted on?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We do have three speakers.
Let's go to the speakers.
MS. FILSON: We have two speakers, sir. Carolyn Brown.
She'll be followed by Denise De Witt. You can go to either podium.
Do you have something to put on the overhead?
MS. BROWN: No, I really wasn't sure what I was going to say
here, listening --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your name for the record,
please.
MS. BROWN: Oh, I'm sorry. Carolyn Brown. I was a resident
a Graystone, short-lived, unfortunately. When I went -- we had -- we
actually only had one year there hoping to move there permanently
once my husband retired, which is going to be in another year. So we
were displaced, even though we were what they called snowbirds, we
were displaced, and we lost everything.
But I guess my biggest concern for doing what they're doing is
that, doing some research, I found that Collier County's one of the
biggest counties in Florida, but there's only 19 percent usable land. If
I'm wrong on that, this is what I see in the research that I did on-line.
I was under the impression -- I lived on water, on the dock there
-- that we couldn't do anything to these -- to that river, Henderson
Creek. What's going to happen now if they start dredging and putting
Page 132
December 11-12,2007
up these docks?
They're talking about lowering the boat usage, but there was very
little boat usage on that creek, at least by Graystone. We couldn't
even get out if the tide wasn't right.
So there were lots of boats on the other side by another park, but
still not the numbers that they're talking about, you know. And I don't
-- I think now it's going to increase. What's going to -- one of the
things we liked about being there was the wildlife, the refuge, what's
it, Rookery Bay, everything's there. This is all going to be impacted.
How are you going to prevent all of that from being destroyed? I don't
understand. You know, that's one of my big concerns with the whole
Issue.
You start dredging that canal, what's going to happen to the
docks on the other side of it? It's not a very large creek, you know.
How are these people going to be affected?
You know, we were forced to leave and we lost what we had
there. Fortunately we were lucky enough to find another place, but I
don't have the views I had there. I don't have any of this.
And you're talking about us being able to homestead. We never
owned the property, so how were we ever able to homestead? You
know, I pay taxes like everybody else.
I just don't -- I don't understand -- I don't understand how this
whole thing happened. I haven't been here very long, but I'm really
looking at it, whether I want to stay in Florida because it's just sad,
very sad.
I don't know if what I have to say means anything, but it's
definitely a concern. And I know I've talked to a lot of people since
who have left, and they feel pretty much the same way, and some of
them haven't even come back because they couldn't afford to come
back. So maybe this place should have some kind of affordable
housing. It seems like it's going more in the direction of catering to
the rich. I don't know. I don't know what the answer is, but I just felt
Page 133
December 11-12, 2007
I had to say something. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Denise DeWitt.
MS. DeWITT: Good afternoon. My name is Denise DeWitt, for
the record. I'm not really sure where to start here. I have my sayings
that I wanted to speak to you people about, and after hearing what he
had to say, I have a lot of comments on that, too. So I'm going to start
with what I initially came here to tell you.
I'm here today to express my concerns about the rezoning of what
used to be Graystone Park. Just to give you a little background, this
was home to nearly 300 residents, some of which were only seasonal
residents, but residents just the same. They range from about 50 to 90
years old, some of which lived in the park 30-plus years.
We tried to purchase the park for 2 million more than it was
bought for and had a letter of financing to show it to the judge, but the
judge did not allow our evidence to come in because it was in email
form, so it was disregarded.
These are senior citizens who cannot just start over. They're on a
fixed income and they were forced out of their homes with no
monetary compensation except for the small amount that the state
allows for the abandonment of our homes.
When this was before the Planning Commission, they were
supposed to be given the letters that are on file with Kay Deselem
from the residents expressing concerns about the rezoning. These
were not presented at the meeting, so it was passed without objection.
You should have those 40 some letters on file in your folders. I
hope you've had a chance to read them and to put yourselves in their
shoes. How would you feel if this happened to your parents, 70s, 80s,
90-year-olds?
The sale of Graystone Park caused interruption of the routine of
all of these seniors, not to mention the stress, hardship, and heartache,
and this, in turn, caused health issues, many of whom cannot be here
Page 134
December 11-12,2007
today, as they're still up north now living with family because they
cannot afford to come down. They have nowhere to go.
I was on your website and was reading something that I thought
was rather interesting. It says the board is the chief policy-making
body of Collier County responsible for providing services to protect
the health, safety, welfare and quality of life of the citizens of Collier
County .
I understand the need for growth of cities, but when someone has
money, can they just walk all over people at no regard? It sends a
very negative message to the working class.
What good can come from allowing this rezoning to pass? The
plan is, again, targeting people with an abundance of money. If the
middle and lower class people keep getting squeezed out, who's going
to be here to work in the restaurants and stores and to take our --
firemen and our policemen?
I've talked to many people who cannot afford to stay in this area
because they don't make enough money at their jobs. Collier County
officials have told me that they have jobs posted because entry level
positions in the county do not pay well enough to allow them to live
here. Does Naples really need another RV resort? More people going
up and down the waterways and roads.
I ask you to please consider all options before giving approval on
this matter. I also ask that you protect the health, safety, and welfare
and quality of life of the citizens of Collier County.
I believe it would be in the best interest of the citizens of Collier
to keep more affordable housing of some kind where this park stands.
It's convenient for seniors and for the moderate income. Teachers,
nurses, office workers, police, and firemen and other service personnel
who do not qualify for low-income housing.
There's grocery stores and department stores nearby, doctors and
pharmacies, so they don't have to travel far to accomplish their daily
needs.
Page 135
December 11-12, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mrs. DeWitt, you ran over three
minutes. I'm going to -- as a spokesperson for the group, I'm going to
allow you to go for another two, but please start to bring it forward.
MS. DeWITT: Almost there.
Please don't regard (sic) those of us that do not have an
abundance of money. We depend on government officials to make
sure the best interests of all people are considered. I was raised to
respect my elders and to treat others the way we want to be treated.
It seems once these essential workers become seniors, they
become non-essential members of society and are disregarded. We
may not pay large amounts of taxes that others do who do have a lot of
money, but we do support our communities just the same and deserve
the same consideration.
We did not have 59 votes in our park at Graystone, and our
permanent residents were about 50 for year-round. There were 74
mobile home sites that were there, and we could not homestead
because we did not own our property.
How could we possibly go back and live there as he is proposing
because this is targeted for people who have a lot more money than
what we ever did? That's why we lived where we lived. And we did
make them an offer of eight million and we made them an offer of 10
million, and it was disregarded.
I thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And that concludes the
speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the public portion of this agenda
item. Commissioner Halas? Oh, I'm sorry, your light was before?
MS. DESELEM: Excuse me.
MR. MUDD: Kay needs to get something on the record, sir.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you. For the record, Kay Deselem,
Principal Planner with Zoning. Two things. One, I wanted to go on
Page 136
December 11-12, 2007
the record that we are recommending that this be approved and we are
recommending that it be found consistent with the Growth
Management Plan.
You do have a supplemental executive summary that addresses
the wellsite issue, and I would ask that you reconsider the position
taken by the Planning Commission and include that well site as part of
the approval. The utilities division has staff here to address that issue
if you need more details.
And then before I actually make a vote, I need to make sure I
understand the two things that the petitioner's agent has offered, in
fact, those things are adopted. For example, we need to figure out,
you know, what the fund's going to be, how the money's going to get
there, who's going to disburse the funds and how they're going to be
disbursed because there seems to be some ambiguity that in order to
ensure compliance with zoning, since it's going to be adopted as a
zoning condition if it's approved, we need to understand where we're
gomg.
And then the other issue, the petitioner, I believe, said that he
wanted to make the $1,000 payment for the affordable housing trust
fund at the time of permitting, and we would ask that instead of the
issuance of permitting that we do it at the issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy because we have no way to track when permits are issued
for any part. There's just no way to do that; whereas, we could track
COs, and that's customarily how we do incorporate that type of
condition.
Other than that, I'm available if you have questions. And like I
said, utilities staff is here as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Let's start with
Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I need some guidance here. I think
Commissioner Henning brought up a good point, so I need guidance
Page 13 7
December 11-12, 2007
from either the director of utilities or the county attorney in regards to
addressing this wellsite.
Now, Commissioner Henning is concerned that we may be
extracting a wellsite out of these people. Is there some monetary value
that we can say that we're buying this wellsite for $10, $100, or some
fee that's a transaction fee that says, we purchase today?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, and I understand. Commissioner
Henning's concerns very well on this issue. I spoke with Mr. DeLony
just a few minutes ago on this. He assures me this is a completely
voluntary donation by the developer. Mr. Y ovanovich can confirm
that. Ifit is completely voluntary, we don't need to get into these
Issues.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So this wasn't extraction?
This was something that the developer said that he would step up to
the plate to address; is that correct or not? I want to make sure that
we're on good ground here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: First of all, we're giving you an
easement. We're not conveying any fee simple. And, yes, we agreed
to do this voluntarily.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. I
wanted to make sure we get that on record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I -- in view of the
controversy that has surrounded all this, you know, I'd like to make
sure everyone understands what we're doing here today.
It is extremely unfortunate that residents or visitors went through
the kind of inconvenience and loss that you had to go through, but that
ship has sailed.
A court of law has ruled that the property owner, the prior
property owner, and logically the current property owner, has the right
to do with his property what he can do. To interpret it otherwise is
like saying, if you have a -- if you have a guesthouse on your property
Page 138
December 11-12,2007
and you rent it to someone, you're obligated to let them stay there
forever. You can't ever renovate your guesthouse, you can't bring
your own mother-in-law there, you can't use it for the purposes that
you want to use it.
And I think we have to understand that private property rights are
one of the fundamental rights of our nation, and a court has ruled that
he has the right to do with the property what he's allowed to do under
the law.
So now, we're in a position where we can't make our decision
today based upon the perceived injustices that might have occurred to
the people who used to live there. We have to make our decision
based upon the law.
Is this use permitted under our code? The answer is yes. It is
permitted under our code. Will we have to approve it exactly as it's
proposed? No, we really don't.
And to that end, I would like to ask a couple of questions now.
We talked about the maximum residency being less than six months
and providing for no homesteading. I don't see that in our executive
summary. Is that something that has come up just recently?
MS. DESELEM: Either one of us can answer. Since I'm here, I'll
answer. It's in the Exhibit F of the PUD documents as a commitment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm not going to dig through
a bunch of exhibits trying to find out what stipulations should be part
of my motion, okay. We had a big discussion about that earlier today.
We want all these stipulations very clearly laid out so that when we
say we're going to approve the staffs recommendations, we know
exactly what the staffs recommendations are.
So I heard things today that I haven't -- haven't heard before, but
there are a number of items here listed which indicate the Planning
Commission recommendations, and they're numbered 1 through lOin
the executive summary. It's pages 5 and 6 of pages 195, okay.
Now, not all of the stipulations are included there apparently.
Page 139
December 11-12,2007
But here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to make a motion to
approve those stipulations 1 through 9. I'm going to make a motion
that the wellhead be included and that a stipulation that maximum
residency shall be less than six months, there will be no homesteading,
that the boat storage -- height of the boat storage building will be
reduced to 15 feet maximum, and that the number of docks will be
exactly the same as what exists there now.
So that's my motion, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What about the affordable housing
element?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not going to make that a
stipulation because that is something that they have volunteered to do.
If they wish to do it, they can do it. I'm not going to make -- I'm
not going to make it part of my motion, I'm not going to make my
approval contingent upon that thing. But if they wish to do it, it's on
the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Mr. -- Jeff.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Jeff, would you comment on that,
because I -- that's not the understanding that we've had in the past with
the donations that were made. If this is going to be a departure from
that, we may as well just scrap the whole program and forget about
any kind of voluntary donations if it can't be on the record.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's on the record.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, there are two issues here. There's
whether or not you want to make the donation a part of this rezoning
issue, and that's one issue. The other is, if you do, it ought to be part
of the PUD because that's really the best way to enforce it, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in other words, we've got
$180,000 and possibly restoring some of the well-being of the
residents with the $5,000 per resident donation for those that have
permanent residency there, we're leaving it on the table and going to
Page 140
December 11-12,2007
walk away with the idea that they don't have to do it if they don't want
to. We're not going to include it into the --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's not the motion. I don't believe the
motion included those as stipulations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, it didn't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It doesn't. And nor am I going to
make my approval of the project contingent upon those items because
it then becomes a requirement, not something that's voluntary, because
if I make it part of my motion, then they have to do it, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- and I think our entire
discussion was one of accepting these as something that was not being
extracted, that there was no quid pro quo, that you wanted to do these
things, it is on the record, you said you were going to do these things,
but I'm not going to make it part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I -- I was next.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion -- we have a
motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas.
Next would be Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we dealt with this issue
about donations long ago when Mike Pettit was here. It was July 24th,
and there's a simple form about -- a donation slip, and that's how this
should be handled is --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll bring that back. We'll do that. You
have our commitment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. You just bring that back.
So I feel comfortable with that. I'm starting to feel comfortable with
the motion, except for I want to address a couple of things.
First of all, this is the worst agenda to follow that -- zoning
agenda in recent years. We have three Exhibit A's, we have three
Exhibit B's, and the exhibits, A and B, are in the -- in the PUD
document, and there's no wonder we get bars and two-story buildings
Page 141
December 11-12,2007
next to a residential area. These must be cleaned up so they're easy to
follow. The next -- what's that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. I was just going to
support you and say, that's what an executive summary is. It should
pull those things out and emphasize it for us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, not only the executive
summary, but when you look at the Planning Commission
recommendations, they're saying in Exhibit A, so you go to the first
Exhibit A, and you figure out, what are they talking about? And you
go fumbling through it, you go to another Exhibit A, and it just doesn't
flow. So it just adds to the confusion of what the Planning
Commission recommendations are.
The second thing in the second supplemental executive summary,
to me, looks like an exaction except for it's put in on the second page,
and it states where, in the water master plan, section 6.3132 of the
wellfield procurement strategy, the wellsites should be acquired now
to meet the plan -- water requirements and planned expansion for 2025
in order to obtain the required wellsite and easement at a reasonable
cost.
So Mr. Motion Maker, if you can put in that is -- that wellsite
will be afforded by reasonable cost, that it flows with the water master
plan and it doesn't look like an exaction of the supplemental executive
summary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I reply or just ask a question
of someone about that? What is a reasonable cost for an easement?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I --let's -- if this will help any, we're
an existing project. We have more impact fee credits than we can use.
So the way your impact fee ordinance works is if you basically down
zone, which we're doing, you all get to keep -- we don't get a refund.
So even if I got credits, I can't spend them on this particular piece
of property. So for us it really was valueless in this particular case
because I couldn't spend the impact fee credits that I would be given.
Page 142
December 11-12,2007
So -- now, that's different. In this case I would say, it really had
no value to us. Others it may be different, and I -- that's why it's hard
for me to answer, what's an easement worth? Well, it really depends
on each piece of property. And in this particular case it wasn't worth
anything to us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about $99?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. If you want to give us $99, we'll
take it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, all we
have to do is put it in there at a reasonable cost, and we have -- you
know, appraisers can then -- can appraise what reasonable cost is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't have any problem
doing that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'll modify my motion to
say that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'll second -- modify my
second.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Coyle, in may, what
existed was 24 homes on the water and then two launch docks, so for
-- for a total of26. Now, they were dilapidated, so we would like to
replace at least the 26. Is that what you intended by your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have a problem improving
existing docks. I just don't want to approve additional docks.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. And there were -- there were 26,
so it would be 27 we were asking for. So I guess your motion is saying
26, correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If the staff can verify that there are
26.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, they're -- unfortunately we've
removed those now. There were 24 homes plus two docks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now there are none there then.
Page 143
December 11-12, 2007
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's my concern. Yeah. That's
why I wanted to clarify there were --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I like that number better.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's kind of an unfair result.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How can we verify the number of
docks that were there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have an aerial that may help.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then what I would say is
that staff should verify the number of docks that were there, and that
will be the maximum number of docks that will be permitted, okay.
MS. DESELEM: If you'd like, I can take a few moments and
look at the environmental assessment that was provided and accepted
by staff, and it should have the exact number. I can at least look if
you'll give me a moment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. Why don't you do that as we
continue our discussions. I'm going to take the floor for just a minute.
I'm a little bit concerned. Commissioner Fiala brought up a very
good point, and I heard it echoed by several of the commissioners, and
that's the -- this is completely legal. We know that. There's absolutely
no question that what's being done here is legal.
But the question is, is it moral? Only -- who can make that
decision? I guess it has to be within the minds of the people that are
making the judgment calls. And the whole thing that I'm concerned is
that we're setting up a template. Like Commissioner Fiala said, she
was concerned about what could happen to the next mobile home
development if we allow this to go forward as-is without some sort of
restraints on it to the point where people realize there's a price to be
paid if you want to proceed.
In order to be able to proceed, how do you compensate those
people that have been unduly harmed, that have been wronged along
the way? And this little element that was put in there really didn't
make compensation right. I mean, the donation, given freely, $1,000
Page 144
December 11-12, 2007
per unit, and $5,000 for an identified 12 people, which I understand
could be more, of$500 (sic) apiece.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Five thousand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Five thousand; five thousand dollars
apiece, that the idea being is, why make it so easy that the next person
down the road can grab ahold of this, say, okay, listen, the pro forma's
already been established, we're going to move you out tomorrow, the
next park down the road. We already know what we have to go
through. And we're going to be able to get there in a moment's notice.
Now, with that said, the motion's already been made and the
motion does not include the elements that have been offered of the
$1,000 per unit to come to -- how many units you got, a hundred and
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hundred and eighty-four.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hundred and eight-four thousand, or
the $5,000 that might make the Christmas of those people there just a
little bit more meaningful.
There was a -- but it really wasn't an awful lot. It was a little bit
of, you know, take this guilt off me. I'm moving on with it.
You can't refuse -- you can't refuse to be able to say, we're going
to base our decision upon a donation. You can't do that. You can't
vote it up, you can't vote it down; however, with that said -- because
I'm concerned that if we leave this totally up to the discretion of
everyone that comes down the pike after this, that we're going to have
-- we're going to have a lot of people that are going to find reasons and
exceptions why the donation that they made, they can be out of it.
I am going to make a suggestion. We haven't done this in the
seven years I've been here, but by Robert's Rules of Order, we can
offer an amendment to the motion, and I'm going to do it at this time,
that we reinclude the affordable elements in the final agreement and
that it be part of the zoning requirements like we've done in the past
many times.
Page 145
December 11-12, 2007
And if that -- if I get a second on that, then we could take a vote
on that and then go to the original motion and keep moving forward.
And with that, that motion failed. And that was the first time in
seven years and probably the last time.
So I guess the question is -- again, tell me exactly what it is that
you're going to do off the record without having it as part of the
zoning requirements?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what I had proposed was that we
would do a $1,000 per unit at closing, because that's actually when
this would work. Now, staff recommended we would do it at CO.
That's fine. We would give $1,000 per unit at CO to your affordable
housing trust fund for you to spend as you deem it appropriate to
further affordable housing.
Secondly, we would establish within 30 days of the approval of
the PUD, a fund, either administered by me or some other agency. It
would go into -- if I do it, it will go into my trust fund. And the 12
people who were permanent residents that we've identified would
come, prove to me that they're that person, and I would cut them a
check for $5,000, or whoever else administers the fund would cut
them a check for $5,000.
Now, we voluntarily agreed to do that. It's not part of the PUD.
If there's a form I've got to fill out to submit that to the county, we'll
be happy to do that. This is a commitment from my client to you. He
hopes you'll accept that donation, and maybe the paperwork can carry
on -- it could catch up and we could have a separate motion after this
to accept that donation. Maybe that helps, and we can just get the
paperwork to carry up -- to catch up with that donation offer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Coyle, then Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's exactly what we
expect to happen. You have put this on the record. It is an obligation
that you have accepted, not one that we have imposed upon you. If
Page 146
December 11-12, 2007
you merely fill out the form as we have in the past stated that says,
here is my pledge, here's what I intend to do and here's when I intend
to do it, then that's fine. That's what we would expect you to do
because you've put it on the record. It's just that my motion to
approve your petition is not contingent upon that, okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I understand that and we -- but we
did make a commitment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I appreciate you making that
commitment because I think it will help the people and I think they
deserve some help, and I commend you for doing it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think you're going to do
what you said you're going to do.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Otherwise, don't ever come back.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm not going to personally write
the checks, but someone --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Coyle, I
think you're -- what you're trying to do is what we should be doing,
and I'm ready to make a motion based upon Mr. Y ovanovich's
comments after your motion to memorialize what his commitment
was, then we separate those issues.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We didn't get an answer to my
question about how many docks we're talking about.
MR. MUDD: Kay was looking in the EAC.
MS. DESELEM: Again, for the record, it's Kay Deselem.
According to the application, the Manatee Protection Plan review
submitted by the petitioner, last revised July 20,2007, it states there
are 14 residential docks behind mobile homes, as well as a community
boat ramp with an associated staging dock.
Page 147
December 11-12, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I could just make one further plea.
What we've done as part of this petition, Commissioner -- and I don't
want to argue with the audience, but my client counted 100 boats on
individual lots, okay, plus the boats that were there. What he has
offered to do is say, I'm only going to allow 32 boats for
non-waterfront lots, plus 27 more. So that would cap it at 59 using
that boat ramp.
He's giving up any ability to allow anybody else to put a boat on
their lot and use that boat ramp. So he is, in fact, reducing it by doing
this. He's not asking for any boat dock extensions. He just wants to
use the water as currently allowed under the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We can debate that until it
gets very cold in a hot place. But here's the point. The more boats
you have sitting in the water, the more leaching of antifouling paint
that is going to go into the water, and that is a pollutant. So if you
double the amount of boats that sit permanently in the water, you're
going to be causing more harm than if you had 10 times as many boats
sitting in dry storage.
So I'm going to stick with my original motion that says, you can
have the same number of docks that were there at the time this survey
was completed, and I wouldn't -- I wouldn't vote for more than that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In my second, too, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The motion has been clarified
and the second agrees.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You were talking about
helping to make some of these people right from what had happened
and taking their property away, and you were saying 12; 12 identified
permanent residents there.
Wonder if there -- if your figures are wrong and there's 16 or 26?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had -- okay. We had 50 mobile
Page 148
December 11-12, 2007
homes and we had 16 people that lived in those mobile homes
permanently. Those were our figures. We managed the place. We
know. Those are the numbers. And we have a list of who those 12
are from Mr. Guidish. We'll get that list, and those are the 12 we're
willing to compensate.
I don't want to -- I don't want to get into an issue with people as
to having them prove to me that they were here all the time. Our
records indicate that there were 16, we assisted in relocating four of
those. There are 12 that we did not assist. And we don't want -- we
don't want to get into that argument of having to prove what's
permanent, what's not permanent.
This is truly a donation to all of those people that my client
doesn't have to make but wants to do and is trying to set an example, if
you will, for -- if this does happen again, hopefully someone else will
follow that example.
If you get too complicated, then what do I -- what do I do? How
do I prove, you know, if they've been here 365 days a year? I mean,
how do I prove all that? I mean, I don't want to -- I'd prefer not to get
into that, and that's why we made the proposal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make sure that your
-- you know, if your list isn't correct, and let's face it, that happens a
lot of times, where a list comes out, and 10 and behold, it isn't correct
for some reason or another, then I just wanted to make sure that people
legitimately there year-round who live there permanently, if
something happened and they weren't on the list, they would still be in
line for it. And your list might be perfect, you know, I don't know
that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're hoping it is, and we're only
considering people in the mobile homes because --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not in the what?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: In the RVs because they weren't
supposed to be there year-round anyway. They were never supposed
Page 149
December 11-12,2007
to be year-round residents living in those structures, so that's why we
said, the mobile homes -- and, again, people were saying that we were
somehow kicking the workforce out. We didn't -- we didn't kick the
workforce out, okay? We did allow people to have inexpensive access
to Collier County, and we're trying to do above and beyond to assist
those individuals, but we didn't kick the workforce out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to make sure -- and I
know we can't do it on this motion, but I think --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Doesn't hurt to question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we ought to bring something
back that says -- and we ought to do it rather quickly -- that something
like this doesn't happen again to another mobile home park, that
there's, you know, that we have something in effect.
I know it's happening all over Florida and actually all over the
country where people are being forced out, and I'm hoping we have
something in place that will either fairly compensate people or
something, but I realize that's not for today. But I'm asking the county
manager to start some kind of dialogue so that we can put something
in place, whether it be an ordinance or whatever, to protect future
people from this happening. Okay.
Okay. And I also wanted to discuss just a little bit the payment
for easement. This was brought up not again -- not on this motion, but
I think we ought to discuss that as well. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And in may, Mr.
Y ovanovich, I appreciate what's being offered. I think it's a wonderful
thing, you know, that we're doing something to try to offset what took
place, even though there's no legal requirement to do it; however, with
that said, there's a good possibility the number of people that were in
some of those small little campers were probably the most destitute
people of all. Maybe they didn't have another home to go to. I don't
know that. I mean, they never moved the campers off the site. They
Page 150
December 11-12, 2007
just stayed there. They didn't go back up north with them in the
wintertime.
So there's a lot of things we don't know. We can only assume
and deal with what you offered up today. But I can assure you, if this
is ever going to come back in the future with another one, from what I
hear from Commissioner Fiala, we're going to be looking at this in a
different perspective.
And with that, we've got two more commissioners, then
hopefully we're going to take a vote. Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: First of all, people out there --
there's other sites such as this particular site where people are renting
property, they need to figure out what they want to do with their lives
and they need to go out and buy some property, and then they have the
property rights.
What we have here underlying are the people that have rental
units and they rent property. The person that owns that property has
the right to do what he wants with it.
So the concern here is not the people that are renting. It's that
those people need to realize that in order to protect what they have,
they need to go out and buy a particular property. There are trailer
parks throughout Florida where you buy the land at that location.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have them here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that protects you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It does, but if you're on social
security and this is all you could afford and living hand-to-mouth from
one payment to another. But once again, it's a different situation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just respond to that just a
second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One of the things that this has taught
some of the mobile home parks here -- I've actually had a few of them
Page 151
December 11-12, 2007
contact me, and they went about proceeding to form a co-op and
buying theirs. And so a number -- and another one --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the way to do it, buy it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- contacted me about a week ago
and said theirs has been approved as well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fantastic.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it has been a good lesson.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fantastic.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I don't have anything more to
say. If you'll call the question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Please.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
What's the related item, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Mr. Y ovanovich, you have
something to say?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you don't, security's waiting for
you out front of the door.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm hoping he'll take me away.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we go, too?
Page 152
December 11-12,2007
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There were two things that I'm hoping,
that the county will accept the donation we'd like to make, because
you do have to accept the money if we offer it to you.
We would like to make an offer to the county to donate to the
county $1,000 per lot, I guess at CO -- which is easier for you all to
monitor that we're fulfilling our request -- to your affordable housing
trust fund that you will then use as you deem fit, and hopefully you'll
attach what you've done for everybody else. If you do adopt an
affordable housing fee in the future, you'll credit that donation against
that.
And then I don't know if you have to accept the second part of
this, but we also want to offer, to administer through either my firm or
another agency, a donation of -- for the 12 properties that we have
listed as permanent residents that we didn't help relocate, a fee, a
relocation fund of 5,000 per unit for a total of $60,000 that either I will
administer through my trust fund or we'll find another agency if
they're willing to help us out to provide those ministerial services.
That's our proposed donation to the county, and hopefully you'll
accept that donation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
that we accept Mr. Y ovanovich's offer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second that. Motion by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta to accept
the offer, and we've got Commissioner Halas, comments?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Have we addressed the well issue?
Was that taken care of?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was part of the PUD approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, great. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, any other
comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
Page 153
December 11-12,2007
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: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Before we continue, we're going to take a break. Before we take
the break, Mr. Mudd, I'd like for you to stay behind and poll the
audience to see what items they're here for to make sure that we can
try to -- if there's a number of people here for one item, we might be
able to get it up next and move it forward. Okay?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
(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: Mr. Mudd, what did you find out
about polling the audience so we can try to move people forward so
that they can get on with their lives?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we -- outside of the normal
advertised public hearings, we have -- we have the most people here to
participate in 10H, and that's a recommendation to approve the
Floodplain Management Plan for 2008. And your citizens committee
is here en masse, and then there's an item on 12D. There's about three
people here to talk about the Mr. Lockhart settlement, and then you
have the normal amount of people that are here to talk about the
advertised public hearings under 8, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine, let's go with 10H, then 12D, and
then swing back to it so we can try to meet the needs of the people that
Page 154
December 11-12,2007
are in the audience.
Item #10H - Continued to later in the meeting
RESOLUTION 2007-351: ACCEPTING THE COLLIER COUNTY
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN 2008 FOR INCLUSION
AS SECTION 7 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Okay. 10H is a recommendation to approve the
Collier County Floodplain Management Plan 2008 for inclusion of
section 7 of the Collier County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mr. Robert
Wiley, Principal Project Manager, Engineering and Environmental
Services Department, Community Development's Environmental
Services, is supposed to present, but you don't look like Robert Wiley,
SIr.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Robert is not in at the moment, and I've just
got to take a minute to find his presentation.
MR. MUDD: Okay, Commissioner, while he finds Mr. Wiley's
presentation, can we go to 12D?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We certainly can.
Item #12D
PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,907.50 IN EXCHANGE FOR
A RELEASE AND SA TISF ACTION OF LIEN IN THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
ROBERT T. LOCKHART, CASE NO. CEB 2004-026 ~ DENIED
MR. MUDD: Okay. 12D is -- there's several people that want to
speak, and this is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners accepts payment in the amount of $2,907.50 in
Page 155
December 11-12,2007
exchange for a release and satisfaction of lien in the code enforcement
action entitled Collier County versus Robert T. Lockhart, case number
CEB-2004-026.
Mr. JeffKlatzkow, Deputy County Manager -- excuse me--
Deputy County Attorney, will present.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is coming back pursuant to board
direction. I met with Mr. Lockhart, negotiated what he would
consider to be pretty much his final offer.
He stated to me it would be 5 percent of what the outstanding
was. I then prepared a satisfaction of lien just in case the board was
amenable to that, and then brought it to the board.
The check is in my desk. I haven't cashed it. It's pending
approval of the board, and I'll take any questions or, better yet, Mr.
Lockhart, I'm sure, would want to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait, I'm sorry. Slow down.
Commissioner Henning made a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to hear the rest of it first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, he can make the motion again,
if you don't feel comfortable with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll go ahead and remove my
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead. Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some concerns that this was
an ongoing case for better than two years, and I would believe that
staff, keeping up with everything, probably spent or exceeded the cost
of what Mr. Lockhart has proposed here, and I believe that some of
the discussion that was brought up here at the board at the time was
Page 156
December 11-12, 2007
that it was to have to be somewheres between 15 and 25 percent.
And I feel that Mr. Lockhart has performed in such a manner that
he's been very defiant. He belonged to the Code Enforcement Board.
He understands the laws and regulations of Collier County. And I
think -- personally I think it's an insult when somebody says, I'm
going to only pay 5 percent of what he feels is due. So that's where I
stand on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I only got -- you're the only
light that's on. Anyone else wish to speak on this? Why don't we --
we've got two speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. Why don't you go ahead
and call the speakers.
MS. FILSON: First speaker is Ida Eguia. She'll be followed by
Valaree Maxwell.
MS. EGUIA: Good afternoon. I'm not quite sure -- I thought I
was here for something else, but let me explain as to why I'm here.
I have -- there was a case similar to Mr. Lockhart's. His name
was Guillermo Martinez. He was fined $32,000 for having a shed on
his property without a permit. The shed that was on his property he
bought it -- he bought the property with the shed already on it. He
wasn't aware that it was built without a permit.
He was imposed fines of $32,000, and with the lack of, I would
say, communication between him and the language barriers -- he
doesn't speaking very well English. It's -- you know, he can
communicate but he doesn't have the comprehension.
And then to top it off, when he came to court to -- for the case, he
requested an interpreter, and the judge refused to give him an
interpreter because she said she could understand exactly what he was
saymg.
But in return, he didn't understand or comprehend what she was
saying, and he wasn't offered the interpreter.
Page 157
December 11-12,2007
Now, I -- there's cases -- I know that people sometimes don't
understand the code violations that -- that they're given, but then the
county doesn't offer them the requirements in Spanish. I know it's not
__ we're in the United States and you have to know the English
language, but there are situations where people don't understand it.
And I thought I was here to -- you know, to fight for Mr.
Martinez's -- to at least get some of his money back. He had to get a
second mortgage on his house to pay the $32,000 fine. He has a
family of eight that he has to support. Right now, from what he tells
me, he's at the verge of foreclosure because he can't afford to pay the
two mortgages that he had to get to pay for that $32,000 fine.
And my plea to the commissioners is that -- to see if he could at
least get some of his money back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I appreciate that. This is
a related issue, but what we'll do is after the -- we decide this, then I'm
sure the commission will discuss about that issue and the one with the
lady in Copeland that came up before where unusual circumstances
prevailed and the people, through the lack of representation -- one
case the person speaks English, their native language. It's just they --
the lack of education, they were unable to communicate to the point
where they could have prevented having such a fine placed against
them.
But let's go on to the other speaker, and we may call you back for
questions. We thank you for being here today.
MS. EGUIA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Valaree Maxwell.
MS. MAXWELL: Hi, good afternoon. I'm representing the code
task force advocacy group that we put together in Collier County, and
this is a citizen-to-citizen group that I've been working with
Commissioner Coletta and other people within the community to help
those who have had code situations, be it the fact that maybe they had
a language barrier, maybe they had a -- an education barrier, maybe
Page 158
December 11-12, 2007
they had learning disabilities, and these are, you know, the reasons we
created this task force.
Now, the reason I'm here today is, you know, there are people out
there like the young lady who was here before that are coming up with
fines that they have to pay and they literately do not have the means to
do it.
Now, there are some -- there are some laws in place, Florida
laws, a lot of people do not know exist, and I've been working very
closely with our county attorney with regard to this, and we feel that it
is unfair in some respects for certain people to have the ability to get
off lightly when you have a lot of people out there that don't even
know that there are some things in place or that they could hopefully
ask for a reduced fine.
So one of the reasons that we are here is to work with the citizens
of the community to help guide them, and also with the help of some
of the people from the bar that have jumped in that are also part of our
task force.
And one of the reasons that Guillermo Martinez, the young lady
was speaking about, Guillermo Martinez -- and there are other people,
too, that had to come up with a mortgage -- and now I found out that
he's probably facing foreclosure, and I feel really bad about that, I
really do. You know, he was led to believe when he went before the
judge, that had he not paid this money, they would foreclose on his
property. That's what he was told. And a lien would be placed on his
property.
And everybody out there probably thinks the same thing, but
unfortunately it's not true and that there is a state statute, Florida
Statute, article 10, section 4, about homestead. And this is something
that we wanted to bring forward because a lot of people in our
community do not even know it exists, probably a great deal of people
in Florida do not even know it exists.
What it basically means is this: If that is your domicile and that
Page 159
December 11-12, 2007
is your homestead and that's the only thing that you have, the only
place that you live, then you can -- we cannot foreclose on their
property, number one. Number two, we cannot put a lien on their
property and -- but we can record it with the county, which is what
happened with this gentleman over here.
And what will happen as a result of that, when it comes time to
get credit, well, the credit bureau's going to look and see, wow, you've
got a $32,000 debt standing out there. All right. That's basically
where we are in the situation today.
We have a debt sitting out there, he's trying to reduce it. He
obviously needs to borrow money.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Ms. Maxwell.
Commissioner Henning? I'm sorry? You're light's on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, it is. I don't want
anybody to go under foreclosure, so I'm going to approve -- make a
motion to approve the executive summary.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't hear a second, and I'll tell you
the reason why. I think that the commissioners, they may be
somewhat sympathetic, I think that that's an umeasonably low
number. And I'd like to hear somebody offer something different or
make a different motion since we didn't get a second on yours,
Commissioner Henning.
MR. LOCKHART: If I may address the board. I don't have any
more to offer. I'm in the middle of trying to get a loan. I've leveraged
myself to the limit. If I had more money I could get from a credit
card, I'd give it to you. If you want me to be the one going into
bankruptcy next or having a foreclosure, so be it, whether it's the
people that are in that predicament now or you want to send me there.
I apologize for the situation. I've been trying to resolve it for
over a year. And for what it's worth, all of the roof except for the
additions I did on my house was blown off with Wilma, and it took me
over six months to get a CO on that.
Page 160
December 11-12,2007
I'm self-employed. I was out of work for six months, $12,000
worth of fines were racked up in that period. So while I can't offer
more than 5 percent -- and that's every penny I have. These are my
sunglasses. I can't afford a new pair.
Due to Wilma, the $12,000, that kicks it up to 6.3 percent.
Again, I have nothing else to offer. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you for being here.
Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I don't have anything to say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How much would it cost you to
acquire the proper permits?
MR. LOCKHART: Sir, I've obtained all the proper permits.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that was what the issue was,
you didn't have permits.
MR. LOCKHART: Well, that was the issue from day one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. LOCKHART: And in January this year I attempted to
obtain a permit by affidavit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm talking about two years ago
when you started the repair work on your home, that's when this issue
started, so --
MR. LOCKHART: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What was the --
MR. LOCKHART: No, sir. The work was done in 1988 and
was completed in 1994.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then how come it was -- they
started in 2003?
MR. LOCKHART: That's part of where I feel I'm picked upon
as a code case.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you live there at that time in
1988?
Page 161
December 11-12, 2007
MR. LOCKHART: Yes, sir, I did.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then you didn't get a permit
back in 1988 either.
MR. LOCKHART: At that time there was no permit procedure
for me to do the work as I was doing it. If you would call it a
design/build. But at that time I was a registered engineer, and at that
time the building director lived down the street as I was building it
week by week, month by month, year by year. Again, the permit
process doesn't allow that. If you don't have an inspection in six
months, it's void. You can get a two-year extension once. It didn't
allow for it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, sir, I'm not here to argue with
you. I'm just telling you that you were on the Code Enforcement
Board, you understood what the ramifications were, you didn't try to
work this out until it got to the point to where it is today, and then
finally you decided to go out and buy permits, and I don't feel sorry
for you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to approve the
executive summary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion because I
noticed that we haven't mentioned at all that he also had -- he also paid
__ what was it -- $1,200 more in operational costs to try, so that boosts
it up -- boosts it up to about, what, $4,000, that he's paid, $4,172.25.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala to approve
the executive summary and also to recognize the fact that he had paid
an additional, how much, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: $1,209.75, totaling $4,172.25.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, time for discussion. We have--
obviously we have a divide. We've got two commissioners on this
side very strong for agreeing with this and two on the other side that
Page 162
December 11-12, 2007
are very much opposed, and I'm kind of in the middle with the whole
thing.
Now, I have a unique situation out here with two different
situations that we've heard in the past come before us. They were --
and Commissioner Henning was the one that first drew attention to it,
and then later it was the lady in Copeland. And I think you heard
about it around the edges.
I'm going to go along with your motion regardless, but I hope
that you will allow me to be able to bring this back for consideration.
I think what's taking place here is much more of an injustice than what
existed in this particular --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you have a right to put
anything on the agenda, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'm not going to needlessly drag
the commissioners through a laborious situation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think you are.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, let's see. We've got
Commissioner Coyle first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, all due respect, I
think it's improper to have a vote on this particular item in an attempt
to influence the vote on two other items that you have a personal
interest in, and then say that you want to bring it back if you don't get
the desired result.
Quite frankly, I'm tired of hearing about this problem. We gave
this person an opportunity to settle this before. I'm beginning to
understand why it's taken so long for him to get this issue resolved.
He has been very stubborn. He's been defiant. He knows what the
rules are. He just doesn't want to follow the rules. And what you're
doing is giving him the opportunity to continue his pattern of conduct.
I think it's a very bad precedent to set. I don't want to hear this
again. There's no reason for this to come back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not talking about this one. I was
Page 163
December 11-12, 2007
talking about similar cases out there that -- and I was querying the
commission if they had enough interest for me to bring it back. That
was the only thing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any interest in you
bringing this one back. I'm tired of this one. This is the second time
I've listened to it, and I don't want it to come back.
There's a procedure. I'd just as soon let the code enforcement
people proceed with this and institute the entire fine, and let it go. We
did our best. We made an offer to settle this, and there was no
meeting anywhere near halfway on this. So I'm not at all sympathetic
here. So I --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm sitting here in the middle and
I'm listening to both sides, and I wish to God that it wasn't such a low
number, but then again, too, I can't see the justification for the full
thing.
But let's go to Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think there's a
misunderstanding what the chairman said. There's some outstanding
issues that he'd like to bring back; not this item, not this particular
item. So just to clarify what the chairman said.
And I understand it, and I support you bringing it back, or not
bringing it back, because we're not bringing it back. It's a new issue
that you want to -- it's an old issue coming back to the board that
hasn't been fully vetted.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm going to comment a little bit
out of character, but I need a little bit of help from everybody here.
I'm still having a hard time accepting the low number that's coming
down from this, I really am. But let's go to Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have other concerns. We approve
this today, then we're opening up Pandora's Box, then every issue that
goes in front of the Code Enforcement Board is going to end up on
Page 164
December 11-12, 2007
this dais. And either we have a Code Enforcement Board that we rely
on or we don't. And I personally do not want to get involved on every
aspect of code enforcement that comes before us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would just like to add, we
just had two speakers who came up here and spoke about issues that
are not even on the agenda today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But what they -- what they told us
was, hey, you approve a break for this guy who's on the code -- who
has been on the Code Enforcement Board who has been a licensed
engineer, who understands the procedures, you approve a big break
for him and you don't approve a break for their clients or the people
they represent who don't speak English, who didn't understand the
process, we're going to be in for a lot of hearings on these kinds of
things. It is going to open the door, and none of us are going to be
satisfied with the result.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And, you know, I'm having a problem
with the fact that the man's been on the Code Enforcement Board. I
can understand his monetary problems, but everyone that goes before
the code enforcement process has monetary problems.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: However, the situation that existed
with these two prior cases they we're talking about today were so
different. People that were at a tremendous disadvantage, and we've
had examples one after the other where fines have been forgiven to the
point of being ridiculous, but you have to know enough to ask.
This gentleman, Mr. Lockhart that's before us today, knows the
process probably better than anyone of us five commissioners. I
mean, you don't sit on the Code Enforcement Board without knowing
that. I just regret the fact that it would -- my vote would make him pay
the whole thing, but I'm kind of feeling that in agree to a 5 percent
Page 165
December 11-12, 2007
settlement, that I've really undermined the system.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I feel very, very uncomfortable
with this. I wished it would just go away, but it's not, and so a vote
has to be called and we have to make a decision.
Meanwhile, anyone else that wants to make a comment?
Anything --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Let's get our work done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You got it.
And with that, all those in favor of Commissioner Henning's
motion, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETT A: Well, that was pretty remarkable.
Sorry, Mr. Lockhart. Motion was 4-1. We appreciate you being here
today.
MR. LOCKHART: No. Excuse me. When I was here as a
public petitioner, I heard the numbers of 0 percent, 5 percent, 50
percent, maybe 25 percent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that was for the staff to bring it
back and then we'd study everything and we'd take everything under --
MR. LOCKHART: Okay. And I was told to negotiate it with
the attorney --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir?
MR. LOCKHART: -- and I'm still trying to get a number.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The number now is 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 166
December 11-12, 2007
Item #10H - Continued from earlier in the meeting
RESOLUTION 2007-351: ACCEPTING THE COLLIER COUNTY
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN 2008 FOR INCLUSION
AS SECTION 7 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 10H, and that is a recommendation to approve the Collier
County Floodplain Management Plan 2008 for inclusion as section 7
of the Collier County Hazardous Mitigation Plan.
Mr. Robert Wiley, your Principal Project Manager, Engineering
and Environmental Service's Department, Community Development's
Environmental Services Division will present.
MR. WILEY: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Robert Wiley with the Engineering and Environmental
Services Department, and we bring before you today the updated
version of the Floodplain Management Plan for Collier County.
This has been a long process that we've been going through, so if
we can quickly go through our slides here.
A Floodplain Management Plan, bottom line, we have to have
one of these in our possession and in force as a part of the community
rating system program, which is a part of the flood insurance program.
Now, to avoid confusion, so we know we have three issues that
tend to be confused. We have an ongoing theme of flood map study.
That's a totally separate issue from this through Tomasello, and we
also have the watershed management planning effort through the
Growth Management Plan. Again, a totally separate issue.
There is just a component of the National Flood Insurance
Program where we have volunteered to be a participant in a
community rating system. And the purpose is to identify flooding
Page 167
December 11-12, 2007
potential and how to develop and live safely within that potential.
And as a result of producing a Floodplain Management Plan, it
helps us to achieve our goal to keep in a community rating system of
getting lower flood insurance premiums.
You, by resolution, appointed or authorized the appointment of a
committee consisting of 23 different people. We have several of our
public participant members, and if they would stand quickly, we'd like
to at least introduce them so you can see, these are people who are
very seriously involved in helping to produce this plan.
And so we spent lots of hours, been over a year working on this
effort here. We also have county staff members that are appointed to
the committee, and then we have a representative from each of the
three cities.
One of the big purposes of this whole effort is to get lots of
public input so we can address the issues of the public that are out
there in a proactive way. We had 10 public meetings in the evenings.
We had very good output in some areas, not good output in others, but
it mainly was a result of the notifications that went out.
But out of the people who showed up, a lot of the citizens did
come up with great recommendations. We've gone through phase one,
two, three and four to put this plan together. Weare now down to the
last phase of it where we are to adopt the plan as part of the plan
maintenance. We then evaluate it and revise it on an annual basis and
bring that before you.
So today what we're asking you to do as the Board of County
Commissioners is to adopt this plan as the Collier County Floodplain
Management Plan. This will replace the current plan that was put forth
in 2004, and then with your adoption, you'll direct us to submit this to
the Insurance Services Office that's the contract office that does the
program for FEMA, or the National Flood Insurance Program.
There's an action plan that goes with this, along with the goals,
objectives, and policies within it. Every year we'll come back, advise
Page 168
December 11-12,2007
you how well we've accomplished the tasks that we set forth to do in
that annual progress report.
And with that, I'm here to answer questions, discuss it with you,
but we wanted to give a brief presentation to make sure you
understood the process we've gone through.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Commissioner Halas, and we've got one speaker you say? Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: First of all, how many hours was
put in this by the citizens group? Do you have any idea how many
hours they put into this effort?
MR. WILEY: I could not address as far as each individual
person, the cumulative hours. But we had our 10 evening meetings,
we've been having monthly, sometimes biweekly meetings which last
from one to two, two-and-a-halfhours in length. We're probably
looking in the neighborhood of 4- to 500 citizen hours combined here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want to commend those people
that dedicated their time to going through this study, and it really
means an awful lot, I think, to each and every one of us up here on the
board, that citizens step forward and donate their time for this.
And at that I'd like to make a motion for approval of this study.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that with Planning
Commission recommendations?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, that's with the Planning
Commission recommendations, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the Conservation Collier.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And Conservation Collier, those
two, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, we have a
motion by Commissioner Halas and second by Commissioner Fiala.
MS. FILSON: And I have a speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Please call the speaker.
Page 169
December 11-12, 2007
MS. FILSON: Phillip Brougham.
MR. BROUGHAM: Good afternoon, Chairman Coletta,
Commissioners. My name is Phil Brougham, and I've been a member
of the committee here for -- since its inception. And I want to
commend, first of all, Robert and Ray Smith and Mike DeRuntz for
their tremendous effort.
We, as citizens, sit there and observe and advise and critique and
criticize, quite frankly, but your professionals are the ones that do
most of the work. We do a lot of review and suggestions.
I do want to comment on one thing, however. The purpose in
what's before you is to approve and adopt the plan. I just want to
emphasize from my own personal point of view that this plan should
be an ongoing living document.
One of the key improvements that I saw this -- in this plan over
the former plan, was, an improvement in accountability and
improvement in the action plan, because if you have a plan that
doesn't assign responsibility, it doesn't assign deadlines, then you're
not going to have any results.
And I think the proof of the pudding is that we'll continue to
work this, we'll continue to monitor progress against the action plans.
And I hope that you're going to see the ramifications of the action plan
come back in various forms, whether it's LDC amendments or
whatever.
With that, that's all I have to say. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm going to skip it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And that was it for public
speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, no other comments?
(No response.)
Page 170
December 11-12,2007
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: Passed 5-0. Congratulations.
MR. WILEY: And we thank Mr. Mudd for his continued support
in this, too. It's been a big help.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's next?
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2007-86: CPSS-2007-1: A SMALL SCALE
AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES OF
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, TO SHOW AN
INCREASE IN ACREAGE OF 9.95 ACRES FOR ACTIVITY
CENTER NUMBER 13. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES,
CONTAINING 9.95 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD AND J
& C BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us back to 8C. 8C is
CPSS-2007-1. It's a petition requesting a small-scale amendment to
the future land use map series of the Growth Management Plan to
show an increase in acreage of9.95 acres of the activity center number
13.
Page 171
December 11-12, 2007
The subject properties contain 9.95 acres that's located at the
southwest corner of Airport-Pulling Road and J&C Boulevard in
Section 11, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County,
Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. This one requires to be sworn
in or no?
MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, okay.
MR. MUDD: Carolina, are you going to start this?
MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with
Comprehensive Planing. No, this item doesn't need to be sworn in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Staff, if you would -- I got a
question to ask. As I read through the document, the end result was
that staff said that this should be denied. Can you explain in detail
why this should be denied?
MS. VALERA: As I explained in my executive summary, there
are several reasons why staff has that position. One of the -- the main
reason is the deletion of industrial inventory from Collier County.
And typically in a Growth Management Plan amendment, we ask
that the applicant brings evidence that there are no other commercial
areas where they could go instead of having to take away industrial
inventory from the county.
The data and analysis that they provided us doesn't justify the
change, so that is why -- meaning that they have in their -- in their
analysis they have reasons such as, that other areas of the county
where they could develop this -- this project are either too costly or
there are other justifications such as that the Mazda corporation has
already decided that this is a good location.
Well, we don't go by corporate preference or by value of land.
We go by, is it justified that we take away industrial inventory from
the county, and that's what the applicant didn't address in his data and
Page 172
December 11-12,2007
analysis. I wish they would have, but they didn't.
That's the main reason that -- why staff is recommending not to
transmit to DCA.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But there is a car dealer that's there
presently --
MS. VALERA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and the same owner owns this
particular land. He's owned it for some time, hasn't he?
MS. VALERA: The Mazda -- the four lots to the north, I
believe, are -- he recently acquired. What he has owned for a long
time is where the Dodge dealership is, and that land is allowed to have
C-4, is allowed to have the dealership.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So what we're really talking
about is just a small sliver that may not be in compliance with our
Growth Management Plan; is that correct?
MS. VALERA: Not really. In order for them to make a change
to the land, in order to incorporate these lots for the Mazda dealership
right next to them, they'll have to incorporate not only those lots, but
also the portion of Dodge. So you're talking about not less than two
acres, which is the little portion for Mazda. You're talking about
almost 10 acres of square -- of area that will be taken away from the
industrial inventory.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're telling me that he built
the dealership there without having this rezoned as a dealership?
MS. VALERA: No, Commissioner. When we changed our land
use map years ago, that dealership was already there so they were
exempted at that time, and so that's why they can have the use right
now. If they cease -- were to cease to exist, someone else could go
there and develop industrial.
Now, if the amendment is passed, then if someone wanted to
develop industrial, they will have to go through another GMP
amendment in order to develop industrial use.
Page 173
December 11-12,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hi.
MS. VALERA: Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying they can --
with the present zoning they can have a junkyard there but they just
can't sell new cars? What's across the street from -- what's on the south
side of this property?
MS. VALERA: We're not talking -- and you're right. There's--
it's not a compatibility issue. I mean, it's more of how much industrial
area we have in the county, and that's why staff has taken that
position.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's a soft denial. My
concern is that right across the street you have residential zoning --
MS. VALERA: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on it, and you can have an
asphalt batching plant on that site, you can have a cement factory
there, you can have a junkyard that smashes cars right in the arterial
roadway, and I -- from what I know about zoning, like the airport
industrial zoning area, you have a step of commercial in the front and
it steps into the higher uses in the back, so not only the motoring
public doesn't have to deal with those heavy, heavy uses, it's more fit
to the character of the community, the community character plan.
MS. VALERA: And you're absolutely right. It's not a
compatibility issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. VALERA: It's -- even though there's -- you know, you have
an arterial road, which makes --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's there now is not
compatible in my opinion, but, you know, if -- I think personally this
is a better use, what they're asking for. You're going to have several
complaints by the motoring public and people across the street.
Page 174
December 11-12, 2007
I always thought personally this was a commercial zoned area
because right next to it is a gas station, and there's an office on the
other side of that, you know, then you have the Dodge dealership, and
then you have Lowe's, so on and so forth.
MS. VALERA: Correct. And you're correct commissioner. And
you'll see when -- if the rezone petition comes in, the staff is
recommending approval because --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. VALERA: -- there are no compatibility issues with the
petition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So let's hope we have
that opportunity then.
MS. VALERA: Just for the record, I wanted to say that the
Planning Commission did recommend the board to transmit to DCA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to transmit to
-- is it a -- do we have to transmit this to DCA?
MS. VALERA: It will be adopted -- let me explain. When you
recommend this to go -- to be adopted, there will be a 30-day period in
which anybody can challenge your decision, but that's it. Once that
period finishes, then it will be adopted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
accept Planning Commission's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was going to make the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. Any other comments?
We have no speakers on this, do we?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What interconnects exist between
Page 175
December 11-12,2007
Naples Boulevard and J&C?
MS. VALERA: Nick is putting on his jacket.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida
with Transportation. Mr. Hancock is going to be kind enough to put
an exhibit on there.
Mr. Myers, the owner of Naples Dodge, is working with staff and
the abutting owner to provide an easement so that to the rear of
Pioneer Lakes they can go down to Corporation Boulevard that ties
into Leanne, which ties into J&C. Tim can kind of illustrate that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So can you show me how that --
how there's a link between Naples Boulevard and J&C?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Through the rear of the Pioneer
Lakes property -- Tim, if you want to follow along with your pen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That doesn't get me quite to
J&C.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll get there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you go back to the rear of the
property now -- go ahead north, Tim -- and then go west to the edge of
that blue, from there there's going to be an easement for a couple 100
feet that goes up to Corporation Boulevard that goes due west, which
ties into Leanne, which goes north/south, which connects into J&C.
So it's all public roads that we'd be able to get through the industrial
park back into Pioneer Lakes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there one further to the west?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: From Mr. Myers' property?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, or even further south than
that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. All the other property owners
on J&C do not -- have not -- are not part of the interconnection. So
that is the connection that we were showing along, even with the
Pioneer Lakes when it came through, it's the same connection you see
Page 176
December 11-12, 2007
there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I have a question about your
conclusion that the traffic impact study does not take into
consideration the potential maximum future traffic to be generated
from this particular site as well as any future use of this site but that
you're willing to accept it because you can adopt -- you can adapt with
road improvements.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's not necessarily correct. We
kind of cleared that up at the Planning Commission. Because of the
underlying zoning that Mr. Myers has, he is entitled to some C-3 in
the abutting property as well, too.
He did produce a statement that -- when I explained it to
Carolina, was pretty high intensity even for what he's proposing right
now. He's about 3 percent, 4 percent of the eastbound traffic coming
out of J&C that would come out, even with the new zoning that he's
moving forward with right now. But the fix that he's providing, which
is the design of an additional turn lane and the donation of additional
right-of-way to make that turn lane function, he's doing that at 100
percent with no impact fee credits. So he's a significant part of the fix
and a very minor part of the impact.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's not what the findings
and conclusions indicate in our executive summary, but -- so it's been
improved since that, huh?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We clarified that at the Planning
Commission.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Okay, thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nick, I was stuck on this same
thing. I thought I remembered when we talked about the Pine Air
Lakes PUD that they were going to connect right up. I know that they
showed us an access out of the back end of it so that things would be
Page 177
December 11-12, 2007
__ would flow more smoothly, and I thought they were connecting
right to J&C Boulevard.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. The Pine Air Lakes
connection was exactly the way it's shown now on Corporation
Boulevard. At the time the Pine Air Lakes came forward -- and I
provided a document to Commissioner Halas with regard to reviewing
the Pine Air Lakes recently. They are moving forward and they've
been in negotiations with the Myers to get that easement back and
forth.
They've done so, and I've said -- stipulated to Tim that before we
move on to this zoning, we'd like to provide that document for your
review as well, too. So we'll have that. And they are working
together on that. I'm making sure of that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. 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, 5-0.
Item #8E
A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
DEP ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER
COUNTY, INCLUDING PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION,
SETTING FORTH PROPOSED REMEDIAL AMENDMENTS TO
Page 178
December 11-12, 2007
THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings to us to 8E, and that is a
recommendation to approve a compliance agreement between
Department of Community Affairs and Collier County, including
petitioners in interventions setting forth proposed remedial
amendments to the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth
Management Plan, ordinance 89-05 as amended, and Corby Schmidt, I
believe, is going to present.
MR. SCHMIDT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. This is a
request and a recommendation to approve the compliance agreement
for the capital improvements element of the Growth Management
Plan. I can summarize through the executive summary if you'd like;
otherwise, I could simply answer your questions if you have some.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there questions on the part of the
commissioners? Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'd like to get Norm or Nick
up here to talk with me about the potential impacts on our concurrency
management system of this compliance agreement.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. They haven't asked us to
adjust the schedules in terms of when the projects came forward.
They required to us to provide additional financial information and
backup as part of the settlement agreement. I think Randy can address
that as well, too. But none of the CIE fundamentals have changed in
what we adopted as part of the AUIR or the programs going forward.
So at this point in time, nothing the DCA's asked us to do would
conflict with any of the concurrency precedents that you've set forth in
prior board meetings. We're still okay right now, and I can't speak
what happens down the road, but this compliance agreement does not
affect that.
Page 179
December 11-12, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good. Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Welcome.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Halas --
Coyle, excuse me, for approval, and second by Commissioner
Henning.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is a five-year CIE plan, and
basically the state wants us to make sure that we have feasibility of
meeting this for three years at least. My concern is, how can we be
assured that we're going to make -- have this as a feasible plan if some
of the -- we have some changes in regards to the upcoming ballot
amendment, and also, if there's some additional legislation that takes
place in regards to impact fees?
MR. COHEN: Commissioner, for the record, Randy Cohen,
Director of Comprehensive Planning.
If you recall as a commission, when we went to our concurrency
management system for all regulated items by the Department of
Community Affairs, you insisted that we be financially feasible and
not bring items into the CIE until they were either under contract or
being built. So you see items in years one and two.
When we were before you in this year's AUIR, you might recall
that I made a recommendation that we don't move forward with the
CIE like we normally do in March until after the ballot in January, as
well as the legislative session ending in May, as Commissioner
Henning pointed out.
The rationale for that is that we don't know where that revenue
stream is going to be, and the AUIR was a snapshot at a point in time,
and that snapshot, as we all know, could change.
The other thing that's transpiring is that our population as we
know it today in terms of the BEBR rates for median population are
Page 180
December 11-12,2007
probably going to go down, so our growth is slowing. So we've got
some factors that we're going to have to consider in addition before we
transmit the next CIE.
The plain concern is, is that we want to be financially feasible
and we do not want to put this commission or this county in a place
where we add projects that aren't needed before it's time.
I remember probably three years ago we sat in a meeting
downstairs with the county manager in a big group and he said, we're
going to start this and we're going to start it now and be financially
feasible as a group even before it's required because we need to get
ahead of the learning curve.
This is going to be the first CIE for a county that's been found
financially feasible in the State of Florida. The only -- the only
entities, from what I understand in terms of being found financially
feasible, are very small cities. So we've taken the initiative via the
county manager's directive and worked through numerous staff
members, and may see that collaborative effort up there. That's going
through your OMB, every budget office pretty much involved in all
the capital facilities with respect to the CIE to ensure that you've got a
financially feasible CIE but also making sure that when these things
come onboard, potentially that might cut our revenue streams, we're
going to know how to address them, so that's where we sit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That gives me a level of
comfort. Thank you.
MR. COHEN: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Still waiting for a motion on
this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have one.
MR. MUDD: We have a motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have, forgive me.
Any other comments?
(No response.)
Page 181
December 11-12,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #8F
RESOLUTION 2007-352: PETITION PUDEX-2007-AR-11485
(NG) BRYAN W. PAUL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
REPRESENTED BY D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP, OF Q. GRADY
MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A., IS REQUESTING A TWO-YEAR
EXTENSION FOR THE ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH PUD
FROM NOVEMBER 16, 2007 TO NOVEMBER 16, 2009 IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 10.02.13.D.5(A). THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 616+/- ACRES AND IS
LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF OIL WELL
ROAD (CR-858) APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE EAST OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR-846) IN SECTIONS 13, 14 AND 24,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, AND SECTION 19,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - ADOPTED
Item #101
A DEVELOPERS CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (DCA)
BETWEEN PUL TE HOME CORPORATION AND THE BRYAN
Page 182
December 11-12, 2007
W. PAUL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (THE
DEVELOPERS) AND COLLIER COUNTY TO GRANT A
PERMANENT NON-EXCLUSIVE DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND
PROVIDE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT AND
ATTENUATION FOR STORMWATER RUN OFF FOR THE
FUTURE EXPANSION OF OIL WELL ROAD. (COMPANION TO
ITEM #8F) - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8F. This item
requires that all participants be sworn and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members.
It's PUD-EX-2007-AR-11485, Bryan W. Paul Family Limited
Partnership represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady
Minor & Associates, P.A., is requesting a two-year extension for the
Orange Blossom Ranch PUD from November 16,2007, to November
16,2009, in accordance with LDC section 10.02.13.D.5(a).
The subject property consists of 616 plus or minus acres and is
located on the north and south sides of Oil Well Road, County Road
858, approximately one mile east ofImmokalee Road, County Road
846, in Section 13, 14, and 24, Township 48 south, Range 27 east, and
Section 19, Township 49 south, Range 28 east, Collier County,
Florida. This is a companion item to item number 101.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, are we supposed to hear
this first, or 101 first?
MR. MUDD: We can -- we can also -- we can also -- I think you
need to do them both around the same time, sir, and you can hear --
you can hear them both. This particular item under 8F was on the
summary agenda, but because you have a DCA that's basically
associated with this development, I thought it would be better if we
heard them all on the regular agenda so that there's no conflict in that
particular issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Page 183
December 11-12,2007
MR. MUDD: And 101, for the board's convenience, is a
recommendation to approve a developer's contribution agreement,
DCA, between Pulte Homes, Incorporated, and the Bryan W. Paul
Family Limited Partnership, the developers, in Collier County to grant
a permanent nonexclusive drainage easement and provide water
quality treatment and attenuation for stormwater runoff for the future
expansion of Oil Well Road.
And, again, companion item to 8F. And Mr. Arnold will present,
but I also have Nick Casalanguida as a companion presenter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't we have to swear everybody
in? I believe so. Yeah. Anyone wishing to participate in this agenda
item, please stand at this time to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now ex parte disclosure on
the part of the commissioners. Let's start with Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to Bruce Anderson on
this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I spoke to staff and I spoke to
Bruce Anderson.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I spoke to Jim DeLony.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no, I'm sorry. Not Bruce
Anderson. It looks like Bruce Anderson but he's shorter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, that's Rich Y ovanovich then.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, Rich Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want to take a bow?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which one are we on?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I, myself, spoke to staff
and Mr. Y ovanovich.
And Commissioner Halas?
December 11-12, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I spoke with staff on this. I spoke
with Jim DeLony. I had no contact with the petitioner on this
particular item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I met with the short person and
Wayne Arnold. I met with Rich Y ovanovich and Wayne Arnold. I
have received correspondence, and I have reviewed the staff report
that was sent to the Planning Commission, and I've received emails,
and that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida
with Transportation. I love the fact that you recognize Rich's height
because that's an ongoing joke right now.
We have a couple dynamics going on with the DCA, and we
should be up front with what's happening. We have a prior developer
contribution agreement to provide construction for Oil Well Road. We
also have the PUD extension that, with policy 5.1, will not be
consistent if we can't build Oil Well Road in that five-year production
period as well, too.
In the process of going through the design of Oil Well Road, we
ran into one major stumbling block on the west side of the project, and
that was water management. The Pulte/Paul project was already
providing for some water management, and we had looked towards
Waterways to the west and Orange Blossom -- Orangetree (sic) PUD
to the south and could not make that work.
We looked -- came back to Orange Blossom Ranch and we were
able to find a way to make water management work for the project,
also provide consistency or protection for the 93-acre fishing lake as
well, too, do a little pretreatment in the ditch and provide for the first
inch of stormwater in the system.
The DCA further goes on and clarifies some of the payments and
who's responsible for turn lanes, sidewalk payments, and things like
Page 185
December 11-12, 2007
that that we were discussing as well, too. They have worked well with
us, and although we value the property straight at $2.2 million in
construction for a pond, it would be significantly higher if the county
had to go someplace else to find water management. So the benefit to
the county is quite large with this agreement.
With that, I'd like to put on the viewer just a minor changes to
paragraph 4, which is for the purpose of providing additional
protection to the fishing lake. Instead of doing a drainage pipe, we
want to do pretreatment. There's to be an open drainage ditch, and we
wanted that opportunity to do that.
So on paragraph 4 -- and I'll put it on the viewer, if I could. It's
highlighted in yellow, and it just adds the opportunity, instead of
saying drainage pipe, it says drainage ditch, and it refers to the exhibit.
MR. MUDD: I asked -- I asked Mr. Casalanguida when this
came forward when I read it, I asked him, I said, okay, what happens
if we get a spill out on the road? Is this just going to go straight into
that 97-acre lake that I got a county park on? And I can imagine an oil
slick. There's got to be a place where we can contain it if it does
happen, and I'm not saying it would ever happen. But I said, just in
case, we've got to have some means to do it, and this open ditch would
be about a quarter of a mile; is that right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: About a quarter of a mile, sir, that's
correct.
MR. MUDD: So that's kind of why it's there, and it's in answer
to the question that I had.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And then we clarify in the backup
paragraph 4 just to show -- show on Exhibit 4A, too, on Exhibit A,
and I'll put that on the viewer for the record.
Hard to see, but highlighted in yellow. It references the exhibit
as well, too. Those are the only changes to the agreement at this time.
So with that, I'll entertain any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. We do have questions.
Page 186
December 11-12, 2007
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's start with Commissioner Coyle
and go to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there an issue of alternate access
to the water treatment facility?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This was discussed with the
developer, and it would probably be a good idea to have administrator
Jim DeLony discuss that item.
MS. ABBOTT: Good afternoon. I'm Alicia Abbott with Public
Utilities Engineering, and I just wanted to -- we wanted to bring to
your attention that we had requested of the developer that they provide
us some type of access because the fire district in that area, they
require that we have two access points to this site.
Currently we access -- here is Immokalee Road, here's the
fairgrounds. We're going to access through this roadway onto the site.
As you notice, this is a 216-acre site, and on the east side we
have the Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant and, therefore,
they said, in particular, they would like us to get as far east as we
could.
So we had requested a site here. Now, we started looking at
other options, and we could have a north access and also an east
access. And I'll go to the next slide where we did an evaluation. And
right now, the Orange Blossom Ranch -- I'll go to that one first -- is a
proposed development. Currently that's not been developed yet, that
section that they're in for, and we actually proposed, it didn't have to
be in this phase, which is, I think, their second phase, but it could also
be in their third phase, just so long as it was in that area we had
highlighted on the previous drawing.
The other choices would be east, which is actually across the
Golden Gate Canal. Sorry about that. And as you notice on that,
coming across the Golden Gate Canal, you know, we do have some
existing residential there. And the other one is the north access, which
Page 187
December 11-12, 2007
is coming from the north, which was also shown on that drawing
which is the existing residential -- is also an existing residential area.
So we thought this would be a good site because it is a proposed
development, and there's no one there right now in that particular area.
F or the aesthetics we looked at that. The -- the most impact
probably would be across the Golden Gate Canal because we require a
large bridge there. In the other two areas we thought that -- possibly
we're crossing canals in all cases, but it would be more minor because
we could possibly put box culverts in that area.
So constructibility, going across the Golden Gate Canal would be
the most difficult. The other two sites would be less difficult.
Right now real estate, we have the right-of-way in place coming
from the north. We would require easements to go across the Golden
Gate Canal, and we'd also require, of course, the easement from the
Orange Blossom Ranch, and we also provided you with some costs
that you can compare, you know, what the cost is on this.
So these were the options, you know. And I think we were
looking for some board direction as to, you know, do we impact an
existing residential area, or do we go towards an area that's not yet
developed?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, as a follow-up question
what I need are two aerial photographs, one is one which depicts the
ultimate development of the Orange Blossom Ranch. Okay. Can we
see that one first.
MS. ABBOTT: You want to see the development?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I'd like to see the
development plan, and I'd like to try to explain to the other
commissioners why I've brought this up.
Now, in the past we have instructed the staff to try to deal with
these accesses in areas that have not yet been developed to minimize
disruption. But look at the development that's going to occur in
Orange Blossom Ranch.
Page 188
December 11-12,2007
The access that we're looking for is in the upper right-hand
corner of that development. Look at the street configuration here and
you'll see that you -- in order to get to our facility, which is at the very
top, you'd have to enter at the bottom off Oil Well Road.
If you'll follow that road -- that access road. No, down at the
bottom, right there -- that you'll enter at Oil Well Road, and then you'll
go north on that street, and then you'll wind through residential areas
passing potentially hundreds of homes to get to an access in our
Northeast Regional Water Plant.
Now, let's take a look at the area above this, north of this, please.
MR. MUDD: Go back to your overhead on this. There you go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, you'll see the north access
there, you wouldn't -- you wouldn't come by as many homes and
properties. You already have the easements in place. You wouldn't
have to buy anything, but you would have to put a bridge across that
canal, but it would be about the same cost as the south access.
So the question that I'm posing today is, should we try to do
anything with this extension of this PUD to make it easier for us to get
the necessary access, or does the board feel that it's appropriate to go
after the north access, which will be relatively easy, and disturb a
smaller number of residents?
But it's only to be used in an emergency situation. Ifthere is a
fire there or some other kind of emergency, the gate would be locked.
It would only be accessible by the fire departments, so it's not like
we're going to be running traffic through there. But somebody will
see a fire truck one day driving down that street and going into our
facility.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. And ifI may, I'll tell you,
there's a tremendous advantage to using the north access. One, the
cost is the same. The impact is minor, but there's one thing no one's
taken into consideration here. This gives a lot of people that live in
that particular area another way out in case of a fire.
Page 189
December 11-12,2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It does.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They could also -- they can open that
access up and there's another way to get out. So in support anything,
it would be the north access.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was my inclination, too.
That's why I wanted to bring this up today, okay.
Now, I don't know that -- it doesn't have to be part of this PUD--
PUD hearing because it clearly doesn't affect the extension, but it was
important that we have this discussion so that when Mr. DeLony
comes back to ask for guidance and/or permission to pursue an access,
you'll know what he's talking about.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator. Actually, we're at the stage where we'll be submitting
the Site Development Plan to the planning officer, planning director
here, within the next year or so, and this will give me the guidance or
intent of the board with regard to that, and so this clears up that matter
for me. If this so -- you know, if this is the direction you give me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. That's how I feel is that the
northern access has a -- it has a great benefit for the people that live
out in that area.
MR. DeLONY: Mr. Mudd, with due diligence, I don't need to
attach this to anything that's going on with this item, but I would make
sure that we've got the appropriate, as Mr. Mudd always says,
appropriate nods, and we'll move forward.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got two so far.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's--
MR. DeLONY: I think I've got four. I've got five. Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, one of the things -- we just needed
to bring this up, because if all of a sudden we didn't bring it up and
you really wanted to go south and we lost the opportunity, it wouldn't
Page 190
December I 1-12, 2007
be right either.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. MUDD: So it's better to be safe than sorry in this particular
issue, make sure we've got board guidance so that you know that we
didn't lose an opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The benefits are too great to the north
to lose it. Okay. Let's go to Commissioner Halas, Commissioner
Fiala, then I have some questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. At first I was in favor of this
until Commissioner Coyle brought up what the proposed development
was going to be, and I didn't realize that we were going through a
residential area to get that access.
I assumed -- whoop. If you go back, and I guess I didn't ask the
right question. I assumed that the road was going to be to the east, and
I see that's a canal, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A boat.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And then obviously on
the other side of the canal east of that, that's already being developed,
I believe.
Okay, thank you very much, Commissioner Coyle, for bringing
that forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was wondering, in your
discussions with these people -- and I realize this isn't on the table
right now -- but is there any room in this PUD for affordable housing?
I had brought it up when we first discussed it a couple years
back, and especially now with the roads going through and everything.
And we have three schools right on that street. I was just wondering if
they had been discussing that at all.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's my understanding as a PUD
extension, this is a go or no-go review and it's not an amendment
where we can discuss different options. The DCA was a companion
Page 191
December 11-12,2007
item because we wanted to have consistency with policy 5.1, and we
also wanted to move Oil Well Road along, too. So it was not an item
because it was an extension.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all right. I'm ready to
vote on the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Henning. I
know we're not done yet. We've got recommendations __
MR. MUDD: I just want to know what item we've got the
motion on, that's all. You had two of them in front of you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the sunset.
MR. MUDD: You've got the DCA, and this is 10 __
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 1.
MR. MUDD: 101.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: With the changes, Commissioner, that
I've just recommended referencing the ditches?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to remove my __
COMMISSIONER FIALA: First we're doing the extension?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One at a time here, I'm sorry. Let's--
go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I was trying to clarify my
second is to approve 8F as --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So 8F is what your motion is
on?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And do we have a second for
Page 192
"----...------.--.
December 11-12,2007
8F only?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
MS. FILSON: You made the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So it's Commissioner Henning, the
motion, and Commissioner Coyle with the second.
Now I have some questions in may. Whereabouts are we with
the turnover of the fishing lake to the county parks and rec.?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think that's part of the process, and
that's happening right now. I think modification to the drainage
system caused a little of a delay because you can't modify property
you don't own. So they're in the process of modifying the water
management permit, and I think upon conveyance and modification of
that permit, we will get the lake, if that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'd like to hear from the
petitioner, if we could. I'll tell you where we are. We have a resource
back there that we're having a hard time getting access to. It's a
resource that the -- many people in this county would greatly enjoy to
be able to travel down a limerock road to be able to get there and fish
the shores of this lake.
Where are we? Can you tell me as far as how the owner of the
property is as far as deeding this over to the county?
MR. ARNOLD: For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold. And I
believe that as Mr. Casalanguida indicated, it is in process, and there
were some difficulties with the water management district permit
related to the Oil Well extension, but it is in process. McGowan is
here for the Paul family specifically, but it is in process, and the PUD
mandates that that lake be turned over to you and that is in process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Marla, can you comment on this too?
I'd really like to get an update on this. It's been a number of years
since this process started.
MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey, Public Services
Administrator.
Page 193
December 11-12,2007
I can't give you a definite timeline, but I can tell you that real
property has provided the paperwork to the developer, and my
indication is that they are -- either have signed it or are ready to sign
it, but they're being held up by this particular permitting issue. So the
timeline that -- I'm not sure of, but everything's a go on our side.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It takes so long to get from A to B,
I'm telling you. I'm going to be -- well, I am an old man, come to
think of it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You are not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Donna. I'll take that as a
vote of confidence.
My other question is, is the two-year extension, the length of
time. Is that realistic with the present economic conditions? I mean,
is two years really something that -- or should it be longer? I mean, if
you had -- if you were granted four years, what exactly would that do,
harm to the county? It would keep you from coming back through the
process if business doesn't pick up. Just a thought.
MR. ARNOLD: It's a good thought, and actually Mr.
Y ovanovich, who's the co-agent on this project, mentioned that to me
as well, that, hindsight, maybe that's something that we should have
requested because the economy has slowed some, so it would allow
Pulte and Mr. Paul to go ahead and move forward on the commercial
tract without having the necessity to come back here in two years if it
doesn't progress through the PUD process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I really don't want to see you again. I
want this thing to go forward. When you can build it, you can built it.
Now, let me hear from the other commissioners.
Commissioner Henning, you're the motion maker, so how do you
feel about it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we have an LDC
amendment coming through to go from a three-year to a five-year, and
with the economics the way it is, I think that's most appropriate to doo
Page 194
December 11-12, 2007
that, and I would assume that this would apply to this one.
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, for the record, Nancy
Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development
Review. This particular petition was advertised for one two-year
extension, so we can't change that at the moment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I was speaking about the
LDC amendment. Are you speaking of that LDC amendment?
MS. GUNDLACH: Oh, I'm sorry. I was talking about another
topic.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no. We were talking about
the same topic, or trying to. We just didn't understand.
MS. GUNDLACH: Something to do with an extension.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Isn't there an amendment
coming through the Land Development Code to have a five-year
sunsetting provision instead of a three-year?
MS. GUNDLACH: I can double-check that.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, Joe Schmitt. I believe you may
be referring to -- and we proposed to the DSAC for site plans and plats
to extend the time frames, not for PUDs. But those were for plats and
plans already in the process to try and extend those time frames.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And we're putting something together for you
to look at for that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For that plat, okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So there's no ability for us to be able
to take the two years and move it out to four here today?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not the way it's advertised, but
we are going to run into a problem, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. It's going to be a tremendous
amount of work for everybody for no reason.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And it's just due to
Page 195
December 11-12, 2007
economics. And we have the ability to direct staff later on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's hear from county attorney,
see if they might have some guidance on this.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that -- I think that staff is correct,
that as advertised -- and this is an advertised item -- that it -- there
could be potential for conflict if the board went beyond the
advertisement and went to four years at this point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then you probably didn't want to
take a chance on continuing this to another time?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, why don't -- I think you'd probably
-- for the record, Rich Y ovanovich. You probably are interested in
having this done right away, and we would like to have it done right
away, but I don't think there would be anything that would prohibit us
from immediately applying again for the second two years, since it's
fresh in everybody's mind. Hopefully it will stay on summary agenda
the next time because the DCA issue will be done. But we can apply
and grab the next two years if that's acceptable to the board. Instead
of making us wait two years to do it, we can get right in, and hopefully
it will stay on summary agenda since it's not something that goes to
the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, that's harmless. Then we
always can review it at that point in time for whatever circumstances
exist.
Commissioner Henning, did you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nope.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, I need some
guidance here. I believe the motion was made for 8F, and is it my
understanding that what we discussed was 101, so do we vote on 101
before we extend the sunsetting rule?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think -- I think the motion before you
now is the motion by Mr. Henning, second's by Mr. Coyle on 8F.
Page 196
December 11- I 2, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. But is there any
sequence that we have to address since we talked about the -- giving
of the road part of it, the stormwater aspect of it; is that the issue that
we should vote on first before we go ahead and vote on 8F? Does it
matter? I just want to make sure we're --
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, I -- go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Whatever it takes to keep this moving
forward.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think the petitioner would like to see the
PUD extended before a vote on the DCA, because the last thing he
wants is the DCA approved with the PUD not extended.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Makes sense.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Makes -- okay, now that clarified
it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The county manager stated at
the beginning that we're going to hear both of them, and my motion
was on the -- 8F of the -- both of them, just to make it clear. So it is
what it is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, if there's no other comments,
I'm going to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor of the motion,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Page 197
December 11-12,2007
Now?
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to approve the
DCA.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala to
approve.
And any comments on that?
(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.
Believe it or not, it's already been another hour and a half since I
took the last break.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hasn't it? Yeah, it has. So take a
10-minute break and be right back.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Item #8G
Page 198
December 11-12, 2007
RESOLUTION 2007-353: A RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC) OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, DESIGNATING THE PARCELS OF LAND
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CRESTVIEW I AND II AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AS A BROWNFIELD AREA
WITHIN THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE OF COLLIER
COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL REHABILITATION; AUTHORIZING
THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO NOTIFY THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OF SAID
DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING FORAN EFFECTIVE DATE
- ADOPTED
Commissioner, the next item on the agenda is 8G, which used to
be 17B. It's a resolution by the Board of County Commissioners,
BCC, of Collier County, Florida, designating the parcels of land
associated with the Crestview I and II affordable housing development
as a brownfield area within the Immokalee enterprise zone of Collier
County for the purpose of economic development and environmental
rehabilitation; and authorizing the county manager or his designee to
notify the Department of Environmental Protection of said
designation; and providing for an effective date, and this was basically
pulled at Commissioner Halas's request.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go right to
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. And I'll tell you the concerns
that I have on this is that, as you read through the executive summary,
it says, there is no contamination on the parcels of land in the
identified parcels for the proposed development.
And I'm concerned that it's misrepresentation of what the
brownfield fund is. Basically that's a fund that's set aside to address
issues of contamination in areas throughout the State of Florida. And
Page 199
December 11-12, 2007
I realize that obviously this person still has to jump through hurtles to
get this, but I have some concerns on it.
I can see in one of our discussions earlier on, we were talking
about if we wanted to do some development at the old army airfield,
which was -- been -- in the Immokalee Airport, that is there could
have been some brownfield problems there. But in this development,
I've got a problem with that. Maybe you can help clarify that.
MR. SLATE: I can definitely help clarify that. I'm going to try
to anyway. My name is Robert Slate. I'm with a company called
Strategic Systems. We're an economic development firm, and I'm
here today representing the Carlisle Group who is developing the
affordable housing complex there in Immokalee. And that
development is in the Immokalee enterprise zone, and that is pertinent
of this because the statute, the Brownfields Redevelopment Act,
provides for a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What was that again?
MR. SLATE: I'm sorry. The Brownfields Redevelopment Act,
the statute that provides this opportunity is -- you know, gives a very
straightforward and simple method for sites that are within an
enterprise zone or some other previously designated economic
redevelopment area.
And, you know, I can tell you -- I'm also a member of the Florida
Brownfields Association, for whatever that's worth. It's usually
enough to just make me dangerous.
I'm not an environmental guy. I'm an economic development
guy. But that fits very well within the framework and the universe of
brownfields, all things brownfields.
And the thing that I deal with commonly in situations like this is,
there's nothing more common than brownfields and misconceptions
about it. It's just the term carries a lot of connotations to it. And the
most common misconception, most common connotation, is to equate
a brownfield with contamination.
Page 200
December 11-12, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what is brownfield then?
Make it just plain.
MR. SLATE: I'm going to try to. What a brownfield -- the way
-- what I see a brownfield as -- you know, everybody's got their own,
you know, definition in their minds of what they equate a brownfield
to.
But a brownfield definition is much broader than just
contamination because what it is, is I think of a blighted community,
you know, a slum, a blighted area, that's a brownfield by definition, by
federal definition and by state definition.
You know, environment problems, contamination, are certainly
considered within the brownfields program. This statute addresses
both those and addresses significant economic development type of
concerns that aren't related to contamination at all.
And, you know, you mentioned the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir, I think you went far enough.
County Attorney, can you give me some guidance on what a
brownfield is?
MR. KLATZKOW: I have the definition of it on the viewer.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: And a brownfield site is any real property,
the expansion or development or reuse, which may be complicated by
actual or perceived environmental contamination.
And so, in my mind, a brownfield site is, you either know that it
is contaminated or, the public ground, it is feared that it may be
contaminated.
Typically these sites would be former industrial sites, or like you
said, a former site for the military that could have been contaminated.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Even farmlands, in some cases, with
the pesticides spills and all that.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct, sir.
Page 201
December 11-12,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And this area at one time or another,
all of it was farmed at some point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But my question is, if we approve
this, we're under no obligation to go forward to assist this person in
regards to brownfield if it doesn't meet the criterias.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I specifically provided in section 2 of
the resolution that the owner of the site will be solely responsible.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because I understand what
petitioner was telling me, but my feeling is the same as yours, about
what brownfield areas are, and I think it's a misrepresentation because
there's an awful lot of communities that have to address real
brownfield issues within the state. And I'd surely like to make sure
that they get the money that's justified to them.
MR. SLATE: Sure. You know, again, speaking from my
perspective -- and I have created numerous brownfield areas in this
state, and I have never created one where there was an environmental
issue on the property, just for the record; that's the truth of it. Every
one that I've done has been for the purpose of economic development.
And here's the context that you really -- the best way I can
answer your question, is to look at what the facts are about
Jacksonville, Miami, St. Petersburg, Orlando, they've taken their entire
enterprise zone, their entire 20-square-mile enterprise zone, and
they've designated these with one stroke of the pen, just like is here
tonight, one stroke of a pen, designated these brownfield areas.
Now, they didn't have to prove that there was contamination in
that, and the reason is, it is not required in the statute to prove that.
That's not a part of the requirement.
You know, what is a part of it is that if it's in the enterprise zone
or front porch community or some previously determined distressed
area, some area that's for economic redevelopment, then that coincides
with what my definition of brownfields is in that a brown -- a blighted
area is a brownfield by definition.
Page 202
December 11-12, 2007
You may think contamination only, but, indeed, the definition is
much broader. The statute -- and not only in this act, but in the
ancillary type of acts bears this out also.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just -- as I said earlier, I think it's
a misrepresentation of funding that's available, that it's --
MR. SLATE: Well, if! had the time, I could probably, you
know --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, that's okay. Commissioner
Halas is entitled to his opinion on it. This is just another tool in the
tool box --
MR. SLATE: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to get the job done in Immokalee.
And for us to pass it up would be -- would be a tremendous loss.
I don't -- we don't have any speakers on this, do we?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I seen Tammie Nemecek here
earlier, but I'm sure she had to leave by now.
I'd like to make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval by myself,
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There has to be a definition in
the Florida Statutes.
MR. SLATE: Of what? There is, you know --
MR. MUDD: This is--
MR. SLATE: -- I can address the questions that really --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not -- is that --
MR. MUDD: This is the Florida Statutes, sir. This is Chapter
376. And I'm sorry, I zoomed right in on the highlighted parts and I
didn't take you out to the outside piece. And I believe what the
gentleman at the podium is getting at is, if you look under four
Page 203
December 11-12, 2007
underneath the yellow highlighted, such areas may include all or
portions of the community redevelopment area, enterprise zones,
empowerment zones, or other such designated economically deprived
communities and areas and Environmental Protection Agency
designated brownfields pilot projects.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SLATE: And stemming from that, I can tell you this: That
by far and away, the vast majority of the acreage that's been declare a
brownfields area in this state to date, like probably 99 to 1, is -- has --
is land that has no contamination on it. It's about economic
development.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I mean, it really says it in
three, brownfield sites means real property, the expansion of -- the
expansion and redevelopment or reuse of which may be complicated
by actual. May, that's the --
MR. SLATE: May--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's very liberal in it's
interpretation --
MR. SLATE: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- of browns field (sic), but I'm
glad Commissioner Coyle -- or Commissioner Halas took it off the
consent agenda so that we could clarify that issue.
MR. SLATE: Sure, and I welcome the opportunity to clarify it.
And you know, the use also in that same sentence of the word
perceived, when you really think about perception, and then you can
understand why a brownfield, a blighted area, why those areas -- why
the state wants to provide inducement to redevelop those is because of
the perception, that's why these areas don't get redeveloped, not
because they -- people know about contamination, but they have this
perception of this being a brownfield.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Can you -- County
Manager, can you zoom out on that so I can see the full chapter citing.
Page 204
December 11-12,2007
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I support the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, any other
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor of the motion,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show the vote was 3-1
with Commissioner Halas being in the opposition and Commissioner
Coyle being absent.
MR. SLATE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #9A
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE HISTORICAL
/ ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD - MOTION TO
READVERTISE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 9,
Board of County Commissioners. 9A, it's appointment of a member to
the Historical! Archaeologic Preservation Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion we
readvertise for additional applicants per the committee
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
Page 205
December 11-12,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Fiala and a second by Commissioner Halas to readvertise.
Any discussion?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nope.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor, indicate by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2007-354: APPOINTING JOSEPH L. DILLON
AND JOHN L. PENNELL AND REAPPOINT COLLINS TO THE
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9B, appointment
of members to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion to approve
the committee recommendations of John L. Dillan (sic) and John L.
Pennell, and also to reappoint Councilman McBeth Collins to
represent Everglades City.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion as long as the
Page 206
December 11-12, 2007
first motion was Joseph Dillan rather than John Dillan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. I was a little carried
away. Sorry, John Dillan out there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Both starts with 1.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Joseph, and I correct myself, and
thank you.
Any other -- any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0.
Item #9C
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION - MOTION TO READVERTISE -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9C, appointment
of member to the Collier County Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we
readvertise this to see if we can get some candidates that are in the
commissioner's district.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me give you some
information. I tried to get somebody to put their name in. Because of
Page 207
December 11-12,2007
the Planning Commission's agenda and the tasks that they have taken
on by this board, I couldn't get somebody at this time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me. My rotary, I meet with
David Wolfe all the time, and he was a little perplexed that he missed
the time for it, and I think that he'd be more than happy to put his
name in, at least he gave me that indication.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- and that's fine, and I
talked to David, but his name didn't come to mind at that time when I
was trying to seek somebody. And at present time, we have a missing
seat with a lot of 4/4 votes. And when the seat becomes available, I'll
definitely contact Mr. Wolfe.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. My concern is, is that in
Commissioner Halas's district, even though he hasn't stated that
concern, he'll now have three people from his district on the Planning
Commission, and it's supposed to be a balance across the district.
In fact, what is the -- what does our code say in regards to who
can be on the Planning Commission and who can't?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, the code
provides, I call it the Noah's Ark provision. It's two by two from all
the districts except 4, which is the City of Naples, and that is in the
code which, of course, is ordinance.
MS. FILSON: And the school board member.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, yes, there is a school board member now
too. But--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So your motion is to readvertise?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Readvertise and to get some people
to come forward that Commissioner Henning represents, District 3.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have -- still have the floor, Mr.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Well, let me just make the
Page 208
December 11-12,2007
statement. We've got a motion by Commissioner Halas, second by
Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I read the ordinance, it said that
the -- we must have a qualified member to appoint to the Planning
Commission. Since no one came forward from District 3, could we
not appoint somebody from other districts as long as they're a resident
and a voter, Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think that if the seats were open long
enough so that it was clear you couldn't find anybody from the district
and that the board then directed staff to amend the LDC to allow for
the board to do this, that you could at that point in time bring
somebody in from a different geographical area.
But I think the board would have to find that they've done due
diligence to see whether or not they could find someone from that
district. Whether it's one advertising, two advertisings, multiple
advertising, would be a board decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we've done one advertising
already?
MR. KLATZKOW: You've done one board advertising, that's
correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you're saying it takes
two advertisings for the board to change -- or maybe I misunderstood
our previous conversation.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. What I'm saying is, when the board
comes to a conclusion that they've advertised this and they're not
getting a qualified applicant from the district -- it's clearly an
important advisory board and it's an important position to seat -- at
that point in time, I think with board direction that the LDC be
amended, the board could appoint somebody from outside the district,
but the board, I think, would have to find that at this particular point in
time, we've tried, we haven't been able to find anybody.
Page 209
December 11-12,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And my concern is, we
have some important issues coming to the Board of Commissioners,
and I've seen recommendations from the planning commissioners
where it's a tie vote.
In talking to the chairman, it's a real concern that these issues --
that they have a complete board to make an affirmative
recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just wonder if now is the
proper time to be advertising if you want to get a lot of applicants. Do
the holidays generally produce a lot of applicants for these kinds of
boards?
MS. FILSON: I haven't been getting many applicants for any
boards because I'm having a hard time getting it put in the Naples
Daily News, which is where I get the majority of my submittals.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're having a problem with
advertising itself?
MS. FILSON: Yes. And I can tell you that I have, on EMSAC
from District 5, I've advertised for over one year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about other publications in
the county? Are we getting --
MS. FILSON: Well, we have the web page where they can
register to receive the press release.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but they've got to express an
interest in advance, but --
MS. FILSON: And then I have emails and I have faxes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But how about -- there are other
newspapers in Collier County. Are we getting--
MS. FILSON: I have a long list of fax numbers --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are they printing our
advertisements in those newspapers?
Page 210
December 11-12, 2007
MS. FILSON: I can't be certain, but I don't think so. Like the
Marco, if -- they might pick up something that the applicant should be
from Marco, but that isn't that often.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, maybe the commissioners
know some people who would be interested in the county and maybe
suggest that they apply, you know. I don't know how to do that.
But yeah, I think we ought to try to abide by the rules. And if
we're being hampered by the inability to get print media to advertise
for us, then we need to find another way of getting suitable applicants.
MS. FILSON: And it's also on the web page, the press release
and the application.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe you should start going door
to door.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about the list that we have for
the civic associations; can we --
MS. FILSON: You know, I tried that for your EMSAC one. I
went into your contacts and I used your contact list and sent the press
release to all of your lists for civic associations, and I didn't get a
response.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Maybe they didn't recognize your
name. We'll send it under Commissioner Coyle's name, but in any
case --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That will get you a lot of
applicants.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go, the discussion here, to
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. My concern is that I think
that each of the districts need to be represented, and I presently have
two people that represent District 2. I feel at this time that I believe
that it's only fair that the commissioner in District 3 has two people
that sit on that commission.
I can tell you that when the openings came up for my particular
Page 211
December 11-12, 2007
district, I went and interviewed people and then upon that, I told them,
I said, I'd like to have you step up to the plate and get involved with
the Planning Commission, which has been done.
So I think there's other avenues, and I feel that once you get a
precedent, then I think that some of the people are going to feel that
they're not properly represented on the Planning Commission since it
has been set up over a period of time in regards to who sits on that
board. So my motion stands.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just going to say, Sue, maybe,
if you wouldn't mind, when you print that out -- and I don't know why
the Naples Daily News isn't publishing these things, which would--
other than maybe it's because it's a public service and they don't have
the room or something, but if you could send it to each one of us, we
could probably send it to our emaillist --
MS. FILSON: I email it to all the commissioners, plus I give you
a hard copy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I get the hard copy, but I'm
asking you to do it again, only this time what we'll do is we'll
distribute it, whether it be to our newsletter people or to our whole list
of people that we have just to let people know. I mean, I don't have
anybody in District 3 on my list, but I'd be happy to let people know
in case they have friends on the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you've got to have -- got to
have that particular district.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, right.
MS. FILSON: Do you want me to re-email the current one? I'm
going to be doing a new one this Friday, and it's almost to four pages.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think what you do is you send
it to the commissioner -- not everything's applicable to our district. I
remember before we used to take and trim it down to those things that
we needed to fill from District 5, and then I would send it out to my
Page 212
December 11-12,2007
personal list of about 1,000 some people. And I know right now I
have about five people that have expressed an interest in the Planning
Commission.
MS. FILSON: But they're -- a large number of the committees
are countywide.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand. But there -- lots of
times you have openings only for certain --
MS. FILSON: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- districts, so you can sort of trim it
down. Why do you want to run the whole list and wear people out?
Like the Airport Authority, they might not have an opening for anyone
but from Everglades City. Why would you want to send it to anyone
else in the county?
MS. FILSON: Okay. So I --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You kind of aim it.
MS. FILSON: -- could do five different press releases, and send
it to each one of you. Is that what you would like?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That sounds like a winner, okay.
You're pretty good at this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want two.
MS. FILSON: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want two different press releases.
MS. FILSON: Okay. I'll give you the full one and the one for
your district.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you want to get it done, send it to
his wife.
And with that, any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor, indicate by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 213
December 11-12, 2007
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 2007-355: RE-APPOINTING BARBARA F.
BUEHLER AND JOHN RIBES TO THE PARKS AND
RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, brings us to the next item, which is
9D. It's appointment of a member to the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board.
MS. FILSON: And this is the one that I accidentally put Randy
Mason's name in the table twice. The bottom name should be Jason
Bailey, Urban District 1, elector, yes, sir, advisory committees, none.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to accept John Ribes and
Barbara Buehler.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. I know we
don't have anybody on district -- from District 1 on this board and it
would be nice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There you go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But these people have been -- it isn't
my district. But these two people have been doing such an
outstanding job. I wouldn't want to remove them just because I want
somebody from District in that particular case, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Page 214
December 11-12, 2007
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 #9E
THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY - LUMP SUM PAYMENT OF $15,224.04-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9E, which is the
annual performance appraisal of the county attorney.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. If! may cut right to the chase
on this. I did my magic math again to -- Mr. Weigel, before you go
through a full presentation, let's just see if we can come to an
understanding of where we are.
We had three scores. The scores were averaged out to 2.34,
which values 78 percent; 78 percent -- and mind you, this score is for
this past year's performance. And at the $19,518, the amount would
be -- at 78 percent of the approval, would be $15,224.04.
And I'd make a motion for that amount of money.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So a motion by Commissioner
Page 215
December 11-12,2007
Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
And with that, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some concerns. We haven't
extended his contract. Obviously, the county attorney has the right to
submit his name in the upcoming selection. I also have some concerns
at the point in time when he submitted his performance review for us
to address this issue, it was after the fact. And I feel that what he's
being compensated for at the present time is adequate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's an honest opinion. Of
course, now, there's reasons why the review didn't come sooner. And
I think, Mr. Weigel, you asked me several times about when to place it
on the agenda. And maybe I gave you some misinformation, and if I
did, I apologize for that.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, in any event, if! may. This is the term--
the culmination of a four-year contract. And so this is a look-back at a
prior year. It's not a look-forward, and so it would have been coming
to you in any event. It would have been inappropriate not to bring it
to you. It would have been inappropriate not to get the pulse of the
board in regard to not only my performance, but it's a review of the
office performance as well. And from that standpoint, it came
forward.
Delivered a little later this year than the prior year, correct. It's
been with you six weeks, however, so, you know, it could have come
back sooner.
Be that as it may, I don't know that the timing is really that--
ultimately that important unless one wishes to make it the element of
determination as far as that goes.
The self-analysis that was provided there was, you know,
carefully drawn, looked to, tried to demonstrate and illustrate the
approach that I have provided. Those -- I think the information that's
provided in your -- in your considerations will be important not only
for me in the office that currently exists, may be important for the
Page 216
December 11-12,2007
office that may be in the future as well.
I appreciate any consideration you give. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
With that, any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I couldn't quite catch everyone
there, so I'm going to ask the ones that were opposed to raise their
hand so I can --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And those in favor?
(Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Coyle, I don't see
you moving either way on it.
MS. FILSON: No, he said aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm neutral.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you can't be neutral. You've got
to vote yes or no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is for the remainder of the time
of the contract?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that's right. It is a one-time
payment.
Page 217
December 11-12, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is a payment for the past year's
performance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, yes, okay. I'm voting in favor
of it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, so it's 3-2. Let the record show
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Halas being in opposition.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, having said that, let me say
to you that I -- I do not believe that the way we calculate these
percentages is the way that I think we should calculate them. As I
understood it, the way you calculated it was just based on a percentage
between two and three; is that -- is that it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the way that -- the criteria that
we've been using for quite some time now, and -- well, it was created
one, two or three, depending on where you thought the performance
was, and then an average across the board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you start with the base of five,
fifty-eight, fifty-five, right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, the base being the dollar
amount?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, the lowest amount.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, the -- well, the lowest amount
would be what it would be for the lowest part. But what I did is I used
the percentage against the highest amount to be able to come up with
what we thought the evaluation should be. We've doing this now for
like about six years with the county manager and the county attorney
in the past, and I'm always willing to consider in the future any kinds
of changes to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess -- I guess my general
feeling is that if someone is just meeting requirements, that's a
relatively low rate. We should expect everyone to exceed the
requirements.
But what -- I would just like for us to come up with a better way
Page 218
December 11-12, 2007
of doing this in the future.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's obviously not appropriate to try
to go back and redo something for the past year. But if we could take
a look at a different way of doing this, I think it might result in
payments to key management personnel that more accurately reflect
how well they perform and their departments perform above the level
that just barely meets requirements.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm open to any suggestions. I
used this as a simple matrix.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At a point in time back. There's --
undoubtedly there's better ways to come to these final conclusions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, Commissioner Halas,
do you have some comments?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'd just like to say that we
ended up basically giving Mr. Weigel a $15,000 pay raise; is that
correct?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we did not. This is the same
thing we do with county manager based on past year's performance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what was his pay -- what is
his raise going to be?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is a one-time payment for past
year's performance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But you want to know what his pay
is? We can find that out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no. I just want to make sure
that's a one-time payment.
I think what we need to do is maybe when we submit the
performance reviews, that at that point in time we also submit what we
Page 219
December 11-12,2007
feel is rightfully the right pay, and then we can discuss that under
board direction when we're here on the dais.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine, yeah. I came up with __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that might -- yeah. You did
a --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No one ever came up with a different
matrix to work with, so that's why.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And we're not here to
criticize you. I think you did a great job, but I think what we need to
do is have all of the commissioners get involved in this __
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and it's something we can do in
the future.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you did an outstanding job.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next item, Mr. Mudd?
Item #lOA
RESOLUTION 2007-356: A RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT FOR
UNDERGROUND CONVERSIONS WITH THE FLORIDA
POWER & LIGHT COMPANY PERTAINING TO THE
CONVERSION OF CERTAIN OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE
VANDERBILT BEACH MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT
(THE MSTU) TO UNDERGROUND DISTRIBUTION AND TO
APPROVE PAYMENT TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $56,712.00 IN ORDER TO
OBTAIN ENGINEERING ESTIMATE FOR PROJECT-
ADOPTED
Page 220
'-_._.~"'---"'-'-~,-~_",,- ----,-
December 11-12, 2007
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the county
manager's report, paragraph 10. The first item is a recommendation
that the board approve and authorize the chairman to sign a
right-of-way agreement for underground conversions with the Florida
Power & Light company pertaining to the conversion of certain
overhead electric distribution facilities located within the Vanderbilt
Beach Municipal Services Taxing Unit, the MSTU, to underground
distribution and to approve payment to the Florida Power & Light
company in the amount of $56,712 in order to obtain engineering
estimates for the project.
Ms. Diane Flagg, your Alternative Transportation Mode Director,
will present. The reason this is on the regular agenda is because we
didn't have a signed agreement by the MSTU, and Mr. Dick Lydon
has already provided that to this board. If we would have had this,
this would have been a consent agenda item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We don't have a second though, so we
can't --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle.
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.
Page 221
December 11-12, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0, with
Commissioner Henning absent.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just say one thing. I just
think this is such an excellent idea, especially in that location with
high winds and with hurricanes and so forth. I think it's wonderful
that they're doing this, and I hope we do it more and more around the
entire county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, this was -- this was the MST
unit group out there that basically went out and surveyed the citizens
and asked them what they thought was the most important.
I can tell you that they've been saving their money for a number
of years to the point where they have sufficient funds to finally
address this issue, and along with the county attorney's part in this,
because we've had some tough negotiations with FP&L. And I believe
that we finally to the point where those people out there can now start
addressing it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good for you. That's great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good. And I believe in
MSTU's. I think they're really the foundation of what we should be
doing in a lot of ways.
But before we go on, I just want to mention, six o'clock,
Commissioner Fiala and I have to be out the door. We've got a good
possibility we might be able to finish this agenda if we stay right with
it. So let's go to lOB.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2007-357: A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
Page 222
December 11-12,2007
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 - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: lOR This item --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What are you drinking?
MR. MUDD: -- is continued from the November 27,2007, BCC
meeting. Excuse me. The 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, and Mr. Gary Mullee,
your Operations Manager for Community Development's
Environmental Services, will present.
MR. MULLEE: Thank you, good afternoon. As mentioned, this
is a continuation of the item from the last meeting.
And what I'm going to go ahead and do is spend about five
minutes to kind of go through this to better explain the item, to explain
what we're asking for, and to go ahead and probably give you a brief
background on how we got to this point in time.
When we entered into this fee revision process, we had
essentially four goals in mind. One was to minimize the revenue
impact of the proposals. Another goal was to develop consensus
between government and industry on this proposal. We wanted to
better align fees for services for -- with those people who are actually
engaged in using the services, and we wanted to improve fairness and
consistency within the fee structure.
Now, just as an overview of the process of reviews, input, and
consensus that we went through to arrive at these -- and just as a side
note, let me go ahead and say that at community development we
really wanted to be sensitive to the economic conditions within the
community. I think we realized that there was a point that you could
Page 223
December 11-12, 2007
go with the fee structure where we did -- where we could do harm, and
we certainly didn't want to do that.
We certainly have been provided a lot of feedback over the last
several years that, perhaps, we're not the best judge or the most
objective judge of what is a fair and rational fee structure. And so
what we've done is, this time for these fees, is we've worked with a
structure provided to us with the advisory committees, which are made
up by our users and by the development industry to develop a fee
structure that everyone agreed to as being fair and rational.
The Private Vehicle Advisory Committee, who reviews and they
recommended for approval, are the code enforcement vehicle for
higher fee changes. These fees pass through the Contractor Licensing
Board, who reviewed and recommended for approval the contracting
licensing fee schedule changes, and DSAC, who reviewed and
provided input and by a vote of 10-0 recommended approval of the
entire package of fee schedule changes with one exception that's noted
in the executive summary, and which I'll cover later in this
presentation.
We worked with each of these groups, particularly with DSAC. I
believe that we took these in one form or another through four
separate DSAC meetings where we -- where if DSAC recommended
changes or where we worked with them and developed consensus --
and we didn't bring anything forward that was not a consensus item.
These were originally two fee -- two proposals that were
approximately a couple months apart. Unfortunately, the timing was
changed. I developed a little health issue, which delayed one of the
proposals.
So the two -- it's been a long day. So the two proposals came to
you separately at the last meeting. We've gone ahead and combined
the two proposals for the purposes of this meeting.
One of the sections has to do with building permit fees. It
involves a minor change in the timing of collection of fees, a change
Page 224
December 11-12, 2007
from evaluation method to a square-footage method of calculating
fees, and removal of regressive tiers within the fee structure.
The other proposal is a collection of minor revisions. These are
fees for previously board-approved new application types, fee
decreases and changes for fairness and consistency with other
ordinance requirements, and fee increases for activities engaged in by
a small number of users where costs have dramatically increased or
for services provided across funds.
On the building permit fee section, the current methodology for
calculating building permit fees is based on declared valuations, and
where declared valuations have often varied as much as fivefold for
similar projects. In the current system it has regressive tiers, larger
projects pay less per valuation than smaller projects.
To be honest with you, if you were to take 20
10,000-square-foot-office buildings throughout the county, we've
charged them 20 different things for building permit fees. It's purely a
function of what they have declared as construction valuation. It's not
unusual to see buildings come in the door with 35 or $40 a square foot
for construction declared or other buildings that come in with 160 or
$180 per square foot.
There's relatively little difference in the buildings as far as we
can tell, and there's even less difference in what CDES does as far as
plan review and inspection activity.
The proposed methodology is to go ahead and create 29 cents per
square foot plat fee. All size projects would pay the same fee, whether
it's -- you're small or large, you would pay 29 cents a square foot.
This calculation is revenue neutral. And the way we computed it
as being revenue neutral is we took every single building permit
issued from 2004 until present. We looked at the old fee, the actual
fee that was applied, we applied this new methodology, and when the
two bottom line numbers became the same, that's when we knew it
was revenue neutral, and that was 29 cents a square foot.
Page 225
December 11-12,2007
Now, because we're removing the tiers and charging everyone
flat across the board, what's happening is that you're going to have
smaller projects and smaller houses, the building permit fee will
actually go down, and it will go up for larger projects.
An example, for a 1,500-square-foot house over the past threes
years, the average building permit fee paid is $504. Under the new
methodology, everyone will pay $435 for a building permit fee.
You can see on the higher end of the spectrum, it actually goes
up. The break-even point is a little above 3,000 square foot for a
home. This is how it computed out to be revenue neutral.
Now, one of the things we did was -- the commercial rate came
out to be the same as the residential rate, 29 cents a square foot to
maintain revenue neutral, and we compared that to other jurisdictions.
So we're proposing 29 cents as a total.
Lee County is 30 cents a square foot; Lake County, 38 cents;
Sumpter County, 32 cents; Hernando County, 31 cents; and Pinellas
County is 37 cents.
So what we're proposing is actually lower than what we found in
other counties but essentially in line with what we found in other
counties.
The 29 cents is matching up the 2003 rate to maintain revenue
neutrality because that's the first time we changed our building permit
fees. And if that was adjusted for the cost of living, that would have
been 33 cents, and -- which is right in the middle of that. So we felt
the calculation was in par with what other communities were doing.
The issue changes with the building permit fees as related to
timing. Right now up front we collect between 8 and 16 percent. It
varies according to the size of a project. In permit fees at the
beginning of the project, or at application submittal, we call it the
application fee, and the rest of the building permit is collected at the
time the permit is issued.
Weare proposing to raise that to 25 cents. Originally we had
Page 226
December 11-12, 2007
proposed to DSAC to raise that to 50 percent up front, 50 percent at
the end of the -- when the application -- or when the building permit
was issued. That 50/50 split is in line with the staff cost.
Approximately 50 percent of the building department is lined up with
plan review and application processing, and about 50 percent of the
department is lined up with inspection services, which occur after the
permit is issued. But in line of keeping consensus with the industry
and consensus with DSAC, that proposal was lowered to 25 percent.
Now, the other section, the other part which has been joined into
this one proposal is a collection of minor fees which have been put
into one proposal, and I'll kind of briefly go through those. We also
have directors from the individual departments here, and so after the
presentation if you have questions about an individual fee and the
rationale behind them, they'll be happy to address those questions.
Code enforcement fees related to vehicle for hire. Again, these
were all approved by the Private Vehicle Advisory Committee as fees
reflective of the actual cost of providing these services. They have
some increased costs, which they're passing along to the service.
I think it's important to point out that these fees are part of fund
111, and this fee revenue will be credited directly to fund 111.
Contractor licensing fees. This is another group of changes.
These fees were approved by the county's Contractor Licensing Board
as reflective of the cost of providing services.
Contractor licensing fees hadn't been changed since 1993, and
what occurred is a situation where the contractor licensing fees were
significantly less than other counties, and so out-of-county contractors
were coming in and doing their business here and through repi -- how
do you say that words, recicipity?
MR. MUDD: Reciprocity.
MR. MULLEE: Reciprocity -- thank you -- agreements. Their
approvals here were honored in other counties within Florida.
These fees are -- have been increased to be in line with other[
Page 227
December 11-12, 2007
counties. If you'll look at the fee rates, these are significant increases.
What -- at this point in time, we are anticipating this to actually be a
revenue neutral item, and the way we came up with that calculation is
we applied these fees to every single permit issued by contract
licensing, every fee charged over the past year, and then we backed
out all the out-of-county contractors under the rationale that they'll
save their gas money and keep their business in Miami-Dade.
And those two amounts are actually very similar to being -- to
being even. They were within a couple thousand dollars of each other,
so we're anticipating this as being revenue neutral. Community
development will save money in having this section break even as
opposed to its current losing money.
Comprehensive planning. These are three fees for
comprehensive planning activities which are related to development.
They do reviews as far as consistency with Growth Management
Plans. These fees are related to that, other than the financial model
fee. These are related -- these are activities, again, which are related
to development and development paying for the cost of development.
These fees will be credited to fund 111.
Environmental fees. These are a section of fees in environmental
zoning which are in the planning fund, fund 131. This is a question
that came up at the last meeting, so I'll very briefly cover this.
This fund was split off from the building permit, fund 113, in
2003. This was under the guidance of an audit of the Clerk of Court
who was reviewing the fee structure. And under Florida Statutes,
building permit fees can only be charged for the enforcement of the
state building codes.
And so we needed to go ahead and split off the planning
activities and have them be self-supported. In 2003 all the revenue in
CDES was charged with a building permit applic -- with a building
permit, and that money was used to support planning and
environmental and zoning. So each of these sections became
Page 228
December 11-12, 2007
self-sufficient.
That moved revenue neutral at the time, and what happened was,
the overall revenue coming into CDES remained the same. The
overall cost of a project from the time an SDP or a land use
application was submitted till you got your building permits remained
the same.
We actually, in 2003, lowered building permit fees by 20 percent,
and planning fees, which occurred, perhaps, one-tenth as often as
building permit fees, were raised by 200 percent so that you actually
paid the costs as you went through the -- as you went through the
entire process of approval, you paid as you went. And so -- but this
was a revenue neutral item.
These are -- the fees are listed here, and they were listed in a rate
comparison. There was an attachment to the executive summary. The
major increase here is related to informal wetland jurisdictional
reviews, which the BCC approved at their September 25th meeting,
and this is an intergovernmental agreement with Florida DEP.
A variety of engineering fee increases. Some of these are related
to consistency with other ordinances. Some of these are minor
increases, and particularly with PUD monitoring. And this is an
attempt to recoup some of the costs. All these fees, again, were all
reviewed by DSAC, and the rationale, and judged to be acceptable by
them.
These are the proposed zoning and land use development fee
changes. Most of these fee changes are either fee changes or language
changes to be consistent with LDC or related to recent LDC approvals
or new application types that have been approved in LDC revisions.
There's one significant decrease, and that's putting a cap on
master plans fee, which is -- which before had a $25-per-acre fee.
Several large applications are in that are going to be significant
amounts of money for what is actually a relatively less amount of
work, and we thought it was fair to kind of cap that.
Page 229
December 11-12,2007
The significant increase on the other side is with zoning, with
long form and express permit reviews. This is work that's done in
review of building permits. We can't charge -- by statute we can't
charge for land use reviews or land use consistency reviews, for
issuing a building permit, but they do -- we can't issue a building
permit without doing that, and so these fees are on that side, and that
work is related to that.
There's a few miscellaneous fees. Public record lien searches.
These are to be consistent with other resolutions. These have been
pointed out by the attorney's office where we have been inconsistent.
We also have a failure to obtain a permit. This is a decrease in a
penalty. And this is an owner/occupant who goes ahead in good faith
and pursues a building permit for work that occurred at their structure
before they were the owner. We felt like, that wasn't fair to penalize
them for that good faith effort. So instead of charging them a
two-time penalty, we're just charging them the normal fee rate.
There's one other fee which I need to go ahead and read for the
record. This was approved by DSAC at their December 6th meeting,
and it came in too late for this fee package. This fee is a fee decrease
that DSAC had approved out of the zoning section. It's in the Site
Development Plan, section F, it's F-13, Site Development Plan sheet
change-out per CDES policy guidelines, $35 per page.
This is another instance of us, for minor changes, being able to
charge a small amount for a small amount of work versus a full
resubmission fee. And right now under the current fee structure, that's
the only option we have for this kind of work.
This is the one fee that DSAC did not approve that we have
brought forward to you for your input and your decision. This was for
PUD close-out, which DSAC failed to endorse on a 5-5 vote.
Following that vote, DSAC voted 8-2 to defer approval until the PUD
close-out process was finalized.
And we're bringing this fee forward to you because of the timing
Page 230
December 11-12,2007
of potential PUD process being enacted, and our intent to significantly
limit fee requests in the near future and actually limit fee increases at
all.
So included in this proposal CDES agrees to seek DSAC's input
on the validity of fee levels following any PUD close-out process
being enacted. We'll give them what data we collect on the real-time,
and any proposal, any revision that DSAC proposes to this fee, we'll
bring back to the board.
With that, that's basically the outline of the proposals. I'd be
happy to address any questions you have. And as I said, we have
directors here from the relevant CDES sections, and they would be
happy to cover any specific questions you have on those fees.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The last study was an empirical
study. This study is not?
MR. MULLEE: Perhaps you could be a little more specific with
what you mean.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this -- can you provide me the
empirical study for these proposed fees?
MR. MULLEE: To be honest with you, some of this -- some of
the fees -- and I think we'd have to go on a specific base. Some of the
fees are anecdotal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's really those
anecdotal ones are just a tax?
MR. MULLEE: I think -- I don't believe that you could classify
them as a tax. They're user fees for specific users who --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you base your fees on
anecdotal input and not the rational nexus of providing the service. Is
it a tax or is it a fee?
MR. MULLEE: I believe it's a fee. And in fact, I think you have
to look at these specifically on a fee-by-fee basis. The majority of
these fees are actually related to LDC activities which are new
Page 231
December 11-12, 2007
application types where you can't go ahead and collect empirical data
till you actually engage it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we've been doing it for a
while, haven't we?
MR. MULLEE: Well, what I would --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wouldn't we know what the
services are required, or the service it would take to produce the
result?
MR. MULLEE: And I believe that's what the dollar amounts
were -- when you say empirical, yeah, last time there was a
time-tracking study over the course of a couple years that went ahead
and looked at the time tracking of this. These are relatively new fees
that don't -- for new activities, and what -- the individual directors
have gone ahead and surveyed staff and examined the time involved in
those cases.
So I don't know that you get detailed empirical data over a long
course of time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's go back to the
single-family home, and maybe I'll show you what I mean, the slide
on the single-family home, from 1,000 feet -- square to 5,000 square
feet.
Okay. A thousand square feet. What's the difference between
1,000-square-feet home and a 5,000-square-foot home? What extra
services are you going to provide for that 5,000-square-foot home that
you don't provide for that 1,000-square-foot home?
MR. MULLEE: I'm going to go ahead and let somebody from
the building department address that or let Joe address that.
But in general, I think there is actually a linear relationship. If a
building is five times as large as another building, there's actually five
times as much in a plan to look at and five times as much on the
ground to inspect. I don't know if you wanted to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, tell me about it.
Page 232
December 11-12, 2007
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. My building
direction took his wife to the hospital so he's not here.
But your 1,000-square-foot home, normally you're talking maybe
a one-and-a-half or two bedroom -- or two bath. Five thousand could
be four baths on up. So you're talking -- basically when you apply for
a single-family permit, it's a plan review plus 19 inspections, and those
are 19 inspections if you pass every inspection. And certainly --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's go down your
example of bathrooms.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You also have a fee in here per
plumbing hook-up, correct?
MR. SCHMITT: That's a different fee. That's for an analysis for
the utility department, and I'll have to find it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, okay.
MR. SCHMITT: But this is strictly with the building
department, and you're dealing with inspections. And like Gary said,
at the larger homes, you're certainly talking larger plans, more sheets
per review, and normally we're doing electrical and structural
inspection. And when you get up above a certain home, you're almost
__ you're into what we would classify as commercial review as well.
It's not -- they're not sprinkler systems or fire systems, but you're
dealing with many other --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So there's extra electrical --
MR. SCHMITT: There's usually alarm systems, there's other
types of systems, low-voltage requirements, there's many other
requirements in the larger homes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Schmitt? Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there extra electrical? Is that
the reason -- part of the reason for the extra charge?
MR. SCHMITT: There would be -- there's certainly additional
Page 233
December 11-12, 2007
electrical outlets. I can't tell you from a standpoint of categorically
what the electrical inspector -- there are more outlets, there are more
switches, there are more lights. There is just more inspection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you have an amperage fee
here on top of it, too.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's not included in it.
MR. SCHMITT: This -- this price is the fee based on the square
footage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know it's based on square
footage, but nobody has said to me -- because usually with a large
home you just have a larger home, and the extras you're charging for
anyways. You're charging for extra outlets per -- because of amperage.
There are many different fees that goes into a home depending on
what you have.
A thousand-square- foot home in Golden Gate, a lot of them are
three bedroom, two bath. So I don't think there's an empirical study to
show that you're providing a service and charging a fee for your
service. It's a tax.
MR. SCHMITT: The alternative method, Commissioner, is the
construction valuation table, which is, again, based on a square
footage, but it's based on construction value. And what we're
proposing here is to eliminate the valuation table and just go with a
flat square footage, based on the square-footage fee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I understand. And
actually, what you're doing here, it looks good and it helps out the
little guy, the problem that I have with it, it's a tax. You're not
providing a service. The people that are in the upper scale are paying
for the services on the lower scale.
MR. SCHMITT: It's an attempt to equalize for the services
provided. The other option, again, is by value, and that tended, quite
frankly, we believe, to overcharge on the smaller units, and the larger
Page 234
December 11-12,2007
units appeared -- they were getting as much or even more service --
more service and not paying for the service that we believe we were
providing for the larger homes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The larger homes are going to
pay additional prices for things that, you know, the affordable housing
is not going to have in it.
MR. SCHMITT: Right. Our inspections have nothing to do with
whether you have marble countertops or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I know that, I know that,
but it's the other health, safety, and welfare issues, like electrical, like
the plumbing hookups.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have a plumbing hookup
charge here. So the more bathrooms that you have --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the more -- the more it's going
to cost, and I just see this as a tax and I'm not sure if we can. And
maybe we can, I don't know. I need some guidance from the County
Attorney's Office.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: County Attorney, would you respond
to that, and I have a couple of questions.
MR. KLATZKOW: The board needs to find that these fees are
fair and reasonable for the services presented. If you think the
evidence is inadequate for that, you need to question staff for
additional evidence.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to see empirical
studies on all these fees. I agree, some of these fees are very much in
line of what you're asking, like the vehicles for hire. I think you
explained that very -- very good, but the other ones, I -- some of the
others I haven't heard that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a couple questions, Mr.
Schmitt.
Page 235
December 11-12, 2007
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Will-- these fees here will help to
make your organization solvent.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, my organization's solvent, and basically I
__ my staff, let's -- the level of staffing is based on the revenue. I'm
dealing with that. As you well know, the revenue is down. We're 37
positions down. I've identified another 11, and possibly it will be
more after that.
I am reducing staff commensurate with the level of income. This
is not an attempt -- this is not an attempt to raise revenue to support
the existing staff. This was an attempt -- we've been working over at
least a year trying to equalize and put the charges where the -- we feel
they belong and put the burden of cost where we feel it belongs at the
__ at the permitting process, whether it's in the building department or
through the plan and plat review process, and that's what we're
attempting to do. This is, pretty much as Gary said, revenue neutral.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did your advisory group go over
this?
MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And they bought into it?
MR. SCHMITT: -- in great detail, in three meetings, and went
through in detail describing the costs. Many of these costs were --
we're trying to attempt even to favor the applicant in trying to put the
fee where we believe it belongs so that -- if I don't put the fee where it
belongs, then everybody pays --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: -- as a part of their business process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: And one example, a clear example is a recent
one that we're dealing with right now. Ave Maria is waiting to
resubmit its DRI. They have a very minor amendment.
The way this current fee schedule reads, they would have to pay
Page 236
December 11-12, 2007
a flat fee plus $25 per acre. It would be approximately a $133,000
application fee for what I would deem to be a fairly minor
amendment. But it has to go through the public hearing process, but
it's less than 10 lines in a DR! and it would be a $15,000 charge.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go back again to your advisory
group. Who makes up your advisory group? Is it a--
MR. SCHMITT: The DSAC is made up of attorneys,
professional planners involved in the planning industry, and members
of the building industry.
The CBIA has been involved in this, and CBIA has reviewed this
as well. Bill Varian, who is on the DSAC, is also a member of the
CBIA advisory group, and they approve this. DSAC? Bob Mulhere,
Clay Brooker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And they're all buying into it?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. It was a, as Gary said, 10-0.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This was all these minds of people in
the industry --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- that helped to come up with this
particular structure which tries to assign the fee by the square footage,
which sounds fair to me. Like Commission Henning said, you know,
if you've got a larger house, you're going to have more bathrooms,
you're going to have more bedrooms. If you've got more bedrooms,
more bathrooms, you're going to have more outlets.
So some way you've got to break it down. Is it totally fair? I'm
sure that you could probably revise this till the sun comes up and sets
a thousand times. And, you know, you could always hone it just a
little bit different, but I think it's a wonderful matrix to work with.
Let's go back to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, again, I don't
mind approving some of these. And if they can -- see, my concern is,
is are we legally doing the right thing? And some of these, I'm just
Page 237
December 11-12,2007
not convinced, if we have no data to show that the services that are
being provided is the fee that's being charge.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You have the mike, Commissioner
Henning. Why don't you make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm going to make a
motion. Mr. Mullee, would you help me with these? I'm going by the
__ by the DSAC's recommendation. It says, change 7, provide
clarification of existing fees. Do you have that information?
MR. MULLEE: What attachment is that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not an attachment. I finally
got the minutes of DSAC's recommendations.
MR. MULLEE: The--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, all right. Let me start.
The zoning amendments, which are the same, you're keeping those the
same. I'm going to make a motion to approve that.
And that goes on that change 7, clarify -- provides clarification of
existing fees. Okay. I'll go to the next one then.
Provide -- number 9, it says -- I think the best thing for me to do
is go by the -- what is changed, and I'll go down and make a motion.
Approve -- I'm going to make a motion to approve A, the
administration changes; B, the blasting permits; C, the environmental
landscaping; D, the excavating permits; E, there is no changes. That's
the fire review fees; G, the subdivision; E (sic), engineering
inspection; I, temporary use permits; J, well permits; K, zoning
permits; L, the miscellaneous permits; 0, electrical permits; P,
plumbing permits; Q, mechanical permits; R, fire prevention and
control permits; S, mobile homes.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, there's no changes in some of
these paragraphs. There's no changes in --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: T, chickee and similar
structures; U, pool and spa permits; V, screen enclosure permits; W,
sign permits; X, conservation -- or convenient permits; Y, Z, double
Page 238
December 11-12, 2007
A, double B, double C, double D, double E, double F -- no, not double
F -- double G, double H, double I, double J, double K, double L,
double M, double N, double 0, double P, double Q, double R, double
S, double T, and double U. That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which ones were not approved?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The ones that couldn't explain
any empirical ones.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Other than double F, can--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The remainder of them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm trying to--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Double F --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know about double F. And you're
saying that the explanation isn't there to justify it; is that what you're
saying, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about M and N?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: M and N?
MR. SCHMITT: Many of the paragraphs we walked through
there were no changes. Commissioner, are you on the strikethrough
and underline, and we can --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. SCHMITT: Page 31 of 58.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. Commissioner Coyle,
what was your page -- what was your question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: M and N, page 20 of 58.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. That's the one that they
couldn't justify.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MULLEE: So you're excluding the building permit fees and
the contractor licensing fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The building permit application
fee and the building permit fee. That's what it says in -- and actually
Page 239
December 11-12, 2007
I'm in the strikethrough and underline, which is page 40 of 48. Then
starts N, and on the next page is M.
MR. MULLEE: I think with the building permit fees, this is --
was purely a methodology change. It wasn't a fee increase or a fee
decrease.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I understand.
MR. MULLEE: And I'm not sure that we saw the maintaining
revenue neutral status -- I'm not sure we saw a need for an empirical
study of the fee amounts. These are fee amounts that have been in
place in terms of total revenue in place since 2003 when the fees were
actually lowered 20 percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Mullee?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When you -- when you charge a
fee, you have to -- you have to provide the rational nexus for that
charge. And there's so many other things that go into a larger house
that you already capture in charging more fees. So you have to do
some kind of study when we charge a fee. That's a law.
MR. MULLEE: I certainly understand that and agree with that.
And I don't know that the current fee structure in net is any different, I
mean, than the existing fee structure other than just the spread of fee.
I mean, the current fee as far as valuation is based on valuation
declared per square foot, and larger structures now charge -- get
charged larger amounts than smaller structures. The only difference
is, on a square-foot basis, there's a considerable difference. The
average home in the Estates pays four or five times as much per
square foot as the largest commercial structure in the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, is there any way that you
can bring to us some kind of a study that shows -- that justifies the
charges?
MR. MULLEE: You're asking essentially to justify the existing
charges or existing building permits?
Page 240
December 11-12,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, bring us back something
that you can provide and show us, okay, this is the services that we're
charging for 1,000 square foot versus 5,000 square foot, and here's the
study and here's what -- how many man hours it takes, and so and on
and so forth.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. If I might interrupt for just a
second. I'm kind of at a loss. I mean, we went through all this
methodology with DSAC with all the trained people to be able to offer
advice, and this is the fees that they have more or less assigned to
themselves, I thought. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, that's not true.
There was no study. There was no study. It was just a proposed
change in fees.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. The confusing part to me is,
DSAC approved all of these, and I don't see anybody in here from the
building industry, and I know that CBIA monitors our meetings, and
they're not here.
So my guess is, if they would have a problem with it, they'd be in
here in full force. And so being that they don't have a problem with it,
and these are the fees they have to pay themselves, it's not like I have
to pay these fees, you know. Eventually I would if, you know, I was
having the building done. But anyway -- so I feel I want to go along
with it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I feel the same way, to be
honest with you. I want to hear Commissioner Henning out. But if it
wasn't for the fact that we had them in the front agreeing to this to be
able to help cover the whole cost, you know, a study that would -- I
imagine anybody could justify what they're doing if they wanted to.
You know, come up with a methodology to be able to prove it. If
you've got the industry that agrees to it and it's going to cover the cost
to get us where we need to be --
Page 241
December 11-12, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, they didn't
agree on all the fees. My concern, are we doing the legal, the right
legal thing?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, ask the county attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Well, as Mr. Henning indicated and
Mr. Klatzkow also supported, there is, in fact, a requirement for fees,
that there is a rational nexus or a basis upon which the fee exists. And
Mr. Henning's discussion and dialogue has been looking to find that
relationship and has had the responses from staff in that regard.
Mr. Klatzkow indicated that, in any event, the board would need
to make a finding in approving and making an approval of the rates,
the fees here, that, in fact, you noted that the justification was
appropriate, or, in essence, your approval would be doing that.
And so to the extent that there are issues or may appear to be
issues relating to how a particular fee may be justified, I will say that
just because someone isn't here to talk about it doesn't mean that it
mayor may not be supportable in a court of law.
It may be that -- it may be that significant areas of interests have
chosen not to be here, but that doesn't mean that someone else Might
have the ability to raise a logical question. So from that standpoint,
Mr. Henning's course of review is certainly appropriate. Ultimately
the board as a board will need to make a finding or give further
direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But our finding would make that
determination; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct and because there is a -- because
you make a finding, the goods need to be there underneath the surface,
so to speak, and that is an explanation that can be -- that can be
ratified or confirmed or responded to if brought up in some kind of a
contest situation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning. We don't have a second for it. So it dies for
Page 242
December 11-12,2007
lack of second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It fails.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I make a motion that we
accept the report as given by staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that we move on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas makes the
motion, Commissioner Fiala seconds it.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Henning,
your light's still on. I don't want to ignore you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you. Commissioner
Halas, can you provide me the -- your findings that these fees are fair
and rational and there is a rational nexus and -- based upon the
discussion today?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir, I can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you explain that to me in
this chart here on the viewer?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that the people that got
involved in this are professional, and if they believe that the fees are
appropriate, that's the direction that I'm going to follow. Those are the
people that I feel that I have confidence in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's DSAC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have another question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please. Go ahead, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that sufficient legal evidence
to find that these fees -- this -- and the lack of an empirical study have
a rational nexus basis?
MR. WEIGEL: Hard question to answer. There is -- there has
Page 243
December 11-12, 2007
been significant information placed on the record. It's the record that
we would use to defend any kind of challenge that would come. I
cannot predict the outcome.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other questions or
comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show the vote was 4-1,
with Commissioner Henning being in the opposition.
Mr. Mudd, 5:57, we're done until tomorrow.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll reconvene at nine o'clock.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:57 p.m.
Page 244
December 11-12,2007
(The Collier County Board of Commissioners reconvened on their
second day of meeting, December 12, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, commissioners, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the continuation of the
December 11 th, Board of Collier County Commissioners' meeting.
This is December the 12th. We're going to start this meeting like
we start all meetings with the pledge. Please stand.
Commissioner Henning, would you lead us?
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, where are we on the
agenda?
Item #10C
CONTRACT 08-5008 - LEL Y AREA STORMW A TER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP) ROY AL WOOD LAKE
INTERCONNECT TO MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION
CO., INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,697,387 (STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PROJECT #51101)-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We left off -- we just finished with lOB.
That brings us to 10C. This is a recommendation to award Contract
08-5008, Le1y Area Stormwater Improvement Project, LASIP, Royal
Wood Lake Interconnect to Mitchell and Stark Construction
Page 245
December 11-12,2007
Company, Inc., in the amount of$1,697,387, Stormwater
Management Department, Project 51101, and Mr. Shane Cox,
Principal Project Manager for the Stormwater Department will
present.
MR. COX: Well, unless I just got a promotion, thank you, but
Shane Cox for the record, Senior Project Manager for the Stormwater
Department.
This is the phase of LASIP that we have to build entirely within a
golf course subdivision. And I'd like to remind the board that at the
regular meeting of April 24th of this year, you approved an agreement
between the county and the Royal Wood Master Association.
So, we have to do this construction according to that agreement
and there is some distinct timelines and -- and finishing dates that we
have to adhere to.
We have a -- what I believe is a very good contractor. Our price
came in at about $300,000 less than the engineer's estimate and we're
ready to go. I have a par one if you'd like or good question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
And the ayes have it five to zero.
Great presentation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Winning presentation.
Page 246
December 11-12, 2007
MR. MUDD: Promotion well deserved.
(Laugher.)
Item #10D
THE STATUS OF EFFORTS TO RESOLVE MINERAL RIGHTS
ISSUE, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION UPDATE AND
TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE STARNES
AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE IN THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER PROGRAM - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commission, that brings us to 10D and that's to
provide the Board of County Commissioners with the status of efforts
to resolve mineral rights issues -- or mineral rights issue, excuse me,
provide additional information update and make recommendation
regarding the Starnes Agreement for Purchase in the Conservation
Collier Program.
Miss Alex Sulecki, your Senior Environmental Specialist will
present.
MS. SULECKI: Good morning, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, your light is
one. Did you want to ask a question before we start?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does all the Conservation
Collier Properties have mineral rights owned by others?
MS. SULECKI: The first time we ran into this issue where
someone else owned them was on the Starnes property.
All of the other ones, I believe we owned them, yes --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. SULECKI: -- fee simple.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess I have a concern if
Page 247
December 11-12,2007
we're buying property against a, you know, like CREW lands or even
Everglades National Park.
Are we -- are we really doing justice by allowing people to have
mineral rights that can put a well on the site?
MS. SULECKI: Well, interestingly, with the Starnes property,
that's a half section there. The other half section to the east was also
owned by the Starnes family, same group of owners, and the district
bought it 15 years ago to make as a part of CREW, has the same
issues with mineral rights, they have active wells.
I believe the consideration was the resource was so significant
that they were willing to accept those things that weren't entirely as
they would like them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess I have a concern
about, let's say they do put a well on this property and it's not managed
right or mistakes happen and there's spillage on the land, who's
responsible for that?
MS. SULECKI: Well, I know that oil extraction is governed
very closely by the State of Florida, and I brought the state statute. I'll
be happy to give that to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I just wonder --
MS. SULECKI: There's a lot of --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- who's responsible in case
there's a spill on the property.
MS. SULECKI: Well, I can't answer that question, not being an
attorney. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have an attorney in the house
that may answer this?
MR. KLATZKOW: We would look obviously to the lessee, who
had the spill, but at the end of the day property owners are responsible
for their property, and we could be liable for that cleanup if the lessee,
who handles all the rights, didn't do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I guess that's a concern
Page 248
December 11-12, 2007
that I have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Alex, where are we in regards to
acquiring those mineral rights?
In the executive summary said it was 22 percent. Has there been
an increase from the 22 percent?
MS. SULECKI: Yes, sir, there has. Right now we have waivers
from 50.17 percent of the owners.
We also have waivers, that people have told us, from Canada
who don't have fax or access to electronic equipment, that they're in
the mail and that we should receive them very shortly and we'll have
52 percent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But to really make this a
viable piece of property, we need to have a hundred percent, wouldn't
you think?
MS. SULECKI: I -- I'm not a hundred percent sure about that
because here's what I understand. We were going for 51 percent
because that's what the state agencies told us we needed to have.
And also the oil, the gentleman who's got the oil lease on this
property, he always get 51 percent of ownership to -- for leases.
So, we were heading towards that when the question came up,
where did this come from, what's the state -- the citation for 51
percent?
There -- there isn't one. We couldn't find one. So, I'm assuming
that that's a majority type of thing.
Now, we did ask our planning and engineering staff what it
would take to excavate or do work such as that on the property, and
they said they always need a hundred percent of owners to buy in for a
conditional use, for some kind of blasting.
So, I think the 51 percent is -- is a majority. And at this point in
time, 50.17 percent, we actually do have a majority.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The -- the mineral rights
Page 249
December 11-12, 2007
that we're discussing other than oil, the other mineral right, if it's
considered a mineral, would be limestone.
Is limestone considered a mineral?
MS. SULECKI: That's the one we're concerned about, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's the biggest one.
MS. SULECKI: That's the waiver issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. SULECKI: That's the one we have the waivers on.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's the one.
Do you feel at this time that if we continue this on, that we may
have the possibility of getting additional owners that have mineral
rights to this property to give those up for -- for Conservation Collier?
MS. SULECKI: I think it's quite possible, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. SULECKI: I -- I couldn't guarantee it but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think, myself, I would feel
more comfortable if we could have commitments from the owners
there that we get as much of the mineral rights off there because this is
going to be conservation land that's going to be put into perpetuity as a
preserve and then someone has the -- the ability to go in there and
destroy the land to extract the minerals off of that, I got some real
concerns on that.
MS. SULECKI: I understand your concerns. I think the -- the
reality of it is that the risk is very low, and if you look at the next door
property with the district owning it and the same conditions existing
and they have no waivers.
I think if I were a rock miner, I would go there first.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. There still seems to be some
confusion about the rights of people to extract minerals.
I guess I just need to ask a general question. If we were to
Page 250
December 11-12, 2007
purchase this property, can we be absolutely assured that we have the
tools necessary to prohibit mining on this property?
And I think the answer is no.
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Will we ever get there?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think you'll ever get a hundred
percent unless one approach would be that the county, I suppose,
could condemn these rights and just buy them from these people.
I don't know what these rights are worth. It could be relatively
low, it could be relatively high. I just don't know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to the price that we're
paying for this, was all this taken into consideration when the -- the
price was determined?
MS. SULECKI: I believe it was, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do we do that if we don't
know what the value of the mineral rights really were?
If you don't know how much money someone can derive by
mining this -- this property, how did you adjust the property?
How did you adjust the price?
MS. SULECKI: I have to have the appraiser here to answer that.
I don't know the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. SULECKI: -- the answer to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I agree with
Commissioner Halas. We need to continue this because we -- we can't
approve something where we really don't understand the impact. We
have no way of controlling it.
And, furthermore, you're interested in doing something with the
Pepper Ranch. You're going to be out of funds after that, I suspect.
And I -- my feeling is we just need to continue this until such time as
we can get these questions answered.
MS. SULECKI: Do we have a time limit, I think, on this?
Page 251
December 11-12, 2007
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. We have an arrangement where we
need to come to some sort of decision by December 16th, which is a
Sunday, so I'd actually prefer December 14th, or we have to have the
property owner or the seller agree to an extension of contract pending
further negotiations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if that's the case, I'll either
make a motion to continue or I'll either make a motion to deny,
because I -- I would be willing to pass up the opportunity to purchase
this rather than -- than get ourselves involved in a situation of buying
this property and then finding that somebody's going to come in and
create an earth mine in the middle of it.
I'm just not going there. So, tell me what you would prefer to do;
a continuation or a denial?
There's no assurance that either will pass, okay. It's just -- just
what I'm going to -- I'm going to make a motion on.
MS. SULECKI: I personally don't think we're ever going to get a
hundred percent satisfaction if that's what you're seeking.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, let me jump in here. The commissioner is
asking about whether to continue the process and get more
information back to the board to provide further certainties as to
whether there can be or can't be some kind of earth mining in the
future.
And, of course, the record already reflects, Alex, your statement
that to go forward they would need a conditional use and an
excavation permit which would come from the county.
Part of the additional research that we will do to see is if,
notwithstanding, that there may be 49 percent or a declining
percentage based on what you've told us of these OGM rights, whether
in fact the board through it's approval process of permitting and
conditional use, and it ultimately holds the -- the trump card anyway.
And we can get back to the board with that. It looks like -- I think
Page 252
December 11-12, 2007
Mr. Coyle is saying that if we continue the item, these are the kinds of
questions he wants definitively answered as well as anything further
we might learn from the -- from the property owner himself.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. Ifwe can find a way
to control the property so that it really is preserved, I'm happy. But I
haven't heard enough to convince me that that's true yet.
So, Jennifer, what we are going to do?
MS. BELPEDIO: Assistant County Attorney Jennifer Belpedio.
I would just like to remind the board that it takes both or,
actually, all three parties to the agreement to extend the agreement to
give us further time, so certainly the board can vote to extend, but we
also will need approval from the property owners.
Of course, I can -- I can tell you that the CREW would likely --
likely give us an extension.
But, nonetheless, if we can't get the approval of the property
owners in time, then the board has to make a decision as to whether or
not it needs to terminate, and we don't have another meeting coming
up before that deadline.
So, I -- I would recommend that the recommendation be if you
do want to extend, would be extend with a -- with a condition that the
property owners agree to it, and if they don't in time by this Friday,
then authorize the County Attorney's office to exercise the Board of
County Commissioners' rights under the agreement to terminate, and
-- and then we would be able to properly notify the property owners of
-- of the board's intention.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then my motion is to
continue this -- this item until such time as the County Attorney has
the chance to determine if the property owners will agree to a
continuation of the closing on this property.
And if not, we will then give instructions to terminate the
purchase agreement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
Page 253
December 11-12, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas -- go -- go ahead, please.
MS. BELPEDIO: Before you go forward, I would like to clarify
my OpInIOn.
I need the direction today as to what to do because the deadline is
this Friday.
I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle. I -- I want to make sure that the
board -- if they're extending directs us to contact the property owner,
find out if they agree to the extension, if they do not, then direct our
office to terminate the agreement.
Something else that I had not mentioned is that you might want
to include a time period for the -- the extension of time for the
agreement. Probably should give ourselves a couple of meetings to
bring this back to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 60 days? 60 days, okay.
Then if -- ifthere's an agreement to extend the time -- the closing,
then -- then we will extend the closing for 60 days.
MS. BELPEDIO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second agree?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, let's go to Commissioner
Fiala, then Commissioner Henning, then back to Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm going way back to where --
before the guys started here, although they had very good questions
and I appreciated those, and we -- we're all concerned about the
mining. That's the big thing. We're all concerned about the mining.
But is there another way around it, such as in the agreement that
we write, in the sales agreement that we write with them, the contract,
couldn't it say something about we will never -- never authorize any
conditional use for mining on this property?
MS. BELPEDIO: I wish it were able to be that way. We do
have that provision in the agreement, but what we have is the property
Page 254
December 11-12, 2007
owners making such representations.
There are persons that own oil, gas and mineral rights that are not
parties to this agreement. They are not fee owners. They just solely
own the oil, gas and mineral rights.
That's why we're seeking the -- the separate waiver, separate
instrument.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I -- I'm only talking about the
mining part. Can we do that?
We cannot? We can't put a provision in there that says future
commissioners can never approve a conditional use, nor can it be
approved administratively?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you can't do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MS. BELPEDIO: The leverage that we have as far as the
conditional uses not so much that we are the governmental authority
that approves it, but I think it's the leverage that we have as -- we
would be the -- potentially the property owner.
At the time would be a co -- we would be -- we'd be an owner
and that would be our leverage.
I wouldn't want you to mix up your authority as the board for the
CU with the ownership of the property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This property is very important to
that whole region. It's -- it's very important.
And it's -- and it's important also when it comes right down to our
-- our water, future water supplies, and so forth. And -- and I don't
know that people realize how important this piece of property is.
I don't want to lose it ifthere's a way that we can assure that it's
never mined. The rest of the stuff, I -- I know that we -- we -- we can
go along with.
And if this 52 percent possibly, if she gets these letters in,
guarantees that -- that they can never have a conditional use?
Then I'm -- I'm for buying the property.
Page 255
December 11-12,2007
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, a future board of county
commissioners years from now can decide that there is a significant
shortage of rock in this county and that it would be in the best interest
of the county to open this up for mining. There's nothing this board
can do about that.
I mean, that would be for a future board of county
commISSIOners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, they can do that on any piece
of property then.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. That's correct.
MS. SULECKI: It's not just the Starnes property.
Excuse me. Even it's under the Conservation Collier Ordinance?
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, the board with a stroke ofa pen
can amend that ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then they could -- they can do
that to any property, so that isn't -- that isn't a consideration here
because we're not talking about just this piece of property. We're
talking about any property around Collier County that Conservation
Collier owns or that we own or whatever.
Okay. Fine.
So, is there a way then that that 52 percent can again prevent the
-- the other 48 percent from going in and mining?
MS. BELPEDIO: We're in a better position by having over 50
percent. We might by having an extension agreement get up to 60
percent.
I think that we're in the same situation if we have over 50 percent
or 60 percent. I don't -- I don't see much difference. I don't believe
we'll ever get a hundred percent just like that. That's just the way it
will be.
But as I mentioned, the -- from -- and from what Alex has
Page 256
December 11-12, 2007
advised the board previously, this is an important parcel and you're
going to have to weigh the risks with -- against the -- the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The importance.
MS. BELPEDIO: -- the importance of the property. As Alex
mentioned, there is a 280 acre parcel that was acquired by South
Florida Water Management with the same land use consideration.
This was in 1994. I spoke with the attorney for the district
recently. He's still with the district. And what he told me is that the
district felt that there was very little reason for concern.
I'm not saying that you should just do what the district has done,
but at the same time, you know, knock on wood, it's been 13 years and
so far so good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll-- I'll go along with the
other commissioners about continuing, but I want us to remember how
important this piece of property is to -- to our -- to our water supply
and to the Corkscrew area, Corkscrew Regional Echo System
Watershed area.
MS. SULECKI: Excuse me. I have a very strong concern about
the some of the things I've heard and I just would like to explore them
a little bit more.
County Attorney, you said that the ordinance can be amended
with the stroke of a pen, but in the ordinance it says it can't be -- the
purposes and goals cannot be amended without a public referendum.
My concern here is that people who offer their property to
Conservation Collier, if they hear that it can -- the ordinance can be
amended and it can be rock mined with a stroke of a pen, I'm not sure
who's going to offer their property to us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it has to go to referendum.
MS. SULECKI: That's what the ordinance says.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the ordinance can be
changed.
MR. WEIGEL: That was just a shorthand statement to indicate
Page 257
December 11-12, 2007
that, yes, the ordinance can be changed. Now, we didn't walk through
the procedures that are there.
The way that -- the way that the ordinance is set up, yes, the
board is -- the board and the county are sort of in a trust situation for
these properties.
That's not to say though that a -- a future board could in fact do
what it needs to do, public health interest, safety, welfare, walking
through what is necessary to do relative to this ordinance to achieve a
change.
MS. SULECKI: So, I'm not sure what I tell people if they ask
me, if! sell you this property, is it going to be conserved into
perpetuity like your ordinance says?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I think we're getting --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, we're getting really
carried away with this and it -- and it shouldn't be.
I think we should be taking the ordinance as it stands as we
support it, and we ought to be thinking of the importance of this land
and the -- and -- and I can understand continuing it to get more
signatures on here, but we need to move forward with this board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree Commissioner Fiala, and I
might also add that there's so many entities out there that could in the
future upset this whole balance. It could be everything from the State
Government to the Federal Government to come in and impose new
regulations.
We can't deal with that. We can only deal with what's before us
today and trust in the good faith of the people that follow us to
continue to do the right thing.
And speaking of the right thing, we're going to Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I -- I guess we learned a
lot today, and I hope we don't run into this in the future, they question
Page 258
December 11-12, 2007
after we get the heck down the road thus far.
Miss Sulecki, is there anything different that we're going to do in
the future about these mineral rights and purchasing the properties?
MS. SULECKI: Well, I think we just have to meet them as they
come and deal with them the best way we can. I -- I don't know what
other answer I can give you on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you recommend that you
ask the property owner for the information about mineral and service
rights before coming to the board for consideration?
MS. SULECKI: Yes. We know that information before we
come to the board.
MS. BELPEDIO: We do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You do that.
MS. BELPEDIO: We -- Commissioner, we did -- we were aware
of these issues --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. BELPEDIO: -- and we will be on all properties. I think that
Conservation Collier balanced the importance of the property with
some of their concerns.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess it's something that
__ that I missed personally on our agenda. And I'll try to capture it in
the future.
MS. SULECKI: This was --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't know it was an issue.
MS. SULECKI: Throughout the -- the whole bidding process,
this was known.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if it gets to our level, then
__ and it -- and it was on our agenda, then -- then I need to do a better
job personally.
I don't -- I don't have the time to -- to view all the advisory board
and -- and what is discussed.
MS. SULECKI: I'm sorry. This is information that's in your
Page 259
December 11-12, 2007
executive summary today?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MS. SULECKI: Okay. I -- I thought we had brought this to you
in each executive summary --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm saying if --
MS. SULECKI: -- and not --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- if you did, I just made a
mistake and I need to be more cautious of it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm going to -- before we--
and I'd like to try to keep the focus on the motions before us right
now.
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think that the conditional
use would -- whatever board sits in regards to any type of rock
mining, I would think that any future boards or even if this board
came before us, that we could weigh all facts in that we could deny the
conditional use.
Am I correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So, that gives me --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Stay with the motion if we
can.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have anything more to add
to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there anything else to add to this
before we vote on the motion?
Mr. Mudd, go ahead.
MR. MUDD: I want to make sure I've got this motion right
because I heard some things, I heard the motion, I heard -- I heard
Page 260
December 11-12, 2007
Jennifer said she needed something, and so I'm going -- I'm going to
go through the motion one more time.
It's to continue the purchase agreement for 60 days. During that
period of time the County Attorney will research conditional use
avenues in this property and majority of -- of mineral rights owners
releasing their particular rights as far as surface mining are concerned.
Ifthere's no agreement by Friday, you're -- you're one of three
parties, okay, we don't know what the other two parties are going to
do with this continuance for 60 days.
If there's no continuance agreement with the parties on Friday,
you have a drop dead date of Sunday, the 18th, is that correct, and at
which time no agreement, we terminate this purchase.
And I believe that's what Jennifer was looking for as far as
direction is concerned.
I believe that the termination piece was not part of your motion,
but I wanted to make sure that that's clarification.
And, sir, if you would add that to your motion, I believe Jennifer
has what she needs.
MS. BELPEDIO: I do. I would.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If -- if -- if you don't reach an
agreement for a continuation, isn't it canceled anyway?
MS. BELPEDIO: Under the terms of the contract, we would
have to provide notice to the property opener that our due diligence
revealed that the oil, gas and mineral rights were an obstacle to our use
of the property.
It's -- it's more ofa formality. But, technically, you are correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And then why don't we
include that in our agreement, that we will notify the -- the property
owner that the oil, gas and mineral rights are an impediment to our
purchase. We would like some additional time --
MS. BELPEDIO: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to pursue that. And if we get the
Page 261
December 11-12,2007
additional time, everything is fine, right?
MS. BELPEDIO: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't have to cancel anything.
MS. BELPEDIO: True.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If -- if the owner says, no, we're not
going to give you additional time, we don't have to cancel anything.
We've given them the notice that there is what we consider to be a
defect.
MS. BELPEDIO: It could be structured in a way that one letter
can accomplish both.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. BELPEDIO: -- both, but I just want to make sure that we
comply with the terms of the agreement as far as notice.
If -- if we don't then, we're -- we're having to close on December
17th, so I can certainly exercise your rights under the agreement to do
whatever steps are necessary to either continue or terminate if a
continuance or extension can't be reached. So, I --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm a little bit nervous about one thing
in the motion. I -- I understood that we were concerned about the
mineral rights as being a deterrent and we accepted the idea that oil
and gas explanation -- exploration would be acceptable if they did it
under certain circumstances.
This might change the whole dimension of it. I was concerned
about them going in like Commissioner Fiala and -- and for the mining
of lime rock.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm concerned about them
doing all of those things. I'm -- I'm concerned about them doing --
mining for lime rock, I'm concerned about them going in and mining
for oil.
You -- you heard that we would be liable ifthere's any -- any
Page 262
December 11-12, 2007
serious environmental damage.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let me ask this question of you.
The oil and gas, was this part of the understanding that you were sent
forward to get them to sign off on that or just the mineral rights of
surface mineral right?
MS. BELPEDIO: The surface and -- and limestone rights are
what we're seeking to get waived off on the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Coyle just
mentioned about oil and gas and I think --
MS. BELPEDIO: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- that that's a killer to this whole
deal.
MS. BELPEDIO: That likely would be.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You see, I need for you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're not going to get any waivers
on the oil and gas rights. Is that what you're saying to us?
MS. BELPEDIO: It's kind of like a term of art, but oil and gals,
as we more commonly would call it petroleum, sulfur, that sort of
stuff, we were not pursuing waivers.
The property owners for the sellers and the other oil, gas and
mineral rights owners are not releasing those rights, will not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So, we're not even trying to do that.
MS. BELPEDIO: Correct. It's the surface rights, the limestone,
ifthere's clay, any other sedimentary substances.
And the difference -- the difference is really, you know, the
drilling for the oil is more compartmentalized. It's a very small
portion of property.
Obviously, I guess, drilling for -- or excavating for limestone is --
takes up --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But--
MS. BELPEDIO: -- really compromises--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the last time --
Page 263
December 11-12, 2007
MS. BELPEDIO: -- the property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The last time we -- we talked about
this, we were told that the people who had the oil rights would likely
drill diagonally under, from this property to an adjacent property.
And -- and that's the way they would mine this or vice versa, drill
diagonally from another property onto this property --
MS. BELPEDIO: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- so that -- that the risk of
environmental damage would be minimized on this particular
property.
Now, in this report we're being told they're not going to do that.
So, the thing that has changed from the last report, the last time we
talked about it, is the last time there were not going to be oil wells on
this property.
They might very well extract oil from beneath this property, but
they'd do so by drilling diagonally from adjoining property.
Now, we're talking about having oil wells physically located on
this environmentally sensitive property.
That causes me some concern.
MS. BELPEDIO: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is a change in the condition.
MS. BELPEDIO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and I -- I don't have the
knowledge and information to -- to make an informed judgment about
what our potential risks really are. And I'm only asking for some
additional time --
MS. BELPEDIO: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to get that information--
MS. BELPEDIO: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- otherwise we could buy this
property and next year there could be a hundred oil wells sitting on it.
And I don't -- well -- but -- but in any event, I -- I guess I just
Page 264
December 11-12,2007
don't envision that as being the purpose of our buying conservation
property but --
MS. SULECKI: May I add one more thing to that?
The oil leases exist. There is going to be oil drilling on the
property. The risk of extraction of minerals is there. It's minimal at
this point, but it is there.
If we don't buy the property, oil is still going to be drilled and the
potential for rock mining goes up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and you have a lot of money
you can use to buy some other property.
MS. SULECKI: True. But this is very -- this -- in Collier
County, this is a -- a very important piece.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But if it's a very important
piece, Collier County Commissioners have an obligation to take into
consideration the importance of that property any time we're
considering permits --
MS. SULECKI: I respect that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- including conditional use.
Right now, if somebody wanted to go in and earth mine this area, we
could say, no, it is a very important environmentally sensitive area and
we're not going to let you have a conditional use to do that.
We don't have to own it to do that. We can't shut out the oil wells
anyway, so they are a given. They're going to be there.
MS. SULECKI: They're going to be there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whether we are buy it or not buy
it, they're going to be there.
But the -- but the -- but the earth mining doesn't have to be there
even if we don't buy it.
MS. SULECKI: Understood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is no obligation for us to do
that. So we can protect this property whether we -- we can protect
part of it, whether we buy it or not.
Page 265
December 11-12, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sum up your motion, please, so we --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wish I could.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just insert here. Do you say
that there are going to be oil wells, but, you know -- and you say we
could protect this property, but we can't protect it from development
and we can't protect the environmentally sensitive portions of this
property, and that's what we're trying to do here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why not?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because they can sell it to a
developer easily enough.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and when the rezoning
comes in, don't we have something called --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but we can't -- we can't rob
people of their property rights, their property rights.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, they don't have any property
rights until it's rezones. Okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let me just -- let me see if can --
Commissioner Coyle, I understand your concerns and everything, but
if we go after the oil and gas right, then I'm going to have to pull my
second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'm not saying we go after all
the gas rights. I'm saying it's going to be there whether we do
anything or not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, okay. I just want to know
where we stand because it's important that where my second is I feel
that this piece of property is very, very important to the CREW area
and to that slew, and also for the recharge of -- of water, and I just
want to make sure that we're on the right path here.
And I'm hoping that if the -- if we get the okay from the -- from
the sellers here, that they will give us the 60 days so we can see if we
can get some additional mineral rights in regards to the surface
mInIng.
Page 266
December 11-12, 2007
That's my biggest concern.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. We're repeating ourselves
here.
Mr. Mudd --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, he isn't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know. I know. And it's so
important. But I just want to get us on track.
Mr. Mudd, you heard what this motion is. Read it back to -- to us
the way you now understand it.
MR. MUDD: Well, I don't think the motion changed much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It hasn't changed at all.
MR. MUDD: To continue the purchase agreement for 60 days,
County Attorney to look at the aspects of conditional use to see if the
majority of landowners, how much that weighs into a conditional use
decision by the Board of County Commissioners.
The key here is we have to close on this agreement to either
purchase or not by Sunday.
If the parties, the other two parties, are not willing to extend this
contract, we're going to have to give notice, if the board so desires,
that we're not going to purchase the property.
And that's only if they won't agree to the 60-day extension.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That -- that is your motion, correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not really. The last part was
modified very slightly, where we instructed the attorney to take
whatever actions are necessary under our purchase offer to inform the
buyer that there are impediments to our closing.
That doesn't necessarily mean that we won't buy it, okay, but
there's an obligation that we provide notice ifthere's some problems
associated with the -- the -- but, now, let -- let me say this.
It's not my intent to kill the purchase. What -- what I would hope
is that we could get the extension. The question arises if -- if we don't
get the extension, what are you going to do?
Page 267
December 11-12, 2007
MS. BELPEDIO: I'm going to have to notify the property
owners that the Board of County Commissioners will not be
purchasing the parcel, but that doesn't mean that you can't enter into
an agreement at a later point in time if the property is still available for
sale.
But that's just the way -- the way the market may be. It might be
there and it might not be.
You know, I do know that one of the property owners was
relatively adamant about closing in December, but at the same token,
60 more days to get paid a large sum of money might be enough to
convince the -- the seller to wait a little while.
But you don't know until you ask and you exercise your -- your
rights under the agreement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'll tell you what. I'm going
to withdraw my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's give the opportunity to
someone else to make the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can intercept.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I -- I withdraw my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Did you want to make a
motion since you were the second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I'll let Commissioner Fiala to
see what she -- how she's going to frame it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again we're--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just don't want to lose this land.
I'm very --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. We understand that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm very concerned about where--
where we're going.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we want to keep this thing on
track.
Page 268
December 11-12, 2007
Commissioner Fiala, did you want to frame the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm going to do my best.
I'd like to make a motion that we proceed with the purchase of
the Starnes property and continue to gather other waivers for the
mining rights on this property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Surface mining rights.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Surface mining rights, thank you.
Yes. Short, sweet and simple.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Timeframe?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Continue to purchase --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Continue to purchase it just as
IS.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep. Yep. We've already got just
about 52 percent. I would like to see more people sign in their
waivers. We'll never get a hundred percent, but I think we need to
move forward with this.
And it would be -- and -- and we don't know that they would
extend this -- this negotiation anymore, so I think we ought to just
move forward with it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Fiala and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Okay. Now, discussion on the motion before us.
Commissioner Halas, I didn't turn your light off before. Do you
have anything to add?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I think that we're moving in
the right direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that there are some
unknowns here but, you know, I -- we can't get all the answers one
Page 269
December 11-12, 2007
hundred percent, and I think that to me this piece of property is very
valuable for our inventory for protecting lands here in Collier County,
and -- and I'm to the point where there's unknowns.
We'll face it when -- ifthere's some unknowns that we don't
know about, we'll face it when I -- when it comes before us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. It's -- it's a risk I'm not
ready to take until I feel more sure that the goals and objectives of
Conservation Collier is met and I just haven't heard that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- so -- and I'm not trying to
convince anybody. We need to move on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Let me just throw in here
South Florida Water Management District is also there as kind of a
protector because they own the adjacent property, plus CREW is a--
is a strong part of this and you can bet your boots that CREW is not
going to be allowing anybody to go in there and jeopardize their --
their -- their water supply and -- and the purpose that they exist.
So, I -- I think that this all plays a very important part to this, and
I think we need to move forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I agree, Commissioner Fiala. If
we -- if we try to deal with the unknowns and are scared to move,
we've never going to accomplish --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- anything in this world.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We -- we have to be firm and be able
to move forward on reasonable insurance that we're going to be -- we
have the right thing going forward.
With that, I don't see any more lights on, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
Aye.
Page 270
December 11-12, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And let the record show the vote was
three to do -- to two with Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner
Henning being in opposition and it passed.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. BELPEDIO: Thank you.
Item #10E
THE PURCHASE OF GROUP INSURANCE EXCESS
COVERAGE AND VENDOR SERVICES FOR CALENDAR
YEAR 2008 IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,453,417 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 10E. It's a recommendation to approve the purchase of
Group Insurance, excess coverage and vendor services for calendar
year 2008 in the amount of $4,453,417.
Commissioner, Jeff Walker is the Director of Risk Management.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle.
Anything? Any questions?
Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 271
December 11-12,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
The ayes have it five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Walker.
MR. WALKER: Thank you, commissioners.
Item #14A
CRA RESOLUTION 2007-358: A CRA RESOLUTION TO
SUPPORT THE COLLIER COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY
PROGRAM (LAP) AGREEMENT TO UNDERTAKE A
ROADWAY LIGHTING PROJECT ON STATE ROAD 84 (DAVIS
BL VD) IN THE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE AREA; TO APPROVE A
MONETARY CONTRIBUTION OF NOT TO EXCEED $200,000
FROM THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA FUND
187 TO GAS TAX PROJECT NO. 601721 TO ASSIST IN
FUNDING THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT; AND APPROVE
ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - ADOPTED
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner, the next item is -- this is -- this
item has companion item to 14A. And if -- if -- before we go to lOF,
we need to switch gavels, I believe, and go to 14A and -- and handle
the matter as the Community Redevelopment Agency for the Bay
Shore building features.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So, I recess this meeting at
this point in time, and turn it over to Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the CRA board is -- has opened their
seSSIOn --
MR. MUDD: Commissioners--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and we will address --
MR. MUDD: 14--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- 14A.
MR. MUDD: 14A. It's a recommendation for the Community
Page 272
December 11-12,2007
Redevelopment Agency to approve a CRA resolution to support the
Collier County Local Agency Program, LAP, Agreement to undertake
a roadway lighting project on State Road 84, Davis Boulevard, in the
Gateway Triangle Area, to approve a monetary contribution of not to
exceed $200,000 from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Fund 187
to Gas Tax Project Number 601721 to assist in funding the roadway
improvement, and approve all necessary budget amendments.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
Good. That's passed.
The CRA meeting is closed.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait. I've got to go through this.
The Collier County Board of Commissioners meeting will now
reconvene.
Okay. Got to do it by the books, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 2007-359: BID NO. 07-4107 SIDEWALK
REPLACEMENT AND INST ALLA TION OF ROADWAY
LIGHTING ON DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR 84) BETWEEN US 41
(TAM lAM I TRAIL) AND AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD TO
QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
Page 273
December 11-12, 2007
$997,213.49. TO ALSO APPROVE A TRANSFER OF $200,000
FROM COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA) AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO MOVE
THE BALANCE OF FUNDING NEEDED, PLUS A
CONTINGENCY FOR UTILITY CONFLICTS OF $50,000.00,
FROM PROJECT 601721 TO 601761, FOR A TOTAL FUNDING
AMOUNT OF $1,047,213.49. (THIS IS A COMPANION ITEM TO
#14A) - ADOPTED
Which brings us to 10F. It is a recommendation to award Bid
Number 07-4107, Sidewalk Replacement and Installation of Roadway
Lighting on Davis Boulevard, State Road 84, between U.S. 41,
Tamiami Trail, and Airport-Pulling Road to Quality Enterprises USA,
Inc. in the amount of $997,213.49, to also approve a transfer of
$200,000 from the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency, CRA, and a budget amendment to move the balance of
funding needed, plus a contingency for utility conflicts of $50,000
from Project 601721 to -- to Project number 601761 for a total funding
amount of $1,047,213.49.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
The ayes have it five to zero. Thank you.
Page 274
December 11-12, 2007
Item # lOG
AWARD CONTRACT FOR RFP-07-4131, DESIGN SERVICES
FOR GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1,240,041.00 TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to Item lOG.
This is a recommendation to award and approve a contract for
RFP Number 07-4131, Design Services for Gordon River Greenway
Park in the amount of$1,240,041 to Kimley-Horn and Associates,
Inc., and approve the necessary budget amendment.
And Miss -- Miss Margaret Bishop from your Stormwater
Management Department will present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second, but I'd live to see the -- the
drawings.
Can we do that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. Meanwhile, the motion to
approve by Commissioner Coyle and second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any speakers on that?
MS. FILSON: No. No, sir.
MS. BISHOP: Did you want an explanation or did you want me
to give you a copy of the presentation?
MR. MUDD: No. Do an explanation real quick.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What do you want?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think -- I think that the audience
should see this, too. I think that this is so exiting for our future.
MS. BISHOP: This is the 80-acre parcel that was a part of the
larger Naples zoo and surrounding land acquisition that happened in
2005 when we received the $9.9 million grant from Florida
Page 275
December 11-12, 2007
Communities Trust for that.
The amenities, there are -- the access points, there's going to be
two off of Goodlette- Frank Road and one from here and here. And the
other access would be off Golden Gate Parkway.
It's going to have several boardwalks and trails to connect the
greenway. In this area there's going to be two pedestrian bridges over
the Gordon River here.
This is going to be a shared parking between the zoo and the
greenway. There's also going to be a canoe-kayak launch in this area.
There's going to be picnic pavilions, parking. It's going in a
passive park setting with basically boardwalks and pathways.
The proj ect also extends to the 50-acre parcel to the south, which
Conservation Collier purchased in 2006, and that's going to be an
extension of the boardwalks and pathways. And there's also going to
be a bridge over the river here.
Do you have any more questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator for
the record.
Margaret, I'm going to have you confirm this for me, but the
primary access basically from the west is going to be Fleischmann and
then moving up into that property we will definitely be seeing on this
graphic.
The other note I want to make is that the access to Golden Gate
Parkway itself will not be a signalized location.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas and
Commissioner Henning. I believe that's the order.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What -- what do we -- what's your
timeframe for opening this up?
MS. BISHOP: Well, the recommendation is to award the design
contract and that would probably take approximately two years if we
Page 276
December 11-12,2007
go through all the permitting rezone, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So, this is going to be down the
road probably three or four years --
MS. BISHOP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- before we -- people could have
access to this area.
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My question was answered.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Okay. Let's see. We didn't vote on that yet, did we? No.
Okay. Any other comments or questions?
Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
The ayes have it five to zero. We're going to take a 10-minute
break before we --
THE COURT REPORTER: Who was the second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was the second.
THE COURT REPORTER: And who was the first?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The first was Commissioner Coyle. I
thought I said it --
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Halas made the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- but if I didn't, I apologize.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coyle made the
Page 277
December 11-12, 2007
motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to take a 10-minute
break.
(A recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Item #10J
DENY APPROVAL OF A $452,984 CLERK INVOICE FOR
SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS DURING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2007 -
MOTION TO DENY APPROV AL OF PAYMENT - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on the agenda is 10J
and that's a recommendation to deny approval of a $452,984 clerk
invoice for services provided to the Board of County Commissioners
during the month of October 2007.
Mr. Michael Smykowski, your Director of Office of
Management and Budget will present.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, commissioners.
For the record, Michael Smykowski.
As the executive summary indicates, staff received an invoice
that was dated October 17th. It is in the agenda package, Mr. Mudd.
It was dated October 17th, 2007 and signed by Dwight Brock. It
was mailed to the attention of County Commissioner's Chairman Jim
Coletta.
The invoice states that the four hundred fifty-two thousand nine
eighty-four is for services pursuant to statutory charges provided to the
Board of County Commissioners in October 2007.
The invoice itself was dated October 17th. The envelope used to
transmit the invoice to Chairman Coletta actually reflected a postmark
Page 278
December 11-12, 2007
of November 17th, 2007 or a month thereafter, and that was also
included in -- in the package.
The invoice was received in the Office of Management and
Budget on November 29th. There was no transmittal with the invoice
and no documentation other than what is currently displayed on the
visualizer.
As a result, the staff recommendation is that the board deny
approval of the invoice and request the Clerk to provide some
supporting documentation for the October invoice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Staffs recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, well, second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I continue?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I guess.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Continue and -- I don't know if you
got a second yet. I couldn't hear.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, we do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I started to but he said may I
continue at the same time, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, we need to
know exactly some more details of it, and that's what you're asking for
is more details of payment, right?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see anything wrong with
that request. Do you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. That's why I was seconding it.
That's why I gave a second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Page 279
December 11-12, 2007
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's -- the motion to approve
denies the approval of this --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- until we get more backup
paperwork.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you surprised by my
motion? Why -- why is this taking so long?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning.
Everything is going along here, you know. I don't think anything is
taking any longer. We've got a light on. Commissioner Coyle wants
to speak and we do it by sub procedures. It's not taking any longer
than it ever does.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, I think in -- in the
interest of full disclosure, what we need to point out, that we received
a memo from Ms. Kinzel indicating that the date on the -- on the -- the
__ adjacent to Dwight Brock's signature was actually in error. It
should have been 11/17, as I understand it.
But the other problem is the envelope was mailed on 11/17 and
took 12 days to get to the Board of County Commissioners.
Do we understand why?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, sir. All we have is the envelope that
was postmarked. I believe it came initially to the board office and
then it was routed to the Office of Management and Budget in turn.
So, I don't know what day it was received in the board office
specifically, but it was a date stamped in -- in the budget office when
it was received on November 29th.
I brought it to the attention of Mr. Mudd and his direction was to
bring it to the board for their review and consideration.
Page 280
December 11-12, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Miss Filson, can you comment
because --
MS. FILSON: We stamp in everything that comes into our
office. We didn't have a date stamp on that?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. I don't believe so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any way it could come to our
office without being stamped?
MS. FILSON: Everything that comes into our office should be
stamped.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So, in other words --
MS. FILSON: And I will check into that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- this showed up in my mail without
a stamp on it.
MS. FILSON: I -- I will check into that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, there was no stamp on the -- on
the -- on the envelope?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No time stamp. No. No time stamp
on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have--
MS. FILSON: Well, we don't have a time stamp but we do have
received by Board of County Commissions and the date.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you put the date on it. Yeah.
Every document happens that way.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there a possibility it was hand
delivered in such a way, Crystal, that we wouldn't have got it through
the front desk?
MS. KINZEL: No.
Commissioner Coletta, maybe I can clarify it a little bit. And
thank you for pointing out the scrivener's error that we reference.
I deposited that in the mail box on campus on the 17th, so your
Page 281
December 11-12, 2007
office probably should have received it Tuesday or Wednesday of that
week or somewhere in that timeframe, I would assume, coming
straight from Fort Myers.
But it was deposited in U.S. postal mail.
And for clarification on the detail, the statutory fees that we're
assessing are under Statute 28.24 and we will be glad to provide
additional backup and information for that.
I'd like the board also to understand when we submitted our
original budget back in May under the transfer request to the board,
we did provide line item detail of the costs of the Clerk's Office and
that transfer was denied in the budget process.
So, what we've done now is gone back to some statutory costs of
__ of documents produced on behalf of the Board of County
Commissioners. And I'll be glad to provide that detail.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I interrupt you?
Commissioner Coyle, go ahead and--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I -- I don't know how much
additional discussion is necessary.
Does the County Attorney have anything to say about any of
this?
Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, you motioned a
moment ago. You wanted to discuss something?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I -- I was just going to say that
__ I'll ask Miss Filson if it would have been possible that the date
stamp could have been on the backside of the envelope?
MS. FILSON: I'm not sure, but we also have a list that we write
down things that we forward to other departments. That should have
been noted, and if it wasn't, I'll take care of that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion?
We have a motion before us to deny. Is there any -- I'm sorry.
Page 282
December 11-12,2007
Your light is still on. You're done.
Any other discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying
aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
And the ayes have it five to zero.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
Item #lOK
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD NOT PROCEED
WITH THE CLOSING CONTEMPLATED PURSUANT TO THE
PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR 2.5 ACRES OF IMPROVED
PROPERTY, APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON OCTOBER 9,
2007, WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR ROAD RIGHT -OF - WAY FOR
THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT.
PROJECT NO. 60168 (FISCAL IMPACT: FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $420,000.00 PLUS $10,000.00 IN COSTS NOT
EXPENDED AT THIS TIME.) - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 1 OK.
And this is a recommendation that the board not proceed with the
closing contemplated pursuant to the purchase agreement for 2.5 acres
of improved property approved by the board on October 9th, 2007,
which is required for road right-of-way for the Vanderbilt Beach Road
Extension Project, Project Number 60168, fiscal impact, funds in the
amount of $420,000 plus $10,000 in costs not expended at this time.
Page 283
December 11-12,2007
Mr. Jay Ahmad, your Transportation, Engineering and
Construction Management Director from Transportation, and Mr.
Kevin Hendricks, your Right-Of-Way Acquisition Manager will
present.
MR. AHMAD: Mr. Chairman, good morning. I'm Jay Ahmad,
your new Director of Transportation, Engineering and Construction
Management.
Good morning, commissioners.
This item is a recommendation by staff not to proceed with the
closing of this parcel, and I'll put it on the visualizer, if! may.
Back in October 9,2007 we came before you with Item 16B4 with a
recommendation to approve the purchase of this two and a half acre
parcel.
And we stated in that executive summary that through
negotiations with the owner attorney, the owner attorney, the lender
has agreed to accept 420,000 to write off the loan and the owner has
agreed to these terms.
There were $10,000 miscellaneous expenses for the attorney.
We proceeded with a closing -- to the closing date to discover that the
bank would accept much less than that, 395,000, and there were
additional expenses, brokerage fees.
And at this time we're uncomfortable with this closing and we'd
appreciate the recommendation to approve our recommendation of the
close of this parcel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the
recommendation by staff to purchase this property at a later date.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Fiala and
second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I -- I would like to -- to just
say to you that my -- my review of the events associated with thisi
Page 284
December 11-12,2007
transaction leads me to believe that there is the possibility that there's
circumstances that deserve an additional investigation by somebody.
So, you know, I -- I would like to ask the staff to take a very
close look at this, and if you believe there are any improprieties
associated with any of these business transactions, that they be
referred to the appropriate authorities for investigation. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You looked up your support.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. He said I could.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to include that in my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And how about the second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not alleging that there's
anything wrong. We're just saying that there are questions that have
been raised and -- and we'd like to have them looked into.
MR. AHMAD: May I recommend that the county attorney
initiate this investigation, sir?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If such investigation is necessary,
yes.
MR. AHMAD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Everyone agrees to that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, we have any other
discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
The ayes have it five to zero.
Page 285
December 11-12,2007
MR. AHMAD: Thank you.
Item #10L
FY 2007-08 AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND THE DAVID LAWRENCE
MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,101,120 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 10L.
And it's a recommendation to approve the FY 2007-08 agreement
between Collier County Board of Commissioners and the David --
David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. in the amount of
$1,101,120 and authorized the Chairman to sign the agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to accept.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
The ayes have it five to zero.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks Marcy.
Item #11
Page 286
December 11-12, 2007
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is Item 12B, and this
is a recommendation pursuant to -- excuse me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry.
MR. MUDD: Leo -- Leo is absolutely right. Leo just whispered
In my ear.
This is Paragraph 11, Public Comment on General Topics.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had a leftover from yesterday, but
I don't see him. It was Mr. Kenneth Thompson.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We will give him the opportunity if
he shows back up here in the course of this meeting to come before us.
It's great to have a representative from the public here.
Okay. With that, let's go on to 12B.
Item #12B
RET AINING OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO REPRESENT
INDIVIDUAL COUNTY EMPLOYEES REGARDING JAMES
AND SHERRY MARSHALL VS. COLLIER COUNTY; JESS (PER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY) JEFF LETOURNEAU AND
MICHELLE ARNOLD, CASE NO. 07-4455-CA, IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT FOR THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR COLLIER, COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND WAIVE THE
PURCHASING POLICY TO THE EXTENT IT APPLIES TO THE
SELECTION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: 12B. This is a recommendation pursuant to
Collier County Resolution 95-632, that the Board of County
Commissioners authorized the Office of the County Attorney and the
Risk Management Department to retain outside counsel to represent
individual county employees sued in James and Shirley Marshall
Page 287
December 11-12, 2007
versus Collier County, Jeff Letourneau and Michelle Arnold, Case
Number 07-4455-CA in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, and waive the purchasing
policy to extend it -- to the extent it applies to the selection of outside
counsel.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I also want to say, Mr.
Chairman, you know, it's a shame that somebody has decided to do
this because Michelle Arnold and Jeff Letourneau has done nothing
wrong, but it's his right to go into the Court system to do so.
But should -- I just want to -- in the past have we put caps on --
on such suits for representation?
MR. WEIGEL: We have not, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Okay. My motion
stands then.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I can say, if! may on this one, we are
filing on behalf of the individuals, Michelle Arnold and Mr.
Letourneau motions to dismiss.
There may be a possibility that there will be no requirement for
outside counsel --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see.
MR. WEIGEL: -- but this provides the assurance if that need
should be occur.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. They -- they were just
doing their job.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Fine. Any other comments?
Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 288
December 11-12,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
The ayes have it five to zero.
Thank you.
Item #13A
TO OBTAIN BOARD APPROVAL FOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR
THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 17, 2007 THROUGH NOVEMBER
23, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF THE BOARD. - MOTION TO ACCEPT
DISBURSEMENTS EXCEPT THE 2.2 MILLION TO THE CLERK
AS REQUESTED BY COUNTY MANAGER MUDD -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 13A. And this is to obtain board approval for the
disbursements for the period of November 17th, 2007 through
November 23rd, 2007, and for submission into the official records of
the board.
Commissioner, this item is on the regular agenda because there's
one disbursement on it that I had a question about, and I believe the
board, based on previous decisions that they've made, this
disbursement needed to be explained by the Clerk of Courts, and that's
the disbursement of $2.2 million thereabouts on this particular item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion that we approve
the expenditures with the exception of the two million plus dollars for
the Clerk.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas.
Crystal, did you want to enter something into the record?
MS. KINZEL: Just for the record, Crystal Kinzel with the
Page 289
December 11-12, 2007
Clerk's office.
And, Commissioner, the 2.2 is a transfer of the interest income
earned, and pursuant to 28.33, the interest income is recognized as
income to the Clerk.
That's -- it's merely a transfer of those funds for that income
amount, not really an expenditure of funds for an expense.
So, I just want to put that clarification.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Crystal, if! may, isn't this the very
same interest money that the Clerk promised us would never be spent
on anything that the commission did designate?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, I think that we respectfully
disagree with maybe some facts that have been presented, but we're
going to address those in a forum where the Board has filed suit
against the Clerk, and I think that will be discussed there, but I want to
clarify the particular item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. And I really do think that we
need to make sure that the public is aware of the Clerk's promise in the
past.
I have this little placard that we made up that quotes the Clerk
exactly what he said at the time.
Mr. Mudd, can you see it from where you are to read it off?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to try to get the camera
on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a pretty picture.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where did we get that picture?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's the first time they've turned the
camera on since yesterday.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, ladies and gentlemen of the
listening audience, if for some reason you don't see the camera
working or the angle isn't right, please call Mr. Mudd's office and the
County Manager's office will take care of it immediately.
You should be receiving total, perfect reception from one end of
Page 290
December 11-12, 2007
this meeting to the other.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that implies if you're having
any trouble with your own television sets at your homes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The regular meeting will begin
shortly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, this is amazing though.
This is probably the only thing on television that you get without any
commercial announcement.
Now, wait a minute. This whole thing is a commercial
announcement.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you asked me to read it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Just go ahead and read it, Mr.
Mudd. I'm sure that they're going to -- they've got the camera going
on it but go ahead. You can do both of them at the same time. Stand
out in front of us so they know that's where they're supposed to be
focusing on.
MR. MUDD: I don't know if! can read it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, stand out front. The camera will
follow.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, why don't you wait a minute.
They're -- they're -- they're ultimately going to be able to get the
camera around there. They've already frozen --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Frozen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Everything is just frozen right now.
It's --
Yeah, go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, thank you.
Well, we know that the -- the Clerk controls and invests all the
money, so -- so what -- what can be done in this case?
I mean, it -- how are you going to force him to put it wherever
you want it?
Page 291
December 11-12, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I don't think anybody has to
force anyone, but if somebody makes a revokable promise as the
Clerk made back in -- what was the year, Mr. Mudd?
Be great to be able to see this but, of course, we can't.
Go ahead and turn -- why -- why don't you just put yourself in --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's wrong with the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We spend all this money on
television and everything and you can't get a simple --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I have --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- placard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the floor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Mr. Mudd has the floor for the
minute. We were asking him to read it. Just read it from where it is
and then we'll turn it back over to you so that the audience knows
what we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Once recognizing a member of
the board, others may not interrupt until that point is finished. That's
what the ordinance says.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, I
don't know if I agree with you, but I'm not going to argue. I've always
went way out of my way to accommodate the board in any particular
direction I could and I will do it again now.
You go ahead and then we'll come to Mr. Mudd --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- after you have finish with what you
have to say.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like for the County Attorney
to answer the question, is, since he has control of all the funds, how
you're going to get the money back?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, as you know, the -- the Clerk is the
custodian of the county funds.
What we're talking about here is the interest income generated
Page 292
December 11-12,2007
from the accounts placed in investment by the Board of County
Commissioners.
The question, as Crystal indicated, has been raised in the court
proceedings with the Clerk and the county relating to who is entitled
to the interest income from those funds.
The board -- and Mr. Mudd is prepared to tell you all this, but
since the question has come to me, in 2002, the question came up
initiated by the Clerk indicating that the Board of County
Commissioners was entitled to all of the interest from the -- from --
generated from the income investment of the principal that was
invested by the board not used for operating, and that it could come
back to the board not following the principal accounts from which it
was generated, but that the board in fact could use that money for
roads or whatever it wished to in a general sense.
And at this point in time, the Clerk is indicating that, apparently,
through the agenda item that he wishes to expend the interest income
himself or use it or it has been used.
Mr. Mudd knows the facts and details on that so, that's the
distinction.
Crystal has indicated a statute that will be coming into contention
relating to the interest to the Clerk.
We do have a resolution in place in 2002 and another resolution
put in place in September of 2007 relating to the board's intent and
understanding for the interest.
I hope that answers the question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It really doesn't.
Will that be an injunction that -- that you would put in the -- into
the Court to get the -- the money back and direct it where it should
go?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Go ahead, Jackie.
MS. HUBBARD: Good morning, board members, Mr. Henning
in particular.
Page 293
December 11-12, 2007
As you are aware, this matter is in litigation and one of the issues
in the litigation is whether or not the Clerk is entitled to use interest
earned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Miss Hubbard --
MS. HUBBARD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- if you're not going to answer
the question --
MS. HUBBARD: No, I'm getting--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I'll just drop my question.
MS. HUBBARD: No. In the complaint before the Court, the
county has requested injunctive relief. That is one of the counts of the
complaint.
The injunctive relief seeks to enjoin the Clerk from using money
earned on board surplus funds.
So, ifthere is a remedy, the remedy is part of the litigation that
we're currently engaged in, and one of the remedies that has been filed
on behalf of the board addresses the issue that Commissioner Henning
just raised.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. HUBBARD: Does that answer your question,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- I can see this is adversarial,
so I -- I'm not going to comment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Adversarial on the part of -- who's
part; our County Attorney?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought it was a simple
question, but that's why --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought it was a simple question. I
thought the answer was excellent.
Mr. Mudd, pursuing to the instructions you had earlier, would
you read what's on the plaque board at this point in time?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It says Board of County Commissioners
Page 294
December 11-12, 2007
Meeting, May 14th, 2002, an excerpt from verbatim minutes
immediately following Agenda Item Number 10H.
And this is -- and this is a statement by Mr. Brock. And -- and
it's -- it's got dittos because there was words prior to it.
"And when you go through the entire process of what we're
doing, the Clerk of the Circuit Court will not get one, I mean not one
penny of the interest that we're referring to. Every penny of that will
come back to you, with much more or much greater discretion as to
how to spend it than you have had in the past."
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Is there any other comments or questions before I place this to a
vote?
Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It was your motion, sir.
Okay. The vote was four to one--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Commissioner Henning--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I -- can I address your --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- being in the opposition.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't make the motion, and
the reason I didn't make the motion, the statute is clear of saying
interest moneys shall be the income of the Office of the Clerk of
Court.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I know -- I was the one that
introduced this way back then and -- and as I was talking to the Clerk,
Page 295
December 11-12, 2007
I -- I couldn't understand at the time that I introduced it how interest
on transportation dollars, for instance, that we got for impact fees and
so forth wouldn't go right back to transportation.
And the Clerk said, if I collect all this interest, I can earn better
money on it and I will then give it back to you.
And at the time, I don't know if this is in reply to me, but he said,
and I will take not one penny of it. This is your interest dollars not
mine. I'm investing it for you and -- and I'm going to give it back to
you.
And, so, I think that that's what -- what we're talking about. And
__ and we just -- you know, we want to back, whether it be to go to
parks or whether it be to go to libraries or the roads or whatever, we
want to use that interest to further those -- that initiative, and I think it
should go into the general fund is what -- of course, I'm telling you
what I think. But that's my opinion on it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, Mr. Mudd. Commissioner
Fiala brought up a good point.
Who asked the question that -- that Mr. Brock responded to?
Do you have the -- you don't have that in front of you?
MR. MUDD: Hand on. I think Mr. Ochs has the minutes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: While -- while you're looking for that,
let's go on to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I -- I don't know why
there's confusion here. The Clerk said he wasn't going to take any of
the interest.
No body is entitled to spend taxpayer dollars unless it's properly
authorized by the Board of County Commissioners.
And -- and that's the crux of this debate that we have, that
nobody can just take money and transfer it around and spend it or put
it in other accounts unless there is some approval by the Board of
County Commissioners.
And -- and we're being completely by-passed in this process.
Page 296
December 11-12,2007
So, I think it's quite proper that we -- we get this clarified, and I
don't know why the Clerk would even object to it. He's already
agreed that he doesn't get this interest and that we're going to get every
penny of it coming back to us.
So, I -- I don't know why there's -- there's any argument here.
But, nevertheless, I think we've -- we've got the motion voted on.
Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does anybody know if any funds
have been spent out of this transfer yet, the 2.3 million?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I have a 210 report dated 11/2912007 that
basically shows -- it basically shows that this $2,279,134.44, which
came into this particular account, and then it has -- it has revenues and
it has -- also has expenses, and at the end of the account, what's
remaining is 1.8 -- $1,872,969.36.
If -- if you deposit $2.2 million and you only have $1.8 million
left, you spent some money of that particular money, so, yes, it has to
answer your question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I believe that under the
Florida Statute, the Clerk doesn't have the ability to spend funds, am I
correct on that, without the approval of the Board of County
Commissioners?
Maybe you can enlighten me a little bit on this, County
Attorney?
MS. HUBBARD: Yes. I mean, do you want me to--
MR. WEIGEL: Go ahead, Jackie.
MS. HUBBARD: Yes. I think Florida law is pretty clear on the
fact that the Clerk receives his own funds from the collection of fees
under Chapter 28.24.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's courts and other related
fees.
MS. HUBBARD: Court, recorded fees and things of that nature.
Page 297
December 11-12,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. HUBBARD: And we concede that those are funds that he
collects.
On the other -- on the other hand, there are county funds which
are controlled by the governing body of the county, which is the
Board of County Commissioners, and these include, among other
funds, ad valorem tax collection, things of that nature, that you direct
how those are spent.
Our understanding of the role of the Clerk and the board is that
the Clerk is to spend funds that have been designated by the board to
be spent and the board directs the Clerk to issue warrants or checks
pursuant to the board's direction on how the board's funds are to be
spent.
The Clerk of Courts then has the statutory duty to sign off on the
signature of the chairman of the board. He does not write checks
independent of the board.
It's the board's funds, it's the board's money, and it's the board
that has the power to direct how those taxpayer funds are spent. And
that direction is then given to the Clerk of Courts who, as you know,
witnesses the signature of the chairman on all checks that are issued
on behalf of the county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My next question is, how can we
get this to a resolution -- get to some type of resolution on this matter
as quickly --
MS. HUBBARD: Well, the--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- as possible?
MS. HUBBARD: The quick -- the quickest method that David
and I have discussed is to proceed in the litigation to bring it before
the Court and have the Court make a decision on this issue either
through proceeding on -- for the injunctive relief or seeking to have
this matter go to trial when it's set for trial on the 17th.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 17th of what?
Page 298
December 11-12, 2007
MS. HUBBARD: March. It's set for trial --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got to have something done
before then.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. And we will try, with all due respect to--
to you, the board and the public, to proceed in an earlier fashion on the
injunctive relief.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think we need to move
fast on this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've been trying.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, just -- the last question. That--
that particular response was in response to Commissioner Fiala's
question. Well, you did research that, right?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. So, that -- that answers the
question that you asked and you were correct, Commissioner Fiala.
Anything else before we take the vote?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We already did.
MR. MUDD: You already took the vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We already did. Okay.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And it was -- and it was to approve the
disbursement --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. That's correct.
MR. MUDD: -- minus -- minus the Clerk's disbursement for $2.2
million and it -- and it went four to one --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Four to one.
MR. MUDD: -- Commissioner Henning voting against.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 299
December 11-12, 2007
MR. MUDD: The next item is staff and commissioners general
communication.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I have -- I have two items here
today.
The first item has been Nick Casalanguida told me that we have a
__ we have an issue with -- with two of our DCAs, and they're with the
Mystique property on Davis Boulevard and the Benderson property on
Davis -- on -- on Davis Boulevard, and there's been some holdup as
far as the deliverables are concerned.
They need a time extension. And it will come forward to the
Board of County Commissioners with that time extension on 15
January.
We need some direction from the board to staff to hold off on
any penalties for them being late until the board can decide that on the
15th of January.
Did I miss anything, Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I -- I know that we've had so
many problems in the Davis Boulevard area just because of the -- the
money that was held back from us, and -- and all of the things that
we've had to put together.
I'm -- I'm certainly willing to -- to approve an extension of time.
MR. MUDD: All we're asking for is that we hold off on any
penalties to the DCA --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. MUDD: -- until we can bring this to the Board of County
Commissioner -- Commissioners on their next meeting on 15 January
so that you could make a -- a formal decision upon the issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm for it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. Do you want to form a
Page 300
December 11-12, 2007
motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I can -- I can -- the motion is --
I'll motion to hold off on any of the penalties that would be -- that
would be placed upon these two properties that -- that are negotiating
in the -- that have a DCA until we can meet on the 15th of January to
discuss them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Henning.
Any other discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate can by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
The ayes have it five to zero.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item that I have to discuss,
I received this yesterday from Miss Chris Stranton, and she's asking to
give a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners on the 15th
of January to talk about the -- the pending January 29th tax -- property
tax referendum that's going in front of the voters, and I was just
wondering if the board would like her to present during that particular
meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- I need to understand that a
bit better.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: It says -- I can give you this -- give you this whole
pitch. I'll give you the e-mail.
It says -- and, see, this wasn't a petition request. They asked the
Page 301
December 11-12, 2007
board to -- to petition on a particular issue. I just got it yesterday.
The League of Women Voters of Collier County, a nonpartisan
organization, has its mission to encourage the informed and active
participation in government.
One of the most effective ways to actively participate in the
government is to vote. Weare concerned that the residents of Collier
County are not aware of the important property tax referendum, which
appears on the January 29th, 2008 Presidential Preference Primary.
Additionally, the League of Women Voters of Florida and Collier
County oppose the tax -- the property tax referendum, one reason
being that Florida already has an infrastructure shortage and this
property tax referendum will result in the loss of necessary revenue
resources at the local level.
Therefore, we would like to make a presentation to the BCC at
their 15 January 2008 meeting with the purpose of educating the
reviewing public on the importance of the upcoming election and
inform them why the League opposes the property tax referendum.
Please let me know if that would be possible. You may reach me
by my cell phone. Signed Chris Stranton, President of the League of
Women Voters of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, why not just under public
petition, just consider that a filing for public petition and --
MR. MUDD: Well, normally under a public petition, they ask
the board to take an action. Okay. And in this particular case, they
weren't asking the board to take an action, so I -- it wasn't a valid
public petition.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if we do this, we should
offer it to others because -- because it's -- it's -- it's just not -- it's not
fair and equal.
And I don't -- I don't think this is a proper forum to do so. That's
what the media is there for.
Page 302
December 11-12, 2007
Miss Stranton has no problem writing editorials in the -- in the
Naples Daily News, and at this time I -- maybe I should ask the
chairman to write a letter to offer that venue to her -- to the League, I
should say, not to Miss Stranton because she's speaking on behalf of
the league.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Possibly offer this facility to them
and if they fail to use it as to perform on the subject?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you have to get both sides
of the issue when there's an issue. The problem is you don't know who
-- who's on the opposite side.
So, until -- until we -- we -- somebody can identify the pros and
cons, then -- then it's -- it's just not fair. It -- we don't have to solve
this problem.
What is being asked is a presentation. All I'm saying is you need
to offer the same thing to the other side, but the other side has not
stepped up, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. That's -- that's a very fair
approach.
And as much as I don't want to say I agree with it, I agree with it
because it is fair.
Yet, at the time -- at the time we've been struggling as to how to
educate the public on -- on what -- what the ramifications are, and
you're right, both sides should be presented.
So, my question is, county manager, can we ever provide this
facility because of the television capabilities and so forth, and even
because of our -- our TV channel accessibility, to the League of
Women Voters to put together a forum where both sides of the issue
are presented, their audience participation, and -- and then we can run
that forum on -- on our channel as well.
Would that be something that would be acceptable?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, this -- this board has offered this particular
Page 303
December 11-12, 2007
facility to candidate forums with the League of Women Voters in the
past, and if you're going to -- if you're going to capture that particular
issue, I believe you also have to capture Commissioner Henning's
Issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's what I said. Yeah.
Both sides of the issue. I -- I wouldn't -- the only way to hold a forum
is to give both sides. And I -- I believe I mentioned that, but if! didn't,
let me make that very clear.
This way then you can have a forum where both sides are
presented. You can have an audience participation and -- and then it
can be replayed and people will get to see both sides.
I think it's very important that we playa role in that as well, our
county government in -- in -- in some form of giving -- you know, on
both sides again we're showing how it will affect us and our citizens
and the taxpayers.
And a lot of times that isn't presented. Especially if you're
reading a newspaper article, they only is so much -- so many lines that
they can write anyway. I think we have to give all sides of this issue
and -- and -- and how it will affect our taxpayers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a suggestion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Commissioner Fiala?
The only -- the only flaw to this is if the League of Women
Voters hold a forum, they've already stated a position.
So, it may be perceived as being top heavy in their direction as
far as support goes.
Possibly the Elections office could hold the forum and invite the
League of Women Voters and whatever entity they would like to and
they could form a panel up here to discuss it. And then you have a
neutral sponsor that would be able to bring it forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We could ask them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any other comments on that
Page 304
December 11-12, 2007
or thoughts Mr. -- Commissioner Coyle?
No, your light is not on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Your lights are off.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me turn it on.
No wonder I wasn't being recognized.
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Fiala are absolutely
correct, but it -- it goes a bit further than that.
This would be an improper use of our Board of County
Commission meeting. What we don't want to do is use our meeting to
produce, and I'll use the term propaganda, not in a negative way, to the
public. That's not what we should be doing during our meetings.
And I think that we need to keep government entities out of the -- out
of the role of sponsoring these kinds of things.
There's nothing wrong with the government facilities being used,
but to use the Board of County Commissioners or the Supervisor of
Elections to sponsor these kinds of things, I think is the wrong thing to
do.
That -- that is the responsibility of the -- the members of the
public and the organizations like the League of Women Voters.
I happen to agree with some of their positions on this, but I don't
think we should permit our meeting to be used for the purpose of -- of
providing so-called educational activities.
So -- so I agree with you. I think we need to make the facilities
available to any public entity, but we have to -- we have to be careful,
otherwise you're going to have individuals coming in and wanting to
use our television facilities and everything to get their personal
positions out on this.
We have to be very careful about how we do it and -- and who is
a recognized or what is a recognized organization.
So, that being said, I would -- I would support your motion. I
would like to encourage Miss Stranton to continue trying to educate
Page 305
December 11-12, 2007
the voters of Collier County, but just not do it during our Board of
County Commission meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- I -- I just want to make sure you
don't misunderstand.
Are you suggesting Supervisor of Elections put on a forum that
would have been in the evening and the county -- Collier County
Commission would not be holding a meeting?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm -- I'm saying -- but the --
you see the Supervisor of Elections also has -- is affected by this
because their operating expenses are going to be affected.
And -- and it might be perceived by someone that the Supervisor
of Elections is trying to buy us the vote. And, after all, they're the
agency that's the spokes -- try to make sure the vote is -- is fair and
unbiased.
So, you wouldn't want the Supervisor of Elections involved in
coordinating that kind of thing, I don't think. I wouldn't -- I wouldn't
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, if you have both sides, I don't
see how that could --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They're neutral.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yes and no.
Are you -- how do you know you're going to prevent both sides
equally? You don't know that because you don't know -- you don't
know how well organized either side is going to be, you don't know
how well their arguments are going to be presented.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are lots of ways to bias those
kinds of things.
The point is a governmental agency shouldn't be solved in that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let me -- let me just ask the
question a little bit different, Commissioner Coyle. And, you know,
Page 306
December 11-12,2007
you're bringing some great perspective to this.
If the Supervisor of Election was on her own accord to make the
request to use this building for this type of forum, would you have
objection to it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd have to understand who the
Supervisor of Election was going to have.
Are they -- is the Supervisor of Elections going to turn it over to
individuals to come in and -- and make their individual pitches, or are
they going to turn it over to recognized organizations; the Republican
party, the Democratic party, the independents, the League of Women
Voters others?
I -- I -- I couldn't answer that question. That's -- that's why I think
that it's a dangerous process to get into.
Who cares whether -- whether a government sponsors it. If -- if
you make the facility available to recognized organizations in the
county, then -- then you -- they can come in and do what they wish.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But our present policy allows for this
to take place.
Is that correct, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. For educating the public and those kinds
of things --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So, in other words, this board has to
take no action for this to go forward.
MR. MUDD: Well, commissioner, I -- I think there's all
concerns on the -- on the -- on the dais and I think they're all -- and I
think they all are justified.
If -- if -- when -- for instance, if this is a homeowners group that
comes in and wants to have their annual meeting, you opened it up to
homeowners groups.
Of course, that homeowners group isn't broadcast all -- all of
Collier County.
When there's been candidate forums for the League of Women
Page 307
December 11-12,2007
Voters when all the candidates were present and they go through the
debate, this chamber has been used in the past and it's been freely
offered.
And I believe it's -- and I believe the concern of the Board of
Country Commissioners that -- that's being addressed by all
commissioners to some extent is -- and some larger than others, but all
are -- are the point of, look it, if you're going to have a debate on the
particular item, you need to have equal representation and the -- and
the person that's hosting the particular debate needs to be impartial in
their stand, okay, and should be a recognized -- should be a
recognized agency, and it's got some advertisement.
I mean, when the League of Women Voters has their thing, the
candidates are -- the candidates are presented, their names are there,
there's a series of questions, it's advertised throughout the community.
I -- the only thing that comes up to my -- that comes to mind
right now is I remember one time somebody said something about
Tiger Bay, and I'm going I've been here for two years. I don't know
where Tiger Bay, can somebody please point it to me?
And I found out it was a debate forum that -- that's been around
for a long time.
I have no idea who runs that forum, but I know it does happen
from time to time based on different candidates and things.
Maybe that's a particular forum that -- that might be of some
interest. I don't know. I don't know who they are.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, may I make a suggestion that
maybe we leave this up to the county manager within the guidance
that's already been given in the past as far as who can use this
building.
But with that, let's go back to Commissioner Coyle because you
instituted this -- this particular discussion with the level it's at, and
then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a -- a clarification. Sometimes
Page 308
December 11-12,2007
organizations will have these kinds of forums and it's not balanced and
it's not intended to be balanced, that they are trying to educate the
public.
I think there's nothing wrong with that as long as other people
have the same opportunity.
So, the county manager -- manager said we -- we should permit it
as long as it is a balanced presentation.
I'm not sure that's necessary, but I -- I -- I don't have a problem if
the League of Women Voters wants to come into this room and use it
for public education as long as the people who are supporting this
legislation have the same opportunities to do so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does that make sense or not?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does that violate our procedures? I
mean, just tie the ends on it. Does that violate -- does that violate our
current procedures?
Must it be a balanced presentation?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I've never been in this position and
I will have to check.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: The -- it's always been, as I described before --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- a debate between candidates and things like that.
And you've never -- without -- without your permission, you've never
offered this room up for -- for one side to present and then the other
side to present, let's say, at a different night. I've never -- I've never --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I find this discussion very
interesting. I wish that our Governor was as -- looked at this in the
way that he's going about this.
He's up there trying to get Donald Trump to throw a million
Page 309
December 11-12, 2007
dollars into his campaign to pass this legislation, and yet we're sitting
here saying we want to make sure that both sides are fair. So, it's an
interesting discussion we're having right here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're kidding. He's doing this?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go -- let's go to Commissioner
Henning who has been waiting patiently.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, we're going to
have several other constitutional amendments come -- coming down,
and -- and if we do this, we're pretty much setting precedence.
And to be fair and equal, you need to keep in mind that other --
other -- you need to offer the same opportunity.
This is an issue that we don't have to fix. Okay. There are other
avenues to provide public information. It's called a media, and they
do this for a business, and that's where this issue belongs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But we haven't gotten any
directions going to the county manager.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we don't -- yeah, I just
did. Don't do anything. We don't have to do anything on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, don't do anything like
you've done in the past, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What did you say?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- the use of this building.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I -- I said this is an issue.
This is a constitutional issue that the people will vote on.
We haven't done it in the past. Ifwe do it now, we'll have to offer the
same thing in the future on any other constitutional amendment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So, you want to just limit it to
candidate type forums and not issues?
Page 3 10
December 11-12, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm saying we don't have to do
anything on this issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So, bring each issue forward
or just issues in general?
I'm sorry. I'm just trying to make it so we don't have to have this
discussion over and over again every time a new issue comes up.
If you're covering all issues, then you kind of simplify the whole
situation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not true.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, let's go to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I -- I don't agree. I -- I don't --
I think that sometimes the media will show a bias on how -- on their
reporting, and I'm sorry if I offend anybody by that, but we've all seen
that happen.
And -- and this -- this is too important to our residents, to our
taxpayers. This issue is terribly important. This is not something that
we should let go by the wayside.
I think it's -- I think it's very noble of the League of Women
Voters to want to step forward to educate the community.
I agree with Commissioner Henning in that it should be a unfair and
unbiased presentation.
And, so, if the League of W omen Voters have one side and,
clearly, they do, I happen to agree with them by the way. I'm going to
say that right on the record.
Still, I think that a forum would be a very appropriate because we
have a lot of citizens out there that do not understand the issue. They
__ and they want to ask questions. They -- they only have the
newspaper to read. They can't get -- they can't get both sides of the
Issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that a motion?
Page 311
December 11-12,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would like --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll -- I'll second it, for discussion
purposes we move this along.
Let's go to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. That is not what's
before us, and that's what Commissioner Henning was saying.
This was a request to make a presentation to the Board of County
Commissioners at one of our meetings. It is not a forum.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. No. We've already said that we
don't want --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. We -- we haven't had a motion
that would deny this and that's what Commissioner Henning was
saymg.
If you deny the request for the Board of County Commissioner
presentation, we don't have to do anything, because you already have
a policy, then let's people use this facility for these forums.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But he said that. Okay. I -- will you
withdraw your motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do we talk this thing to death,
Commissioner Coyle? Do you think --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know. Did I -- did I actual
__ did I capture the essence of your intent, Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You did -- you just repeated
everything over again that we said earlier, yeah.
That's fine. I think we reached it.
Mr. Mudd, do you understand where we are?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe I have direction to
respond to Miss Stanton -- Stranton to say that -- that she will not be
on the agenda for the 15th of January, 2008 --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's perfect.
MR. MUDD: -- per her request and that's -- and that's the way
Page 312
December 11-12,2007
I'm going to respond.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can -- can we mention to her that
this -- this facility, ifthere's some type of a forum requested, that this
facility is available?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing wrong with that, I think.
That's -- that's our policy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You might state that--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- in the letter, Mr. Mudd.
Okay. Great. What else have you got, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, sir, and I'm sorry that that took so
long.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. That -- that -- it was a very
healthy discussion.
Mr. Weigel, anything from the County Attorney's office?
MR. WEIGEL: Just to -- just to indicate that this afternoon we
will initiate the understanding a directive of the board relating to the
Pebblebrook Richland PUD that was heard yesterday looking for the
solution of the various interests there at the parallel tract of providing
an ordinance to come back to the board as well relating to scrivener's
error.
And I want you to know also that in regard to the Starnes -- the
discussion to Starnes property today, that notwithstanding that there's
been a vote to consummate the purchase of the property, that those
issues that are very important to this property and to potentially other
properties such as oil, gas, mineral rights and the discussion,
description of the minerals themselves, slant drilling, all those things
that come into play, the rights of leaseholders as opposed to outright
fee holders will be looked at very closely, and we will provide a report
to you in that regard and try to assist staff in their -- in their
Page 313
December 11-12, 2007
constructive discussions with potential property owners in the future.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you--
MR. WEIGEL: That's all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Mr. Weigel. Great. Let's go to the
commISSIOners now.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
I think we received a correspondence from a Don Beach about
PC Bug, a 501 C3 organization that was formed approximately 15
years ago.
They were using the library system, the central library at Central
Avenue. And he also referenced Ted Brousseau as a founding
member of this organization.
So, I had an opportunity to talk to Ted Brousseau yesterday, and
he informed me they have used the library on -- on a certain day since
the library was expanded a number of years ago.
Now, the staff at the library has decided to run some programs
using the day that they normally meet on. The PC Bug tried to reuse
the room by -- by on line registrant system, and they did that on the
3rd of December only to find out that it was taken.
I mean, we in the past had an issue with the Girl Scouts, another
501C3.
I would hate to lose the PC Bug, a -- an organization not for
profit -- well, actually educates the public on internet, internet
systems, internet safety or -- or whatever.
And I -- I -- I think we need to give direction to the -- to the
county manager on that.
But, in all fairness, I also think that we need to hear from our
library director who is here, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think they've already arranged an
ultimate facility or given them the opportunity to -- to move it in a
different place, right?
Page 314
December 11-12, 2007
MS. MATTHES: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director.
I just came from the Library Advisory Board meeting and Don
Beach and the incoming president, I've got gotten his name, I'm sorry,
is -- were at our meeting and we discussed the issues extensively.
What I've done is tell them that the library will accommodate our
two library programs in February and March by other means and, so,
we'll make our time available to the PC Bug for those two months, and
an additional outside group had arranged -- had beat the PC Bug Users
Group and had scheduled a -- their program for January, third
Thursday, and I told them that I would try to work with that group to
find other accommodations within our building.
The library advisory board, which you appoint, discussed the
issue extensively and agreed that they should continue to -- they had
no conclusion except to offer -- echo the -- the compromise I made for
the January through March meetings, which are their primary concern
right now.
The library policy, which is -- on meeting rooms, which is
established by the Library Advisory Board and approved by the
County Attorney's office for legal sufficiency is what we've been
operating under.
And the policy has changed a little bit in that we are starting to --
to charge for -- for meeting room usage, and we're trying to refine it so
it looks a little bit better.
But the intent of the policy really has not changed in the 15 years
that the PC Bug group has using the meeting room or any
organization.
The policy has been that book -- that groups can book on a
quarterly basis, so starting in December 1 st, they can book for the
period of January through March.
And, unfortunately, that has not always been adhered to by staff
and with the options of changing -- charging for the rooms and doing
the on-line registration, we're trying to -- to make sure that all of our
Page 315
December 11-12,2007
practices are in line with the approved policy.
The County Attorney's office and other library legal consultants
over the years have suggested that a public meeting room in a library
is a limited public forum, and as such, we have to provide equal access
to everybody irregardless of the message that people are using in that
meeting room and the electronic registration is one way of providing
that.
Another issue is -- is that the intent of the board or the library
advisory board or the community to provide a permanent meeting
room for a particular organization, no matter what it is.
With reference to the scouting programs, we do not guarantee
any of the scouting programs a room on a particular date. What we
did at board direction was say that when they sign up for a meeting
room and compete with everybody else for that time for a meeting
room, we will not charge them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you still
have the floor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Well, I -- I think you're -- you're making guidelines. You're not
making policy.
Because my understanding only policy makers can make policy.
But, you know, I don't know if it works and I don't want to judge it,
but it seems to me that we have residents competing for our facilities,
and I just can't decide that's right.
Just a final question. Did you resolve the issues with the PC Bug
on a long-term basis?
MS. MATTHES: Not on a long-term basis. We've resolved it for
the immediate time period of January through March with the caveat
that January I need to negotiate with an outside group who signed up
for the room prior to PC Bug.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's not my decision for
me to tell the county manager how to manage the facility, but I just
Page 316
December 11-12, 2007
have a concern on -- on the process.
MS. MATTHES: And people--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And thank you for -- for -- I'm
sorry.
MS. MATTHES: I know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was very kind of you to --
to address this in a short issue. Thank you very much.
MS. MATTHES: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
One of the things that I've noticed in some of the organizations
that I belong to is if we have a regular meeting place, a regular
meeting time and a regular meeting date, after awhile -- and it takes
people awhile to remember where they're going, but then -- then they
come regularly.
If you move their meeting place or their meeting time, their
attendance drops immediately because people don't remember or they
don't have those days reserved.
And I don't know if the library board has taken this into
consideration. For instance, PC Bug always meeting on whatever day
it is, and for 15 years everybody knows the place, the time and
everything, to move them around all of a sudden or any of the groups
might be difficult especially -- I -- I understand when new people want
to come in, but maybe first consideration should always be given to
the groups who've always supported us or who have always been there
first.
Even if they don't pay anything, they bring people into our
libraries. There's a good feeling because they're using our libraries,
and I don't know if -- if -- if they have a policy or if you're putting
together some suggestions for us, that probably should be considered.
Long-standing groups have first right of refusal.
MS. MATTHES: That certainly was part of the discussion. And
Page 317
December 11-12, 2007
whether that's acceptable under legal guidelines, I don't know.
What we've always tried to operate under is equal access for
everybody. And there's really no easy out for -- okay, they've been
meeting there forever.
My concern is if -- if at some point PC Bug is given a permanent
meeting place or permanent time schedule, I -- I can see a number of
other community groups wanting that same type of privilege, and it
then becoming difficult to have library space for library activity.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other avenue we also have
available for the people in this county, we have parks and we have
community centers at parks, and I think maybe we can utilize more of
them, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We don't have -- in East Naples we
only have one kind of community center. We don't have any at our
other parks.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I'm talking about North
Naples area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They've got a number of up there at
that park of facilities, they've got a number of rooms in there that can
be -- could be probably addressed on a lot of these items for
community groups to use that park.
MS. MATTHES: The Parks Department also uses the quarterly
booking process, too, to make their facilities available to the widest
number of groups.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But that -- what it does --
MS. MATTHES: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- is it just opens up additional
options --
MS. MATTHES: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- instead of being at one location.
Page 318
December 11-12, 2007
There's other options that it would be open to a lot of these community
groups.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, back to you.
Do you have something else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Just one more thing.
Merry Christmas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, wow! You said it with a lot of
meanmg.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And very exciting two days, and
we'll -- we'll start over again next year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. Merry Christmas, and I
probably won't -- we -- we probably won't see any of the people in our
audience today until next year, so Happy New Year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's very nice.
And I'd like to extend my holiday wishes to everyone, too.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to extend everyone, staff
included, a very, very Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy
Hanukkah, however it fits, and we'll see you next year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. Not bad.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have something of substance to
talk about.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You mean Christmas is not
important?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. It's your greetings that are not
important, but nevertheless, you'll recall in a prior meeting I -- I was
trying to get the board to refuse to accept an unfunded mandate from
the state legislature to fund a Regional Conflict Council to fund the
office space at a cost to our taxpayers of$32,190.
I felt that it was an inappropriate and probably illegal expenditure
of -- of taxpayer funds, and we have recently been advised in a
Page 319
December 11-12,2007
legality opinion of the Florida Association of County Attorneys that
this expenditure is an unconstitutional, unfunded mandate.
And that there is also a prosecutor association, State Prosecutor
Association, that has filed a lawsuit alleging the unconstitutionality of
the bill which enacted this public defender allocation, and they say
that it provides an unlawful Public Defender allocation.
Now, at the last time we met to discuss this, the Board of County
Commissioners directed the -- the County Manager to find some space
for this Regional Conflict Council.
I would urge you to reconsider that in view of these legal rulings
and that we provide our support to the Florida Association of County
Attorneys to try to stop these mandates from being placed upon us.
They're not going to stop until we stand up and do something
about it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you going to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know that I can make a
motion under correspondence.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you can bring it back at the
next meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Would -- would I have
enough support on the board to bring this back --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- at the next meeting to discuss it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we can take action as we
have in the past under correspondence since it's an advertised item on
the agenda.
But I have more questions on -- on your comments, and I think
we should take action right now.
Are you -- are you asking to stop the -- the -- well, actually, we
Page 320
December 11-12, 2007
need to reconsider --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that decision. Okay. So, is
that reconsidering -- reconsideration if it definitely fits our timeline,
can we do it on correspondence per the board's policy on -- on the
board's meeting.
MR. WEIGEL: Technically, a reconsideration of this requires
notice to the County Manager ahead of time.
What I would suggest, however, is you've taken an action or
given the manager direction. There's nothing that prohibits you from
giving him further direction, which is different than the direction that
was given before.
For instance, the memo that I've provided you all relating to the
opinion of the Florida Association of County Attorneys and the
information regarding the lawsuit the prosecutorial association has
brought forward, would lend itself for you to say in addition or in
addition to what you've previously approved, that that -- that the
action that you ordered be deferred until there is a definitive
determination in the court of law that -- that declares that it is in a fact
a -- a legal and an appropriate expenditure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: And that way it gets us out of the, call it,
technical requirement of the reconsideration ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, is that a formal motion or is
it --
MR. WEIGEL: I would -- I would suggest that you make a
motion of it. There's no reason why you cannot.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I would -- I make a
motion that we instruct our County Attorney to delay --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the County Manager.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean the County Manager to
defer -- to defer.
Page 321
December 11-12, 2007
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. The previous action that was directed on
this subject matter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. To defer any action on
providing office space for Regional Conflict Council as provided
under Senate Bill 1088 until such time as the courts have decided
whether or not this is a legal expenditure and an obligation of local
government.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle and second by Commissioner Halas.
Discussion?
Commissioner Henning, did you want to add something? Your
light isn't on but you look like you're ready to do it and I didn't want
you to miss the opportunity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, thank you. No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And -- yes, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Okay. I understand the motion. It's perfectly clear.
I just want to make sure you understand what I'm going to have to try
to do when I get the motion.
I'm not saying I'm not going to do it. We're going to do it.
The previous action that the board approved was to enter into a lease
agreement for $32,000 a year for these people that we are getting,
okay, from the state.
If this motion passes, I will go out and I will -- and I will --
hopefully, we haven't entered into the instrument yet, okay. I can't tell
you for sure right this second if we have or haven't, okay, and we'll
stop -- stop the payment.
If we nave entered into the agreement, we will take a look at the
agreement and -- and how we exit out of the agreement, and -- and we
will minimize that expenditure of $32,000 if it's been executed.
I just want to make sure -- I want that to be perfectly clear to the board
if -- if you pass this motion what I'm going to do.
Page 322
December 11-12, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Clear.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If -- if we have entered--
entered into the agreement, we also have the ability to reconsider it.
So, you want to inform Commissioner Coyle.
You know, he -- he voted in the minority, correct, so you can't
reconsider it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: True.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me know and I'll -- I'll
put it on the agenda.
MR. MUDD: But if we haven't entered it and we can get out of
it --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're done.
MR. MUDD: -- we'll do so based on when you decide what
you're going to do on this particular item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- and the item is just to
defer it until it goes to the courts -- through the courts.
MR. MUDD: Until -- until we get the decision by the Court if
this is a legal -- if this is a legal expenditure of -- of funds.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So, everybody understands
what was said.
With that, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
The ayes have it unanimously.
Commissioner Coyle, anything else?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yes. Merry Christmas and
happy holidays to everyone.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you sounded very sincere.
Page 323
December 11-12, 2007
Thank you.
And with that, we're adjourned until next year.
****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 #16Al
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITY FOR THE MAJORS, PHASE ONE -W/RELEASE OF
ANY UTILITY PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
SPECIAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) AMENDMENT
CYCLE FOR THE 2008 CALENDAR YEAR TO ADDRESS AN
URGENT AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING SECTION 1.04.04,
REDUCTION OF REQUIRED SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
TO ADDRESS THE SEVERING OF TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) RELATED TO LANDS
IDENTIFIED FORA TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY-
FOR THE LAND ACQUISITION WITH FLORIDA ROCK FOR A
HAUL ROAD WITHIN THE FUTURE WILSON BLVD
EXTENSION
Item # 16A3
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR JAEGAR ROAD
WAREHOUSE CONDOS - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITY
Page 324
December 11-12, 2007
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR CEDAR HAMMOCK, TRACT
F-4 - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITY PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item # 16A5
RELEASE AND SA TISF ACTIONS OF LIEN FOR PAYMENTS
RECEIVED FOR THE FOLLOWING CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS - COST FOR RECORDING IS $10.00 PER RELEASE,
TOTALING $460.00
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR MEDITERRA, PARCEL 100 - W/RELEASE OF
ANY UTILITY PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR TUSCANY COVE SALES AND MODEL
CENTER - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITY PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item # 16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
Page 325
December 11-12, 2007
FACILITY FOR TUSCANY COVE TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATION FACILITY -
W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITY PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR TUSCANY COVE - W/RELEASE OF ANY
UTILITY PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16AI0
PREPARATION OF A STRATEGIC OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR
THE IMMOKALEE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
BOARD. (COMPANION ITEM TO ITEM 16G3 TO BE
CONSIDERED FOLLOWING ACTION ON 16G3) - TO RETAIN
THE SERVICES OF GUARDIAN COMMUNITY RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT, INC. AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $2,000 TO
IMPLEMENT THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES AT A
WORKSHOP ON DECEMBER 19,2007
Item #16All
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF CAPRI COMMERCIAL
CENTER NO.2 - DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A
CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO
FINAL APPROV AL LETTER
Item #16Bl
THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) BETWEEN
THE FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR TRANSPORTATION
Page 326
December 11-12, 2007
DISADVANTAGED (CTD) AND THE COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC) - BCC WILL
CONTINUE IN ITS DESIGNATED ROLE AS THE COMMUNITY
TRANSPORTATION COORDINATORS FOR COLLIER
COUNTY
Item #16B2
RESCIND AWARD OF BID 08-5001 TO COMMERCIAL FENCE
CONTRACTORS, INC. FOR $60,073.52 AND AWARD IT TO
USA STEEL FENCE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $77,352.60 -
COMMERCIAL FENCE CONTRACTORS, INC. IS UNABLE TO
INSTALL THE FENCE AT QUEENS PARK IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE BID
Item #16B3
QUITCLAIM DEED FROM LENNAR HOMES, LLC, TO LANDS
DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY AS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-
WAY. (FISCAL IMPACT: $18.50) PROJECT #60018 - LOCATED
IN HERITAGE BAY
Item # 16B4
AWARD BID #08-5004 RADIO ROAD PHASE I LANDSCAPE
IRRIGATION PROJECT - TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING, INC.
IN THE AMOUNT OF $464,434.62
Item #16B5
AWARD WORK ORDER #PBS-FT -3987-08-01 UNDER COLLIER
COUNTY CONTRACT NUMBER 06-3987 FOR FIXED TERM
Page 327
December 11-12,2007
PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND
INSPECTION (CEI) SERVICES FOR THE FREEDOM PARK IN
THE AMOUNT OF $458,904.00 TO PBS&J, INC. -
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FREEDOM PARK (GORDON
RIVER WATER QUALITY PARK)
Item #16B6
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND IBIS CLUB
FOR A SEWER SERVICE INTERCONNECTION FROM THE
COLLIER COUNTY CAT OPERATIONS FACILITY INTO THE
IBIS CLUB SEWER SYSTEM - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2007-343: FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5310 GRANT APPLICATION
AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENT, AND TO ACCEPT THE
GRANT IF AWARDED - TO BE USED TO PURCHASE P ARA-
TRANSIT VEHICLES PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES TO THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED RESIDENTS
OF COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16B8
REJECT ALL BIDS RECEIVED UNDER BID #08-4196
CLEANING & DOCUMENT A TION OF STORM DRAINS -
ALL BIDDERS DID NOT SUBMIT ALL REQUIRED
DOCUMENTS AND BID PRICES WERE INCONSISTENT
Item #16B9
Page 328
December 11-12, 2007
EASEMENT INSTRUMENT WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP),
FOR THE INST ALLA TION AND MAINTENANCE OF
PREF ABRICA TED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES CROSSING THE
COCOHA TCHEE RIVER AND ONE OF ITS TRIBUTARIES ON
THE WEST SIDE OF VANDERBILT DRIVE WITHIN THE
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY - AN EASEMENT FOR WORK IS A
CONDITION OF PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
Item #16BI0
RESOLUTION 2007-344: FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 GRANT APPLICATION
AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENT, AND TO ACCEPT THE
GRANT IF AWARDED - TO PROVIDE RURAL
TRANSPORT A TION IN COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16Bll
RESOLUTION 2007-345: CONTRACT AMENDMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE COMMISSION FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED FOR FUNDING
IN THE AMOUNT OF $264,201 FOR THE PROVISION OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR QUALIFIED MEDICAID RECIPIENTS
Item #16B12
PURCHASE OF IMPROVED PROPERTY (PARCEL NO. 133)
WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT.
PROJECT NO. 60168 (FISCAL IMPACT: $728,655) - SUBJECT
Page 329
December 11-12,2007
PROPERTY CONTAINS 3.67 ACRES WITH A SINGLE FAMILY
HOME AT THE END OF 27TH STREET NW ON THE CYPRESS
CANAL
Item #16Cl
SUBMISSION OF AMENDMENT ONE (1) TO THE STATE
REVOLVING FUND LOAN AGREEMENT (DW 1111 020)
THROUGH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) FOR LOWER
HAWTHORN WELLS 18N, 19N, AND 20N, PROJECT #71006-
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16C2
RESOLUTION 2007-346: DECLARATION OF OFFICIAL
INTENT FOR THE NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY (NCWRF) EXPANSION TO 24.1 MGD; SOLID
STREAM PROJECT 739502. THE APPROVAL OF THIS
RESOLUTION WILL ALLOW THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) TO REIMBURSE
THE COUNTY USING NOTES AND BOND PROCEEDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,708,505
Item # 16C3
ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UTILITIES/FACILITIES
ELECTRICAL COMPONENT TESTING PURSUANT TO RFP#07-
4156 IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $200,000 - AWARDED
TO CIRCUIT BREAKERS SALES, INC. AND INDUSTRIAL
ELECTRIC TESTING, INC.
Page 330
December 11-12,2007
Item # 16C4
CONTRACT 07-4116 TO OPTELLIOS, INCORPORATED, FOR
$458,820, FOR PERIMETER SECURITY SYSTEMS AT THE
NORTH AND SOUTH REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT
PLANTS AS WELL AS FUTURE WATER DEPARTMENT
FACILITIES, PROJECT NUMBERS 710091 AND 710092.
PROVIDING COMPREHENSIVE SURVEILLANCE ADDS TO
THE ASSURANCE OF CONTINUOUS MONITORING AND
QUICKER RESPONSE TO POTENTIAL SECURITY BREACHES
AT CRITICAL DRINKING WATER FACILITIES
Item #16C5
CONTRACT 05-3870 TO MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT-AT-RISK SERVICES FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTHEAST FACILITIES, AND
APPROVE PRECONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES IN A
TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $850,000, PROJECTS
70902, 73156, 70899 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16Dl
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS FOR EAST NAPLES
COMMUNITY PARK SENIOR CENTER ADDITION AS
REQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM -
THE TIME PERIOD FOR THESE RESTRICTIONS IS FOR A
PERIOD OF (20) TWENTY YEARS
Page 331
December 11-12,2007
Item #16D2
LIEN AGREEMENT WITH NORGE DEL SOL AND DORAISY
DEL SOL (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 128, TRAIL
RIDGE, NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.52 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D3
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $886,000 TO
ENSURE CONTINUOUS FUNDING OF THE OLDER
AMERICANS ACT GRANT - FOR HOUSING AND HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO ASSUME OPERATION OF
NUTRITION PROGRAMS IN NAPLES AND IMMOKALEE
Item # 16D4
AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $223,802 WITH COLLIER
HEALTH SERVICES, INC. (CHSI) AND THE AGENCY FOR
HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (AHCA) TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE LOW INCOME POOL PROGRAM. PARTICIPATION IN
THIS PROGRAM WILL GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL $294,619
IN FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS TO BE PAID DIRECTL Y TO
CHSI FOR SERVICES FOR THE MOST MEDICALLY NEEDY IN
COLLIER COUNTY - FOR EXPANSION OF CHSI
COMPREHENSIVE PRIMARY HEALTH CARE SERVICES AT
HORIZONS PRIMARY CARE CENTER AND OTHER SITES
Item #16D5
APPLY FOR A HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANT IN AN
Page 332
December 11-12, 2007
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000 FOR DESIGN SERVICES
RELATED TO MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK - LOCATED AT
321 PEAR TREE STREET IN GOODLAND
Item # 16D6
COMMUNITY LIBRARIES IN CARING PROGRAM GRANT
AGREEMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
STATE LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES OF FLORIDA FOR AN
IMMOKALEE LIBRARY HOMEWORK HELP GRANT, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $9,292, AND APPROVE NEEDED BUDGET
AMENDMENTS - FUNDS TO BE USED TO SUBSCRIBE TO AN
ON-LINE HOMEWORK HELP SERVICE CALLED TUTOR COM
AND TO PURCHASE ADDITIONAL COMPUTERS
Item #16El
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH RICHARD R.
BERGER, TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT K. BERGER AND RUTH
A. BERGER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED 5/14/99 FOR 1.14
ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$27,820 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, PART OF
THE WINCHESTER HEAD MUL TI-P ARCEL PROJECT
Item # 16E2
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH RICARDO
CARNERO AND MARIA ELENA CARNERO FOR 1.14 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $27,820 - LOCATED
IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, PART OF THE WINCHESTER
Page 333
December 11-12, 2007
HEAD MUL TI-P ARCEL PROJECT
Item # 16E3
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH WILLIAM 1.
FOGNINI AS TRUSTEE OF THE WILLIAM 1. FOGNINI
REVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT DATED 9/26/96 FOR 1.14
ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$27,820 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, PART OF
THE WINCHESTER HEAD MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT
Item # 16E4
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH JAMES A.
HASCHKER FOR 1.59 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $38,170 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES,
P ART OF THE WINCHESTER HEAD MUL TI-P ARCEL
PROJECT
Item #16E5
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH VONDA V.
HUNT FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $27,820 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES,
P ART OF THE WINCHESTER HEAD MUL TI-P ARCEL
PROJECT
Item #16E6
Page 334
December 11-12, 2007
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH BERNHARD
LANGHART AND MARLENE R. LANGHART FOR 1.14 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $27,820 - LOCATED
IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, PART OF THE WINCHESTER
HEAD MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT
Item #16E7
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH JANE
BRYAN LEWIS FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $27,820 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN
GATE ESTATES, PART OF THE WINCHESTER HEAD MULTI-
PARCEL PROJECT
Item #16E8
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH ANTONIA
MEDINA FOR 2.27 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $44,730 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES, PART OF THE WINCHESTER HEAD MULTI-
PARCEL PROJECT
Item #16E9
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH GUILLERMO
PAZ FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER
LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO
EXCEED $27,820 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES,
PART OF THE WINCHESTER HEAD MULTI-PARCEL
Page 335
December 11-12, 2007
PROJECT
Item #16EI0
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH OSV ALDO
REGALADO FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $27,820 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES,
PART OF THE WINCHESTER HEAD MULTI-PARCEL
PROJECT
Item #16Ell
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH GRACIE LA
SANCHEZ FOR 2.27 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $44,730 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES,
PART OF THE WINCHESTER HEAD MULTI-PARCEL
PROJECT
Item #16E12
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SIGN POLICE
AFFIDAVITS AGAINST TRESPASS ACTIVITIES THAT ARE
INCONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVES IDENTIFIED IN
APPROVED CONSERVATION COLLIER PRESERVE
MANAGEMENT PLANS - TO ALLOW THE CCSO
PERMISSION TO ENFORCE LAWS GUARDING AGAINST
TRESPASS ACTIVITIES
Item #16E13
Page 336
December 11-12, 2007
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH RONALD
FRAZIER, JAMES FRAZIER, STEPHEN FRAZIER, AND
MATTHEW FRAZIER FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $27,820 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN
GATE ESTATES, PART OF THE WINCHESTER HEAD MULTI-
PARCEL PROJECT
Item #16E14
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH
BRIHASCHAND MOHABIR AND SURSA TTI MOHABIR FOR
1.14 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$27,820 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, PART OF
THE WINCHESTER HEAD MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT
Item #16E15
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH DAVID W.
CROOKALL AND CONSTANCE 1. CROOKALL FOR 2.73
ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$53,470 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, PART OF
THE WINCHESTER HEAD MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT
Item #16E16
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 25, 2007
THROUGH NOVEMBER 19,2007
Page 337
December 11-12, 2007
Item #16Fl
MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES; GUADALUPE
CENTER AND THE FLORIDA ALERT RESPONSE TEAM -
TO COORDINATE RELIEF EFFORTS AT THE TIME OF A
DISASTER
Item # 16F2
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL
DISTRICT TO REPLACE A BRUSH TRUCK
Item #16Gl - Withdrawn
SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT(S) BETWEEN
THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA) AND A GRANT APPLICANT(S) WITHIN THE
BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA - SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 3929 BA YSHORE DRIVE
Item #16G2
SWEAT EQUITY GRANT AGREEMENT(S) BETWEEN THE
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND A GRANT APPLICANT(S) WITHIN THE
BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA - FOR A RENTAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3408 CAPTAIN'S COVE
Page 338
December 11-12, 2007
Item #16G3
PREP ARA TION OF A STRATEGIC OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR
THE IMMOKALEE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
BOARD. (COMPANION ITEM TO ITEM 16A12 TO BE
CONSIDERED BEFORE ITEM 16A12) TO RETAIN THE
SERVICES OF GUARDIAN COMMUNITY RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT, INC. AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $2,000 TO
IMPLEMENT THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES AT A
WORKSHOP ON DECEMBER 19, 2007
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
LUNCHEON AND PARTICIPATED AS A GUEST SPEAKER AT
THE COLLIER ATHLETIC CLUB ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER
19,2007. $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS'
TRAVEL BUDGET
Item # 16H2
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDING THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN HOLIDAY
LUNCHEON ON FRIDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2007, AT THE BIG
CYPRESS BASIN OFFICE IN NAPLES, FLORIDA. $10.00 TO BE
P AID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET -
LOCATED AT 6089 JANES LANE
Item #16H3
Page 339
December 11-12, 2007
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE URBAN LAND
INSTITUTE OF SWF - TRANSPORTATION: UNDERSTANDING
REGIONAL AND LOCAL ISSUES AND INITIATIVES MEETING
ON NOVEMBER 29,2007. $35 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETT A'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT
THE COLONIAL COUNTRY CLUB IN FT. MYERS
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE CITIZEN OF THE
YEAR BANQUET AND PARTICIPATED AS A GUEST
SPEAKER AT THE ELKS CLUB ON NOVEMBER 15,2007.
$35.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
V ALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE LEADERSHIP
COLLIER AGRICUL TURE DAY IN IMMOKALEE AND
PARTICIPATED AS A GUEST SPEAKER AT THE IMMOKALEE
RANCH ON NOVEMBER 29, 2007. $9.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H6
Page 340
December 11-12,2007
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
V ALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE FLORIDA
ENGINEERING SOCIETY CALUSA CHAPTER DINNER AS A
GUEST SPEAKER ON JANUARY 31, 2008. $30.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET HELD
AT THE STRAND COUNTRY CLUB
Item # 16H7
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT SERVING A
V ALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. RENEWAL OF LEADERSHIP
COLLIER FOUNDATION ALUMNI 2008 DUES. $100.00 TO BE
P AID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETT A'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H8
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE BILL MOSS FAREWELL
LUNCHEON ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28,2007, AT THE
HIDEAWAY BEACH CLUB; $25.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item # 16H9
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. WILL ATTEND THE GREATER NAPLES BETTER
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE HOLIDAY SOCIAL ON
DECEMBER 18, 2007, AT VERGINA'S ON 5TH; $10.00 TO BE
P AID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Page 341
December 11-12, 2007
Item #16HI0
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE NAPLES HISTORICAL SOCIETY
VICTORIAN CHRISTMAS GALA ON DECEMBER 7,2007, AT
THE P ALM COTTAGE; $300 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED ON
TWELFTH AVENUE SOUTH, OLDE NAPLES
Item #16Hll
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE MARCO ISLAND CHAMBER
CHRISTMAS GALA ON DECEMBER, 9, 2007, AT THE ISLAND
COUNTRY CLUB; $70.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H12
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE FRIENDS OF THE MUSEUM OF
THE EVERGLADES ANNUAL MEMBERS LUNCHEON ON
DECEMBER 3,2007, AT THE EVERGLADES MUSEUM; $10.00
TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET
Item #16H13
Page 342
December 11-12, 2007
RESOLUTION 2007-347: SUPERSEDING AND REPLACING
RESOLUTION 2006-287 IN ORDER TO REAPPOINT COLLIER
COUNTY COMMISSIONER JAMES COLETTA TO ANOTHER
TERM ON THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA EXPRESSWAY
AUTHORITY TO COMMENCE ON FEBRUARY 16,2008
THROUGH AND INCLUDING FEBRUARY 15,2010
Item # 1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED:
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 343
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
December 11,2007
I. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1. Pelican Bav Services Division Board Meeting: Agenda of September 5,
2007; Minutes of September 5, 2007.
a. Clam Bay Committee: Agenda of November 21,2007; Minutes of
October 17, 2007.
b. Budget Committee: Agenda of November 27,2007; Minutes of
October 23.2007; Agenda and minutes of July 2,2007; Agenda
and minutes of August 6,2007.
2. Collier Countv Special Magistrate: Minutes of October 5, 2007; Minutes
of October 19, 2007.
3. Golden Gate MSTU Advisorv Committee: Minutes of October 9,2007;
Agenda of November 13, 2007.
4. Collier Countv Development Services Advisorv Committee: Minutes of
January 10,2007, Minutes of February 7, 2007; Minutes of March 7,
2007; Minutes of April 11, 2007; Minutes of June 6,2007; Form 8B
Voting Conflict - Clay Brooker dated May 9, 2007; Minutes of July 18,
2007; Minutes of August 1,2007; Minutes of August 2, 2006; Minutes of
September 5,2007; Minutes of September 6,2006; Minutes of October 4,
2006; Minutes of November 1, 2006; Minutes of December 6, 2006.
5. Collier Count V Environmental Advisorv Council: Minutes of October 3,
2007.
6. Collier Countv Historical! Archaeological Preservation Board Meeting:
Agenda of November 21, 2007; Minutes of September 19, 2007.
7. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisorv Committee: Agenda of
November 16,2007.
B. Other:
1. Restructuring Committee/Communitv Assessment Team lmmokalee High
School: Minutes of September 28,2007.
H:Data/Format
December 11-12, 2007
Item # 1611
REPORT OF INTEREST FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 2007 PURSUANT TO THE FLORIDA
STATUTE 218.78 AND PURCHASING POLICY XIE. FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2007 NO INTEREST
WAS PAID PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 218.78
Item #1612
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 24, 2007
THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16Kl
STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND FINAL JUDGMENT
FOR PARCEL 183RDUE AND 183TDRE IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V JORGE B. ECHEZARRAGA,
ETAL., CASE NO. 07-3278-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT NO.
60044). (FISCAL IMPACT $100,232.00) - FORA 70 FOOT WIDE
STRIP OF RIGHT-OF-WAY NEEDED FOR THE PROJECT
Item # 16K2
STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND FINAL JUDGMENT
FOR PARCEL 173RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V JORGE ROMERO, ETAL., CASE NO. 07-2681-CA
(OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT NO. 60044). (FISCAL IMPACT
$110,150.00) - FOR A 70 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF RIGHT -OF-
WAY NEEDED FOR THE PROJECT
Page 344
December 11-12,2007
Item #16K3
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE TAKING OF
PARCEL NO. 131 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V CHARLES R. KELLER, ET AL., CASE NO. 06-0876-CA
(COUNTY BARN ROAD PROJECT NO. 60101). (POSITIVE
FISCAL IMP ACT OF $29,500)
Item #16K4
STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND FINAL JUDGMENT
FOR PARCELS 126FEE AND 126TDRE IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V MICHAEL J CROUCH, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 07-3691-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT NO. 60044)
(FISCAL IMPACT $45,762.05)
Item # 16K5
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $113,378.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL
115 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V DA VID
LA WRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC., ET AL., CASE NO.
06-0567-CA (SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD PROJECT NO.
62081) (FISCAL IMPACT: $64,828.00)
Item # 16K6
STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND FINAL JUDGMENT
FOR PARCEL 169RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
Page 345
December 11-12, 2007
COUNTY V JOSE MUNOZ, ETAL., CASE NO. 07-2823-CA (OIL
WELL ROAD PROJECT NO. 60044) (FISCAL IMP ACT
$59,694.35)
Item #16K7
STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND FINAL JUDGMENT
FOR PARCEL 213FEE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V JOSE MUNOZ, ETAL., CASE NO. 07-2823-CA (OIL
WELL ROAD PROJECT NO. 60044). (FISCAL IMPACT
$85,150.00)
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2007-348: PUDEX-2007-AR-12149 (JDM)
LIVINGSTON PROFESSIONAL CENTER, L.L.C.,
REPRESENTED BY ROBERT L. DUANE, AICP, REQUESTS A
TWO- YEAR PUD EXTENSION FOR THE HIW AS SEE PUD. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
LIVINGSTON ROAD, SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD, IN
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17B - Moved to Item #8G
Page 346
December 11-12,2007
*****
There being no business for the good of the County, the meeting
was adj oumed by order of the Chair at 11: 17 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO
GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL
DIS~~ONTROL
JAMES COLETTA, Chairman
(l. .,~ q
"
A TT~ST:' ..'~
\~~~~.r~~1~~
~,
"
These minutes appr9Yed by the Board of
presented V or as corrected
t/Jrlotj , as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS AND
ROSE MARIE WITT, RPR.
Page 347